across the board. >> dana: that the great point. >> bill: let's bring in our legal minds now, jonathan turley andy mccarthy. professor turley first. how are they doing prosecuting the case? >> i'm not sure, because i'm not sure what the case is so far. you say this is laying foundation for what they said they would be proving, which is an attempted coup. that's a tall order. but so far they seem to be trying to sort of create a persona non grata trial, to declare president trump a horrible person, and they may not get much pushback by the end of the hearing. i thought the most telling moment came at the end when the chairman said, "i'm going to introduce this video, unless there is an objection." that really put a pin on it. it's like asking at a wedding, anyone who objects to this union, speak up. nobody is really there to do it. this is not the committee that you suddenly will have liz cheney say, "wait, this seems unfair, maybe we need to look at other evidence being introduced, as well." so it really put an odd conclusion, because it sort of emphasize that there isn't anyone to object. >>

jonathan turley, you're a great lawyer. if that was me on the steps of the supreme court, why do i think there be consequences that i'd have to face as a result of saying something like that ? and i don't think you can get me. that was one that was one of the lowest points that i have witnessed in my lifetime in terms of the supreme court and how it is being treated to have and now senate majority leader making threats, calling two justices by name really shocked all of us . and this is in an age of rage. you know, that people are addicted to rage and certainly senator schumer knows that . i don't think he was calling for violence, but what he was doing is reckless that there are people that hear those types of words and they take a much different meaning, very violent meaning. we saw that in front of justice kavanagh's house and today we're seeing the same failure of leadership as these politicians go out and say things that are not true . you know, vice president harris and speaker pelosi talking about how this opinion en

jonathan turley on what he says is this country's embrace of the age of rage. that is next. >> madam speaker, how can you say the justices are protected when there was an attempt on justice kavanaugh's life? ruby's a1c is down with rybelsus®. my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®. mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪) in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to ge

here with more as law professor, fox news contributor jonathan turley. your comments about the aclu interesting, but also, two things really struck me. number one, it was her admission, well, i did not punch you, but i hit you. the allocation of defecating in one's bed, and this notion she was complaining on one of the tapes that he would walk into another room and then another room and another room, which indicated to me that he was trying to de-escalate. is that a fair interpretation? >> well, not only is a fair interpretation, it seems to be the interpretation of the jury. this is a trial turned almost exclusively on credibility, and the jury clearly did not find her very credible, in fact, they found her culpable, judging from this ruling. the key to remember is as a public figure -- and both of them are public figures -- there was a higher standard, a higher burden of proof, called actual malice. this jury found that not only was she saying something that was full's, but she did it with malice, and he really ran the table on these counts. they found

jonathan turley, question to you. we'll go two hours, maybe a bit more. it be effective in your view? >> well, i think the effectiveness has already been reduced because of the lack of bipartisanship that has been much talked about. but the question is effective as to what? when speaker pelosi was asked what does she want from this -- these hearings she said a narrative. the emphasis is to show that it was a big lie. that president trump lost the election. the problem is most americans got to that point two years ago. >> bill: thank you, andy mccarthy stand by and let's drop in to bennie thompson, democrat from mississippi chairing the committee. >> pursuant to regulation 10 the chair announces the committee's approval to release the deposition material presented during today's hearing. good morning. last week the select committee laid out a preview of our initial findings about the conspiracy over seeing and directed by donald trump. to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of power, a scheme unprecedented in ameri

i will bring in now jonathan turley, constitutional law attorney and fox news contributor. nt to talk specifically about next steps because as i just mentioned, jonathan, we are going to see a lot of anger and protests and all of the like from those who really detest what today means. it is important to hear from everybody including those who have been under threat at pregnancy centers and so on and so forth trying to do their side of the argument, pro-life, to get to this day. but for democrats there may be some politics in the works already in terms of court packing. what could that look like? >> well, this is part of the time we're living in that when you don't agree with something the court does, you immediately demand that you pack the court. one former msnbc host two days ago said we should just get rid of the court. even aoc has said she doesn't see why the court really has a continuing function or why we should have it. that's obviously a crisis of faith that we have in our constitutional system as people who lack faith in what the system is supposed to accomplish. t

according tou constitutional scholar jonathan turley quote, depp walks awayy with a far greater victory in the rejection of hers allegations. another loser in this case is g the aclu, which helpeden write the defamatory column. this will now magnify criticism of the role of the aclu here l as more is law professoraw fox c news contributor jonathan turley. about t i found your comments about the aclu interesting but alsohe there are two things that really struck me. number one , itas was her admission that well, d i didn't punch you but i hit you the allegation of in one's bed and then you have this whole notion that she was o complaining on one of the tapes that he would walk into another room and then another room, another in another and room whih indicated to me that he was trying to de-escalate. is that a fair interpretation? well,fa not only is it a fair interpretation, it does appear to be the interpretationn of the jury. you know, these this is trial turned almost exclusively on credibility and the juryy clearly did not find her very credible. in fact, v they found her culpable ju

they are following the law, as jonathan turley said.s going to go back to the states to make the decision. i am so glad that we got to see this ruling in our lifetime. the law is being followed and after 50 years the constitution is being followed thanks to these justices. and thanks to donald trump putting conservative justices on the bench. his policies have been incredible for our country and will continue to be. >> sean: if i can let me go to you, tammy. >> sean: we have had all these -- to unleash the summer of rage. it goes on to say that from here forward any choice group who closes their doors and stops operating they will no longer be the target but until you do, it is open season. we know where your operations are. the infrastructure of the enslavers will not survive. we will never stop, backed down, slow down or retreat. sounds like a threat of terrorism. tammy? >> it sure does. the left really love their drama, don't they cause a wreck they love it. this is a marginal extremist group, they certainly don't speak for the major

jonathan turley, appreciate your time. left district attorney chesa boudin is on his way out in san francisco, and says it not his own soft on crime policies at play, but billionaires on the left. even though a billionaire helped put him in number. >> john: a hard number how many district attorneys george soros has helped put into office across the country. wait until you see. no, he's seizing the moment with merrill. moving his money into his investment account in real time and that's... how you collect coins. your money never stops working for you with merrill, a bank of america company. migraine attacks? you can't always avoid triggers like stress. qulipta™ can help prevent migraine attacks. you can't prevent what's going on outside that's why qulipta™ helps what's going on inside. qulipta™ is a pill. gets right to work to prevent migraine attacks and keeps them away over time. qulipta™ blocks cgrp, a protein believed to be a cause of migraine attacks. qulipta™ is a preventive treatment for episodic migraine. most commo

jonathan turley joins us does a constitutional law attorney.on university law professor and fox news contributor welcome syrupy. >> thank you. okay so san francisco recalls its liberal d.a. mr. chesa boudin should other progressive d.a.'s be on high alert? >> it's particularly ironic when he blamed conservative billionaires for removing him from office because he was of course given great financial help by a liberal billionaire getting into office. many of these supported prosecutors ultimately did win. we never have really seen a campaign like this at a national effort to replace district attorney's with reformers and liberal prosecutors. in many ways it took people by surprise. but the candidate won including this one. but there has been a backlash. people in the most liberal cities, san francisco, los angeles have said enough. the crime is just getting out of hand. homelessness is getting out of hand. there does not seem to be a lot of solutions but there does not seem to be a lot of law enforcement. >> in your post san francisco canceled it

jonathan turley in the next hour, by the way, with more on this. we saw jonathan was on with bill and dana and martha earlier. >> jacqui: both andy and jonathan have great points, and thinking earlier, not just a show to try to put this back in the minds of voters with 2024 in mind, but also a pressure campaign for garland to make a decision here and the likelihood if he chooses not to prosecute, the people will see that, some will see it as a choice. >> john: and people are looking at it as well saying isn't it ironic that garland is under the pressure to prosecute in the case of january 6th and post election debacle. but why is he not prosecuting people protesting outside the homes of the justices when we are clearly get overt threats against the lives of at least one. >> jacqui: we'll talk about that later in the show. crime in the big apple, though. is spiking under mayor adams. and could get worse, a mass exodus in the nypd. details next. >> john: attorney general merrick garland set to speak on gun violence 2:00 eastern time. a bipartisan grou

i'll explain with professor jonathan turley coming up next. ♪ ♪ >> jason: showtime, that is what last january 6th hearing basically was for the democrats. i was fortunate enough to serve in congress for eight and a half years. i was chairman of the oversight committee. never before have i ever seen a committee hearing where the chairman and at the vice chairman have used a teleprompter. last night it was at the hearing, there was no representative from the minority or the accused. it was a made-for-tv press event. nancy pelosi is in charge of the capitol hill police and i know she has some stuff going on outside of congress like her husband's dui charges and her congressional district is in shambles, one of the most crime rated in the country. but if she had this intelligence that liz cheney said was available before january 6th, why wasn't the capital secure? i wasn't nancy pelosi hauled in front of the committee last night? while we are at it, why didn't they talk about the pipe bomb found outside the dnc headquarters? that seems pretty significant. we have no idea who was behind th

jonathan turley joining us now. constitutional law attorney and fox news contributor. all things supreme court, you have been joining us about several days. all of the breaking news that has been coming in. we are left wondering what exactly the details of this announcement will be by the hhs secretary. that is expected to happen any moment now, but we do know that the white house has been exploring ideas and ways to respond to this scotus ruling. what you expect? >> well, i expect that they are going to give comprehensive plans to try to support women in states that prohibit abortion. some of those elements of the plan however could be challenged in court. when you deal with funding of abortion services that has long been an issue of great contention and conflict. the most important item on the likely list is availability of the so-called abortion pill appeared roughly 60% of abortions in the united states are carried out by medication at home. and so many pro-choice advocates want to iron plate thought process to guarantee that women can get those pills, even in stat

jonathan turley, thank you.ood to have you in "focus." >> thank you. >> harris: now that san francisco has voted to recall its far left district attorney, a new report is going after liberal billionaire george soros for funding dozens of other progressive d.a.s which one reportedly got most of the money? we'll take a look. the president says he is mad at the media. is the president just being a complainer in chief or is something else happening? power panel next. only at vanguard you're more than just an investor you're an owner. that means that your priorities are ours too. our interactive tools and advice can help you build a future for the ones you love. that's the value of ownership. better luck next time. but i haven't even thrown yet. you threw good money away when you bought those glasses. next time, go to america's best - where two pairs and a free exam start at just $79.95. can't beat that. can't beat this, either. book an exam today at americasbest.com your spirit is stronger than your highs and lows.

let's bring back our panel professor jonathan turley, former congressman of south carolina, jessica, now joining us mike pence chief of staff marc short. it is good to have you here. we heard your soundbite and that testimony as they laid that out. you were with mike pence the vice president that day. i just have a couple of questions, did he ever hear the hanging mike pence comments. >> i think he that out side noise they pushed him down to the secure location when the protest were the loudest and was actually breached the capital. i don't recall hearing them i have not asked him specifically if he hears that i think it was days later that we actually heard it when we were watching videotape. >> when you watch this obviously they had one clip with the vice president evacuated from the senate chamber at 2:13 p.m. and then president trump tweet that it 2:24 p.m. that mike pence did have encouraged to do what should've been done. in this video clip somebody is on a bullhorn reading that tweet to everybody outside. was this new to you what you saw? >> i think there are some pieces that

let's go to jonathan turley, the g.w. law professor.e is this going? >> it's an extraordinary thing. the court said you're acting like a king. that's what an unchecked sovereign is. that's not your job. you're supposed to enforce the law. it's incredible. think about this moment. you had a union of prosecutors going to court and seeing the district attorney for telling them to do something unlawful and the court agreeing. it's an incredible indictment of the district attorney himself. the court does say, by the way, that you have to follow the law but doesn't mean that you have to aggressively or passionately do so. so you can cite the three strikes law, but you don't necessarily have to support it. ultimately said the judge could disregard the law. that may not go well with some legislators that believed that they were following a public outcry to impose longer sentences. >> neil: jonathan, the one thing that stuck out to me was the appeals court saying we can conclude the voters and the legislature created a duty that requires prosecu

jonathan turley maybe jump in here.'s actually quite a lot longer than in many places around the world. >> that's right. we're talking about that 15-week period. sometimes that period is called the quickening period. a term that came from early in our republic and also in england where the criminalization of abortion the ended to follow what was called the quickening or first sensation of a pregnancy. mississippi put their date right around that traditional period of the quickening. it turned out that that was not going to be the issue in the case. ultimately you had five justices who believed that roe and casey were built on what they believe to be bad law. reading the roberts concurrence, which i've done, is really a great example of what an incrementalist and institutionalist he is. it will probably be cited to capture roberts' view of what judging on this court is all about. he doesn't necessarily disagree that roe and casey were not constitutionally sound. he just frankly gets sticker shock. he believes that should

has more to go on here based on this testimony, i'll leave that to jonathan turley and others. that's the question in terms of action. >> john: martha, back to bret, has more thoughts on this. first of all, point this out. donald trump clearly has been watching what's going on. here is what he just wrote on true social. i hardly know who this person cassidy hutchinson is other than i heard very negative things about her. a total phony and leaker and requested to go to florida after served a full term in office i personally turned her request down. why does she want to go with us if she felt we were so terrible. i understand she was upset and angry if she wanted to be a member of the team, she is bad news. >> bret: we would hear from the former president right away and knew we would, and she did change lawyers just in recent days, which she was cooperating differently at the beginning. >> john: she was with stefan passentino, and then with jodie hunt, jeff sessions chief of staff. >> bret: 30,000 feet here, the committee is trying to say former president trump was a threat, and

jonathan turley as well. the g.w. law professor. jonathan, you have a damning tick tok on all of these gentlemen in a position of trying to answer a president who was saying what was going on was unfair and he wanted the justice department to get involved to pursue this and they did not. i'm wondering your take on these revelations. some are not new. maybe just the tone and timing -- >> hi. this is andy. are you talking to me? >> neil: andy, go ahead. maybe you're having trouble hearing me. jonathan, the significance of what you heard thus far. >> well, it is significant. as you know, it's more of an amplification than what we knew of before the hearings. we knew there were the confrontations. it's very disturbing. the letter that was drafted for the state legislatures was wildly inappropriate. these attorneys did the right thing in many respects we can take pride in the fact that so many consistently held firm and said this is not a role for the department of justice. what is also interesting is to get the details on how they did lo

jonathan turley, great to have you both with us today as we watch this hearing. so to all of you, stay tuned to fox news channel as fox station for continuing coverage of this story. i'm martha maccallum in new york. >> martha: all right. back now to our fox news audience. we had an hour of show prepared for you, but as you know, the january 6th hearings went a lot longer than we anticipated. so we want to squeeze in one segment here before we get to the end of the hour with you that we had planned. joining me on set here is pete hegseth, co-host of "fox and friends" and author of "battle for the american mind". very important story about our american school system and jason rantz, seattle talk show host. obviously we watched the end of that together here. one of the things that i'm very cognizant of is what is going on in the right-hand corner of everybody's screen. we have fully covered these hearings this afternoon. the market is down about 800 points. when we look at what voters are interested in, it's what is happening in their every day lives at this point

jonathan turley is still with us. do you have a sense yet and looking at the decision of the preliminary moments that you've had to understand why justice roberts and justice kavanaugh ruled the way they did? >> yeah, certainly of that biden administration eked out a victory here. it's not too surprising with the lineup. and this is a classic roberts decision. it's accommodating and narrow. brought along justice kavanaugh here. when cavanagh was appointed, i wrote a column saying while president trump said he was looking for someone who would not be a john roberts, he could not found one who is more similar in his approach. the opinion like this where you see that's true. and they cut from the same both. they tend to be more incremental and narrow. in this case, they are reversing the decision and saying that the court of appeals was wrong to say that this was a violation of federal law. it is a very narrow decision in that sense. today as a whole, and sort of a split judgment for about biden administration. quite fra

the fox news contributor jonathan turley is here with us. been watching for quite a while. we now know the answer. how do you read their brief opinion as you have been able to see so far? >> this is a huge win for free exercise and religious freedom. the court does not just side with this coach, but it does some cleanup work with regard to prior doctrines including something called the lemon test. this effectively pressed the final nail in the coffin of lemon. i was a test of determining when you would have violations under the clause. with the court says is that there is a better approach. and that there is no such thing as what the court calls on modified heckler's veto. that just because some people might be offended by speech like this that they could be prescribed by the state. the court says that what they coach did in this case, was clearly private speech. not subject to this type of regulation. that is sent was equally strong. and not only did the majority ignore the facts in the record, but it does acknowledge that it effectively ki

we'll ask jonathan turley.nted photos from the internet accused of exploiting dangerous technology. do the risks outweigh the rewards? ♪♪♪ for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis who are positive for acetylcholine receptor antibodies, it may feel like the world is moving without you. but the picture is changing, with vyvgart. in a clinical trial, participants achieved improved daily abilities with vyvgart added to their current treatment. and vyvgart helped clinical trial participants achieve reduced muscle weakness. vyvgart may increase the risk of infection. in a clinical study, the most common infections were urinary tract and respiratory tract infections. tell your doctor if you have a history of infections or if you have symptoms of an infection. vyvgart can cause allergic reactions. the most common side effects include respiratory tract infection, headache, and urinary tract infection. picture your life in motion with vyvgart. a treatment designed using a fragment of an antibody. ask your neurologis

jonathan turley, george washington university law professor with me now.g a lot of what you were writing yesterday. a lot of what you were tweeting yesterday as well. did the jury get it right or not? >> you know, first of all i do think there are good faith reasons why the jury might not have found that all the elements were satisfied but i don't believe that the jury got it right. i think that sussman clearly lied and i believe it was material to the investigation. many of us had raised concerns over the course of this trial about the judge's rulings. the judge narrowed the scope of potential evidence and arguments that could be raised by the prosecutors. they were also facing what i think no one could seriously argue was not a very favorable jury for the defense. you had three clinton donors, aoc donor, one juror whose daughter was serving on the same team as sussman's daughter. i think the judge did commit errors in allowing a couple of those jurors to be seated but this was a unanimous verdict. at the end of the day, i think that the jury got it wrong

i'll explain with professor jonathan turley. >> that's coming up next . if something happened to you, what would happen to them? their home, their education, their future. you need life insurance and chances are select quotes can help you get it for less than a dollar a day. select quotes found jacob 40 a five hundred thousand dollar policy for only nineteen dollars a month. and so lightpost found his wife wendy, a 500000 dollar policy for only seventeen dollars a month. our secret that select quote we aggressively comparison shop to ten highly rated companies to find you the company with the best rates we found gary 35 , a one million dollar policy for only twenty two dollars a month. why pay more ? give your family the security they need at a price you can afford text quote to 32 , 32 , 32 or go to selectquote .com now and get the insurance your family needs at a price you can afford selectquote we shop, you save attention. >> zantac users if you are a loved one you then tack on a regular basis and were diagnosed with , liver, stomach, esophageal or pan

fox news contributor jonathan turley joins us right now.now, so fresh off of this assassination attempt and there they are about 15 minutes ago i suggested i wonder why the attorney general merrick garland wasn't enforcing that federal law to keep protesters away from the outside of judges' houses but you have a good reason why there would not be. >> i think there would be a first amendment challenge. this law talks about protests not just outside homes but even courthouses. they are intended to intimidate or influence a proceeding. well, if you interpret that broadly you could arrest people outside the supreme court building. i think that courts would very likely adopt a narrow interpretation of that law. and so garland may be reading that -- those tea leaves and saying we are not sure we could make this stick. there are first amendment cases that cut the other way. that doesn't mean that this isn't wrong. i mean, the problem is we often talk about what is illegal. and not what is just simply indecents or grotesque. and that's what this is

. >> trace: jonathan turley, professor, always great to see you. lucas tomlinson broke the news there, your quick opinion. the house just passed this gun bill that was passed by the senate, now goes to the president's desk for signature. what do you think on the red flag laws, a lot of litigation on how you implement the red flag laws going down the road? >> well, that's the key, trace, implementation. not a lot of argument that you should be able to remove guns if someone is a danger to themselves or to others. the question is the due process rights that kick in after that point. some of these red flag laws have lacked due process protections, and have guns taken away anonymously or ex parte meetings with the court. so the questions are on the details that is who can look at the issues after the guns are removed and whether they can we returned if the allegations are proven to be untrue. that's where you are going to find the litigation. the most important thing is the mental health funding. you know, there is -- i think people like to talk about

jonathan turley has a moment now where he has been able to read as well. an, what sticks out to you? well first of all, i think it's very important to point out what's not in the opinion because people are already taking considerable flight from reality in terms of what the court has said the majority says, in the opinion itself that this is confined to abortion. there's already statements that critical cases like griswold obergefell on things like same sex marriage. is now at risk. we've heard those suggestions in the past. the court directly deals with that and actually sort of swats back at the descent for suggesting that and says that we have stated unequivocally that nothing opinion should be understood the cast out on precedents that do not concern abortion and then goes on to say, we have also explained why that is so. rights regarding contraception and same sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion. and so the court puts that very plainly that people who are suggesting that this is extending beyond this field are simply i

especially when there is a democratic politician that are under investigation.so i wonder, i just saw jonathan turleyhad a piece. yesterday or the day before on that investigation or the grand jury that is still or enforced and collecting testimony in delaware. if this seems like there's so much here that's obviously criminal, and i wondered if you could speak about what the situation is in terms of those investigations or what the potential is if there will be justice or any actual consequences for any of this? >> i guess it's like the investigation. there have been few leaks from this investigation into hunter biden's businesses. there's another one going on into his uncle jim. tax evasion, we know that they're looking at that becausehunter biden. himself after the election . but also supposedly they're looking at money laundering and some sort of foreign agent registration stuff. if they want to, there are multiple crimes that you could find on the laptop. what we know so far is that in may 2019 which was a few weeks after joe biden announced his candidacy for president this grand jury or the us a

let's bring in jonathan turley, a george washington law professor and fox news contributor.ur reaction there. liz warren saying the court has lost its legitimacy, called for more justices. what do you make of that hearing from the far left of the decision? >> well, these are the voices, people who have lost faith and in our constitutional system, you know, they argue that they are defending the rule of law by destroying the highest court in our land, and they would destroy that court and create a dangerous, destabilizing element. senator warren calling for packing the court with a liberal majority because it would not yield to public opinion, would not yield to her opinion. what type of system would you have if we would allow that type of impulse buy changing of the court. every time you disagree with it, add more, send more down the chute until you have a majority. >> sandra: wow, alexandria ocasio-cortez, susan collins and others are out with these accusations that some justices lied during their senate confirmation process, including neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh. you

and so i wanted to i wondered i just saw that jonathan turley had a piece. i believe it was yesterday or did the day before that on that investigation or the grand jury that it's still enforced in and collecting testimony in delaware. is that if this seems like there's so much here that seems like obviously criminal and i wondered if you could speak about what the kind of the situation is in terms of that those investigations or what the potential is if there will be justice or any actual for any of this. well, i guess it's like the durham investigation there really have been very few leaks from this investigation into hunter biden's business fairs. there's another one going on into his uncle jim now tax evasion. we know that they're looking at that because hunter biden told us himself after the election but also, supposedly they're looking at money laundering in some sort of foreign agent registration stuff. so i mean if they want to there are multiple crimes that you can find on the laptop. so what we know so far is that in may 2019, which was a few weeks

. >> greg: this week, the white house agreed to what jonathan turley calls a breathtaking reduction in terrorist charges that will likely result in just a few years of jail time. >> remember, accused of having a pile of firearms in his car and was from trying to hand them out to other rioters. caught on camera throwing bombs and posting about it like she just threw a one hitter against the yankees. they pleaded guilty last year to one count of possessing and making an explicit device but now they can withdraw the earlier plea and instead plea to conspiring to assemble bombs and damage the patrol car. it is like they were tossing water balloons instead. keep in mind, the backdrop for all of this is trump support is rotting in jail for a year and a half for an unguided, often unhinged, tour of the capitol building. if this keeps up, these blm bombers will be sentenced to a romantic vacate in honolulu, they can make molotov cocktails pineapple and paper umbrellas in them. show you the sharp difference in treatment compared to the january 6th protesters, they were called a threat to police

. >> and jonathan turley pushed back hard. katie, there's a lot of women that support this decision and a lot of women that have fight for this ruling to be overturned and sent back to the states. >> yeah. a number of pro life organizations, almost all of them are run by women. the susan b. anthony list, the march for life and the narrative is that women disagree with this decision. that's not true. >> martha: this for pro life activists today is a huge victory that they've been working on for five decades, this is something that they believe is far overdue. it's an injustice. this has been corrected at a federal level. the fact is this is being sent back to the states has expanded democracy by allowing 50 state legislatures to debate this to be accountable to the people in their states about what they want to do. and the fight for the pro life activists and the pro abortions activists is not over. they have to convince people in their states that an abortion ban with some exceptions or no exemptions, that that is politically

. >> harris: look, our own contributor, fox news contributor jonathan turley said it might be hard, you want to protect people's first amendment rights. i argued with him and i am no constitutional attorney but i have a lot of common sense so i'm told. merrick garland has been on the bench long enough to know u.s. code 18, 15.07 and 15.03. i'm sure he is familiar what you can and cannot do at the homes of judges and jurors. it is a dangerous trend if we allow it. >> the constitutional right to peacefully assembly. peacefully assembly is what you are allowed to do. there is a specific law about the intimidation of judges and their families. that's what they are not enforcing. >> harris: and where you choose to do it. thank you very much. the january 6 committee hearings resume today and it is the first hearing since capitol police arrested 7 staffers of the late night show with stephen colbert for illegal entry into the capitol. they were hanging out in there. didn't have any badges or legal reason to be there. terrible optics for the committee at the very least. plus the border crisis r

and let's bring in the panel now, the legal panel, jonathan turley, professor at george washington university law school, great to have you on the final day of the supreme court turnover. overseas in madrid, just before the two final opinions came out, here's the president. >> we have been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights and privacy rights, and it is a mistake in my view for the supreme court to do what it did. i can understand why the american people are frustrated, because of what the supreme court did. >> shannon: he called it outrageous behavior by the supreme court, what you make of a legal branch going after another? >> i think it is despicable behavior by the president, and shannon coming he was elected to be kind of the anti-trump, observed to norm, you don't go overseas and attack other components of the american government, i just think in a better time in this country, he would be censured by congress, unfortunately, the time in the country we are in, this is like thursday and it's about as unusual as the sun coming up tomorrow. >> shannon: true, i want to talk to

panel standing by with us to get us into this, george washington university law school professor jonathan turley, trey gowdy, former congressman from south carolina, and jessica tar the love, cohost of "the five." bret: but paris the, congressional correspondent chad pill grim to set the scene on capitol april. >> reporter: the committee plans to show a nexus between the former president, his allies and those who laid siege to the capitol, and they want to know what the president did during the riot. tonight the committee will play clips from the depositions the committee took from ivanka trump and jared kushner, also audio from marc short, the chief of star for former vice president -- staff for former president mike pence. quote: the conspiracy to thwart the will of the people is not over. thompson will assert that january 6th put democracy at risk and that the world is watching. bret: chad pergram, thank you very much. we're looking live here at the canon caucus room. this is rarely used, actually the, for committee hearings. it's the biggest room available on capitol hill, and they have tran

learned to look at issues from every aspect and the professors we've had had there including jonathan turleyng from the right and we have professors coming from the left, they have done a great job in encouraging students critical thinking. so i'm very happy that our administration has taken such a step to top request defend academic integrity and freedom of expression on our law school's campus. >> joey: i went to georgetown university and i tell people all the time my favorite part no matter how liberal the school was itself was the idea someone could leave the white house and teach my evening class. someone could be a supreme court justice and, you know, have direct impact with 20 to 200 minds for hours a week. how special is it to be at a school inside the beltway and have that kind of access, and are kids just spoiled? is that why they're not appreciating it? >> i personally chose gw law school because i was excited to have this opportunity to learn from a supreme court justice and his class is one of the most popular courses to take. for this reason, i believe having someone like clare

. >> harris: jonathan turley, law professor at george washington university. i want to speak with you about the larger implications of this. 14 years, i think it has been 14 or 15 years since we've seen anything significant on the topic of guns come out as an opinion with the u.s. supreme court. talk about the historic nature, the significance of what we're seeing today? >> this is a momentous decision for gun rights advocates. it reminds me a bit of the capps decision on privacy where the court restructured how we approach privacy cases. that's what thomas is doing here. he is getting rid of what was called a two-step analysis that was used by lower courts and drew a very clear line that like other individuals rights in the bill of rights the presumption is in favor of the citizen. they don't have to show this type of burden that they really need to use an individual right in this case to carry a concealed weapon. i think this is going to be one of the most important decisions that justice thomas has handed down in his illustrious career. it comes on his birt

. >> harris: i talked with jonathan turley one of our legal analysts at fox news and he said i don'tif he will use that law because they might not win in court. i have think you do press it. i think you do press it. 15.03 and 07. get these people's attention and let them know what the federal codes are. i want to get to what you just fended off your primary challenge on tuesday defeating the trump-backed challenger katie arrington, 53% of the vote is what you got. first of all, you had some head winds there. you got some help late in the game from nikki haley. talk to me about that race. >> well, it was an amazing night serving the first congressional district is the honor of my lifetime and so grateful for nicki's friendship and she has been a great leader for the state of south carolina and for our nation quite frankly. it has been awesome. i ran as a conservative with an independent streak what i've always been and voters rewarded that. i also ran on being the hardest worker in the race. i worked extremely hard, seven days a week and voters rewarded the hard work on tuesday night

now let's bring in our legal panel, andy mccarthy and jonathan turley, raffensperger and sterling haveown but are not yet ready to gavel back in. jonathan, pick up on the point that anita and martha were making. if we saw a more balanced composition to this committee, if speaker mccarthy had been able to get some of of the mike pence from his side of the aisle seated that he wanted seated, that nancy pelosi rejected, how would the tone and tenor of these hearings be different than what we are seeing? >> well, i think that they were absolutely right about how having opposing side, not on the riot itself or the elections, but just having questioning from the other side of the aisle would have added greater credibility and i don't think it would have undermind this powerful testimony. these are respected republicans like the speaker of the arizona house. and some of this was extraordinarily compelling, you know. as we watched the protests outside of the homes of justices, it is important to remember that this has come from both the left and the right, where people forget there are human b

let's get into really what that means, i think that we have jonathan turley standing by, jonathan, are you with me? okay okay, we will wait a moment for that. while we wait, my question for jonathan and i will hold, but for right now you had quite a reaction to this, david. and he wants you to share it. >> well, for one, this is a fireman, this is a president who comes out in a sense sets the fire and then plays fireman. it's the first time he has actually set on a public stage, peace, peace, peace. it is repetition after the fact with no effect on what is happened before. a planned assassination of a supreme court justice, violation of federal law and trying to influence the case. but you know, i have a conversation i am going to recount what we are waiting for jonathan that i had agreed at one time that was relevant, because i think of all the people on this dais, i am the one that knew sarah weddington that argued roe v. wade, and at one point we had a conversation about ten years or so ago about the case. she even told me where she was when the case was decided, she was actually in

jonathan turley is a good person to turn to for a sane look at things.lot of comparisons. they went into the building and they overstayed their pass is what it sounds like to me. we all know any of us that have gone in and out of the buildings, you need credentials. they don't let you just wander around. we'll see what comes out with this. they didn't injury anybody or trying to change an election outcome. but nonetheless, the arrest could put speaker nancy pelosi in an awkward position. she's repeatedly attacked republicans for not taking the new security precautions and imposing hefty fines for failures to supply and including evading metal detectors. the speaker was also accused of evading the new protections. >> we don't hear the house speaker speaking about, this it's like she's avoiding this like she avoids the paul pelosi arrest when he crashed his porsche in an enter section. the media is hoping the story washes away. stephen colbert has not tweeted about this and has not spoken about it. he usually unapologetic when it comes to everything. we'll

change decision, nancy pelosi slamming the justices as "right wing politicians" a label that jonathan turley took deep offense too. >> a woman's fundamental health decisions are her own to make with consultation with her doctor, her faith, her family. not some right-wing politicians that donald trump and mitch mcconnell packed the court with. >> with that, we bring in ari fleischer, civil rights attorney and leo terrell and democratic strategist, jessica tarlov. let's start with the headline question. ari, you think you would see this day and what is your reaction? >> for 50 years, conservatives and the pro life community had to live with a ruling that she disagreed with. now the shoe is on the other foot. that's the way our system works. the system does work. these things happen because of the sovereignty of the people. the people elected the president and the president made the appointments. and nancy pelosi says if you don't like it, turn out in november. let them try, this is the way our system works. it's the proper rule, it's an accurate ruling and the right ruling. it should be left u

let's bring in jonathan turley. thanks for being here.fferent state-by-state but how does it unfold for trigger law goes into effect? >> reporter: these states with trigger laws upset a time period it would kick in after roe was overturned, they can reverse that or speed it up. some have already triggered those trigger laws. they declared itself the first state to ban abortions accepting limited circumstances. we will have 13 of these states that ban or significantly limit abortion. you will have a sizable number of states that will continue to protect abortion rights. those states include our highest population states. the majority of citizens in this country will likely remain in a state where abortion rights remain protected. even further than roe demanded. pete: i want your feedback on what you are hearing from the left, those upset with the supreme court's ruling, this is the first step, the supreme court will revisit issues around the constitutional right from the supreme court to gay marriage or contraception. on a panel with andy

professor jonathan turley tweeted this. for him coming they met -- applying to public figures, that is a rare and workable victory get such a high-profile case. depp walks away with a far greater victory in the rejection of her allegations, another loser in this case is the aclu, which helped write the defamatory column. this will magnify criticism of the role of the aclu." so what you make of the jury decided to go with him on just about everything? >> yeah, hey, shannon, thanks so much for having me. this was an absolute crushing blow for amber heard. i was not surprised that depp won the case but i was surprised at how he won the case. what i mean by that is what trace was talking about. there were three statements that the jury deliberated on, and they found defamation on all three of those, shannon. it could have only been one of the three and he still wins, right? but they said no, all three were defamation. but they went one step further, they had to decide on malice. struck a little bit about that the burden of proo

out there and easy access to deadly weapons to act on those ideaologist, where as they invited jonathan turleysor that talks about constitutional concerns about the domestic terrorism act. as for everything else happening on capitol hill with regard to guns. bipartisan negotiators are still looking to get a deal on this. they are more so positive in more than a decade covering the senate. john cornyn, the republican lead negotiator, chris murphy, the leading democrat. cornyn was not in that room. cornyn is seeking a safe zone to get enough republicans on board without offending the pro gun voters on base or a passionate slice of that base. it remains seen if they can come to a deal. they are optimistic. >> i think it's interesting that cornyn was not in that meeting, that he knew it might not help things to see him negotiating with the president. it's just an indicator of the political times we live in, where you can't ever be seen working with the other side, especially in a mid-term year. the end of the week is what senator chris murphy success he is hoping for. do you get the sense that is

. >> well, i go back to what jonathan turley said.all those republicans were telling you the inside story we kind of knew about. we knew who the lawyers were that were telling us and telling trump that the election was thrown, that it was not authentic, that he did not -- that he actually won, that they'd been cheated in georgia. we heard about arizona, we heard about problems in wisconsin, but we saw no proof of it. so this is almost a dramatic recount of it edited together because you only have one side of the story. that's what this is. i'm not saying it's not factual, but i think, clearly, kevin mccarthy made a bad tactical error by not putting -- if they didn't want jim jordan involved and congressman banks, i get it. but there are plenty other talented congressmen and women that would haved asked tom pointed questions to say, well, no, that was not the case, this was the case, and are let me expand why the president thought this and what brought him to this conclusion and at least get president trump's point of view on it. howar

and from a legal perspective, i think as jonathan turley has notedded, it really doesn't work because't able to find some way of getting at president trump, at former president trump in a way that would, you know, prevent him potentially from running for president again. they haven't proven that legal case. so does it work as a politics? i don't really think it does either, and one of the reasons is, this had so little new information. most of this the had been leaked in advance. and even as tv the, whether you think it's propaganda da or whether you think it's a show, i don't think that it actually changes the minds of any of american people. you heard the conservative perspective, i think, this week from washington dethe fencive coordinator jack del rio who basically drew the comparison between what happened on january 6th and the summer of riots after george floyd. most independents, their issues don't include january 6th. of mostly, this is designed to gin up support from progressives and 'em do accurates. howard: yeah, and that washington football coach got fined $100,000 for cal

kavanagh's welleo there some language from amy cloney barrett that i would add to that jonathan turley did push back pretty hard on that sotomayor favish . but i'll go to you. so there are a lot of women that actually support this as well. a lot of women who have been pro-life and they have fought forof this ruling to be overturned and for the decisions to be sent back to the states as it is now the number of pro-lifee organizations. in fact, i think almost all of them are run by women. the susan b. anthony list, the march for life all run by women. and the narrative is that women disagree with this decision. that's's nottrue true . l this four pro-life activistt today is a huge victory. they've been working on for five decades something they believe is far overdue, that an injustice against millions of innocent livesju inside the has beenst corrected a federal level. but the factt is that this is now being sent back to the states. it's actually expanded democracy by allowingxpmo 50 ste legislatures to debate this tohe be accountable to the people in their states about what theyg want

fox news contributor jonathan turley. are you surprised we didn't get it yesterday? >> no. has always had a certain sense of theater in holding the major opinions for the last couple of days. so most of us expected dobbs would come in late if not on the last day. we have a number of big cases out there still pending with the court. we have the new york gun case, we also have a case involving the e.p.a. and climate change. we have an immigration case. these are all matinee cases. of course the one that sort of sucks the oxygen out of the room is dobbs. you know, that's the one that's going to have the greatest impact. and when you have people calling for a night of rage, you really are quite nervous about what the response might be. >> brian: i know that you know, speaking to the governor yesterday and talking to others. everyone is concerned, including the justices themselves about their families and their family's welfare because ever these continued protests and the assassination attempt. do you think this will make it less likely that anything changes from the january le