Counsel jack smith is about to indict him. Grady trimble is taking the action moment by moment, hes live in d. C. With the story. Reporter hey, liz, good to see you. So this has to do with special counsel jack smiths investigation into january 6th and what happened in the capitol that day. As well as the former President Trumps conduct following the 2020 election more broadly. So in terms of a possible indictment, i want to get right to that statement from the former president because he is expecting it any minute now. He says on truth social, i hear that deranged jack smith, in order to interfere with the president ial election of 2024, will be putting out yet another fake indictment of your favorite president , me, at 5 00 eastern time. So about a minute ago. Well see what happens. The former president goes on to say why didnt they do this two and a half years ago . Why did they wait so long . And then he answers, because they wanted to put it right in the middle of my campaign, prosecutorial misconduct. Hes calling it. Of course, he references in that statement that this is the second time special counsel jack smith will have indicted him if it happens. The first is in relation to the classified documents case out of maralago. We saw a new charge in that case for the form former and an associate related to hiding Security Camera footage. As we mentioned though, the former president received a target letter earlier in july, mid july, and that is specifically to do with this more recent investigation into january 6th and the election. And that letter is the first indication that we got that something might happen when former President Trump announced that. Then just last thursday the former president s legal team met with the special counsel, jack smith, and so all signs were pointing toward a potential new indictment, liz. And now the former president has said on truth social that that he expects it any minute now. We shall see if that announcement comes. Elizabeth grady, or well be coming back to you with the breaking news. Thank you so much. Lets get expert if reaction from former federal prosecutors. To you, francie, what do you make of this breaking news coming in . Well, of course, i want to see the indictment. I have no real idea whats in it. Theres a lot of peculation. But to me, liz, the interesting thing the right now is the timing of it. I cant help but notice that this is the day after devon archer testified to some pretty serious pieces of information and evidence that certainly suggest theres a Biden Corruption and bribery scandal that should be brewing, and the bigger scandal is the lack of curiosity by doj and fbi into that information. But i cant help wondering, why today . Why is it that jack smith is indicting today, less than 24 hours after devon archer testified . It seems a little convenient timing to me. Elizabeth owe, to what francie just with said, katie, trump is saying why didnt they do this two and a half years ago . Oh, he makes a good point, and ill be curious to see what additional evidence jack smith has collected in the meantime because these allegations, obviously, were known about very many years ago. And i think a big thing that ive noticed with this case is that theres a lot of focus on the fact what may have happened, but theres not a discussion about the legality of this, the constitution constitutionality of going after a president for acts he committed in office. I think that would be an issue brought up front but his defense team to get this case dismissed outright. Elizabeth is so what francie just said excuse me, what katie just said about the constitutionality of that, francie. Can you take that on . I think katies got a great point, and, in fact, it really applies to most of these cases and issues that trump is charged with. Youve got the president ial records act, his statements while in office, you have the First Amendment. There are all sorts of legal issues. Youve got, in the florida case youve got real issues with that search warrant when it was executed, at the time it was executed on maralago. I said i thought it was constitutionally defective and overbroad, and you have to wonder whether or not youve got attorneyclient privilege problems. Because i think in that maralago case, theyre relying heavily on statements given to the grand jury by trumps lawyer who was ordered by the judge to pierce the privilege and testify against donald trump. So i think there are all sorts of constitutional issues this all these cases. And that is why prosecutors are supposed to have discretion, liz. Were supposed to be thoughtful before we bring charges. And what it looks like to me here is that every prosecutor thats bringing these charges or considering charges against trump is just rushing willynilly in not because of any real thoughtful consideration. Elizabeth yeah. To, you know, katie, to what francie just said. And byron york has pointed this out. By the gop debates, trump could have four indictments. Its the manhattan d. A. Case, the classified docs case, january 6th and also georgia. But, you know, New York Timessienna poll, he New York Times is reporting trump and is now neck and neck with biden in the polling. Well, certainly looks like election interference. And as francie was saying, these cases have significant legal issues. Im a criminal defense attorney, im to a former prosecutor, this is not a case where you have somebody dead to rights. The strongest case they probably have against him allegation wise deals with obstruction the of justice, destruction of evidence after he was out of office, and thats assuming they even have proof of that thats solid. But Everything Else is really a huge stretch legally speaking, and it looks very clearly politically motivated. These are not strong criminal cases against anybody, let alone against a former president who, by the way, was impeached for conduct that was relating to this anticipated indictment which is the remedy that the constitution calls for. And because the outcome wasnt what was desire ised by some, now here we are pursuing a prosecution that i truly believe is constitutionally impermissibling. Elizabeth you know, francie, sit tight. Katie, how would you punch holes in this case . Well, in terms of the january 6th case can, we are on a slippery slope if we start to charge president s for acts or statements committed while in office. If you look at the allegation or really the anticipated charges in that case, they all have to do with statements that donald trump made. So we have First Amendment issues all over the place. Were talking about conversations that he had with counsel, maybe even advice he received the from counsel. Thats another issue altogether. And then, of course, what ive mentioned multiple times here, the idea that the remedy for directing criminal misconduct of a president for acts committed while they were in office is impeachment which, obviously, was pursued and failed. So i dont know how they get past a lot of these issues. Really just out of the gate on that case in particular. Elizabeth francie, talk about what katie just said. Yeah, i agree with katie completely. I think you have serious constitutional issues. But also you have a real First Amendment problem here which katie talk talked about. If youre going to indict him for some sort of civil rights case where hes complaining the election was unfair and is you only have two months in order to File Lawsuits and try to get the Election Results overturned and it looks to me like trump really believed that the election was not fair, that there was some kind of interference, that there may have been [inaudible] we know the rules were changed in the muddle of the election before anyone went to the ballot. So i think that trump add had a good point. So the question is wheres the dividing line between a civil rights violation and a potentially mistaken claim of election interference or election henan gans shenanigans . Katies point is very well taken that that that impeachment is a remedy in the constitution for president ial misconduct in office, and they look like theyre pursuing him out of office. Elizabeth katie, francie, thanks for your insight. Lets bring in former assistant fbi director Chris Swecker. Chris, this comes on the heels of House Oversight chair james comer, you know, basically saying and we also have another gentleman thats going to join us in just a second. You know, can you talk to us about this indictment coming on the heels of House Oversight chair james comer basically saying he did talk to Kevin Mccarthy, and kevin measure cac mccarthy talked to the gop conference about potentially impeaching President Biden over what is going on and the Corruption Scandal there . If you ran the fbi criminal acquisition. Tuition. How is this looking finish division. How is this looking for biden here involving devon archer in. Yeah. I think that investigation is reaching Critical Mass from the standpoint of tying joe biden in to this what i call stream of services, Services Going in one direction, benefits, money, a meeting, firing a prosecutor going in the other direction, and and they core respond in time so theres no direct quid pro quo. Thats what an aggressive prosecution theory, an aggressive investigation looks like, but it wouldnt thats not what theyre doing. If we had, possibly if we had the special counsel on this, we might see a grand jury, we might see search warrants, we might see a more scorched earth investigation like we had with donald crump donald trump, but we dont see that. People from across all walks of life that i talk to, all professions ors theyre questioning this, they question the timing of all of these indictments, superseding indictments. Just seems like the Justice System is upside down right now. Elizabeth yeah, i mean, senator Chuck Grassley released fbi informant document alleging joe and hunter biden took bribes. Weve got that, weve got all this running against President Bidens claims he never knew and basically systematically lying to the American People that he didnt know what punter hunter was doing, you know, with selling his government job, selling influence. I mean, the story here this a lot of people in d. C. Talk about this, chris, that biden was a negative net worth before he became Vice President. He basically was told by obama youre not going to be the 2016 nominee, Hillary Clinton is. And then put hunter on the stick to do foreign lobbying, breaking laws in order so the bidens could buy big houses. Were talking, you know, mansions in delaware, beachfront houses, a corvette. So thats the look for biden here. Is he sitting there thinking, this is great, what jack smith is doing to trump . Oh, sure. I mean, he, again, thats what a real, thorough, scorched earth investigation looks like. And, you know, what were seeing is basically the fbi took a dive, doj manipulated things, and so we have nothing on the other side, you know, on the hunter biden side of things even though the biden family is coming out looking very much like a criminal interprize. I mean, you have all the money moving, all the shell corporations, the meetings, the phone conversation where mr. Big ducks in just long enough to verify that hunter e has him in the wings ready to do whatever they need for him to do. That is exactly how a criminal enterprise works, and Kevin Mccarthy said this earlier with. This actually, if the name wasnt biden, it was gotti or some other, you know, criminal name or even just trump, this would be a rico case against the bidens. It has every element of a racketeering caseful and the guy at the top, yeah, he doesnt jump down and give direct orders to the lower level minions, but hes up there, and hes issuing those orders with deniability, plausible deniability. You know, weve seen this before. All you have to do is look through, you know, all of the rico indictments over the last 20 years. Elizabeth how is this a racketeering cases in how would you bring that . Well, you have to have an organization in fact. Doesnt have to be a brand Name Organization even though in this case joe biden is the brand. You have to have two felony criminal violations over the course of 10 years, and thats pretty much it. Thats a little oversimplyification, but they have to be criminal federal felonies, they have to be in furtherance of the business of the organization which is the illegal business, some type of illegal business. In this case it can be wire fraud, it can be fara, it can be money laundering, it can be, you know, bribery which i just talked about honest services. All you really need is two violations over the course of 10 years, and you have to have organization. You can prove the organization by all their actions. Elizabeth its what biden insider devon archer testified to that. Burisma executives didnt like the prosecutor investigating burisma officials for corruption, tells hunter biden get on the phone. Hunter calls d. C. We dont know who he called in d. C. , right . But that certainly isnt a good look. And this is devon can archer testifying about 20 different times that joe biden called in on speakerphone to hunter biden and his Business Associates who happen to be oligarchs in places like china and ukraine. And the point is, final word, chris, thats only what devon archers talking about. We dont know what else went on with joe and hunter biden. Yeah. If you crosscheck against all of these witnesses and the laptop and the 1023 and the Money Movement and, you know, all of this evidence corroborated, you know, corroborates the next piece of evidence, if you will. Even though you may have shaky witnesses here and there, all the information matches up. And that spells a prosecution, in my book. And, you know, im not taking this lightly. Im not trying to just throw stuff up there to see if it sticks. I see real violations here. Elizabeth okay. Chris swecker, thank you so much. Lets bring in brian with clay pool, former defense attorney. What do you think of the actions today that former President Trump says hes expected to be indicted over the election interference and january 6th . Your analysis here . Yeah hey, liz, great to be with you. I think this is going to backfire for democrats. I think its a colossal mistake for smith to do another indictment against President Trump. I think at election time people are going to see two tiers, two avenues of justice. One is complete favoritism. The doj arguably jumping in bed with hunter biden and President Biden, not doing adequate investigations, not checking the laptop when an expert came in and said it hadnt been tampered with, not executing a search warrant on bidens home, not considering that whatsapp text that hunter biden sent to a cefc, that chinese corrupt company telling that cefc executive, hey, i guess my fathers sitting next to me. Unless you do what youre supposed to, theres going to be repercussions, and 5 million gets sent 5 days later. None of thats being investigated. People are going to look at that and then look at the other track which is lets find four indictments and try to get one to tick. And thats not how the Justice System works, liz. Prosecutors are supposed to be advancing cases that they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom. And i dont think any of the theres another indictment, i think theyre going to have a hard time on any of these four indictments if theres another one of proving this case beyond a reasonable doubt. And thats a travesty of justice. Elizabeth lets get back to Francey Hakes. What Brian Claypool was just talking about the corruption of the Justice System should terrify americans, that this plea deal that, for hunter biden that the doj allowed which would give him blanket immunity preemptively for future felonies, thats one thing. Peoples hair should be on fire about that, that the doj obstructed can and blockaded the investigation into hunter biden according to irs whistleblowers, blocked details about the hunter biden laptop before the 2020 election claiming it was russian disinformation and also gop officials accused the doj officials in manhattan trying to arrest devon archer before he was about to testify, francie. Put this all together. Yeah, i think thats a great way to put it. Americans hair should be on fire about what is going on at the department of justice. If you just look at what happened in the courtroom last week, liz, the department of justice sat and told the court that hunter biden failed to pay taxes on a Million Dollars he got from a chinese man that hunter biden himself then said was legal fees but not as counsel. In other words, he wasnt acting as counsel, somebody else was. But nobody followed up. What is he talking about, legal fees in and they said that with a straight the face because, of course, there was not a Million Dollars for legal fees. And you have devon archer, liz, who was convicted in 2018, just one year before Hunter Bidens laptop fell into the fbis possession, and doj normally would have put these two things together. Youve got the partner of hunter biden, youve got Hunter Bidens laptop, why didnt the department of justice go to the fbi and say go to e devon archer. Lets see if he wants to make a deal. Now hes been convicted, maybe we can lower his sentence elizabeth youre talking five years ago. Theyre saying they should have poached devon archer five years ago, right . Thats exactly right. W