nomination making his way down the steps as he prepares for another afternoon in court. it's an extraordinary situation to say the least of a former president and someone who is currently running. we have amazing fox team coverage. we have dana perino, shannon bream and jessica tarlov. first, let's go to david spunt live outside the federal courthouse where we expect the former president will pull up a short time from now. hi, david. >> hi, martha. it's symbolic here today. you can't see it on camera. we're just feet away from the u.s. capitol blocks away from the white house. the former president will make his way here, as you said, in motorcade. he will head before the magistrate judge. he won't be placed under arrest in handcuffs or mug shots. we know he will specifically be fingerprinted. once he's here, he's in the custody of u.s. marshals. he's not in the custody of the fbi. he's not going to have his hands behind his back. he did say he would be arrested today. i want to put up this truth social. he put before he left new jersey and flew to washington d.c., he just said i'm going to washington d.c. to be arrested for having challenged a corrupt rigged and stolen election. it's a great honor. i'm being arrested for you. make america great again. a historic day. the way this goes, this is a first appearance. this is an arraignment. he will be seated at the table with both of his attorneys. it's not clear if they will speak for him or he will enter his own plea of not guilty. as you said, this is the third time the former president has had to go before a judge and go through this. each time it's been a little bit different. still, he's used to it somewhat at this point. so we're waiting for this motorcade to appear here. security is heavy. there's several hundred members of the media out here. very small presence of protesters. pro trump, anti-trump. it's mostly media. no doubt, symbolic. near the u.s. capitol where the riots happened and the white house where the former president used to list, where he wants to live again. martha? >> martha: thank you, david spunt outside the federal courthouse. as the momentum builds here. you can see the motorcade leaving the airport in arlington, virginia. he will make his way to the courthouse. it's in the shadow of the capitol and the white house. very long motorcade there for the former president. some of his associates traveling with him. let's bring in our panel, dana perino, co host of "the five." shannon bream, chief legal correspondent and jessica tarlov, a fox news contributor and co host of "the five." great to have you with us this afternoon. thanks very much for being here. dana, let's start with you. your thoughts as we watch this play out. >> it's strange to think this is unprecedented and historic and also routine and kind of boring. because as david spunt just said, this is the third time. this is a different case. this is about january 6th. when the indictment came out, i read it. i thought it was new information. i read the whole thing. i thought how is it that i know all of this? they spent all of this time doing all of this investigation and put together things that you could have found that was in a google search. i don't understand how that is possible that they went forward with that. the other thing is, they made a strategic decision to just name donald trump and not the other co conspirators that are numbered in the docket. that is because they want this case to go to trial before the election. that is why i think a lot of people aren't out there protesting. because they think one is political or two, it's not going to work or three, if you're a democrat and i don't speak for the democrats or the republicans. jessica can tell me their point of view. in some ways as i read their coverage, they feel deflated and it's not the slam dunk that they thought it was especially with "the new york times" poll regardless of all the trump information that biden and trump are tied 43-43. >> it's stunning when you look at the numbers of people that say that they don't want either of these individuals to be the candidate. it's very interesting to read that truth social post from the former president. he clearly is leaning in to all of this politically. he's saying i'm doing this for you. he's an excellent -- he has an excellent ear for what is going on with people. he can feel -- he sees the poll, 71% of republicans say that it's time to stick with president trump. what do you think? >> yeah, this only helps him. every time there's an indictment, it helps in polling, this is good messaging for him. months ago before the first indictment, will you drop out if you get indicted? he said no, it will help. he's got a good ear for these things. he understands. not that he'll will be the capitol and the white house, but the supreme court. that's where this may end up. this is all unchartered territory. new cases, new theorys in many ways. to see a former president facing dozens and dozens of criminal charges, they could end up with those justices, three that came on his watch. a local of legal wrangling to go. the judge that he will face has been tough on the january 6th defendants that have come before her. she sentenced 34 of them. she's rule in 21 against the president on something regarding dockets for the january 6th committee. so his team has a very long uphill fight with this judge. and jury probably in d.c., too. >> martha: i want to follow up with one thing. do you think these cases go to trial before the election? >> i have doubts about that. there's so much pretrial wrangling that you do, motions, appeals. especially on the mar-a-largo case. people will file challenges to it. i have real doubts the federal cases will get there. >> martha: and the other layer of whether or not it is appropriate to bring a case that close to an election. so i think that is something to watch closely. i was just listening to andy mccarthy. he said something that really caught me just a moment ago. he said everyone in america, i'm paraphrasing, sees the haste to get these cases to trial before the political calendar. how do you think that reflects on democrats? >> the cases aren't being brought by the democrats. they're being brought by a special counsel and he's being indicted by a grand jury. he's not being indicted by andy mccabe sitting in a room. people forget that. i've heard so much about potential biases of this judge in d.c. look at the judge he got in florida. it's one he appointed and rule in favor of him and had to be overruled by the 11th circuit. so it's a bit of this, that bit of that. i love the people of south florida. i can't get a fair shake with the people in d.c. don't commit crimes in d.c. if you don't want to see a jury of d.c. residents. that's how it works. don't commit crimes at all and you can be running like a normal candidate. i was particularly struck by bill barr's interview last night. he went on. i thought this was going to be one block. he stayed on 40 minutes. really gave a whole host of opinions on this. one thing that particularly struck me is he thought the indictment was stronger than he expected it to be. so he thinks the mar-a-largo case, the classified documents case is the strongest. there's agreement on both sides of the aisle that that -- with the audio tapes and the pictures, et cetera. bill barr was saying that this is now a case that he understands why it was brought. there was new information there with mike pence's testimony, which to the january 6th committee was not able to get. >> martha: he said arguments of freedom of speech will protect you from conspiracy. if they can prove that link, the links are difficult. they're tenuous in my ways. connect those two things together. we're going to continue with our panel in just a moment. great coverage here from -- of the former president's trump arraignment. you can see the vehicles as they make their way across here. we have coming up, we'll take to bret baier, to neil cavuto, we'll talk to andy mccarthy later this hour. also joining us, jim turley and congressman jim jordan. we have this transcript from what devin archer told the oversight committee. now president joe biden about the their interactions with hunter and his business partners. wow. this is fascinating as well. so they will be here in moments. don't go anywhere. lots going on on "the story." i'm your overly competitive brother. check. psych! and i'm about to steal this game from you just like i stole kelly carter in high school. you got no game dude, that's a foul! and now you're ready to settle the score. game over. and if you don't have the right home insurance coverage, well, you could end up paying for all this yourself. so get allstate, and be better protected from mayhem, yeah, like me. thanks, bro. take a lap, rookie. real mature. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. veteran homeowners. if you're on a fixed income, inflation can hit you extra hard, especially if you're using high rate credit cards to take care of your family's expenses. even minimum payments are tough. it's too much and it's time to hit back. with a newday 100 va loan, you can borrow up to 100% of your home's value to pay off those high rate credit cards and other debt. and you can save $500 a month. that's $6,000 a year. we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? what, we have a ton of mulch. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. a literal ton. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around. with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only $30 bucks a line per month. that's hundreds in savings a year when you wave bye to the other guys. no wonder xfinity mobile is one of the fastest growing mobile services. you really shouldn't walk out the front door without it. switch today at xfinitymobile.com every business that's why comcast business de is launching theal. mobile made free event. with our business internet, new and existing customers can get one year of unlimited mobile for free. it's our best internet. powered by the next generation 10g network and with 99.9% reliability. plus one line of free mobile for an entire year. it's the mobile made free event-happening now. get started for just $49.99 a month. plus, ask how to get one free line of unlimited mobile. comcast business, powering possibilities. >> martha: former president trump minutes away from facing more criminal charges. this time it is in a washington federal court. let's bring in house oversight committee member jim jordan who is chair of the judiciary committee and a subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government. good to have you with us, congressman jordan. your thoughts as we watch this. it is pretty striking that i think americans become sort of bored with watching the former president go through this process. i didn't think i would see that. >> well, i do think the end result, the take-away is, i think this just strengthens just hardens the support for president trump and expands it. dana mentioned earlier that you look at the poll numbers earlier in the week, it's 54 to 17 in the republican primary. but more importantly, he's dead even with joe biden in the "new york times" poll. if that's what "the new york times" is saying, it's probably better for president trump in another poll. this i think only, again, hardens his support, expands his support because the country gets it. the reason that is happening is because so much of the country is sick of this nonstop attack, this ridiculous attack on president trump for seven years and this elite attitude in washington d.c. that we're better than everybody, a different set of rules. hillbillies in ohio, fly-over country are sick of it. we're going to support president trump. that's the take-away and the result of this. >> martha: that's absolutely echoed in the polls you just mentioned and that we talked about moments ago. it's clear and it's clear that president trump, the former president knows that. he said in his truth social post just a short time ago, basically i'm doing this for you. you know, don't mind doing this, it's an honor because i'm doing it for you. it's fascinating to watch this play out, especially so in the wake of what we're seeing on the other side of the aisle with the hunter biden investigation. i want to put this up. i'll cut out if we see that, guys. this is pretty interesting. this is a letter that joe biden wrote to devin archer in 2011. he was i guess -- they were just starting out in this business trying to put together a business that dealt with government regulatory measures and making that to a private equity fund. you know, all sort of under the auspices of the support that they would get from washington at that time and ostensively the president. dear devin, i apologize for not talking to you yesterday. i had trouble getting away hosting president hu, the president of china. i hope to get back to you with hunter soon. happy you guys are together. what do you make of this letter and his contention that he doesn't have any connection to his son or devin archer in these businesses that they were running? >> just one more piece of evidence that he did have connections. remember, 2 1/2 years ago, we had a former business partner, mr. bobulinski say the e-mail from the laptop, the laptop that is real, the e-mail says 10% for the big guy. the big guy is joe biden. we have the piece of evidence you talked about. this note from 2011. we have the whatsup app message. then we have the 1023 form which says, you know, the confidential human sources trusted by the fbi talking with foreign nationals sending money for the bidens for po policy preferences. an then we have the devin archer testimony and the meeting in dubai where the two people from burisma are meeting with hunter biden and devin archer and they say we need the government to step in because we're under so much pressure. so all that begins to pile up. >> martha: it does. i'd love to put another piece of the puzzle in here, if i may. this is from the transcript of devin archer's testimony, oversight. a lot of people saw congressman dan goldman come out and say, you know what? they talked about the weather when joe biden was on this speaker phone. this is nothing. they checked in all the time. particularly a close family. when you look at what was said here, it's interesting. representative goldman says hunter biden never asked his father to take official actions on behalf of his business partner's. archer, he did not, he did not ask him to my knowledge. i never saw him say or do anything for a particular business. 0 goldman: you're not aware of joe biden doing anything to help his son's business partners? archer: no, the calls were -- that's what it was. they were calls to talk about the weather and that was signal enough to be powerful. he left out that last part when he was in front of the cameras, congressman. >> of course, the whole idea was i'm going to get the vice president on the phone. they're not going to talk about business. that isn't what was needed. what was needed i can get my dad on the phone who happens to be vice president of the most important country in history who has a lot of influence in d.c. i can get him on the phone. hey, everyone. say hello to the vice president. we knew what these calls were. we don't need them to tell us what they talked about. we knew how it was mr. archer described it. that's the brand. that's the access. it wasn't an illusion of access. that meeting in dubai on december 4, 2015 where they talk about the pressure they're under, five days later, joe biden goes to ukraine, gives a speech criticizing the prosecutor that was applying the pressure to burisma. that begins this pattern over the next few months that they get the prosecutor fired so ukraine can get the people i represent, the american people's t tax dollars. there wasn't an illusion. we see it all in ukraine. >> martha: let me ask you this. this is coming out of the house oversight committee. does the fbi and the doj have all of the same information watching and if so, why hasn't it been further investigated? i always go back to tony bobulinski giving his laptop and his phone to the fbi and saying they never called me, they never asked me. has there ever been an actual investigation into this? if so not, why? and if there isn't, what is your avenue and where do you stand on this impeachment question, which has been raised by some of your colleagues? >> i think they have the information. that's why they structured the agreement the way they did. understand that agreement that the judge said time-out on and god bless her for doing so, that agreement on hunter biden's plea, there were -- the concerns there were they left out the 2014, 15 years. those are the years that deal with burisma and the money they're getting there. those were conveniently left out. they didn't press the charges there. mr. shapley and mr. zeigler said they should have. there was strong agreement in doing that until all of a sudden they have this meeting and decide we're not going that route. we don't have what david weiss said he did. that's why they did have this information and structured the agreement to make sure it wasn't part of the agreement and they wouldn't bring the charges against hunter biden. >> martha: that's what's hard for people. people say hey, does that -- when does it pass the smell test? you have one situation where all of the evidence seems to disappear or get put on the back burner or get ignored. then this really soft plea deal comes forward. on the other side of the screen right now, you have this situation where this very fast pace to go through all of these indictments for the former president and to make sure that those trials are happening boom, boom, boom. how are people to perceive that? >> no, i think you said this earlier, martha. i agree with you. i heard andy mccarthy say this. the political overlay to this, you can see it happening. the simple selection of jack smith. jack smith is the guy that was trying to prosecute the very people that were being targeted been the obama irs in the lois learner thing a decade ago. so the selection of that guy shows the political nature of this. as andy pointed out, this is one after the other. the pace they're trying to do it, the way they did it, having anyone else indicted. it's designed to get to court as quick as they can because it's about politics. it's about stopping president trump that went to the white house and did what he told the american people he was going to do. that's why this bond is so strong between his voters and the president because they truly believe -- they believe it because it's true. when the president says they're coming after me because i'm fighting for you, they know it. they know it. today will just reinforce that, strengthen that. i think expand it. >> martha: i think everybody would like to see a justice situation that you can have faith and confidence in. where the people that are running investigations don't have political leanings. they tell us that all the time. when you watch how this plays out. people are smart. they get it. they think the treatment is different. that's why you're seeing this surge for the former president, you know. it's a fascinating situation as people are lined up out here. we'll see where this goes. the "wall street journal" said difficult and dangerous months ahead as we watch this play out. these overlapping courtroom situations and a presidential campaign on top of each other. last thought, sir. >> it's been my experience when people have to tell you they're doing something, they typically aren't. every time we hear them say it's about equal application of the law, that's what we're doing, we're not biassed about enforcing the law. baloney. it's about politics. you don't have to tell people if you're doing it the right way. if you're equally applying the laws across the board. when you have to tell us, in my experience, people have to tell you i'm the hardest worker in the word. just work hard. don't tell me about it. you see it all the time. that's what we're getting. >> martha: a lot of good americans want justice. if someone commits a crime, they want to see them do the time or do the punishment for that crime. they want to see things be even-handed across the board, thanks congressman jordan. great to have you here. >> thank you. >> martha: so a live look at the scene right now outside of the federal courthouse in washington where former president trump is now inside to be arraigned on four charges today involving efforts to overturn 2020 election. that's the nature of these charges. griff jenkins, national correspondent live in washington d.c. hi, griff. >> hi, martha. good afternoon. that's right. the former president inside the courthouse now. he did not come, martha, down constitution avenue, which we were showing you the last hour. the proximity with which this courthouse sits just a few blocks from the capitol where the january 6th riots happen. instead, he came down third street and turned in to the garage. the motorcade went in there. what is happening at this moment is the processing. before he goes before a magistrate judge, he will be processed, have his fingerprints taken. there's no mug shot. he will not be arrested. once he's in the hands of the marshalls, he will make the court appearance and be arraigned. we fully expect he will plead not guilty to the four felonies he's facing. three are conspiracy charges, one is an obstruction charge. the magistrate judge he will go before today is not the judge that will preside over the trial. that is a judge that is an obama appointee. this is just the initial court appearance and the a rainment and this magistrate judge, we don't expect to take a long time. the scene out here, by the way, heightened security. you can see the u.s. marshalls put up railing around here. a lot of law enforcement. a handful of protesters. some for the president, some against the former president. a lot of media. it somewhat resembled the scene in june down in miami outside the courthouse when former president trump was arraigned for classified documents. it's less of a circus. nonetheless, certainly historic in nature. we have no idea exactly what the former president will do afterwards. you remember in miami, martha, he went to a cuban restaurant and was very visible to the public. we're not sure exactly what will happen know. we do know this. he will finish this, being arraigned on his third indictment in four months. a total across the new york charges, the miami charges and the d.c. charges, 78 total crimes he's facing. it's really stacking up legal woes for the former president, martha. >> martha: thanks, griff, outside the courthouse in washington d.c. let's bring in our next excellent panel. we have neil cavuto anchor of "your world," bret baier, chief political anchor and anchor of "special report" and andy mccarthy is back with us, fox news contributor and jonathan turley, constitutional attorney, gwu law professor and a fox news contributor. great to have you with us. thanks for being here. neil, let's start with you. your thoughts as we hear that the president is inside having his fingerprints taken for the third time in this indictment. >> we're getting used to this. it's weird. very weird. i was thinking of just what the president, the former president is facing and what his outlook calendar could look like as they pen in all of these events coming up. i know they're all moving targets. you have just potentially a couple months away, an investigation into the president's finances, a potential extended session at that. in january, you'll have the second part of the jean carroll civil rape case. that's something that he has to deal with. in march, maybe the whole hush money case and payments to porn stars and all that. you get past that, the big trial, the whole mar-a-largo document thing, the most significant for the time being. but for the time being. some of these -- obviously the president would like to push off and maybe delay it until past the election. i don't know whether that can be done with all of these. we have another one coming up potentially from georgia regarding the president's role in the recount there. just to keep track of that and to understand this is a guy, the leading candidate by a country mile for president of the united states in the republican party and dead even money, if not better, in a general election rundown deinto it this, maybe because of this is staggering. >> martha: it is. let's go back to that. thanks for laying that out. if you can take a close look down there. this is really astonishing. on the upper level here, you have starting with the debate on august 23, you have the political events, which ends with the election in november. along the bottom, you have the different court appearances. it's stunning, bret. you look at this matchup in what has been called a rotating carnival of courthouses and rallies. this is -- we talk about unprecedented a lot. this combination, very unprecedented in the presidential election cycle. >> martha: neil put his finger on it, this is surreal. it is. to dana's point, it's also ordinary now in our third indictment, our third roundabout on this. this election is nothing like we have ever seen before. the 45th president is running for the white house again. his vice president served with him is now a part of this indictment. part of this in a paragraph where it talks of phone call that only vice president pence and president trump were on. very detailed in which president trump allegedly says, according to the indictment and according to vice president pence, that he is too honest. take that moment in this indictment and put it in politics. the vice president currently is campaigning, running against his former boss. they have just come out with merchandise. hats and t-shirts today, too honest. we're in a different place now. the courtroom and what happens in these cases and the rallies versus president biden, whose approval rating is going down and president trump's is going up inside the gop primary. >> martha: it's a fascinating upside-down world of sorts. incredible to watch this play out. this piece of american history no matter how you slice it. jonathan turley, i thought it was interesting. i spoke to former vice president pence. current candidate yesterday. he believes that the president asked him to put the former president, donald trump, above the constitution. he says that you cannot serve -- no one should be president that would do that. you're a constitutional attorney. did he do that? if that is the case, do you agree with mike pence? >> that was a fascinating interview, particularly when you asked how he would vote on the jury, which was quite a question. he said i'm not sure. the fact is that pence was right on that day. you know, i criticize president trump's speech while he gave it on the air. also his criticism of pence. pence had no choice to do what he did. he carried his constitutional function. the question is whether being wrong means that you are a criminal. that's what is at the heart of this indictment. the indictment is full of references to how the president sped lies. he presented disinformation. how so many people told he was he was wrong. i was one of them. but he listened to others. he listened to a small group of lawyers that were presented their own theories about the election. i think they were wrong. they have been proven wrong. but the question is it criminal to take that position? that's why the first issue here is going to be a -- >> martha: hang on a second. we're watching the live things, this is one of the former president's tens. let's see what she's saying. >> on march 17, he admits it was his laptop from hell. today d.a. alvin bragg indicts president trump. june 8, an fbi document is released showing ukrainians paid the biden crime family millions and millions of dollars. the next day, the mar-a-largo raid. last week hunter biden i was sweetheart plea deal fell through when the judge realized that they had blanket immunity. the following day, a superseding indictment against donald trump. july 31, devin archer goes to testify in front of the house. that was only after they failed to put him in jail, prior to the fact. what happened the next day? the january 6th indictment that we're here for today. this is not a coincidence. this is election interference at its finest against the leading candidate right now for president. for either party. president trump is under siege in a way that we have never seen before. president trump and his legal team and everyone on his team will continue to fight, not for him, but for the american people. i'll take some questions. >> i know the president has called this a witch hunt. you just laid out several examples. any other thoughts that the president has communicated to you in terms of why this is going on and why he calls it a witch hunt? >> a witch hunt is the really the way that anybody should describe this. it's not something that we've seen in our time. this is not even political. this is beyond that. a witch hunt is when you attack your opponent, relentlessly attack the thing you're most afraid of. people are afraid of somebody that cannot be bought by washington. they're afraid of something that is independently wealthy and given up his good life to fight for this country. that frightens a lot of career politicians because he will get back and fight for everyone of us so this doesn't happen to us. >> the special counsel says trump could have disagreed with the results and talked about it. the different is what he did to try to switch the votes. >> so what is it that he did to try to switch the votes that you refer to? by bringing cases, by using the law in an appropriate manner? this is not appropriate. what president trump did as he said, go patriotically and peacefully. protest. that's an american right. that's why we are america and not a third world country, although i don't say like we're in america today. >> [question inaudible] >> every court needs to look at this as a whole. it's not about the january 6th case. it's about the fact that in a matter of a couple months, we've seen them tie up one individual that is running a campaign in a campaign, running for office for president so that he's in court, in depositions and distracted so that he won't properly 1 for 2024. it's not going to work. >> is his team going to argue the election was stolen? >> that's not the argument that needs to be made. anybody that believes that is misreading this. the truth is as an american, there were questions that he had regarding the election integrity. we've seen documents come out, we've seen documentaries come out showing there were issues with the election. frankly, by bringing this, i don't think jack smith thought it through. there only has to be proof that number 1, president trump believed that this election was not completely honest and jack smith has opened himself up the a can of worms that we can look at and really examine. >> you believe he's innocent and this is all a setup? why not bring it to trial as fast as possible before the election to clear his name? >> i'd love to do that. there's something called discovery. when somebody wants to say an election was perfect and president trump has no right to object to it, we have to so them the facts. everybody has their time to say that donald trump should be rushed and not be given the same fair proceeding that anybody else has is not the way our system works. >> a lot of lawyers that helped him try to overturn the election are unnamed co conspirators in the indictment. jenna ellis isn't. why do you think that is? >> i'm not going to speak to co-conspirators or anybody else. >> there's a -- there's testimony from a number of aides that have said the president was made aware he lost the election and continued to argue that it was stolen from him. how do you reconcile those two things? >> everybody was made aware that he lost the election. that doesn't mean that was the only answer he was given. if anybody understands what happens in the oval office, there's a lot of politicians and lawyers giving you advice, telling you what they believe is try. he may not agree with mike pence or his lawyers. that doesn't mean there were other people advising him the opposite. the president has a right as every one of us do to listen to several opinions and make their decision. >> i remember hairing hillary clinton and stacey abrams argue their elections were not right. >> absolutely. >> the weaponization of the doj didn't happen then. >> no, of course not. if your last name is trump, it's very different. hillary clinton can have a problem. we could have a complete liberal meltdown as we saw. when we have disagreements, we take them to court. we say do things peacefully and patriotically. he's to blame for things he didn't do. folks, this is not about that. this is about politics, this is about 2024, period. the end. thank you. >> martha: thanks. alina habba, attorney for former president trump answering questions there. bret, andy and jonathan are still with us. her argument is interesting, andy, about them -- she says they're trying to gum up his entire election cycle by having him in court all the time. is that -- does she have a valid point and is there a valid argument that this should go after the election? >> i think she not only makes a valid point, martha, i think it's a finer point than maybe she realizes. because this is not a violent crime case. when you have crimes like that, your dealing with people that you have to get off the street and in custody. once you have people in custody, there's pressure to get through the case more quickly. so people's rights aren't violated. this isn't that case. the government's presentation in all of these different cases, the justice department's as well as the ones i think we'll see from the prosecutor in atlanta and we have already seen from the prosecutor in manhattan, these cases would be exactly the same if they weren't tried until, say, december of 2024. in other words, the government would note at all be prejudiced by putting this all so the election process, which is constitutionally very important, could work its way through the system. the only reason to act with this haste, to boom, boom, boom, get these cases in front of the not only juries but the public on a political calendar is clearly political. i don't want to beat a dead horse. but first of all, jack smith, his existence as a special counsel is political. there's no conflict of interest between the biden justice department and donald trump. there's a profound conflict of interest between the biden justice department and trying to investigate the bidens. but merrick garland wouldn't appoint a special counsel, which you're supposed to do with a conflict of interest. yet he appointed one for smith. why did he do that? he did it because biden and garland knew that they were going to bring, for example, the case that is in arraignment today. and they didn't want to have their fingerprints on it. they knew trump's pitch in the campaign was going to be that biden was using the justice department to persecute him. so they brought smith in as a political fiction that biden and garland don't have anything to do with the prosecution even though smith exercises biden's power and answers to garland. this is political from the get-to and trying to put it. >> martha: that's one of the most interesting aspects, whether or not they can pull that off. they say we can't do this too close to an ebbing -- election or whatever. it's an interesting look at this, bret. there's sort of a political line of thought that the biden team would like to run against president trump. he beat him last time. they feel he's the person that can beat him again. a lot of water under the bridge since then. now his numbers are going up based on this relentless -- whether you think it's accurate or not, it's a relentless pace of prosecution. you think that changes their feelings about it? >> martha: that's a good question. i still think they would like to run against the former president at the end of the day. they feel president biden is best positioned there and there's a lot of variables about the others. he's strong not only in the gop primary but increasingly strong in the general election. that "new york times" poll out this week had it dead tied. other polls are tracking that. i want to go back to that news conference. you heard jonathan swan asking that question about who was named or believed to be named as co-conspirators. jenna ellis that worked on this with former president trump was not. also not in this indictment is former chief of staff, mark meadows. and there's a belief that there's cooperation that is going on here. jared kushner is not mentioned in this indictment. the question is, is there's another shoe to drop here? is there it? could there be another superseding indictment like the documents case. we don't know. what they're trying to focus on is the denial of civil rights of votes based on a 1870 law passed under ulysses grant. >> martha: great point. jonathan, when we look at the connection that needs to be made here and bret raises a point about who might have material to raise into this, we have seen the indictment. we haven't seen the full case. perhaps some of those people are involved. but the link that has to be drawn on this criminal indictment is between, you know, saying that you don't believe the outcome of the election and linking that to the action offed conspiracy. so you have to link it. we don't have an incitement charge in here, we don't have a seditious conspiracy charge in here that is what we saw from the oath keepers and all that was orchestrated from trump or anyone at the white house. that link has not been made in this indictment. >> that's right. that's the most glaring omission, is that if you recall, the second impeachment was based on the argument of various democrats like adam schiff and others that it was a established that the president was guilty of incitement, seditious conspiracy and these other crimes. they're not in this. you'd think they were from what smith said in his press conference. he talked as if trump was being indicted for the attack on the capitol. he's not. he's being indicted for spreading lies. that's what the indictment says over and over again. and they insist that he knew they were lies. note, the justice department says that he's constitutionally protected in making false statements. but not if he didn't think that they were true. well, that gets back to bret's statement. do they have someone like mark meadows or someone else that will say, you know what the? he told me that this was all one big scam. you know, trump from all of the accounts, seems to be on message consistently. many people believe that he does believe this. but the question for i think the courts, particularly the appellate courts, is this what we want to have in the criminal code? do we want the federal government to be able to arrest poll situations and say, yeah, you can say false things, but not when you know they're false and you shouldn't listen to us. that's a dangerous road to go down. i think that when you also look at what was raised earlier about the nature of these counts, i think that that, 19th century law involving the denial of voting rights is very sketchy in terms of its legal use here. but they still have to face the first amendment questions. i think a lot of judges are going to be highly skeptical about this indictment. keep in mind, martha, if you believe that the president may have believed this all along like many people have said he does, this entire case collapses. that's why, by the way, i'm not so sure trump wouldn't have invited this case. he has a lot to worry about in florida. this case, ready for order, for trump, i think a lot of americans view this as they did the new york case. that smith may have left a lot of the public behind here. you know, i think you're going to see that play out in the coming days. >> martha: just to put a fine point on it, you have to -- if you can prove -- it's so circular. if you can prove that he lost the election, then you're creating intent. intent to deceive. that's a conspiracy, i guess? it's pretty tough. >> yeah, there's two lynchpins here. first in the alvarez case, the supreme court dell with a politician that knowingly lied. the court said that was protected. more importantly, you have the lynchpin to the later steps, third parties taking steps to create a sec set of electors. whether he is responsible for those actions. that's why this is really attenuated in my view. each of these lynchpins has a hole for smith to be able to bring this to a jury. >> martha: okay. jonathan, thank you very much. great to have you with us. let's bring back in neil cavuto, anchor of "your world." dana perino, former white house press secretary, newsroom co abe core, co host of "the five." i want to start with a little bit of colors from what's going on in the courthouse. this is coming from jake gibson, our producer on the ground there. the former president will gaggle the tarmac at reagan international airport once the motorcade arrives there. the statement that he will make will be right after this. we'll cover all of that. they're in the media room right now. they can see the courtroom. special counsel jack smith has entered the courtroom and is sitting down in the front row. former president trump has not entered the courtroom yet. so we're keeping close eye on that. molly gadsden team sitting at table as well. sources with fox digital says the president will plead not guilty. your thoughts, neil. >> i'm no lawyer. i have watched enough episodes of "law and order" to qualified. what is fascinating, this indictment is just charging donald trump. it's just him. they talk about these six co-conspirators. they're not part of this process today, which gets back to this notion that maybe this is the case jack smith wants or wants to have the best chance of expediting, getting it moving quickly unlike the mar-a-largo case, the documents, national security issues that could delay key portions if not push it into the year after next, let alone next year. with this case, keeping it simple, keeping it focused on him, keeping it focused on his motives. keeping it focused on where he was coming from or whether he knew in his heart of hearts that the challenge of the election was not backed up by the facts. that this was an is meant to be expedited. you have a judge involved in this case who has a record of moving with great speed and severity. she has kneaded out big punishments for those that stormed the capitol. in nine of those cases, exceeding the jail time that prosecutors recommended. i put that in my legal hoard born of "law and order" episodes to think -- i know the real lawyers are saying this guy is beyond beyond. this is the emphasis here. let me clear this decks to get this clearly done quickly. >> martha: shannon, what do you think? >> this case is more streamlined than the mar-a-largo case with the documents. that one will be very involved. there will be all kinds of challenges to the classified documents. getting things vetted. the pretrial motions will take longer than that. this judge won't have tolerance for a lot of pretrial motions. one of the things you have to imagine president trump's team will ask for is change of venue. dana and i know living many years in washington d.c., it's not trump country. it is a place that voted 92% for president biden. his team will argue he can't get an unpolitically biassed jury there. they know they're going to hostile territory with this particular case. it's more smaller than the mar-a-largo case. so it does have a chance of going earlier. there's so much that happens before a huge federal case. you heard the president's attorney out there saying that it took them years to put together this case as dana pointed out. doesn't have a lot of stuff we didn't know about. but we need time to put together our defense, too. >> martha: i'm thinking back to prior elections and things that hillary clinton said about president trump. he knows he's an illegitimate president. the argument is the russians had interfered in social media and they were able to infiltrate people's thought process in a lot of ways. a lot of other tangents to the case that they were making. 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 happened today? you had president trump leading the news again. eight other candidates wanting to run against him for the republican nomination. they can't get on air. why? we're all going to talk about this. this is so -- he puts out a truth social post. he said i'm going up there. i'm going to get arrested for you. you pointed this out, martha. that resonated with his voters. his lead is there and it's strong and the rest of the candidates are thinking what can i do. so the court of public opinion is well out there. then you have his lawyer who is willing to take several questions from the press. you don't have the justice department doing that. you don't have cameras in the courtroom where jack smith can answer some questions. they're allowing the trump team to absolutely dominate the news cycles, even if the other media is not covering this. that's not where the majority of people are getting their news anymore. they're getting it online, on their phones. hopefully getting it here, getting it on podcasts. president trump is giving the press something to talk about to question the justice department. so i hate it when people lose news cycles if they're supposed to win them. i look at this and think professionally, it's shocking to me the justice department is leaving so much on the ground. >> martha: it's a great point. neil, politically, you've interviewed a lot of these candidates. we've all spoken to them and speaking to them more. they cannot get any oxygen. they can't break through this news cycle. i would imagine the former president doesn't love the finger pointing but no doubt, he's very shrewd about understanding the impact and the platform that he has. >> neil: sucking all the oxygen out of the room. it's interesting here. if you look at these indictments put together, now 78 different charges. you know, some of those carry substantial jail time if found guilty on them. my only point is conviction on anything could change the game here. there was a reuter's poll -- i don't know who polls we're able to quote. i apologize. the sentiment expressed there is that such a developments, a conviction for the former president would turn off a lot of those same republican voters that are rallying to him. not all of them. it was close to half. that might change their sentiment now. that's the irony of a pending trial, if we get into march or april or may of next year. by which time you could have conceivably given his lead in the polls, donald trump having all the delegates he needs to be the republican presidential nominee. that is something that we can't fathom. i think given all of this, the possibility of going 78-0 and mow them down, that is a tough road to hoe. that could change everything in a conviction come forward. there's a lot of people that might say, no, no, this is a bridge -- i don't know. >> martha: i feel -- shannon, i feel like i've heard it's a bridge too far with the 45th president going all the way back to the access hollywood tape before he was elected the first time. i think he's politically just different. appeals to his voters in a different way. and the rules are different when it comes to this president as you look at history and what you would have expected. people said recently, if there's more than this first indictment, that might be the deal breaker. if there's another one, here we are. there's no change. you think neil is right? would a conviction sit differently with american voters or not? >> i might be more emboldening. we have to vote this guy in. if federal charges, he could pardon himself in convicted and became president. we have state charges to deal with too. now we're standing by any day with georgia. that would be a team with a very full plate. >> martha: the drama is continuous. quick thought, dana, before we go to neil? >> as i mentioned, the news cycle, i think the trump team is winning that news cycle today and i expect that to continue into tonight. >> martha: thanks, dana. shannon, great to see you. we'll see dana at 5:00 and shannon sunday and later here as well. now our live coverage continues as neil takes over his hour. hi, neil. >> neil: thanks. do not go far. i have questions to ask you. but we're waiting to see how this sorts out today. the former president of the united states is facing his third arrest or arraignment however you want to describe in the last four months. this is supposed to be the case that is the most expedited or deemed to be the one that the main prosecutor here thinks could really cinch his case and cinch what he wants to see happen. that is eventually make sure that donald trump never can be president of the united states