, stacey abram said.abram said. as with many things we get from _ stacey abram said. as with many things we get from former - things we get from former president trump there is a kernel of truth in it but he takes it to a degree where it probably is notjustified. some people have given the example of if a bank owes you money you can go into the bank and told the manager that they need to give you that money, but you cannot go to the teller and flash a weapon at her and said "put $100,000 in this bad" because you think the bank owes you money and the question is when this call was made by former president, then president trump to the officials in the georgia elections bureau telling them that they need to define 11,700 odd votes, was that a request or was it actually a suggestion that they make up votes out of nothing, which would clearly be an improperand nothing, which would clearly be an improper and illegal request and that is why, i think, if this case does go to trial, this case does go to trial, thi

i did not hear anyone barking at stacey abrams. she still did not admit that she did not win the election. >> trace: aand you say that and the d.a. was actually saying that according to -- this is not -- but she said fairly close here that the president, the former president did not abide by georgia's process for disputing elections. he broke the law and one wonders if stacey abrams actually abided by saying this whole thing was legitimate that stacey abrams abide by the georgia process for disputing elections, jason. >> do you give up your first amendment right? and remember what is going on in real time, things are slowing. there are a lot of people that had serious questions, why can't you ask the question? why can't you do that? why can't you get a legal team to get you an opinion? that is what she is going to prosecute here? the whole thing with the four different indictments and the timing against donald trump, it just seems farcical. and i just still can't get over the idea that kanye west publicist is on that list. i can ge

many people over the as did the same thing whether it is hillary clinton or stacey abrams or many others. when you have that great freedom to challenge, you have to -- you will have very dishonest elections. what has taken place here is a travesty. we did nothing wrong. i did nothing wrong. everybody knows it. i have never had such support. they are trying to interfere with an election. this is their way of campaigning. it is election interference. thank you for being here. we have every single right to challenge an election that we think is dishonest. thank you all very much. i will see you all very soon. >> the present invention up but took over one hour and since he landed at hartsfield international airport to answer those booking charges. this will play out over the next

stacey abrams never admitted and went after the whole system, said it was rigged, kemp had rigged this thing and done it wrong, i did not hear anybody barking at stacey adams, she still never admitted she didn't win the election. >> you say that and the da was saying issue not verbait, but fairly close the former president did not abide by georgia process for disputing elections, he broke the law. one wonders if stacey abrams said this was wrong, did abrams abide by the go go process for disputing elections, jason? >> jason: do you give up your first amendment right? no reason somebody can't challenge the election. remember what is going on in real time? a lot of people had serious questions, why can't you ask the question, do that and get a legal team to give you an opinion. that is really what she's going to prosecute here? the whole thing, four indictments and timing against donald trump seems farcical and i can't get over the idea that kanye's publicist is on that list. >> i'm sorry, what, what did i do? lastly, jason, the concepts, we have seen again and i brought this up with alv

no charges out of atlanta again stacey abrams. you decide if this is equal justice under the law. >> this is not a speech of concession. >> was the election of free interfere election? >> it was not free and fair. i just did not win. we don't know what really happened because of the miasma of voter suppression. for me, concession, there is a legal and moral nature to conceding. it means you accept that something is right, that it is just and proper. what happened was not just. i may not have won this election , but i didn't lose. i got the votes. but we won't know exactly how many because of how they cheated. we had this little election back in 2018, and despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, i do have one very affirmative statement to make. we won. i believe it was a stolen election. i'm not saying they stole it from me. they stole it from the voters of georgia. >> if you are a prominent democrat you pretty much do whatever you want because the liberal lawyers that dominate what is no

stacey abrams, all these people are democrats.y abrams, she challenge the election just a few years ago, and she had a right to do that. she did not do anything illegal. it was not anything illegal. that is her right to challenge it, but donald trump, if he challenges an election, he gets prosecuted by the corrupt department of justice by merrick garland democrats. he gets conservatives get prosecuted while democrats walk free. hillary clinton did not do anything illegal as far as challenging the election, she didn't. al gore did not do nothing illegal by challenging the election. stacey abrams didn't do anything illegal, and donald trump didn't do anything illegal by challenging an election. they all thought they won and he thinks he won. but yet, he gets prosecuted and that's what strong -- what wrong, the reason the justice the sump is being weaponize. host: all right, what one of the other big topics that happened this week was the first republican presidential debate as several republicans came together and talk about what th

greg: exactly. >> is it fat shaming and not the same for trump as it would be for stacey abram s?> greg: still blows my mind that don't they understand, that's like a joke you make on the fourth day and this is like a historical event cast. >> no, i mean yes. but like everything is a historical event right now and nothing is really boring and i want to have a regular day. i see how she could have wound up talking about that and i saw that breaking news banner below and they're probably running out of stuff to break after certain point because they're saying they're just doing probably wall to wall live coverage on this and really the only news we knew this was going to happen. the only news is that's what his mug shot looks like. then all the booking information so you can only repeat yourself over and over again before you're desperately, desperately looking for something to add and i can get they were excited about the weight thing and extra three minutes out of that. that's probably more what it is than anything. greg: i got to say, i think the mug shot is amazing and i don't c

stacey abrams also, for a while, contested the outcome of her election.there are such differences. i keep coming back to it now that we are talking about donald trump. stacey abrams went through the courts. yes, she did talk to witnesses. she did bill testimony. but she was never accused of lying to the court, of encouraging or trying to manipulate people to adhere to a certain narrative. once she exhausted the courts, it took about two weeks, i was there, but once the court said there is nothing else you can do, you lost, she made a speech and said i'm, throwing in the towel. you could talk about whether, she didn't use the word concede, but she met the definition of conceding the race. and she has not continued to try to overturn the outcome of the race. >> i agree with you. i think her behavior was not honorable, but -- >> why? why is it not honorable? >> i think there's some politeness in, and it's a whole thing, al gore, george bush, is probably the best example. allegory could have said i won this election, i was screwed by the supreme court, and he

many people you have watched over the years do the same think whether it is hillary clinton or stacey abrams or many others. when you have that great freedom to challenge, you have to be able to or you have this on the selections. what has taken place is a travesty of justice. we did nothing wrong. i did nothing wrong. everybody knows it. i've never had such a board. but they are doing is trying to interfere with an election. it is never been anything like it in our country before. this is their way of campaigning. this is one instance but you have three others in distance. it is election interference. i want to thank you for being here. we did nothing wrong at all and we have every single right to challenge an election we think is dishonest. we think it is very dishonest. thank you all very much and i will see you very soon. thank you. host: former president donald trump leaving atlanta yesterday after the intake at the fulton county courthouse. we'll get to the charges, the fourth indictment of the president, the first on state charges related to the election. this is in fulton, georgia, a

. >> laura: or stacey abrams. >> or stacey abrams.s just unreal what merrick garland and jack smith are doing here. they are leading america into a very, very dangerous place. >> laura: it was easy yesterday well this is ridiculous and throw up your hands. this is typical. the more i thought of it, when i really played it out in my mind 10, 15 years from now, this puts us on a collision course with the real rule of law and the equal application of justice, the principles that really are the bedrock of our country. >> you know, laura, i hope that people will play your monologue today over and over and over again. you hit on the key points. for me, as a criminal and civil rights lawyer for a long time, criminal defense lawyer and civil rights lawyer for a long time and i also do a lot of election voting right and ballot access work. aclu hired me to represent shelby county vs. holder. i take these things very seriously. this indictment is written for public consumption and try to get before a d.c. jury and for political reasons and no o

people want to compare it to stacey abrams or bush v.th on twitter when they wanted to push back against the 2016 election because of election interference. the difference is there are pathways to cob test an election in the court of law. if you think an election was done wrong or you won the election, you can say that if you have prove or evidence. the difference between that and what donald trump did are the 170 overt acts they took that fani willis laid out in her indictment that show she they actually took concrete steps to to overthrow an election. they were breaking into fults. they were on phone calls actually over -- it's intent meet action, which is the crime. that is the difference between this and everything else. >> and i agree, but when they bring up this weaponization of power, we can't ignore the fact that stacey abrams did not concede the election. we can't ignore the fact that fani willis had this fundraiserer. so it does not negate the fact that donald trump lost the election and tried to -- not only did he failed to co

probably the most egregious example to me is stacey abrams.vernor and was beaten by brian kemp. it is kemp that is the governor. but she has never accepted that. she talked about how illegitimate that was you compare what she said, to what she did to what donald trump did and try to tell me and convince us there is equal justice in this country, it does not add up. >> brian: democratic attorney julian epstein telling democrats to calm down. this might not be good for you. listen. democrats are sort of celebrating saying this is a done deal. you quoted what hakeem jeffries said. this is part of criminal activity part of the criminal ongoing activity. that's a big mistake for democrats. makes them look political. reinforces the argument that trump has made that this is all a witch-hunt. >> brian: he sees warning. do you talk to many democrats that feel the same way? not many because they seem to smile and snicker and seem to feel so good about it. when the "the washington post" talks about how impeachment has begun on day one of his presidency,

stacey abrams fought it, and had recounts, and she lost. then, she conceded. but the indictment itself states very clearly, donald trump has every right to recounts, appeals, audits, all that kind of stuff. all of that happened, and he still lost. then, he created a scheme to overturn the election. they are not the same thing. >> no. and none of those -- instigated a violent coup to stay in office. illegally. what's interesting about the indictment is it's actually, it lays out elements of the authoritarian playbook that reviews from november onward. you have propaganda. his great effectiveness at convincing tens of millions of people. he's won the election. you have the rule of elite enabler's. we've talked before, ali, that for every person fashing heads that we see, that we saw in the capital, there's another person in an expensive suit or a uniform in a coup who is directing the action. then, you have the recourse to violence. and you know, we are reminded the plans to use the military and, of course, the new playbook also used by bolsonaro, if you can't g

first time stacey abrams ran for governor, she was questioning and alleging inkconsistencies ad it waslen from her. she said that, was she indicted? no, she's not been indicted. there is double standard, justice system for those named clinton and biden and for everyone else and that is sad state of affairs for us. >> laura: yeah, congresswoman, there is credible evidence that the biden family was pedalling influence, maybe takes bribes when he was vice president and everyone is you can't connect the dot and here we have people making legal claim and the president taking their advice, political trash talk that happens all the time and that is a crime and the biden family crime syndicate get away with it? >> that is right, conspiracy, racketeering and rico charges and we are seeing the democrats all the way down to state daytime emmys conspiring to stop president trump from winning the 2024 election. it is outrageous and you are right, i serve on the oversight committee, we have real evidence it is biden family made tens of millions of dollars with wire trabz fers from country after coun

in georgian , want to be governor stacey abrams. she frequently accused republican to be gs of g the 2018 gubernatorial election and she pressured state officials to action againstssio phantom vote voter suppression claims. and she refused. as wcle all know, to concede fos years. but no charges out of atlantan against stacey abrams. >> you decide if this is equal justice under the labrams.w. >> this is not a speech of concession. was the election a speech of gea statewide a free and fair election? it was notction of a free and ft election, said she lost. >> i'm like, no, i just didn't d wi nn because we don't know what really happened because of the miasma of voter suppression. for me, concessionth there's a legal and moral naturee accep to conceding. it means you accept that something is right, that itjust is just that it is proper. what happened was not just a i may not have won this election or at least, but i didn't lose. bu i got the votes. but we won't know exactlyhow we hmany because of how they cheated. >> we had this little

trump did it and if so, i guess stacey abrams, governor of georgia in her mind, need to be indicted. what say you, mark? >> the constitution says we have right to petition the government if we have a grievance tlchl is no dispute donald trump and his legal team disputed who won the georgia electoral vote in 2020. that was legitimate fight they took to court, congress, state legislature and the government under the first amendment. when you read this indictment, you see, you say to yourself, looks like all they did was petition the government because they disagreed with what was going on and they lost in congress on january 6. all of a sudden, petitioning the government is a crime and criminal enterprise, what this indictment says. it is bewildering. >> carley: 19 defendants, 41 counts, all defendants being charged with racketeering. willis says it constitute criminal organization. can you explain what racketeering is and how the da is using it in this case? >> way you to think about racketeering and rico, multi person conspiracy to commit a crime. usually think like a drug ring where

and stacey abrams from for other office.son was not even close. >> it all has to be rooted in evidence, the truth, and facts. again, where there is evidence of wrongdoing, yes, let's investigate that hold individuals accountable, where there is no evidence than to keep making -- knowingly false aspersions at that point, and then escalating your tactics, inducing people to sign forms or, you know, asking people to sign false electorate statements, and other things, even commit the violence we saw and our capitol and other parts of the country throughout this process. that's where it goes too far. that's what happened here. in all of my conversations with law enforcement and investigators, including the january six committee in congress, the connection between the allegation, the lack of evidence, and the violence that followed, it's really the entire story. that has never happened any other time in the history of our country. >> i want to read you, again, from page one of the indictment, this is paragraph to. it reads, despit

him is stacey abrams were the oddest politicians in the democrat party.s would be the next president -- he was going to be the next president. he is going to be governor and then desantis comes up to me and says i cannot with him. i said we would do some rallies. he said could you do three, three is allowed by ended up doing three rallies for him. they were big created they had thousands and thousands of people. we had in your little area a rally 68,000 people. he brought elvis's record i did is relish for him and he ended up winning. he wanted. it is a big upset. then three years later they said are you going to run for president against the former president and he said i have no comment. that means he is running. that son of a bitch. he is running. we're not going to take that. i started hitting him. when they ask -- whether do is think about this but when they asked me whether or not i like him, i am not a big fan of his. i like loyalty. they told me loads he does not matter in politics. some of my genius's backstage right now, sir, do not tell that st

if you will remember, the first time that stacey abrams ran for governor, she was questioning and actuallying that there was inconsistencies and that it was stolen from her. she said that. was she indicted? no. she has not been indicted. so, you know, there is a double standard here. there is a justice system in america for those who are named clinton and biden and for everyone else. that is a sad, sad state of affairs for us. >> laura: yeah. i mean, congresswoman, there is credible evidence that the biden family was peddling influence maybe taking bribes from foreign presidents when he was vice president. oh you can't connect the dots. here we have people making legal claims, the president taking their advice political trash talk, which happens all the time, and that's a crime? but the biden family crime as i understand cat, they get away with it? that's not justice. >> that's right, laura. they are charging president trump with conspiracy, racketeering, ricco charges but, yet, we are seeing the democrats on a national level from the department of justice all the way down to these state d

what do you make of what he said, invoking hillary clinton and also stacey abrams?should — which is other people have said i should have one or if only ishould have one or if only this— ishould have one or if only this or— i should have one or if only this or that would have happened i would have won the election. — happened i would have won the election, if more people would have _ election, if more people would have got— election, if more people would have got out to vote, ifjim comey— have got out to vote, ifjim comey did not send that done letter— comey did not send that done letter at — comey did not send that done letter at the last minute i would _ letter at the last minute i would have one, which is different than actively trying to overturn the election. —— won~ — to overturn the election. —— won~ it _ to overturn the election. —— won~ it is _ to overturn the election. —— won. it is one thing, if donald trump — won. it is one thing, if donald trump would have filed the lawsuit. _ trump would have filed the lawsuit, lost the lawsuit and complained a lot, and

keep in mind stacey abrams and the first combinatorial race that he she was involved in, she was the out the whole process. where was the liberal media that time why were they persecuting her like they were donald trump of the other 18 right now. that is the sad part of it. what we see right now this is already been tried in the liberal media and liberty been found guilty. that's what upsets people. where is the fairness of the judicial system. it is a sad day in america that our judicial system has been weapon nice like it has been. cheryl: congressman buddy carter from georgia, thank you so much for being here and thank you for covering this it's always good to see you. we have a lot more coming up this morning. kamala harris constant laughing to coin a new acronym celebrating her tendency to burst out laughing. that is making a buses morning. "mornings with maria" live on fox business. ♪ ♪ ♪ there are some things that go better... together. burger and fries... soup and salad. like your workplace benefits and retirement savings. with voya, considering all your financial choices tog

and then compare and contrast stacey abrams. i mean, you want to talk about an election denier? she said everything that happened in georgia was a fraud and farce and brian kemp is not the legitimate governor of georgia, how come there aren't charges against her. seems they are picking on the guy and doing so selectively. no balance in the administration of justice. >> john: one of the false statements she cites is the president post election saying i won the election. he was not saying that to the fbi during the interview or anything like that, i'm not quite sure how you make the case that that is a false statement. whether or not it was true is one thing, but actually say legally it's a false statement, i'm not sure how she makes that case. the president has a schedule facing him unlike any other that i've ever seen in a presidential campaign. put up on the screen what he's facing in the next six months or so. letitia james new york state business fraud case, supposed to take place in october 2nd, jack smith january 6th prosecution, scheduled for january of next year, just bef

a not the same trump as it would be for stacey abrams?it still blows my mind that that they don't they understand that this is i mean, that's like a that's a jokee you make on the fourth day. >> on the first day, this is like his store called a bad cat. no, i mean, yes.rythin >> but like everything is ay boi historical event now. yeah, that's true. nothing's ever boring anymore. wa. reg >> just want to have a regular day. sh but also, it's okay. i see how they could wou havnde wound up talking about that because i saw that breaking news banner belobeloand theyw. a they're probably running out of stuff to break after a certain point. yes, becauseuse sa saying, oh,s they're just doing probably wall to wall live coverage on this. he oand really the only news we all knew this was going to happen. the only newat hiss is that's wi mugshot looks like. and then, you know, all the bookinngtiong information. so you can only repeat yourself over and over again before look your desperately looking for something to add so i coulmethid get they were ex

or minority leader jeffries or stacey abrams in georgia. or any other democratic candidate who objects to electing results every time a republican wins. of course, donald trump in this case, would be tried in washington d.c. where pretty much, nobody voted for him. almost everyone hates his guts, does it sound like a fair venue? washington d.c., we went back and looked. only 5.4 percent of the city actually voted for donald trump. new york city, donald trump is also facing bogus charges, a whopping 12 percent voted from there. if you look at fulton county, georgia, for this coming next. where trump will likely face charges. he received a whopping 26 percent of the vote. really think donald trump can get a fair trial in new york city, washington d.c., and fulton county, georgia? a real jury of his peers? i don't think so. the doj jack smith doesn't seem to care, and according to former governor mcdonald, who smith got a guilty plea with, that a guilty plea, guilty verdict on, you know, smith would rather win then get it wrong. those are mcdo

but president trump went at it similar to the way stacey abrams went at it.he way hillary clinton continues to go at it and say she really didn't lose the elections. stacey abrams really thinks she is governor until she got trounced in the rematch. brian kemp pushed back on the president early. the governor of georgia saying, listen, there is no problem with the election. but, obviously, some candidates think there are, including donald trump. bottom line is, trump is going to be off the campaign trail when this thing starts they think for four weeks. can you strategize against that if you were one of his opponents and strategize doing that even if you think donald trump is 10d president trump does think he is. he has still got to deal with the fact that maybe 8 hours a day for four weeks on each trial he is going to have to sit in a courtroom and maybe go at it at night along with the stress of most people would not be able to go under on this. and, again, i'm looking at the clock right now. it's 6:05 eastern time and also a countdown to ainsley's wall walk

. >> stacey abrams said that no one said a thing.: you bring up an important point, this is going to dredge up all the fights that have taken place around the election and it's going to start this whole conversation of how many ballots are real, how many ballots were real and this is exactly what they don't want to. >> this is the problem with the fulton county indictment and locksmith indictment that they're attempting to criminalize what is a political speech. you are allowed to question the results of election as democrats have repeatedly. >> didn't hillary do that. >> exactly hillary did it and stacey abrams. >> you cannot criminalize free speech that is a flaw and that's why i don't think they're going to stand. >> the fulton county clerk of courts hours before a grand jury actually voted to indict him, she said she uploaded a work sample when she hit send instead of safe, the calling it fictitious even though the charges were the same exact as was actual indictment. >> i decide another layer of comedy, what are we doing here. i

as far as i can tell, stacey abrams is not under grand jury information -- investigation for all of herct in georgia, hillary clinton for her conduct in 2016, essentially contesting, then trying to undermine the result of that election. elizabeth: yeah. and sam has already pointed out, i mean, you know, basically nixon lost hawaii's votes to kennedy in the 1960 election, francey. there's that debate. francey, does it come back to the d.a. having to prove criminal intelligent behind all of these charges -- intent -- including rah racketeering, that don -- donald trump knew everything he was doing was unlawful? it sounds like he was utilize aring the legal process. >> well, of course, prosecutors always have to prove intent, what is it that the defendant intended, and the defense will be showing exactly what it was that president trump intended. i mean, liz, sam makes a great point. if i walk into a bank right now and say, hi, i'm wondering if you would give me a million dollars, i'm not guilty of bank robbery. and if i ask you, liz, to give me your car, i'm not guilty of carjacking. thes

or minority leader jeffries or stacey abrams in georgia.any other democratic candidate who objects to electing results every time a republican wins. of course, donald trump in this case, would be tried in washington d.c. where pretty much, nobody voted for him. almost everyone hates his guts, does it sound like a fair venue? washington d.c., we went back and looked. only 5.4 percent of the city actually voted for donald trump. new york city, donald trump is also facing bogus charges, a whopping 12 percent voted from there. if you look at fulton county, georgia, for this coming next. where trump will likely face charges. he received a whopping 26 percent of the vote. really think donald trump can get a fair trial in new york city washington d.c., and fulton county, georgia? a real jury of his peers? i don't think so. the doj jack smith doesn't seem to care, and according to former governor mcdonald, who smith got a guilty plea with, that a guilty plea, guilty verdict on, you know, smith would rather win then get it wrong. those are mcdonald

is so did biden, stacey abrams, hillary clinton. it's how al franken got into the senate in a recount. also kennedy got hawaii's votes in the fight against nixon. what do you think? >> yeah. i think there's a question also, liz, in addition to what you describe that what happens in this electoral vote count is there's a certification date, and it was in december. and when georgia certify the election, there was an active lawsuit that they didn't know how it was going to turn out. so the alternate slate of electors was in case the trump campaign won that lawsuit in order to potentially have trump electors that were, that could be sent to be, you know, to washington, d.c. to vote in the electoral count. and if those hadn't, if that slate hadn't been created, my understanding is, is that there would be no alternative slate and, therefore, no votes from georgia. so that act is going to be very important in the analysis. elizabeth: interesting. now, let's watch senator josh hawley, former trump attorney alan dershowitz, and you're going

in fact in georgia so did stacey abrams. i think she still thinks she is governor, at least claims.hat is it criminal to challenge the result, as democrats have done in three prior elections? of course not. the question is whether the steps taken were legal or illegal. even if a candidate thinks he or she lost. you know, they are still entitled under the law to challenge the result. you know, u.s. supreme court has said repeatedly that false claims are protected speech. so, that's not really fraud or criminal enterprise in georgia and elsewhere. you know, trump complained in court filings about ballot irregularities, faulty machines. violation of election laws, valid votes not counted, invalid votes were counted. you know, in the end, those challenges failed. how is that fraud? i don't think it is. because exercising your legal rights to challenge the integrity of voting systems as democrats have done in three prior elections, that's not criminal. it's not defrauding the government if you believe you're acting lawfully. >> ainsley: greg, alan dershowitz says the strategy is to get a

today they had stacey abrams here. jamaal hill was here yesterday. some of the panel discussions yesterday that were on c-span where america's dark past. the left loves to talk bad about america. they hate america. they hate the beginnings of america. this is what goes on every year at the l.a. times book fair. one of the other issues yesterday -- host: we going to leave it there. we've got a lot of collars. >> that universities try to suppress non-left-wing voices is a given. there is really nothing else to say. that is the fact. i am delighted to be here, but it is book tv that invited me. it is not usc book fair. and if they usc book fair invited me, they would get a big crowd but they do not care. i'm a voice that should not be heard. the give you an idea of how far the liberal left world has gone and liberal is not is left to sykes lane, but they are united. additional i had a column, a regular column in the l.a. times? in the 80's, the l.a. times had column right and column left. they wanted both voices heard on opinion pages. no longer. same w

stacey abrams is here, jamaal here was yesterday.ssions they were on c-span the left loves to talk bad about america. they hate america. they hate the beginnings of america. at the l.a. times book fair. one of the other issues they did. >> are going to leave it there we've got a lot of collars for letter from dennis prager on that issue. >> that universities try to suppress non- right wing voices is a given. there is nothing else to say that is the fact. i'm delighted to be here but it's book tv that invited me. it's not that usc book fair. the usc book fair invited me don't care. i am a voice that should not be heard. to give you an idea but they are united in this. i had a column in the los angeles times a regular column but was iteles times in the 80s, had column right in column left. theyle wanted to avoid both vois heard on their opinion pagers. no longer. i dug up a piece written in the 1980s extolling what a wonderful talk show host i was in the los angeles times. such a dramatic takeover by the left. the liberal just lay down

you think of stacey abrams losing the governor's race in georgia. took her i think over a year, at least over a year to concede that she had lost that race to brian kemp. she said that they were suppressing the vote despite more people than had voted in prior elections. some people say what is the difference? >> under this standard, would they have been charged as well? would the republican candidate for governor of arizona in 2022 be charged right now? that is to me a good question. that's why i do -- i guess i think there's more legal clarity. should he take it to west virginia as his lawyer has suggested? i doubt they'll allow that. it's an interesting thing to think about. should they? there is a court where the jury is already seated. that is the court of public opinion. before i went to the white house, i spent about a year as a spokesperson at the department of justice. i am pretty amazed that they're going to bring a case against the former president of the united states and lose in my opinion, lose every news cycle on the moment. what has h

people that you've been watching over the years do the same thing, whether it's hillary clinton or stacey abramsy others. when have that great freedom to challenge, you have to be able to other ways you can have very dishonest elections. taken place here is a travesty of justice. we did nothing wrong. i did nothing wrong and everybody knows that i've never had support and that goes with the other ones to what they're doing is election interference and try to interfere with an election. there's never been anything like it in our country before. this is their way of campaigning. and this is one instance. but you have 3 other instances. it's election interference. so i want to thank you for being here. we did nothing wrong at all. and we have every right, every single right to challenge an election that we think is this on us. so we think it's very dishonest. so thank you all very much. and i'll see very thank you. apart in >> that was it to president. trump a walking away towards his private plane jet out the atlanta area after being booked. on. charges racketeering. election interference. >> 13 f

this is america, and i can't believe that comparison to its stacey abrams and what is going on here? it's just it's so wrong. well you can also look at new york kevin hee and you have a d a boat that ran on a platform that they're going after one man, one family and one organization. they ran on that platform and clearly or fulfilling a campaign. promise you know, tommy, you have a great influence with younger people, always demographically during election seasons. we look to younger people. to get their perception of things and you know, on your show fearless you, you know you're talking to and communicating with a lot of people that are younger. what are they saying about this? what's their perception of all this? well here's the big problem that we're facing. right now. you've got half the country that believes everything is rigged. that the country is going to hell. that everything is bs. they're probably right about that. and then you have the other half of the country. that doesn't really seem to care because they don't think it impacts their everyday life. and that is going to

people that you've been watching over the years do the same thing — whether it's hillary clinton or stacey abrams others. when you have that great freedom to challenge, you have to be able to, otherwise you're going to have very dishonest elections. what has taken place here is a travesty ofjustice. we did nothing wrong — i did nothing wrong — and everybody knows it. i've never had such support — and that goes with the other ones, too. what they're doing is election interference. they're trying to interfere with an election. there's not been anything like it in our country before. this is their way of campaigning and this is one instance, but you have three other instances — it's election interference. so, i want to thank you for being here. —— we did nothing wrong at all and we have every right — every single right — to challenge an election that we think is dishonest — that we think is very dishonest — so, thank you all very much and i will see very soon. thank you very much. also today, donald trump returned to x — formerly —— also on thursday, donald trump returned to x — formerly twitter — f

there is stacey abrams, having people trying to demand recounts and interfere with the process, they i don't think -- they never think -- they never apologize for what they do and they never think it will come back to hit them, but it will. mark: important, i disagree with some of our friendly legal analysts who say, president cannot pardon himself from state changes, we're not talking about average citizens, under federalism ak president cannot and should not reach into states and pardon individuals for violating state law. that is nothing to do with this. the question you raise is can an assistant district attorney i did cap tate decapitate the federal government or cripple the executive branch. >> or can they in a local regional context assume that role of a federal prosecutor and indict the president of the united states for what would be -- if it were true, a federal crime. because they are talking about a conspiracy or racketeering to disrupt the balloting, but that is not just georgia, what fani willis is aing that dona -- saying that donald trump tries to use georgia to affec

people that you've been watching over the years do the same thing — whether it's hillary clinton or stacey abramsers. when you have that great freedom to challenge, you have to be able to, otherwise you're going to have very dishonest elections. what has taken place here is a travesty ofjustice. we did nothing wrong — i did nothing wrong. also today, donald trump returned to x — formerly twitter — for the first time since his ban was lifted. he posted his mugshot, adding simply, quote, "election interference. "never surrender!" and posting a link to his website. let's go to our reporter on the ground, carl nasman. he is in fulton county atlanta. carl, quite a day. what can you tell us? what were your impressions of what happened?— what happened? quite the day and we were — what happened? quite the day and we were down _ what happened? quite the day and we were down there - what happened? quite the day and we were down there at - what happened? quite the day| and we were down there at the faulty count injail as and we were down there at the faulty count in jail as it all unfolded microphone fulton

extremely tenuous to absolutely absurd and the evidence or actses, if you look at them, why isn't stacey abrams or hillary clinton being charged or a bunch of democratic members getting charged when they challenged the 2016 issue the 2000, the 2004 election results? it is out in left field and a transparent misuse of the criminal justice system. >> carley: what do you make of the effort by the house oversight committee to investigate fani willis. they want to see if she coordinated her investigation with jack smith and if she used federal money to investigate donald trump. are those two things not supposed to happen? >> what jim jordan is driving at, this is not about the law, this is not about presumption of you don't put the country through this unless you have an overwhelming case. this is a mpolitical hit job. absurd charges that create wreck to the federal system. if local district attorney can do this, how is the president regardless of party, suppose to function. it turns federal supremacy on its head. you are attacking the very structure of our system of government with bizarre state co

no mug shot of stacey abrams.hould be able to challenge an election, if ub feel things are wrong, there should be an investigation. >> steve: fani willis says he did more than that, he is accused of impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false document, influencing witnesses and acts involving theft. >> ainsley: count after count after count. >> steve: innocent until proven guilty. he made bail, bond was $200,000. he went to a commercial bondsman. he paid $twenty,000. not tying up his own money. >> brian: i'm pretty sure in rocky 1 a bail bondsman sponsored his first bond. >> ainsley: who told you that? >> brian: toba. >> steve: toba uses chico's. >> brian: like in charlie's angels, charlie never meets them. >> ainsley: 13 million of y'all watched the debate, awesome. thank you for watching fox. we were all tuned in. who best performed in "washington post" said desantis did best with 29%, ramaswamy 26%, nikki haley, 15%, pence 7, chris christie 4% and burgum and hutchinson 1%. >> brian: i think doug burgu

georgia 2018 or stacey abrams in 2017.hillary clinton making a challenge over and over and over again. democrats saying he was an illegitimate president over and over again. not with al gore's recounts in florida. in 1960, a little history lesson. democrats challenged the results of the presidential election with alternate electors in support of john f. kennedy. in hawaii. way back in 1876, 3 different states nominated alternate electoralors before hayes prevailed. none of the candidates were ever charge with a crime. no former president in american history has been indicted except for donald trump who was booked for 91 felonies on the state and federal level. if convicted democrats would love this, trump would face 700 years in prison. they waited 2.5 years happening in the middle of the election season. by design? it seems so. donald trump is the leading republican in the field. leading by huge margins and joe biden's political rival. that is also unprecedented in american history. isn't it odd that biden's doj and two l

many people over the as did the same thing whether it is hillary clinton or stacey abrams or many others. when you have that great freedom to challenge, you have to -- you will have very dishonest elections. what has taken place here is a travesty. we did nothing wrong. i did nothing wrong. everybody knows it. i have never had such support. they are trying to interfere with an election. this is their way of campaigning. it is election interference. thank you for being here. we have every single right to challenge an election that we think is dishonest. thank you all very much. i will see you all very soon. ♪ announcer: c-span's "washington journal," i live for evolving you to discuss politics and policy from what across the country. coming up friday morning, a former small business administration member and director of urban policy discussed their book underserved , harnessing the principle of lincoln's vision of reconstruction for today's forgotten communities. the university of notre dame law professor talks about the supreme court decision in moore v. harper where the state ruled -- t

al gore, stacey abrams and donald trump did nothing illegal by challenging and election. they all thought they one and he said he thought he won but he gets prosecuted and that is what is wrong. the reason the justice system is being weaponized. host: one of the other big topics happening this week is the first republican presidential debate and several republicans came together and talked about what they would do if they became president and talked about why they were the best person to become president. politico has a story and i want to bring -- read of paragraph for you. >> fox news grow 8.1 2 million viewers during the debate. the viewership number refocused interest in gop candidates other than the front runner, donald trump. did not outpace the 2015 debate during trump's first run for the white house. trump who did not attend the debate appeared on tucker correspondence show on x. trump untruths are so -- trouble on truth social called the debate a blockbuster. it overtook paramount's yellowstone viewership. during the debate, the candidates were asked if they woul