again, that wasn't the perceived goal here. that was the perception among his supporters that think it's gone too far. let's get more from griff jenkins. >> that's right, neil. fox news confirmed that former president trump is indeed in the courtroom right now. he entered at about 3:52 p.m. so just under ten minutes ago. he's wearing a blue suit, a red to you. flanked by his two attorneys. fox has confirmed that we expect him to plead not guilty to the four felony charges he's facing in this indictment. three are conspiracy charges, one is obstruction. before he entered that courtroom, a little less than an hour ago, his motorcade entered the garage here at the federal courthouse. he was processed and fingerprinted. there's no mug shot taken because the court says there's plenty of pictures of him to provide. he's not arrested. but he is obviously being processed. now we wait for this court proceeding to get underway at the time of our note from our producer, jay gibson inside, the magistrate judge had not entered the courtroom. he will go before a judge today. the judge that will preside over the trial, 2014 obama appointee is different. she comes later. meanwhile, before the former president entered the courthouse, his trump -- trump's legal spokesperson, alina habba did a short gaggle with the press, neil. she said among other things, the former president is under siege like never before. this is election interference against its finest against the leading candidate. she took time to point to as we have documented the pattern of news that relateds to say hunter biden and then the next day, there's something pertaining to trump's legal woes. it lasted 10 minutes. took four or five questions. outside the courtroom, the scene is one of high security, a lot of media. a handful of supporters. many for president -- former president trump and some protesters against him. right now, all eyes waiting to see what happened. just to give a lay of the land for our viewers overshadowing this whole proceeding is the u.s. capitol just a few blocks down the street, a short walking distance where the january 6th riots took place and the crux of what jack smith, who is also in the courtroom at this time is trying to tie the former president to. that's a situation out here, neil. we're keeping an eye on it. >> martha: . >> neil: i know martha touched on this but we're not expecting a statement there at the courthouse. >> we don't know. remember, if you go back to june when i was covering the arraignment there when he was dealing with the documents case, the former president left and won't to a cuban restaurant that was accessible to the press. we don't know what he's going to do he's going to walk out, talk to us here. our understanding is that spokesperson, alina habba that gave us a gaggle may be all we get. you never know. the former president has surprised us. we'll see what happens. >> neil: thanks very much for that, griff. again, the third time that we've seen this. there's more to come. we'll tell you more about the case involving the former president's role in the georgia recount case. fulton county prosecutor has end kated that she was ready to go. we don't know what she meant by that. let's bring in our panel to cover this. here's martha maccallum from "the story" with martha maccallum. her co-debate moderator is joining us, bret baier, anchor of "special record." snazzy dresser always. andy mccarthy is here as well. he knows something about the legal process. probably not as much with me with my "la law" background. martha, start with you. i'd like you take is what is at stake here. much has been said of the judge not handling this particular arraignment today. but there be handling this case. this obama appointee. she called this a historic event. i'm just wondering if she's been tough on those who were involved on the storming of the capitol on january 6 and kneading out sentences that won't beyond prosecutors were asking. will she be tougher on the guy they were answering to? >> could be. as jessica tarlov pointed out, the take was that in florida he has a judge that might be more favorable to him because he appointed her. in this case, it might be the perception at least, might be that it could go in a different direction. when it comes to change of venue issues or the pace of this trial, she's known for having a speedy pace with these other january 6th situations. so she play be cut to the chase kind of judge on this. it's interesting. she's not there today. it was a magistrate that handled this case. we have more color from jake gibson about what it's like in there according to him, our producer on the ground. he says the president was stoic when he entered the room. when he enters the room, he has just come from the processing phase of all of this. the fingerprinting, you know, which it has to be a difficult experience for anybody going through that, no matter how much you may feel that you're sort of fighting for the people as he has said in his truth social post. that can't be pleasant. he look around the room, signed more papers. about 20 feet from jack smith in this room. obviously somebody that he doesn't want the glad hand. you know, obviously said a lot of things about him. this is a tense situation even though it's the third time we've watched this. one that the former president is clearly trying to leverage as best he can politically. >> neil: bret, you talked to the president. we had the alvin bragg in new york. you know, i'm not saying the former president look flustered, but you can tell this was an overwhelming first time in my life experience kind of thing. this is the third time. might not be the last time. how do you think he's comporting himself? you've had a chance to see him up close in that interview. i know he takes it case by case. the bravado and everything asosated with it. how is he dealing with this from what you can see? >> neil, good afternoon. first of all, this is all surreal. the fact that griff jenkins, our correspondent is out there with the other arraignment that he covered, we're on our third one here. this is pretty amazing as we talk about this. i think the president, you're right. for all the bravado on truth social, all the things he says, i think those images and when we had a glance in manhattan of his face are someone who does take this seriously. he's facing a lot of time in jail if he's convicted of all of these things. he doesn't believe he's going to be. he believes he will fight it all. i think the bravado is real. but at moments, he thinks about the seriousness of what he's looking at. that judge is in -- she first ruled on the access by the january 6th committee by the white house files and the background information. in making that ruling, she said from the bench, the president is not king and he's no longer president. she's in a number of these cases about january 6th rioters, made clear her disdain obviously for that day, that moment and what it means for democracy. so in that context, i think she's not -- probably going to hold the reins tight in this courtroom. >> neil: does that mean that -- by that, andy, from what bret said, obviously the trump folks are going to want to push this back and punt it back as far as they possibly can. she might not abide that. but can she force that issue to say i know what you want, but here's what i'm going to do, end of story. >> i think she's a very hard time doing that here, neil. this is because of the tactical move that smith may end up regretting. that is if you really want to get this case to trial quickly, you indict this one first. instead, what he did, he indicted the florida case first. that gives former president trump the ability to come in to the judge's court and say, you know, he tactically undermined my due process right to prepare a defense in this trial by choosing not only to indict me in another district but to persuade the judge in that district to get the case to trial in may. so it's very hard for him at this point to then say and we need to get this case to trial very quickly. now, she may be very open to that argument. but he has made himself kind of a minefield in terms of doing that. i would just say about this case, to a point that bret made before, for what it's worth, i had indictments where i had co conspirators or accomplice witnesses. i like to put them in the indictment. i know there's a lot of speculation know about people whose names are not in the indictment. typically when you have people cooperating with the government, you want that in the indictment. you want to describe it, you want to describe who they are. they help you in some ways make the allegations that you put in to the indictment. and that goes back to the jury when they're deliberating over the case. so that's the kind of thing that -- i'd be surprised if he's leaning heavily on people that aren't mentioned in the indictment one way or the other. >> neil: john, we learned that -- i think martha touched on it. and bret indirectly. the former president is in the room now. jack smith is in the room. donald trump, you know, we're told kept looking at him -- not kept, but was looking at him. i'm wondering how you can explain this sort of stage setting here. almost comes across to me like the stare-off before a prize fight. they're staring at each other and looking at each other and weighing each other. i won't do my mr. t impression. i'll save you that. i'm wondering what to make of that. what do you look for? looking at how people are sizing each other up. the president no fan of jack smith. it's clear from the remarks and the statements that we heard out of jack smith. neither her of the former president. play that kind of drama behind the scenes out. it's probably more body language than anything else. what do you think? >> great question. i never told you this, but i worked in that courthouse for more than a year. i was a clerk for one of the great d.c. circuit judges. very aware of the historic importance of that courtroom. that is the courtroom where president truman was stopped from seizing the steel middles. that's where president nixon was made to hand over the tapes for the watergate case. the most important criminal trial in the history of our country will take place in the d.c. courthouse. it's on par with the earlier decisions, the earlier cases that means so much to the constitution and our political system. it's actually not a very big courtroom. it looks like a lot of the others. the judge is way up there on a dias. the prosecution and the defense sit close to each other. they'll be looking at each other the whole trial. one of the interesting questions despite the historic significance, is president trump going to show up for every day and every minute of the proceedings? he has the right to do so. we want the jury to see him. we have the belief in hour system that when you put witnesses up on the trial, they should be confronted by the defendant so we can tell who is lying and who is not. president trump has to conduct a re-election campaign. will he be there every day? he will be at caucuses and primaries. that underscores the unprecedented nature of this case. the last thing i'm going to add, even though this is the most important criminal trial in our history, even though the stakes are so high. i'd like the justice department to have a watertight case on the facts and the law. what you'll see in this courtroom and what donald trump will see as a defendant is a prosecution that has to really press imaginative, unprecedented theories about the crimes and has to fill some holes in the facts since they could never make a direct connection between donald trump and the january 6 rioters. the january 6th rioters on their way from the white house and the elipse to the capitol that day would have marched in front of that courthouse. i would have had an office. i used to look out on the path that they were taking that day. >> neil: by the way, you were referring to this case today, not the prior cases. you say they were tighter case. this case today, right? >> yes, yes. >> neil: got it. all right, guys. don't wander too far. we'll talk to you later. those just joining and watching right now, this historic myment, the third time to bret baier's point and we're getting used to it. it's scary stuff for him with the latest charges. 78 charges that carry a lot of years, centuries in prison. that is not likely to be the case, of course. but the weight of this and the sheer number of these charges just continue to pile up. i want to bring in a new panel here. shannon broom, anchor of "fox news sunday." we have dana perino here with us as well. she's from "america's newsroom" and co host of "the five." jonathan turley, fox news contributor. shannon, i want to go back to what happens next. if you're the judge here, you have to be cognizant the guy's whose case you're overseeing is running for president of the united states. he can't be in this courtroom every day once proceedings begin. and he's not too keen on being in that courtroom and that city anyway. what are your thoughts on that and where this likely goes? the timetable of it. >> think about the fight that we saw over the timetable with the mar-a-largo documents case down in florida. there was push back on scheduling. the doj wanted that in december. president trump's legal team said absolutely not. the there's these other things that will happen. not going to work. the judge pushed it in to may. she responded to some of the statements about the fact that he's running for president. she said a lot of people have very demanding jobs and still charged with crimes and they proceed through the criminal system. so that's the judge that most people want to say, she was appointed by trump, friendly to trump. that is an easier court for him. so you think about how these things play with this judge in d.c., who has been tough on this president before, tough on the january 6th defendants and probably going to look at things like pushing for venue change and things that will slow this down. to this moment in history, i have to say there's a guy out in front of courtroom that says "coup." i'm thinking to myself, is he there to call out president trump for what he thinks is a coup or is that sign for the doj? that's where this country is right now trying to see how divided we are and people can see two sides of this fight so differently. >> neil: it's true. we know on the impact on the former president, it's been favorable politically. we haven't seen polls since a lot of this has developed here. i would imagine that that is going to continue that trend. so he's got to know a -- a lock on all the attention and oxygen in the room. many people don't flip over him personally or didn't like the way he acted or behaved or talking about some of his other presidential candidates. the fact of the matter is, his support is like a grip on the party right now. it's helping him politically regard liz of where it takes him legally. what do you make of that? >> i feel like with his commanding poll numbers, it's like one giant leap for a presidential candidate. it's so far ahead and so durable that it's super interesting to see how the democrats have believed that the more they file lawsuits against him or bring indictments that now, of course, they believe the republicans are going to walk away from president trump. i don't know how many times they have to try to learn this lesson. but it doesn't hurt him. it has shown to help him. i think one of the things, neil, that you can believe that january 6th was an abhorrent situation and even at the white house acted in a disgraceful manner and still think like what john yoo just said, this case is not airtight. that makes it even more difficult for people who want to say look, it's time to turn the page on president trump. some people say, i have some sympathy for the guy. are they going after my thoughts next that say let's just say i was a climate denier. i'm not. let's say i am. am i next? who gets to decide who is telling the truth? so now we're back to that. i think that is a very interesting situation to be in. the other thing i would point out is that president trump is winning this news cycle. he will continue to. i know that he's probably having a miserable time in there waiting for this to be over so that he can get back home. but they should know and i think that he says this in his truth social post that he truly believes there's great support for him on this matter. the last thing i would point out, on the other side of pennsylvania avenue, the white house, you go across and you go to the state department. i would imagine that the state department today probably called three countries around the world and urged them not to prosecute their political opponents. guarantee it. it happens all the time. that's what the united states does. we're the leader of the free world. we try to remind people. we have peaceful transitions of power. let the people decide. let the people be governed by who they choose. i think that that message gets much harder to deliver when you have a situation like this. if john yoo is right, if the case was super airtight and you had a phone call with video, president trump is saying go to the capitol and attack these police officers, that would be a didn't story. that's not what the justice department came forward with this one. >> neil: still, if you think about it over the course of this time with the 78 charges, some are severe, some can be swatted away, i guess. the fact of the matter is, we wouldn't be in this position, the pile-on no withstanding and you're right to raise the timing and the political implications. but he's charged we do ago lot of awful things. that i might not be 78 instances of that that are legit. but there's enough to give people pause. even his most die-hard fans if they were to sort of surgically take apart what has been debated here. from going back to saying you didn't have documents when you did, you didn't move them when you did. you didn't deny their existence or the fact that they might have been in other people's hands. when that was indeed the case. i can go on. payments made -- >> i think that that case is very didn't. >> neil: i hear you on all of the above. this is all part of a greater pattern of behavior the prosecutors will say that show where there's smoke, there's some fire. do you think that resonates or at this time no? >> well, i think, again, if anything in the indictment that the justice department put forward in this police car that we're talking about in regards to january 6 had been different than anything i had already read about on the front pages of all the newspapers and reported on here myself, then i think i would have been looking at this in a different way. i look at this and i think we've been -- we knew all of this. they didn't have anything new. the documents case, that was new. that was different. they do have president trump saying directly that he shouldn't have had the documents. he swatted that away. calling it hyperbole, et cetera. i think that that case is very, very different. if i was a person at the doj again and i was looking at the documents case versus this one, i have to say from a messaging standpoint, if you want to win this in the court of public opinion before the 2024 election, the justice department in this case is falling short. >> neil: interesting. all right. jonathan turley, let's pursue that with you then. you know, some people have said, some lawyers have said chatting with you, this is the weakest of the cases as far as prosecutors are concerned going after donald trump. that you're trying to attach him for cause and effect and a quid pro quo to inciting words and inciting violence to when we saw on january 6th. i had a democratic congressman on the other day, jonathan, that was trying to argue about the 14th amendment and that that alone, you know, which shows you can't hold off if they've engaged in a rebellion and bending over backwards saying he caused a rebellion. the reason why that is important to democrats is that that would disqualify him from being president of the united states. that's the leap they're taking. what do you think of that train of thoughts and that leap? that is not the connection that is going on here in this case. >> no. it's really approaching the urban legend status. because he's not charged with incitement. he's not charged with insurrection. he's not charged with seditious conspiracy. he's not charged with all of those things, the democrats impeach him on the second time. so they're really big-footing the constitution here. it's not there. but the question is what is here. i have to tell you, this is thin soup in my view. they have a colossal constitutional problem that they have to overcome from the outset. they have to establish all of these lynchpins that he not only believed that the truth of the matter, that he understood he was lying, but then he played a criminal role in getting these other individuals to take the steps mentioned in the indictment. that is a very difficult case to prove. i think part of the dynamic that we're seeing is that you can't just pursue a president from pillar to post across the country without people begin to tune out, this day would be called a life-changing experience for most people. for donald trump, it's called thursday. he is -- this is his third indictment. he's going to likely get a fourth indictment. and the real jury is likely the one that will be voting for 2024. i think we're already seeing how this is impacting them. i have to tell you, in this case, i should think that trump would welcome aspects of this case. precisely because of that issue and also because he has these threshold legal questions that he should be able to get to the appellate courts fairly quickly. so smith has to be careful what he's asking for. the trump team might give it to him. it's unlikely he will get a trial in front of the florida trial but they could help him out in moving these issues to the appellate court and asking them, is this the criminalization of this information? are you about to criminalize false political speech? in the past, the court has been extremely skeptical of laws that attempt to do that. >> neil: interesting. as expected, the former president pled not guilty. the magistrate is separate from the judge that will be providing over this case. she said i'll advice you the counts and penalties and it goes through the counts and penalties. the former president confirms his name and age. she goes through the various counts, the conspiracy to dew fraud the u.s., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, violating conspiracy, rights. adds them up. fines, dollars and jail and all of such. he stands to hear all of that. how is that kneaded out? after he pleads not guilty, which is fully expected, the judge clearly wants to remind him of what is at stake with each of these counts. that's the procedure, correct? >> it is. you want the individual before they make a plea to know exactly what they're up against and make sure that they have the full understanding of what's going on. again, pleading not guilty is what we expect from this president. he said it publicly and privately and then waits to see what happens in georgia. this is different. yes, he's processed and fingerprints but no mug shot. you have the fulton county sheriff says if he gets charged down here, which we're standing by in the next couple weeks, you'll get a mug shot in georgia. as dana said, he has to be uncomfortable here today. it's a place where he's powerless sitting in the courtroom to have to go through what many criminal defendants, people facing allegations have to do. getting a criminal mug shot would be something very unpleasant for this president to have to do in georgia. he's at the mercy of that proceeding. he was kind of flippantly on social media earlier today saying one more indictment and that ensures my re-election. he knows there's possibly another one coming. he's joking about a fourth one. while it does help him politically, we saw in fund-raising and polls, it feeds in to his argument, i'm here for you. they're coming for me. i'm here fighting for you. all of us know the real gravity and he does, too, about the legal charges and what they mean in the long-term or maybe in the short term for him. we've had that time line up today about the state trials that he's facing, the federal trials as well and as you mentioned, these include potentially monday conviction, decades in jail. they include fines that would not be of worry to most criminal defendants in his position. it's the time behind bars. appeals as professor turley mentioned, all of those things will, you know -- they're going to impact how this plays out, the timing of it, how the election is involved and where we go from here. this is a president that very much enjoys on a stage being able to take on a this fight. he's a fighter and enjoys the back and forth. when you're in the courtroom at the mercy of the judge, it's a different feeling. >> neil: yeah, i can't help but thinking, dana perino, if you're still with me and thinking of the big debate coming up and i'm not saying this to sell the debate, it's a great debate and be great in the president and all the candidates could make it, but if you're donald trump and this is all everyone is talking about and you own all the oxygen in the room, wouldn't you want to be in that room? you already handicapped your opponents from saying something bad about you. some have, but they've got ten very little return of the buck for that. you don't want to give them-free reign in milwaukee to say more when you can be there. you think i've been treated fairly or not? i can see how he could play off of that. what do you think? >> i said something very similar tuesday with the breaking news came. the indictment was being handed down. after you think about it for a moment, if i were the former president and i was up against these other candidates and i have this durable lead, i would like to be there on stage with them. obviously this is a topic that will come up. each of them in the eye and say, don't you agree this is wrong? that i have been wronged? get them all on camera in front of him? make them look him in the eye and say it? i would want to be there. >> neil: i can imagine if chris christie said i don't think it's wrong at all. >> he might. >> neil: you built this for yourself, not us. he and maybe former congressman hurd if he makes the cut. you're not going to see a lot of them doing that. >> and maybe vice president pence. he's been more vocal and assertive in the last 48 hours. you saw that hahn "the story" with martha maccallum. >> neil: go ahead. >> there is a one wrinkle here that could come in, neil. that is this -- i doubt that the trump team can get a change of venue in this case arguing that the jurisdiction is politically disadvantageous. it's not a very good basis to change the court location. the judge could do some other things that could impact the debate and other things. in d.c., they tend to impose gag orders on defendants. they tend to be a little more aggressive in that sense than some courts. the question is whether this judge who is viewed as a tough judge, is going to say, you know what? i'm going to treat you like any other defendant and not talking about the case in public. i think that that would be a serious mistake for the judge. i think it would be taken up on appeal and hope it be reversed. she could impose that type of order. that can impact his appearances at the debate or on the campaign trail. >> which might make him want to do it all the more. >> neil: you read my mind. >> that's true. >> neil: i guess the judge read the expected riot act and talked to donald trump as well as his lawyers to say you can't violate that state or local law while on release. others will let him out. you must serve sentence of the court, defendant may not communicate about the facts of the case to anyone known to be a witness in the case. and then reminding him, mr. trump, please listen carefully. these warnings that i give all defendants, if you fail to comply, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. that's what they do, shannon. it's powerful when you hear it from a judge talking to a man that was and wants to be, again, president of the united states. >> yeah, there's real penalties for not doing what a judge has ordered you to do. it does put you in a different position no matter how powerful you are. i asked one of the president's previous attorneys, what would you do if a gag order. he would say i can't imagine if someone running for president would be asked to supply with this. but every one of his rallies is about this. every one of his appearances and fund-raising, they're all about this. so a judge could really tie his hands if they want to and enact a gag order in a case like this. it's what he talks about none stop on the stump. it resonates with people. built him a lead in fund-raising and support. i can't imagine there would be serious legal fights and wrangling and appeals if that was an attempt. >> neil: all right, guys. thanks very much. and those just tuning in, donald trump has pled not guilty on all four january 6th charges here. i want to go to griff jenkins in washington where this is going down. griff? >> well, neil, we're waiting here with the crowds and the media for the former president to leave now that we know he's pled not guilty. you're reading the terms of his release. it's fascinating. the very last thing that the magistrate judge said to him was "you may also face a longer sentence for having committed a crime." that stands out to me. as this -- not this magistrate judge but the actual judge who is going to preside over his trial is known for giving harsh sentence to upwards of almost 40 cases involving january 6th riot defendants prior to this trial. so an interesting note just add a little bit of color here. you were talking about the amount of media attention that donald trump is carrying to his rivals. let's spin the camera up. you can see as far as the eye, cameras and media. there's hundreds of cameras out here. me media. it goes all the warned and the block. really that is i think perhaps what team trump is trying to capitalize on. that's why we saw alina habba stand out in front of the cameras before trump went in the courtroom to allege election interference and make note of the similarities between the timing of when hunter biden has news, when people like devin archer testified and the next day you have the indictment in this case. so a very interesting sort of point to make. i think also, you know, the one thing that i noticed as i did that live shot with you, i talk a walk down on the third street to see the crowd, which are standing there waiting to get a glimpse of trump when he leaves. it's fascinating. it's a mix of pro trump and anti-trump. but literally at the cross walk, we waited to cross the street, standing side by side, blacks for trump. standing number to someone holding a sign saying lock him up. really the story outside the courtroom is the massive amount of media that is covering this moment as we wait and watch on your camera there. we expect the former president to leave in his motorcade. whether he will wave or stop, who knows or where he goes. i mentioned before, he went to a cuban restaurant in miami in june. no idea whether he will go anywhere in town or go straight to the airport and go back to bedminster. we have to wait to find out. >> martha: any restaurants near there, pie shops or something that he could do that? you know. >> who knows. he can go anywhere. i suppose he asks his motorcade to go i suspect he wants to get out of here. it's worth noting and you can't overstate it, the proximity of the courthouse itself and where mr. trump sits right now is just two blocks, a short walking distance to the u.s. capitol where the january 6th riots happened. that is what special counsel jack smith is trying to do, is to tie him to that day and, of course, allege that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. neil? >> neil: thanks, griff. great job as always. i don't know if my next panel knows good restaurants in the area. i know a couple of good steak restaurants. i'm not a washingtonian. martha maccallum has been there. bret baier would know. i'd be surprise "fox and friends" he didn't not. bret, what about that? the last time the president went to that cuban restaurant and, you know, goodies for everybody. i think he left without paying the bill. >> right around the block from charlie palmer's steakhouse. >> it's pricey. >> you can see a lot of lawmakers in there lunch time. it's past that now. a lot of places to stop. i doubt he will say anything until he gets back to new jersey if i had to bet. i listened to the conversation here. it's interesting. one of the things i'm compelled to say is that no matter what happens in this courtroom, when the trial gets underway, under this judge, you just heard talk directly to the former president about his rights and the charges. there is an appellate process that john turley talked about. whether that is fast tracked and whether it goes through that or the supreme court, you know, this president is directly responsible for choosing this court and the supreme court has been put together now. it's more favorable on these issues one would think on appeal. it's hard to believe that the current supreme court would see too kindly on the stacking of these indictments against the former president as sort of planes coming into la guardia. one of the laws as i talked about before is -- one of the charges deals with the law in 1870 that ulysses s. grant passed. two of the charges deal with 2002, post enron dealing with fraud. one of the other charges deals with a law that is designed for financial fraud on the government. so there's unique cobbling together on this indictment. some people say it's swift and it's tight. others say it's a mess and it's bogus. the appellate court is where it is going to be vetted out. then you have the manhattan case that raises questions. i think most people say the real battle is going to be on the documents case, the presidential records act and what they have there. might be the stiffest one so far that we've seen. >> neil: when you mention what they're going back to and piecing together to make their case as prosecutors, when you're going back to a ku klux klan era piece of legislation, to some that would say you're searching here. i'm just wondering how that would be interpreted. >> i don't think well by this current supreme court. i don't know how it goes in this courtroom or in the appellate court. just by reading how these justices have looked at other cases, i don't -- i think the trump team looks on appeal like they sit good. that doesn't take away from the seriousness open this issue what he faces, the years in jail if he's convicted. all of these things are real. but there is an appeals process here that we should also put in the mix that eventually, potentially, ends up in the supreme court. >> neil: wild stuff. to david spunt now. he was in the courtroom when this was going on. he joins us now. david, what was it like in there? >> well, neil, it's over right now. it lasted probably about 20 minutes or so. former president trump walked in, waited for about 20 minutes for the magistrates judge. she's not going to be the judge running the show for the trial and the next couple hearings. he waited 20 minutes or so for the magistrate judge. he entered a plea of not guilty. he stood up himself after he was sworn in. he was very stoic throughout most of the time he was there, talking to his attorney,ed to blanche a few times. also seeded at the table was john loro, his attorney in this case. i did happen to notice that he looked over a few times at jack smith, the special counsel. he was probably maybe 20 feet away from jack smith, looked over at jack smith a few times. he kept looking forward. did not appear to make any direct eye contact with the former president. jack smith was also looking at members of his team and talking with them and conferring with them. so right now, we have the former president, this is his third indictment in about four months. he pleaded not guilty to all four counts.he looked serious as the charges were read to him and as the prison sentences were read to him if he were found guilty, up to 20 years in prison in some cases. he looked very serious at that point. the next hearing is august 28th at 10:00 a.m. here in washington d.c. the magistrate judge said that she would waive the appearance for the president if he was not able to make it. it's not clear if he's going to come or if it's just his attorneys. that's pretty much what you have. we're at a courtroom right now, a court building that is just a stone's throw from the u.s. capitol a few blocks from the white house. right now we're told the motorcade is getting ready and the former president is getting ready to head to reagan national airport and fly back to new jersey. neil? >> neil: david, we're getting records that the president was processed by the u.s. marshall's office before this went down. they took his finger prints, personal information. they weren't saying anything about a mug shot taken. i would assume he's probably among the most recognizable people on the planet. what can you tell us about that? >> no mug shot taken. typically in federal court, they don't take mug shots. they have plenty of images of him. this went similar to miami, another federal case. he was fingerprinted. he said today on his social media platform that he was going to be arrested. technically speaking he was not arrested today. he was issued -- he was appearing and answering a summons from the court. he was in the custody of the u.s. marshalls, but no fbi agents were involved. he was not handcuffs. he didn't have his hands back his back. he was with his team. you saw a couple of aides with him. his secret service detail. while he was in the building, he was in the custody of the u.s. marshalls. he had to do exactly what they said and he stood up when the judge told him to stand up. she asked him his name. she asked him his age and asked him if he said -- if he took any medications. he said no. he remained stoic throughout the entire thing, neil. >> neil: amazing. i guess we're get being used to this. david spunt. back to martha maccallum and bret baier and andy mccarthy, john yoo. martha, we talked about the enormity of this. i wouldn't say blase about it. first alvin bragg indictment. this is the third time, probably not the charm for the former president. could be a fourth time here. he knows the drill. i think we as the viewing public know the drill. >> yeah, i'm not sure that any one gets use to the part that he just wendt through, which is the standing up and having to magistrate in this case read through the charges against him and the time he would have to serve if he were found guilty on any of these counts. the first one is conspiracy to defraud the u.s., which is interfering with a proceeding. fine up to $250,000 or both. it goes on from there. in some of these cases, the conspiracy charges, not more than 20 years. there's a lot of time that could add up here. i'm not surprising that he looked stoic during that period and he took it seriously. what strikes me as interesting as i watched this play out, neil, is the court of public opinion. if you take yourself back to this point in time, back to january 6th, back to what happened at the capitol, the former president saying he wanted to contest the outcome of this election, it went through a number of different court processes. more than 50, i think. you know, none of those decisions went his way. and then over the course of time, while all of this has played out with subsequent indictments in between, we've seen him gather strength. so i think there was a moment when most political observers thought he's done. how would he go past this? a lot of people had real questions about the way he responded that day, the things he said, why he didn't tell people to go home. you know, even this particular indictment, it doesn't mention that he told people to march peacefully and patriotically to the capitol. in the end, there were people that didn't do that. many of them have been sentenced themselves. so i'm struck by the power of the public of court of opinion and what it is showing us in the polls we're seeing right now. that is how democracy functions. people choose the person that they want to run and choose the person that they want to be in the white house. there's real questions about whether or not this interferes with that process. that is in the middle of playing out. i think it's highly likely you'll see federal judges say that it's not viable to carry out these cases in the middle of a presidential election. that is what is going to be really compelling here. that tension between this process and the court of public opinion. >> neil: yeah, that's the balance here. i know bill barr when he was interviewed, he talked about the gravity of what is at stake for the former president here saying that he had to know and did know in fact that he lost the election, referring to the former president. he says jack smith has more evidence on donald trumps that this indictment is revealing. you think he's right? >> i assume that that's correct. everybody is obsessed it seems -- this was the focus of the interview with former attorney general barr -- with trump's state of mind and what he knew and what he believed. barr's a perfect person to talk to about that because he had conversations with trump at the critical time. he know what's the he told him. i guess i keep looking at this from the other end, which is his state of mind doesn't make any difference unless what the government has charged him with is actually a crime. so for example, if i'm right that a fraud count, to defraud the united states, the supreme court would have to say that's a financial fraud and this isn't. it doesn't matter whether he lied. they have to charge him with something that is actually criminal. that's why i think if bret's point before about the appellate process here, would i have been straining my brain to figure out is, how does he get this case to the court of appeals? maybe john has a better idea on this than i do. it's easy to see how he gets the mar-a-largo case up to the court of appeals. that is controlled by a statute that controls classified information. the preference in the federal system that you litigate the whole case in front of the trial judge and if there's convection after sentencing, the whole bundle goes to the court of appeals but not before. he has to figure out a way to get this case to the d.c. circuit and up to the supreme court prior to trial. >> one of the things that is among the four counts here, john yoo, is this obstruction of official proceeding and obstruction or conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. that again is linking donald trump to that and he was the cause and then the effect. that's a tough thing to prove. i think we're having problems with your mic, john. maybe it's better now. i apologize. we're going to try to fix that. if i can go back to you on that it's a stretch to get some of these to stick. what do you think, andy? >> well, i think it's going to be a stretch. i'm not sure they're crimes. if it's right if fraud has to be financial, there's no financial element to it. we heard some stuff in some of the reporting that maybe they would charge him with this idea that they raised money on the pretext that it was going to a fund to fight election fraud and they diverted the proceeds. that's like a fraud. you can see where that would stick. but i think what is going on here is they have these legal concepts like corruption and fraud and civil rights, which are a little loosy goosy. what they're trying to do is stretch those concepts to pigeon hole his behavior in to something that they can is then brand as criminal. that's going to be much tougher than you think. >> neil: john, we have you back and that link of bringing trump back to the january 6th event. it's not so black and white. while this is about january 6, the difficulty is linking donald trump directly to it. your thoughts. >> sorry, neil, about my tech foul-up. you have the school of law here, the cavuto school, andy covering the trial. i'm happy to take the appeals, this is where the trial judge has complete discretion in this case. the trial judge can say i want it to go to verdict. after we see whether he's convicted or not, we'll let the issues like the one you just raised, is trump legally chargeable for obstruction of congress. it goes to the dc circuit, which is a very unfavorable circuit for trump. the supreme court has been very reluctant to approve the use of fraud for creating readings of criminal laws to interferes to what they think is the mess of politics. you can easily see the supreme court reversing the use of the fraud statute you. it was aimed at people destroying documents or intimidating witnesses to appear before hearings. it's never really been used for something like this. again, not for the connection with the people that on the january 6th capitol attacks. what smith is charging, trump violated the obstruction statue by trying to pressure pence, pressure secretaries of state, to not count the electoral vote. that's the line between is that obstructing congress or is trump trying every crazy option outside the rules to change the results? the court is very reluctant -- the supreme court is quite reluctant to use these criminal laws to intrude in to what they think is sort of the messy give and take and the brawling of politics, this is where the trial judge is important. someone that wanted to accelerate the case, could halt the trial and say i'm going to send these issues up to the d.c. circuit. that could end the case right away. most trial judges and andy is right, are more likely to say let's have the whole trial first. if donald trump is acquitted, we don't have to have any appeals. let's see what happens. then we can pick up these really important legal issues at the end. >> neil: tom, is there a sense in the couple minutes here, that prosecutors will try to coordinate amongst themselves, whether it's governor -- georgia next or the ones we have and arranging trials and follow up events and where the president's civil cases go or do you have to go blindly with that? >> i suspect that the prosecutors will coordinate, neil. right now we're in a situation that is bordering on literally impossible. expecting the former president to defend himself in three, maybe four criminal proceedings. at the same time, he's running for president of the united states. number 1, it wouldn't surprise me in the prosecutors coordinated and tried to plan things like on a runway of an airport. it wouldn't surprise me if the judges called up one another and say we have to figure out who is going first and second and how this falls in line. if they don't coordinate and let things play out, you have a very strange and untenable situation before cases all moving forward this entire time, which is unfair to any defendant. >> neil: jonathan turley, is it possible jack smith overplayed his happened? >> well, i think it is possible. this is not the indictment that most of us expected. most of us expected the indictment would be manifestly strong on the law and on the evidence. this didn't produce any new evidence. it's stretching the law. that's the reputation that jack smith has. he had a major fraud cause that was overturned by the court. this feels the same way. i think it's true that there will be this fight as to whether the threshold issues can go up on appeal, this is a unique case. this is a president running for the 2024 presidency. and they may be exceptions here. they will ask this court to certify the question to say we would like you to support the effort to get the court of appeals to determine if any case may be brought. there may be some people on the supreme court that may find that attractive. going through the normal steps of trying this case and letting us figure out if it should have ever been tried at all doesn't sit very well with this moment in time. >> neil: got it. bret baier, if you're still there i'd like to go back to you. those of you at home, the president is done in washington. he's heading to reagan national airport and will fly back to new jersey, bedminster. two very quick things. there's an i hop on 14th street northwest. if the president didn't want to go really deep or like bret baier treat deep is -- >> clearly he's going to the airport. i thought he could go to cafe milano where hunter had dinner with president biden. that would have fell in his wheel house. >> neil: i didn't know that. i'm looking for stuckey's or something there. i didn't see that. but you and martha are getting ready for the big debate. these developments, they have now risen to the point that if you're donald trump, you don't want to miss a chance to be on that stage. >> you know, he hasn't made that decision. he says he's leaving it open. he hasn't -- clearly he's not closed the door. bottom line is we're going to be prepared either way. remember back in the 2016 cycle, he didn't come to the iowa debate, the second one we held. believe it or not, up until the last minute, we had two stacks of questions. one with donald trump and one without. so i think we may be in that same boat. he also may decide that this is the time as you talked about before, he's sucking up all the oxygen in the room, to continue to do that and own that stage. we'll see. >> neil: very quickly, i think of donors in these campaigns, whether they're frozen in place. they're still giving money to candidates. that hasn't stopped. but does it give them pause? >> for the other candidates, mean? >> yeah. >> or the donors to them. >> neil: not the donors or the other candidates. think guy can getting popular as we speak. >> the former president is gaining money and points in the gop primary currently. as he said on truth social, i'm one indictment away from wrapping this up. >> neil: let me know if there's a cinnebon there. thanks, bret. good luck on the show. about an hour from now. those of you just joining, president trump pled not guilty and his poll numbers soar. that will do it for us. here's "the five."here now the . >> dana: hello, everyone. i'm dana perino along with shannon bream, greg gutfeld, jesse watters, and jeanine pirro. in is the five. former president donald trump arriving in the airport after his third criminal arraignment and trump pleading not guilty over the allegationings of trying to overturn the 2020 election and the former president denying any wrong doing and accusing special council jack smiths and engaging in