The Megyn Kelly Show - 20230609_trump-indicted-again-and-bidens-burisma-connection

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

June 9, 2023 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:53:21

20230609_trump-indicted-again-and-bidens-burisma-connection

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Serious Evidence Against Trump 00:14:52
	Okay, so fantastic means that the ideal wandering stream flex 2.
	HBO Max, Prime Video, Sky Showtime, you name it.
	The foreigner or the funk network or streaming accurate.
	Go to alente.no and test it in summer.
	The price of 79 kroner will be in three months.
	Therefore, the normal price of 499 kroner per month.
	FIKEN is a super simple program for the company.
	But did you also start your own business with FIKEN?
	You are like thousands of others and register AS and Enkelperson Foretaker trygg and easy to fill out the system on FIKEN.no.
	We help you all the way to a registered company.
	You don't need to be a customer of FIKEN from before and choose completely if you will use our program after the company.
	The service costs no more.
	FIKEN.
	Start your own business.
	Super simple.
	Welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show.
	Your home for open, honest and provocative conversations.
	Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly.
	Welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show.
	Is there anything going on in the news today?
	You guys hear anything interesting about possible break?
	Can you believe?
	Yet another indictment of former President Donald Trump.
	A second time since April.
	He's been slapped with charges.
	This time he's facing seven federal criminal charges in connection with these classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago last year.
	And while that is a massive story, there's also a probably not unrelated, significant development about President Biden and his alleged corruption.
	Allegations that he was involved in a multi-million dollar bribery scheme when he was vice president.
	Remember that document we discussed with Greg Jarrett talking about how the House Oversight Committee was trying to get its hands on this document in the possession of the FBI, in which a confidential informant said that there's proof that then Vice President Joe Biden and his son both took $5 million checks.
	Well, now we have it filled out.
	We didn't know the money last week.
	From some foreign government, now we know it's Ukraine.
	Now we know it's $5 million each.
	This is an allegation not yet confirmed.
	Well, they finally got their hands on that document.
	The FBI produced it to Comer and the House Oversight Committee after a lot of resistance this week.
	And it was downright shocking.
	And you've got even moderate Republicans like Nancy Mace, who's she's one of those like very reasonable, I don't want to call her a Mitt Romney type, but kind of closer to that than a comer, is coming out swinging against Joe Biden.
	Some of these lawmakers suggesting they were shocked by what they saw in that form and accusing the FBI of having to intentionally drag its feet now for weeks in reluctantly producing this to the House Oversight Committee.
	Is it a coincidence that both of these things are happening on the same day?
	I don't know.
	We're not going to get conspiratorial here.
	But it is a fact that just as soon as Republicans got their hands on this document, this indictment drops against Donald Trump.
	It's unbelievable what's happening right now.
	It's distressing.
	It's disgusting.
	And it is alarming to any citizen who loves this country.
	There's a lot to unpack.
	We have some of the top legal and political minds in the country today to help walk us all through it all.
	VDH is here.
	Charlie Cook is well in our second hour.
	But we begin with Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the new book, Get Trump, the threat to civil liberties, due process, and our constitutional rule of law.
	Alan, welcome back to the show.
	So we have not seen the indictment.
	We think we know what's coming, but we don't know the actual parameters of it.
	We're told by Trump's lawyer, one of them, Jim Trustee, we believe it has seven counts around the Espionage Act, around alleging multiple false statements, and a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
	So let me ask you for your overall take on what we've heard so far and the charges against Donald Trump on which he will be arraigned this Tuesday in a Miami federal courtroom.
	I'm not surprised.
	In my book, Get Trump, I predicted exactly this.
	I said he would not be indicted for merely possessing classified material because then they would have to distinguish the case from Biden and from Pence and from Hillary Clinton and from Sandy Berger, that they would go after him on process crimes and that they would probably use the espionage statute, the hated espionage statute, the statute that liberals have condemned for 100 years because it was used to go after Eugene V. Debs, war protesters, dissidents, et cetera.
	Now these same liberal Democrats are embracing the statute saying expand it, extend it.
	And so there's nothing surprising about the fact that there's been an indictment.
	It's a big deal, though, because a federal indictment, which could prove to be very compelling, depending on what the evidence is, is far different than the phony state Mickey Mouse indictment that was rendered by District Attorney Bragg.
	That was laughable.
	This is not laughable.
	There's one piece of evidence that could be very serious.
	If there is, in fact, a tape recording, as apparently there is, in which the former president says, showing some material to some writer, I could have declassified this, meaning I didn't declassify it.
	If we get access or if the prosecution gets access to that document, and it is as explosive as some have surmised, maybe dealing with attack plans against Iran, and if in fact the person who got it was not only shown it, but given it to read, that could be a serious violation of the Espionage Act.
	The rest seems like it's just typical prosecution going after people, not telling the truth to an agent, conspiracy to obstruct justice.
	It's the Espionage Act and that particular tape, which I think poses the greatest danger to Trump.
	But I think the greatest danger is posed to the American people.
	What we're seeing is both sides now weaponizing the criminal justice system.
	And I think the election of 2024 will be the first time in American history that the campaigns will be, oh, they're more criminal than we are.
	No, they're more criminal than we are.
	I just think that this idea of weaponizing the system against both the Bidens and against Trump is a serious, serious mistake and endangers the rule of law.
	Okay, I agree with you on all of that.
	But I do want to take a look at the specifics of the criminal charges as lawyers, just to, you know, the lawyers don't get to go into court and say, this is an outrage.
	You didn't charge Hillary Clinton.
	They're going to have to actually take a look at the elements and defend.
	And I think that's very interesting.
	Like, can they make the charge?
	Even if we don't like the prosecution, can they make it?
	Yes.
	Let's, first of all, can we just talk about the fact that this is being brought in Miami instead of DC?
	Because they had a grand jury in D.C.
	They had a grand jury in D.C.
	Then more recently, they opened one up in Miami.
	And that's better for Trump.
	For sure, it's better for Trump if he's going to have to be tried to be tried in Florida than D.C.
	But well, how did that happen?
	Well, I think the prosecution realized they'd have a real fight on their hands if they tried to indict in the District of Columbia.
	It would look like forum shopping and judge shopping.
	And they probably wanted to avoid that.
	The essence of the alleged crimes did take place in Florida.
	And therefore, that's the appropriate venue.
	Also, the luck of the draw.
	Apparently, Trump got a judge who he appointed.
	Now, judges who he appointed have ruled against him, obviously, as well.
	But it's good for the system that it's in Florida and that it's a judge he appointed if that judge stays with the case, because it will make it less likely that Trump could just say, oh, this is all a fix.
	Maybe we'll get a semblance of justice.
	So I'm glad it's in Florida, and I'm glad it's in front of a judge who at least is not somebody with a record of Trump hating.
	Yeah.
	Do we know how she got the case, Judge Eileen Cannon, a Trump appointee?
	She got it.
	Unless she got it through the wheel, there's a real problem.
	Obviously, all judges in all federal criminal cases should be selected randomly through the wheel and should not be selected based on prior experiences in related cases, which sometimes happen.
	So I hope she was picked through the wheel.
	Okay.
	And then the magistrate judge, who is the judge who's kind of underneath the district court judge, is somebody who's familiar with this case as well.
	They've both had prior dealings.
	She was appointed as a special master last year to review the material seized from Mar-a-Lago.
	Then the magistrate judge, again, lower than she is on the totem pole, Bruce Reinhart, he also had a prior dealing with this.
	He signed off on the initial search warrant of Mar-a-Lago.
	I do believe he's a Republican.
	I remember looking at that, but of course, Trump didn't like him, but just for what it's worth.
	So now we've got these two judges who for now are supposed to be overseeing this proceeding.
	There is breaking news.
	One of the charges, again, we have not yet seen the indictment that'll come, we think, next week, though Mike Pence is insisting it ought to be released by close of business today.
	We believe charges under the Espionage Act, as I said, multiple false statement charges and conspiracy to obstruct justice.
	Now, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, we kind of expect it, frankly.
	That was like kind of predicted by many people because they accused him of not complying with the subpoena to turn over all the documents, especially the classified documents.
	Turn them over.
	We can get into why they don't think he did.
	But conspiracy suggests somebody helped you.
	You got to have more than one person.
	And just as we came to air, Alan, this broke.
	Another person is in trouble.
	Here it is.
	Standby.
	Washington Post.
	Oh, no.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me go back further.
	Walt Nauta, N-A-U-T-A, an aide to former President Nauta.
	Former President Donald Trump has been indicted as well in connection with Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the mishandling of classified documents.
	This is the guy, Wall Street Journal first reported the indictment.
	This is the guy who allegedly moved boxes at Mar-a-Lago at President Trump's instruction after the subpoena was issued.
	So let's just spend time on the conspiracy to obstruct justice, a charge.
	What do you make of that?
	Well, first of all, you always want to get two people so you can get one of them to flip.
	And we know that prosecutors could put enormous pressure on witnesses not only to sing, but to compose, to make up lyrics and music that the prosecution wants to hear.
	I'm not suggesting that happened here, but it's not surprising that they went after somebody else so that they could charge conspiracy.
	Conspiracy allows the admission of evidence that would not normally be admissionable.
	It allows changes and other criteria that are harmful to the defendant.
	Conspiracy is the plaything of prosecutors and they love it and they'll do it whenever there's any possibility of getting a conspiracy charge.
	One of the first motions the defense will make is to strike the conspiracy charge, alleging that the co-conspirator is really not a co-conspirator.
	They will also argue that moving boxes is not necessarily an obstruction of justice.
	Remember, this is not the Richard Nixon case.
	In Richard Nixon, there was destruction of evidence, paying of bribes, open and shut obstruction of justice.
	These are, it looks like closer cases.
	Again, I think the strongest case would grow out of the tape recording of Trump admitting that he had possessed and was showing to somebody material that he could have, but didn't classify.
	That could also be part of a conspiracy as well.
	Let's just set it up.
	Let's do bare bones set up because people, this is such a confusing case.
	It's so hard to keep track of everything that happened.
	But Trump had the documents.
	The National Archivist was like, yo, you've got documents, fork them over.
	And Trump sent some, but the National Archivist found classified information in what he sent and then notified justice saying, you got a problem on your hands.
	He's got classified documents.
	So now they get involved and say, give us all the classified documents.
	Trump produces classified documents, says that's everything.
	They say that's everything.
	He says that's everything.
	Then they hit him with a subpoena, which is more formal.
	You better give us everything.
	And they say that after he got the formal subpoena, which you or I would have to comply with, any citizen in America would have to comply with a subpoena, that having the subpoena in hand, he started to move boxes out of the Mar-a-Lago storage room and into Trump's private office.
	And that this guy who just got also arrested or, you know, is indicted, Walt, helped him.
	Walt is like, I think one of the publications described him as Donald Trump's Diet Coke getter.
	Like this, he's the right-hand man who does, you know, helps Trump.
	So he goes and he moves the document.
	Now, just moving them doesn't mean anything.
	Maybe Trump wanted to look at them to make sure there was nothing in them.
	Just moving them, they must have more than he moved them.
	Because what happened next was the Fed said, we don't believe you produced everything.
	And they got a certification from Trump's lawyer down at Mar-a-Lago, this guy, Evan Corcoran, saying, we did produce, we gave you everything.
	And then they raided Mar-a-Lago.
	And they said, we still don't believe you.
	They raided Mar-a-Lago.
	And they were told that in Trump's office, indeed, they found still more classified documents.
	So isn't that where the obstruction charge is coming?
	You were under subpoena, then you moved documents.
	You weren't just reviewing them because you kept classified documents, which we found when we raided you.
	But there has to be an intent to obstruct justice.
	And if he claims, and I don't know what his defense will be, he doesn't have to put on a defense.
Prosecutorial Discretion Limits 00:15:47
	The government has to prove all of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
	But his lawyers may claim that they will move for safety, or this would be an interesting case, that they were removed to avoid them being covered by a search warrant, not in response to the subpoena, but to the anticipated search warrant.
	Would that be obstruction of justice?
	That would be an interesting case.
	I've never seen that case resolved, moving material so as not to be covered by the search warrant, anticipating the search warrant would only apply to his business areas, but not to his personal residence.
	We have to see what the allegations are, not only in the indictment, which will probably be fairly bare-boned, but there'll be a bill of particulars that will be sought right away.
	And we'll see.
	Yeah, we'll learn whether or not.
	But here's a question.
	Here's a question.
	So let's say Trump said, okay, I got to make sure I didn't keep any classified documents that's responsive to this subpoena.
	This is before the raid.
	Let me look through these.
	No, I declassed, these say classified, but I declassified these.
	These are not responsive.
	I'm keeping them here.
	I don't owe them these and I'm not forking them over because I declassified them.
	That is a defense, right?
	Like even though they have the classified marks on them.
	That's exactly what Hillary Clinton claimed.
	She did.
	Remember, she had material subpoenaed.
	I'm a friend of Hillary Clinton.
	I voted for her.
	I supported her.
	But she claimed that she destroyed material that was not subject to the subpoena that was personal.
	Now, we'll never know whether or not the 33,000, whatever that was destroyed were all personal.
	I believe her because I know her.
	But she walked the server and destroyed all the cell phone evidence of it, which doesn't exactly sound innocent, but okay.
	Now, that was done, she said, not in violation of any subpoena because nothing that she destroyed was commanded by the subpoena.
	But that requires us to believe what she said.
	And that's going to be alleged.
	That's going to be raised in defense, not in legal defense, but in political defense, saying, why is this different?
	This is not Richard Nixon.
	This is Hillary Clinton.
	And remember that the head of the FBI said, nobody has ever been prosecuted for doing what Hillary Clinton did.
	That will be the claim.
	If nobody was ever prosecuted for doing what Hillary Clinton did, why is this the first case where somebody is being prosecuted for doing what appears to be similar to what it is alleged that Hillary Clinton did?
	Those are the kinds of debates that we see coming.
	But remember now, everybody.
	Wait, let me interject now here.
	Okay, so you mentioned the news that broke yesterday and now we have a transcript of it.
	So what was in Trump's head when he said, get those boxes out of that storage room and bring them over to my office?
	You and I are giving him the benefit of the doubt here for argument's sake.
	Maybe he wanted to review them.
	Maybe he wanted to see what's in here.
	Is there anything classical?
	Is there anything responsible for the subpoena?
	It's not you and I giving him the benefit of the doubt.
	The law gives him the benefit of the doubt.
	I'm just talking about the purposes of discussion.
	We don't know, but we're saying, okay, let's say he had no malintent in moving those boxes out of the storage room.
	He wanted to take a look at them.
	See what do I have to fork over?
	And he's like, you know what?
	I declassified this stuff.
	They're not entitled to it.
	I'm not producing this.
	Now, this is where the Trump audio recording comes in that the left is salivating over today.
	CNN first reported that it existed two days ago.
	Now they've obtained what they say is a transcript of the phone call, which gives us allegedly some insight into what was in his head.
	I dispute that, but that's the narrative.
	Here's the headline.
	Donald Trump admits on tape he did not declassify secret information.
	So this goes right to the heart of it.
	No, he could not possibly have been looking at classified documents and saying, I declassified it, declassified, because this audio tape shows he knew he hadn't declassified anything.
	They claim that the transcription shows him.
	This is at some book meeting about Mark Meadows' book.
	He's talking with people there about, I don't know, everything.
	They say Trump's discussing a classified Pentagon document about attacking Iran.
	He's complaining because Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mark Milley, had been quoted in some New Yorker story about Milley allegedly fighting to stop Trump from striking Iran and allegedly saying, you're going to have an effing war.
	So this is Trump saying, I wasn't the one who wanted war.
	Milley wanted war.
	The Pentagon, they were suggesting war against Iran and showing me plans.
	I'm not the warmonger.
	They are.
	This is what the conversation is allegedly about.
	And in this context, Trump allegedly said, they said I wanted to attack Iran in this paper.
	Isn't that amazing?
	I have a big pile of papers.
	This thing just came up.
	Look, this was him.
	And apparently you can hear paper rattling on the tape.
	They presented me this.
	This is off the record, but they presented me this.
	This was him.
	This was the Defense Department and him, meaning Millie.
	We looked at this.
	This was him.
	This wasn't done by me.
	It was done by him.
	All sorts of stuff, pages long.
	Look, wait a minute.
	Let's see here.
	I just found, isn't this amazing?
	This totally wins my case, you know?
	Except it's like highly confidential, secret.
	This is secret information.
	Look, look at this.
	Per CNN, he then asks someone in the room if he can declassify it.
	And then he says, as president, I could have declassified, but now I can't.
	Now, this is what they say shows he knew he didn't.
	Now, we don't know, Alan, where this document came from.
	We don't know if it came from Mar-a-Lago, if it came from the, we have no idea, but I don't know whether this is the slam dunk, you know, the silver bullet that the left now thinks it is.
	What do you think?
	Well, I think it's a smoking gun, but you know, smoke sometimes can be caused by fire, sometimes by arson.
	We don't know.
	There's nothing in that that suggests that he didn't declassify anything, but merely that he could have declassified this, but didn't.
	We have to see what the document says.
	We have to see whether he actually showed it to Reed to the reporter or whether he just kind of showed it them and said, see, I have this document, but I'm not going to show you what's in it.
	It all depends on the specific facts, but it sounds like it's the most serious piece of evidence.
	And it's a tape, which is juries love to listen to tapes.
	They love to think they're solving mysteries.
	And therefore, this is a very, very compelling piece of evidence that may turn around perceptions and say because if Trump really did, if he issued a sweeping order, as he's now been claiming, just declassify everything, declassify everything right before he left the presidency, then why would this document not have been declassified?
	Why would he be sitting there, you know, a year later saying, I didn't declassify this and saying it's secret and asking, can I show it?
	Oh, no, I can't.
	By the way, the prosecutors then subpoenaed the document and say they still don't have it.
	And by the way, they also point out, CNN, it's unclear if it was indeed even a real document.
	I mean, it could have been Trump being like, I got proof right here.
	Millie's a liar.
	And he's looking at his schedule for the rest of the day.
	We really, we don't know any of that.
	But okay, I want to move on to other charges.
	So that.
	Yeah, but I just think that you're right.
	He may come up with the blowhart defense.
	Hey, I'm just the blowheart.
	I was just talking.
	I really did declassify everything and this wasn't serious.
	We have to wait to see what the evidence is.
	Okay, so that's our first look at this conspiracy to obstruct justice charge.
	But the most interesting charge, I think, is the espionage charge.
	And Andy McCarthy has a great piece on National Review dated yesterday.
	And he says, yeah, and he says the most interesting thing to him is that Trump appears to be getting charged under, I won't bore you with the statute number of the audience, but under subsection D of the Espionage Act, not subsection F.
	Now, subsection F criminalizes grossly negligent behavior in the protection of documents that relate to national security.
	This is what most people get charged under.
	You were grossly negligent, you know, President Biden, when you took that document and left it by the Corvette.
	They seem to be trying to distinguish President Trump's behavior.
	I would suggest because they understand there's a political element here.
	They're not charging Biden.
	They're not charging Pence by saying you're different, President Trump.
	We're charging you under a different subsection that criminalizes the willful, the willful mishandling of documents relating to national defense.
	You knew you had it.
	You didn't protect it adequately and then you refused to fork it over.
	However, they're going to make that case.
	But what do you make of that distinction?
	because I think most people were thinking he's going to be looking at the grossly negligent handling.
	They've changed it.
	They've upped it to the willfulness handling.
	Well, I think it's very smart of the prosecutors to do it if they have the evidence that can prove it.
	Now, proving willfulness is not easy to do.
	You can't get into the mind of people.
	And there are many, many defenses to willfulness.
	And actually, the Supreme Court in recent years has made it harder, not easier, to prove willfulness.
	So I think what we see is the prosecution made a gamble.
	They decided that politically they're better off charging willfulness, even though it makes it harder for them to prove the case.
	So they get a stronger indictment.
	And if in the end they get an acquittal on that charge, well, that's the jury, not us.
	To me, this is evidence that this is political.
	Not that we needed more, but I mean, it's further evidence that this is political.
	Because why wouldn't as a prosecutor, maybe you charge both, and we'll see, maybe they did that.
	But to me, this is an obvious attempt to distinguish his behavior from Joe Biden's.
	Why are they doing that?
	They're trying to cover their butts.
	Well, no, I think it's also an attempt to distinguish it from Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton, remember, Comey said what she did was negligent, but nobody is prosecuted for negligence.
	Basically, they're trying to distinguish from what Comey said about Hillary Clinton as well as Joe Biden and Pence.
	And by doing that, they make it more justified to indict, but harder to convict.
	Now, you say it's political.
	Let's remember the indictment is almost certainly drafted by the special counsel, the independent counsel, and Garland doesn't generally get to undo that unless it's in violation of Justice Department rules and regulations, which is a high standard.
	So the defenders of the indictment will say that this was not political.
	It was not done by the Oval Office or by the Justice Department.
	It was done by a very experienced and highly regarded independent counsel.
	That will be the case, but we'll wait and see what the indictment says before.
	And Jack Smith has a good reputation.
	He has a good reputation, but you and I both know this is Merrick Garland doing this.
	And Merrick Garland answers to one man.
	And it happens to be Trump's rival for the presidency.
	Well, I'm not sure I agree with you that Merrick Garland does this.
	He has a role to play, but I don't think he has been directing this on a day-to-day basis.
	I think that who does Jack Smith answer to?
	Who does Jack Smith?
	He answers.
	Well, Jack Smith doesn't answer to anybody unless he violates the standards of the Justice Department.
	But, you know, those standards are vague and broad.
	And obviously, you're right.
	Garland could have squashed this had he wanted to.
	So it may be that Garland's inaction is more important than anything he actually did.
	Again, let's wait and see what the indictment says.
	The thing that may very well violate Justice Department policies is the timing.
	Here we have a situation where there is no good timing for this trial.
	Either it will be just before the primaries or during the primary season, just before the election or after the election.
	There's no good time to bring a case like this, which is why unless the case is a slam, slam, slam dunk, it should never have been brought.
	You do not indict the man who's running against the incumbent president unless you absolutely have to.
	This is not a case for typical prosecutorial discretion.
	Oh, well, maybe yes, maybe no.
	I'll exercise my discretion.
	This is a case that has to pass the standard of we have no choice.
	We have to indict.
	And it doesn't.
	It clearly doesn't.
	And it doesn't comport with their history with respect, in particular, to Hillary Clinton.
	That's the worst case for them because it clearly shows the double standard.
	I mean, 100%.
	Alan, it's such a pleasure.
	Thank you so much.
	My pleasure.
	Thank you.
	We've got more on the indictment as two other legal eagles join us right after this.
	And also, what's happening in the investigation against Joe Biden.
	We're learning more about a grand jury about an investigation happening right now in Delaware into his alleged misdeeds.
	He calls it all malarkey, but the House Oversight Committee just got its hands on this potentially damning document.
	And we're going to take a dive into that too.
	Join me now with more Arthur Idala.
	He's a trial attorney and managing partner of Idala for Tuna and Caymans.
	And also Dave Ehrenberg.
	He's the state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, where Mar-a-Lago is located.
	Guys, welcome back to the show.
	What a day.
	First time in American history.
	A former president has faced federal charges, his second indictment since March.
	Can I just ask you as lawyers?
	I just, I have no, I have no dog in this hunt, you know, when it comes to Trump or anybody else and the nomination.
	I do as a citizen, as a recovering lawyer, as somebody who cares about the justice system and its equal application.
	I'm disgusted.
	I'm disgusted.
	To me, this seems fucking blatantly political.
	Forgive me.
	Sorry.
	And it, it, it's upsetting me.
	What is going on?
	It's just disgusting, Arthur.
	They, the, the Hillary Clinton juxtaposition juxtaposition is the most compelling one.
	She scrubbed her servers.
	She destroyed her cell phones.
	She had classified information that she did not turn over.
	And Comey came out and said, there's no crime.
	And now, because it's Donald Trump, who, by the way, had the power to declassify, unlike Hillary, and he looks like he's regaining steam to recapture this nomination.
	He's got to be charged.
	And it looks like he's probably going to be charged in Georgia, too.
	That's the third.
	That would be the third indictment.
	And Jack Smith may have a fourth indictment up his sleeve because he's investigating him for Jan 6th, too.
	So the reason why I'm, and this is not a good reason, but the reason why I'm not maybe as upset as you are, and Dave, you can take the fifth on this.
	I watch this happen all the time.
	It's called selective prosecution.
	They choose who they go after and who they don't.
	And obviously the stakes here are much higher, but I'm watching it for the little people, for the little folks who are, you know, there's 25 people doing the exact same thing.
	And they highlight five of them, maybe because their name ends in a vowel, or maybe because it's more likely to get in the New York Post.
	But I mean, look, I'll give you a perfect example.
	When I stood up at the sentencing of Harvey Weinstein, that exact judge sentenced someone who did much worse, much worse, drugged people and put and sentenced that person and then raped them and sentenced that person to seven years.
	Harvey, on a lesser crime, he gave 23 years.
	So it's just, it's the system's not fair.
	So that's why I sense your outrage, but sadly, doing this for three decades, I'm not surprised by it.
Declassification and Document Possession 00:12:53
	What do you think, Dave?
	Because I recognize Trump's behavior as alleged is different from the behavior in some ways of Joe Biden and Mike Pence because he was hit with a subpoena and they're alleging that he did not comply with it, that he moved boxes around, that he willfully deceived the feds who were trying to get whatever he had down.
	That's the allegation.
	We'll see whether they can prove it.
	But that is not even arguably alleged against Biden or Pence, et cetera.
	But the first crime, the underlying crime, before we get to the alleged cover-up, is the same.
	You took classified documents that you had no right to take.
	Well, Megan's going to be back with you and Arthur.
	And I love the interview with my old law professor.
	He's the one who taught me criminal law, Alan Dershowitz.
	I agree.
	He's not everybody.
	Yeah, he claims to remember like all of his students.
	I don't believe that, but yeah, he was great.
	So, you know, look, I was with you when we discussed the Alvin Bragg prosecution.
	I admitted I thought that was the least strong of the four.
	I shared some of the concerns you had.
	On this one, though, I feel differently.
	You know, these are serious allegations.
	And yes, it is different than Biden and Pence, but that is really the crux of it is that when Trump, Trump has admitted, he knew he had the documents.
	And instead of giving them back, he refused and then tried to hide them according to the allegation from the feds.
	And there was an Air Force colonel who did something similarly.
	He just was sentenced to three years in prison.
	And so, you know, this is the type of thing that gets you prison time.
	And, you know, no one's above the law.
	So I think these charges are appropriate.
	I think of all the things.
	Yeah, but let me follow up on that with you.
	Okay.
	When you say hide, so how is moving documents if he did that with Nate from the storage room at Mar-a-Lago into his office hiding, right?
	Like maybe he was taking them in there to review.
	Maybe he looked and said, this is classified, but I declassified it.
	How is it hiding?
	Well, the fact that they're prosecuting Walt Nada, that's the valet, tells you that Walt Nada lied to the feds.
	And this is why they get Trump because, and what happened was the feds asked Nada, did you move the documents?
	Because they had evidence that he did.
	He said, no, no, no.
	And then they found on the surveillance aid, the documents were moved before and after.
	And a lot of this comes from Evan Corcoran, the lawyer for Trump.
	They got his notes.
	And he- Can you just stop there?
	Dave, sorry.
	Just stop there because the thing with Evan Corcoran is pretty outrageous as lawyers.
	I mean, it's pretty outrageous what happened with them.
	But can you just in baby steps, like in three succinct sentences, tell people what happened with the lawyer, Evan Corcoran, who was representing Trump?
	Sure.
	Evan Corcoran was there to produce the documents in response to the subpoena.
	And he took copious notes about everything he did because apparently he was trying to, under the legal doctrine, as Arthur knows, called CYA.
	And so he was trying to protect himself.
	So what happened was he was reviewing the documents and then made a statement that said that to the Speds that said that all the documents had been returned.
	Unbeknownst to him, the documents were not returned because he got access to them by what Trump wanted him to see.
	The documents were moved in and out of the storage room.
	He was told the documents are all there in the storage room, but unbeknownst to him, the documents were not all there in the storage room.
	They had been moved in and out of the room by Walt Nada so that the lawyer would not find all the documents.
	And Walt Nada lied about moving the documents.
	They had them on tape.
	And according to the report, Donald Trump was the one who told Walt Nada to move the documents around.
	And I agree with you, Megan.
	If that could be Trump's defense, where, oh, I wanted to see the documents and make sure they were all produced.
	But when the feds came to Colin later on, they found 100 more documents than had been produced, including some in his office mixed in with his personal stuff.
	So it's bad for Trump.
	You can't do that.
	What about thank you for that?
	That was a good explanation.
	But what I'll give it to you in one second, Arthur, but to follow up, Dave, what about that?
	This is where Trump's, I declassified everything comes in.
	I did look just to make sure I was giving you everything.
	Everything in there I had declassified.
	That's why you didn't get it.
	And I think that's his best defense, because although the documents don't need to be classified under the Espionage Act or that's an important point.
	That's an important point.
	Repeat that.
	Right.
	Under the Espionage Act, and I would love to talk about 793 without getting too technical because there's an important point in there.
	But under the Espionage Act, the documents only have to pertain to sensitive national security, not classified.
	They do not have to be classified.
	So number one.
	That is critical.
	It's bad for Donald Trump.
	Right.
	But prosecutors, and Arthur knows this, we prosecutors are risk averse.
	We don't like to bring cases unless we can eliminate any potential defenses.
	And it's our concern, if I had a case like this, that a single juror would think, yeah, maybe Trump actually believed he had the power to declassify.
	He was president.
	He had broad authority to declassify.
	So maybe he believed it.
	And that's some reasonable doubt.
	So what the feds were trying to do is to debunk that defense.
	And when they got that audio recording that you just discussed with Professor Dershowitz, that was the final piece of the puzzle.
	Not only do the documents not have to be declassified or not have to be classified, excuse me, but also they've got Trump on tape saying essentially, yeah, I would love to show it to you, but I can't because they're not declassified.
	And then he shows it to them anyways.
	It undermines the, I declassified everything.
	I waved the wand when I left office and I declassified everything.
	If that's true, why are you having hesitation about a document in your possession in 2021?
	Though, as I pointed out with Alan, we don't know enough about that document.
	I don't know that it's slam dunk, but even Alan, who defends Trump, though won't vote for him, says it's potentially a smoking gun.
	Go ahead, Arthur.
	Megan, I'm just wondering, how much is your opinion about whether this indictment should or should not have been brought?
	What weight does it hold on what actual documents Trump had, and even though they don't have to prove it, and what the motive was, was why he had these particular documents.
	Would your opinion change that this is not BS if you found out that there was something nefarious going on?
	He's selling secrets to the Chinese.
	Yes, I would be upset.
	Yes.
	But no one's saying that.
	I mean, no one's even alleged.
	That's the only question that I have in my mind.
	In other words, like hypothetically, let's just say these documents have to do with ribbon cutting ceremonies at very special places.
	And he wants to make sure his great grandkids have these documents for the future reference.
	And that this is what they're indicting him over.
	Then I would be outraged.
	If it has to do with selling secrets to the Chinese, then I would say, thank God.
	Okay, but let me, I get it.
	I get it.
	Let me say two things on that.
	Number one, Maggie Haberman of the New York Times had earlier reported he maintained these documents because they were like tchotchkes to him.
	You know, I want to I want to have a memento of my discussions with Kim Jong-un.
	Very, very plausible with Trump, whose wall in Trump Tower is covered with magazine covers of him, him, you know, his face.
	He's into that kind of thing.
	But secondly, this alleged audio tape that CNN says it has a transcript of, but again, we haven't heard it ourselves, seems to open up another possible theory, which is Trump understood there is, quote, a deep state.
	I don't really like that term, but I get what he's saying and other people say about there.
	There is an unhealthy element inside the government working against him that has hated him and wanted to undermine his presidency and his agenda.
	And he seems to have collected some documents as insurance.
	Judge Judy once told me, all of our favorite judge, she keeps a file on everybody.
	If you go into Judge Judy's world, she's got a file on you.
	Just in case you've doubled across her, just in case you heard her.
	She's brilliant.
	Maybe this is Trump's judge duty file, right?
	Like Millie's a liar, bullshit.
	He's the one who went to war with Iran.
	I don't know, but I could see that.
	In no world do I see Trump selling secrets to our enemies, Arthur?
	No, I mean, look, you gave that example, but it does, you know, I do, I mean, you just gave the first explanation that I've heard in the last 24 hours of why he might want to keep these documents.
	I just think from a prosecutor's point of view, that has to weigh into the matrix of whether or not, you know, how heavily you pursue this.
	And I think, and I, again, going back to your interview with Professor Dershowitz, I think that word willful is what they're going to rely on to distinguish things between Biden.
	I mean, look, everyone wants to paint Biden as the absent-minded professor.
	Well, this goes right into his defense.
	I don't know.
	I wasn't sure.
	I had nothing to do with it, which is where, versus Trump, which is I did know and I decided I wasn't going to play ball with you guys.
	But again, we're still stuck on, okay, he's going to say, I declassified everything and therefore it was not responsible for the money.
	It doesn't matter if it's not declassified or not.
	It matters whether they ask you, I need you to return this, classified or unclassified.
	When the National Archives say, we need this back, and you say, number one, no.
	Number two, you lie about it.
	And number three, you tell other people to obstruct justice.
	Those are three different federal crimes.
	Well, I don't know.
	There's some question about whether those records did not belong to the National Archives.
	We've had lawyers come on and say they were his.
	He was entitled to keep them.
	And that challenging the claim being made by the archivist that they belonged to the public to begin with.
	I don't know what the answer on that is.
	But Dave, let's talk about the fact because we put a pin in it.
	If let's say the classified or unclassified nature of these documents is irrelevant legally under the Espionage Act, that all the feds have to show is they related to national security.
	That's bad.
	As a legal matter for Trump, that's bad.
	If, because it seems like some of them did and they remained in his possession, what your take is you want to talk about subsection D, which he was charged under, whereas the gross negligence is subsection F. Actually, Megan, I want to talk about subsection E to get in the weeds, but here's why it's important because under the search warrant where they searched Mar-a-Lago, it was backed up by an affidavit.
	And the affidavit from the FBI agent specifically cited 18 USC 793E.
	It never cited F.
	So I never even considered F to be a possibility.
	I think it's always been about E all along.
	And if this case ends up being about D as a separate section, I'd be surprised.
	I think it's still about E because that was part of the willful.
	They're alleging.
	Well, we haven't seen it, but reportedly they're alleging willfulness.
	Keep going.
	Well, okay, under E, and just so I'm going to say the difference between D and E are the following.
	Under E, you have to have someone with unauthorized possession of the documents.
	So they're saying as a former president, he has unauthorized possession.
	And then that person has to willfully retain the documents and fail to deliver it back to the feds.
	Now, the difference between that, which I think applies, and D is D says you lawfully have possession of the documents.
	We're going to say that as president, you lawfully have possession of the documents, but you willfully failed to return them on demand.
	So that's the difference.
	D says you have to have a demand to return them.
	E doesn't require a demand.
	And D says you're allowed to have it before we ask you for them back.
	E says, no, you were never allowed to have them.
	So what's the bottom line?
	Why does any of that matter?
	How does that help or hurt Trump?
	Well, I think that as long as it's not F, I mean, and if it's D or E, I think they got them.
	If it's E, I think maybe a little tougher.
	I thought they'd always proceed under D because you have to say that you are someone who has unauthorized possession of the documents.
	And that's where the whole declassification stuff comes into play.
	So even though you didn't declassify, then it's, then you are unauthorized to have them.
	Well, either way, they're saying you had them and you shouldn't have had them.
	And once we asked for them, you had an obligation to turn them back over.
	That's what they're going to argue.
	But you got to give Jack Smith some credit.
	Like, I'm pretty sure, you know, he's an Easter district guy.
	He's here in my backyard originally.
	He's the special prosecutor.
	I am, I'm gonna, I'll bet it all on the fact that he has investigated that these are documents that any former president of the United States is not allowed to tell the National Archives, no, no, no, you can't have this.
	He would not make that kind of a rookie mistake.
Prison Presidency Questions 00:13:18
	I know, I know.
	Go ahead.
	Oh, Megan, one of the things, something you had said, and I totally agree with you on, by the way, I don't think that Donald Trump was trying to sell these documents to the Saudis or anyone else.
	I think the motive here, and that's something that prosecutors are going to have to come up with.
	Now, they don't have to, according to the law.
	We don't have to show motive, but jurors want to know the why.
	And that's going to come up.
	Why would Trump risk everything in something so pointless and futile to hold on to these documents?
	And the answer is what you said.
	He likes to be the big man when he entertains guests.
	That's why he has Shaquille O'Neal's shoe at Trump Tower.
	He likes to show these things off.
	And I think that's really the motivation here.
	This is so ridiculous.
	I mean, that we've now indicted a former sitting president over that.
	Like, let's zoom out for a minute.
	Okay.
	Like, I recognize maybe they got him legally.
	I don't know.
	We'll find out.
	But to indict the frontrunner for the GOP nomination by Joe Biden's Justice Department and a guy who was just the sitting president is, it is another before and after moment.
	We discussed this with the Bragg indictment.
	Only this one actually may have some teeth and he actually could serve 10 years in prison over it, Arthur.
	Are we really going to throw Trump potentially in prison because he was kind of a jerk about withholding these documents that he 100% had access and the right to have for at least four years?
	So I'm glancing at my phone only for a second because he did get good news today, Trump.
	He pulled a great judge.
	He pulled one of his appointed judges.
	Yeah, we talked about that.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, in federal court, that's day and night, Megan.
	I mean, just so people understand in state court where Dave is, if Dave charges somebody, I go in, I sit with Dave.
	He and I work out a deal and basically a judge rubber stamps it.
	That is not how it works.
	And that's how we work with Alvin Bragg.
	Takapina goes in, sits with Alvin Bragg.
	They cut a deal and their judge rubber stamps it.
	In federal court, the only deal you cut is what a guideline range is.
	And then it's up to the judge to go in that range, below it or above it.
	So the judge, the pull of the judge matters a lot, like not a little, a lot.
	And, you know, he's also in a jurisdiction where I don't think the U.S. Attorney's Office really played games or the Department of Justice played games.
	They brought it in the jurisdiction where the most crimes were charged or were committed according to them, even though it's a very favorable jurisdiction to Donald Trump.
	The Department of Justice, Megan, they figure out a way to get his jurisdiction on the littlest thing.
	You made a cell phone call from Florida to New York during this crime and it hit off the cell tower in New York.
	This is true.
	And therefore, we now have jurisdiction to bring all these crimes that happened in Florida in New York.
	They could have done something like that here.
	They didn't.
	Obviously, Trump is in a much better place in South Southern Florida than literally maybe anywhere else in the country.
	So, you know, I don't see Donald Trump in any scenario, maybe doing even any jail time, especially now that he pulled this particular judge.
	I mean, it would just be absurd.
	And by the way, for the record, you can run for president from prison.
	There's a question about whether you could actually be president from prison or whether they would stave off your sentence so you could actually just be president and then deal with it.
	Can he pardon himself?
	If he won, I think he can pardon himself.
	It's not clear, but I think he can, having looked at the law.
	But what if he doesn't win?
	If he runs and he's under these charges and Biden wins, you're not going to get a pardon.
	If DeSantis were to get the nomination, I think DeSantis would have to pardon him, just politically speaking.
	But David, just let me ask you as a prosecutor down in this area, I mean, how do you see this playing out in terms of like, cause he's exposed to decades in prison potentially.
	I mean, he has no prior record, but there will be guidelines that determine what he'd have to go away for if he were to be convicted.
	Yeah, the guidelines are much lower than the maximum.
	So although it's tempting to look at the maximum 10 years in prison for espionage and 20 years in prison for obstruction, he would get a lot less than that.
	Like a few years.
	You know, the Air Force colonel who did something similar got three years in prison.
	So yeah, it's possible he gets somewhere around that, if he's ever convicted.
	And Arthur's right that Judge Cannon is someone who's already been controversial because she made some rulings that got her repudiated by the 11th Circuit favorable to Trump about the special master.
	That's as good of a judge as Trump could ask for here.
	Here's another thing.
	They're all talking about how this case is in Miami.
	I think the appointment of Judge Cannon shows that this is most likely going to be up here in West Palm Beach, Fort Pierce, not down in Miami.
	Now, that is better for him than D.C., although not as good as Miami.
	But you compare it to D.C., if Jack Smith had filed this in Washington, D.C., it would have been a lot better for prosecutors.
	This shows that he's actually trying not only to convince the court not to delay matters over venue, but he's also trying to, I think, make a statement that he's going to get the indictment in a red state in Trump's home state.
	If he did it in D.C., Trump got 5% of the vote in Washington, D.C. in 2020.
	But the other thing Trump has to think about is the DOJ, they just, they don't bring charges unless they have you.
	They really very rarely lose cases.
	True.
	So that's what's very true.
	That's what's scary for President Trump right now.
	As much as we want to say it's going to help his poll numbers, it probably will.
	We'll do the politics of this next.
	He's 76 years old.
	You know, he doesn't want to go through this.
	He's not going to be serving decades in prison.
	He doesn't have that left in his life.
	So in any event, you guys, great discussion.
	Really appreciate your insightful analysis and we'll do it all again soon, I'm sure.
	I'm a little scarred, Megan.
	You cursed twice during this segment, but I'll tell you twice.
	Twice.
	They know sometimes they have a potty mouth, but only when it's justified.
	You guys are the best.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Up next, we're going to get into what's happening with Joe Biden and the revelations on this potential case against him.
	This bribery allegation is heating up and it's ugly.
	I mean, when I see somebody like Nancy Mace weighing in on this in the way she did, I pay attention.
	It's one thing to have his haters saying he did something bad.
	It's another thing to have somebody like that.
	I'll tell you what she said.
	Stand by.
	We have discussed the legal issues at play at length, but perhaps just as significant are the politics.
	Trump defenders calling this indictment nothing short of election interference.
	I mean, there's genuine outrage in response to this indictment.
	They are playing with fire right now, arguing this is banana republic type stuff.
	His detractors, the ones who wanted to give BLM a total pass and Hillary Clinton a total pass, say, no one is above the law.
	No one.
	Not even a former president and the leading Republican contender for 2024.
	Victor Davis Hansen is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of The Dying Citizen.
	Victor, welcome back to the show.
	I want to get into what's happening with Joe Biden, but before we do that, your reaction to what happened late yesterday.
	Well, it's sort of, you know, in a very, I don't want to be too dramatic, but it's sort of the end of, it's the end of what we took as normal.
	That is, we usually had elections and the incoming administration was careful not to interfere in the election process.
	For whatever reason or whatever the appearance is, we basically have the candidate who's leading in the polls to get the Republican nomination and is leading Joe Biden has been essentially taken out because he's facing possible prison time.
	And I think this indictment is going to be, he's got to go through this.
	And the baton goes to Alvin Bragg in March.
	And then the baton goes to Letita James.
	And the baton goes down in Georgia to Ms. Willis.
	So this is a premeditated plan sequential taking out of a candidate.
	I think at first they thought they were going to hang it over Trump's head and gain him empathy to ensure that he got the nomination and then take him out in the general.
	But now I think they feel that he's so far ahead of, and so far ahead of DeSantis in the polls that he might well get the nomination.
	They should hurry up and deal with that.
	I know that sounds cynical, but there's no other way to interpret this because it's so unusual.
	And the charges, I mean, every particular charge has a counter argument.
	Tita James has a counter argument at the Alvin Bragg.
	He didn't want to indict Donald Trump, private citizen.
	He only changed his mind when it was Donald Trump presidential candidate again.
	And with this, you've talked with guests, and I think everybody's talked about all the asymmetries between the Biden family and Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
	Let me ask you this, though.
	So there's obviously a belief amongst many on the right that this is all in an effort to defeat Donald Trump electorally, right?
	And that either they want him to become the nominee and they expect this to drive up his poll numbers so it will make him the nominee, or they just want him in jail because then they want him defeated, or they just want him in jail right now so that he can't effectively run as a president because he's got four indictments potentially sitting around his neck.
	There was a very telling discussion about this on MSNBC last night where, you know how you're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud?
	Well, it happened in a discussion between Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow, which I'm going to play for you in part.
	Listen to this, Sat 6.
	You have to wonder if the Justice Department is considering whether there is some political solution to this criminal problem, whether part of the issue here is not just that Trump has committed crimes, but that Trump has committed crimes and plans on being back in the White House.
	Do they consider as part of a potential plea offer something that would prescribe him, proscribe him from running for office again?
	I don't know.
	I would imagine if anything like that happened, that it would have to come from the defense side of the negotiation, that the Trump team would say, oh, by the way, and with this, we will also drop out of the race for president.
	Otherwise, it would put the Justice Department in this position that Donald Trump claims they're in.
	He claims they're trying to stop him, simply try to stop him from becoming president again.
	And that's the only reason they're doing this.
	Pretty extraordinary, Victor.
	It's insurrectionary.
	I mean, she just sort of outlined a process which she apparently approves of or would like to envision to happen in which the major presidential candidate is forced out by kind of the threat of a conviction, which would necessitate him bowing out.
	I don't know what she would say if the tables reversed given all of the Biden family's exposure to bribery and quid pro quo, you know, money for exchange of special treatment to foreign governments if somebody said that about Biden.
	Maybe the DOJ or special counsel would say, well, you know, Joe Biden can not face prison if he dropped out and quit the presidency.
	So this is very dangerous what they're doing.
	And, you know, not discussed with any judgment, by the way.
	Not discussed with any, that would be horrible.
	My God, that would make, that would make us a banana republic if this is political.
	Saying, oh, gee, you have to wonder whether there's some political solution here, whether part of the issue is not just that Trump committed crimes, but he's planning on being back in the White House.
	Right.
	You do have to wonder that, Rachel.
	That's what most of the country that isn't a hard partisan hack is concerned is happening right now.
	And we have a deep problem with it.
	We do.
	And they seem oblivious.
	They're so morally smug and narcissistic.
	They don't think that anybody on the right would ever cease playing by the Marcus of Queensbury rules and just say, you know what?
	These people don't understand anything.
	And when we take power, we're going to clean house.
	And we're going to do it legally, but we're going to clean house.
	They get outraged and shriek.
	And this is after the Russian collusion Mueller hoax.
	It's after the Russian disinformation laptop hoax.
	It's after the bogus first impeachment.
	And they keep doing it and pushing the envelope, jumping the shark, whatever metaphor you use.
	And they think that every American is going to take it.
	But at some key point, this is kind of a force multiplier to the chaos that's going on on the border with crime, with homelessness, the whole transgender thing.
	And people, you can start to see it with the polls at the recent poll that people are more likely to identify themselves really in recent memory as conservative or the Bud Light, the Target, the Dodgers, the Disney pushback.
	I don't think they understand.
	They keep poking and they're creating a really angry American public that's also afraid, Megan, because they feel that if you've got people at the highest levels, like a McCabe that can lie under oath four times, or like a Comey that can feign amnesia 245 times, or a Clapper or Brennan at the highest, you know, CIA directors, and they can lie and admit they lie, and there's no exposure, or Hilly can destroy devices under subpoena,
Double Standards in Justice 00:04:15
	or the FBI can wipe clean telephones under subpoena, then, and there's no consequences, then people say to themselves, well, we don't have a country anymore.
	You can get away with all of this and justify it for political necessity on the part of the left.
	It's not viable.
	How can we ever lecture people in the Middle East and Asia about the wonders of democracy and how they have to emulate our system?
	That's exactly right.
	This guy, Jack Smith, had more than just, do I have a crime that I could win on in front of him?
	He had the fracturing of a nation in front of him.
	To Alan's point, it needs to be a crime if you're going to go after our former president, never mind the leading nominee for the next race on the GOP side, that everybody can agree on, that even Trump's fans could look at and say, they had to do it.
	I mean, my God, that's bad.
	This is nowhere near that.
	It's like you had some documents that you didn't really take very good care of down there that you should have given back to the national archivist.
	That's really what this is.
	It's not worth it.
	It's not worth tearing at the fabric of the nation.
	It isn't.
	Everybody looks at Joe Biden and they all have a different angle on the asymmetry.
	You can say, wow, he was vice president.
	He had no chance to declassify.
	He took documents out.
	Wow.
	Donald Trump had them for almost two years, but Joe Biden had them for six years and he knew he had them for six years and he knew that was in violation and he never notified anybody.
	And then there's also these extraneous suggestions that are leaking that Hunter Biden may have been, what, tapping into confidential security reports that made him look a lot smarter than he is when he was trying to sell his wares to foreign governments.
	So, and then all the ones, not one, not one insecure place, but three, maybe four of them.
	And so when people look at all that, I think they've lost confidence.
	And maybe not with the rank and file of the DOJ or the FBI or the CIA, but they surely have lost confidence with the entire hierarchy.
	And it puts also a burden, Megan, on the Republican candidates because that are running against Trump, because they have to thread a needle.
	On the one hand, they have to be outraged at what they're doing to Trump.
	But if they start, and there were people on Fox the other night, when I was on, they were announcing that the nomination is over and everybody has to unite around Trump.
	And so these candidates obviously can't do that, but if they can't, one I ought to criticize Trump or they're going to implode their candidacies.
	But on the other hand, if they mention Trump by name and champion, then that's going to come back to bite them in a soundbite while he approved a Trump.
	So they're in a real dilemma how to handle this.
	And I think the only way to do it is for a guy like DeSantis that every time they have an indictment, he's got to come out and say, here is a specific remedy for this without mentioning Trump.
	He has to say, this is the remedy for people that are running the FBI.
	They're going to be prosecuted for perjury the next time they lie under oath, or they're going to be forbidden to be hiring foreign social media companies to do their dirty work off the books.
	Or if they wipe clean, you know, anything under subpoena, they're going to be prosecuted.
	Or we're going to break up the hierarchy and farm out divisions.
	Or we're going to get rid of the special counsel's office of the FBI.
	Something like that that's specific that deals with the problem and yet doesn't criticize the FBI rank and file and more and doesn't get into the point where to what degree are you criticizing Trump?
	Or if you try to endorse Trump and you're a candidate against him, then it's very difficult to know what to do with these candidates.
	That's prescriptive, that they need something that's prescriptive.
	I'll talk about their candidate responses in one second, but I just wanted to stay in your comment about the double standard and how people are being treated and how it makes people feel that they really are living in something that's closer to a banana republic than the United States of America.
	And that brings me to the outrageous Hillary Clinton tweet.
IRS Reports on Biden 00:13:51
	How dare she?
	She puts out this tweet and it's a picture of her, a much younger Hillary, and the caption on the hat reads, but her emails.
	And she writes in her tweet, bringing this back in light of recent news.
	Get a limited edition, butt her emails hat and support Onward Together groups working to strengthen our democracy.
	The nerve, the nerve of this woman to have committed federal crimes and to have gotten off because James Comey didn't have the spine to bring it.
	And now seeing her political opponent get a different result and trying to take some sort of a, I told you, but my emails, that was never a thing, LAP is galling.
	You can't even count her crimes.
	When she was a candidate, she destroyed messages under subpoena.
	She violated the law with a private server.
	She actually destroyed physical devices that were under subpoena.
	And then she hired a foreign national, which is against the law, to work in her campaign, Christopher Steele.
	She funneled money through the DNC, who then hid it through Perkins Coe, then hid it through Fusion GPS, and then to compile that dossier.
	Then he got her former State Department people and media to see this false dossier.
	And there were all along that line that were illegalities.
	And then once he was president, talk about election denialism.
	She said, Donald Trump is an illegitimate president, and I'm joining la resistance.
	That's insurrectionary.
	So people, you know, I think all of this, Megan, when you look at the way that the 120 days of 2020, the looting, the arson, the death of 35 people, 1,500 police officers injured,
	and then you look at the act, the lack of any accountability, really, and then you compare it with January 6th, one day, or you look at people that are the FBI in performance art fashion goes to their home and they try to arrest them in front of their kids for going, you know, demonstrating at a pro-life something, or they get in an altercation, they charge them with battery, and it just builds up.
	And I think at some point, the left must feel that they don't have 51% of the population and they're going to lose an election and even their institutional solidarity with the media and sports and entertainment, corporations, academia.
	They have all of that, but they're very worried that they're running out of time and they're just pushing, pushing, pushing to get this agenda through.
	And the agenda is not just policy, it's persons too.
	But at some point, they're really risking it because people are really, really angry.
	And they're not, and the Democrats aren't.
	Republicans take party.
	They're not going to take prisoners.
	Well, that's the thing, right?
	So it's like, if Republicans win this next presidential election, God help the Democrats.
	Because if you don't think that they believe turnabout is fair play, you haven't been paying attention to our politics over the past five years.
	But I do want to dive into what's happening on the Joe Biden because I don't know whether this is all designed.
	Joe Biden denies having any contact with the DOJ on any of this.
	But it is the timing's very coincidental that just as the investigation by House Oversight into Joe Biden's alleged misdeeds heats up to a, I mean, a legitimately disturbing level, that's the day we find out that Trump's been indicted.
	It's just, I mean, it is, look, you'd have to say, you have to pay attention to that, even if you're not a conspiratorial person.
	Here's what happened.
	So House Oversight is investigating Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, the Biden family crime syndicate, as their detractors would say.
	Did they take money for influence peddling and so on or not?
	They found out about a document that was in the possession of someone who was in connection, who had spoken to, I mean, the FBI had it, but it was from a whistleblower.
	And this is a trusted source that the FBI has paid some $200,000 to over the past few years to get information.
	They rely on this guy, whoever it is, they trust him.
	Well, this guy came forward and said, I've got bad news for you.
	Joe Biden and Hunter Biden have been up to no good.
	And we knew they had this document and FBI was dragging it to be producing it to Comer and the House Oversight Committee.
	Comer said, we're going to hold you in contempt unless you give it to us.
	Finally, the FBI said, well, you can come here and look at it.
	Comer said, no, you will bring it to us.
	You will give us unfettered access to it.
	He said, oh, I'll bring it over and you can look at it under my parameters.
	Comer said, no, you will bring it over here and we will look at it as much as we want.
	You answer to us.
	And finally, Christopher Wray of the FBI said, all right, here you go.
	So they had their look at it this week.
	And the reports from those congressmen and women who have seen it are absolutely alarming that this trusted source went to the FBI and said, Joe Biden took $5 million, Hunter Biden took $5 million from Ukraine back when Joe Biden was vice president.
	Why did they do it?
	Because Hunter had this appointment to the Burisma board, this energy company, even though Hunter knew nothing about energy, and that Burisma was getting investigated by this anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine.
	Burisma didn't like that.
	Burisma wanted that prosecutor to go away.
	Hunter Biden allegedly said, it might help you making this case if you would buy a U.S. energy company.
	And so they allegedly did that via some company in Canada that had stock in an American company.
	Anyway, the evidence is allegedly that they were listening to Hunter.
	And then they allegedly paid Hunter and Joe 10 million total.
	And that lo and behold, Joe Biden fired that prosecutor.
	He made it such that the Ukrainians had to fire that prosecutor.
	And we know Joe Biden did make that happen.
	He's admitted that he made that happen.
	He denies that it was because of an influence peddling scheme.
	So now this is the first we've gotten where there was allegedly a payment to him and Hunter in exchange for that action.
	And the allegation by Comer, as outlined last night on Hannity, was that reading now, hold on.
	They bragged, they bragged that the way Biden wanted the money distributed was that it would be through so many banks that it would take investigators 10 years to track the money.
	And that it was, but that House Oversight is looking into all of it, getting subpoenas for these banks and trying to uncover this.
	They say they were already uncovered the 10 million.
	And Comer said last night, I would say the number could top out at 20 million.
	Final point here, Victor, and then I'll give you the floor.
	Representative Nancy Mace, who again is one of those more moderate Republicans.
	She's not like a fire-breathing, you know, Comer, Marjorie Taylor Greene type.
	She comes out and tells Fox News Digital after she reviewed that document: there is damning evidence that the sitting president of the United States sold out his country in an ongoing bribery scheme.
	The American people and media deserve to see the evidence.
	We should follow the facts.
	Here's the last piece of it.
	Joe Biden was asked about her saying that at the White House outside of the White House yesterday, and here is how he answered.
	The bribery allegation.
	Congresswoman Nancy Mace says there's damning evidence in that BI filed that you sold out the country.
	Do you have a response to congressional Republicans?
	Where's the money?
	I'm joking.
	Mr. President, Malor.
	And then he went on to say, I'm honest.
	I'm honest.
	You know, that's a very bad answer because it's not just discounting the seriousness of it, but when he says, where's the money?
	It channels right into the report that they had it hidden by all these paywalls and you couldn't find the money.
	And Joe Biden is expressing confidence that you're never going to find it.
	I dare you to find it after we set up all of these fake companies.
	But there's two or three things that I don't think anybody quite understands about this.
	The first is what Christopher Wray, you know, he's stonewalling.
	And I guess he thinks he initially thought that he was Eric Colder and Fast and Furious, where the minister, the left just says, you know what, I'm not going to obey a Republican subpoena.
	But they blew that up as they do with all the institutions when they went after Steve Bannon and convicted him and sentenced him to refusing a congressional subpoena.
	So he should have known that now there's a new precedent.
	You don't do that, even if you're the FBI director.
	The second thing I don't understand is that this two-page document wasn't classified.
	So why was he so paranoid about protecting it and didn't want any of it out and kept denying that even it existed for a while or that he lost it or he couldn't find it when people had, I think Grassley had knew that it was there.
	So the sheer eagerness or paranoia or obsession, fixation with not producing it suggests that he was very worried about anybody getting access to this.
	And then the third is when they talk about these millions, 5 million to Hunter or 5 million to Joe and perhaps more, and they say, Joe says, show me the money.
	But this is not hard to find.
	Joe Biden was vice president in 2009.
	He exited office in January of 2017.
	Then he had four years as a private citizen.
	He's got about 10 years.
	He filed tax returns.
	And all they have to do is look what he reported and then make get an IRS investigator and said, this is how he lived, or these are the homes he bought, or this is the expenses that we can document, and they don't match up.
	And so that's very stupid when people screw with the IRS and they say, show me the money, or, you know, and they don't report large amounts of income and they think the IRS cannot calibrate their expenditures.
	And so I think that it's a very easy thing to find out if they get the power to trace down all of Joe Biden's bank accounts, all of his deposits, and then the type of huge expenditures for houses or other things that he purchased and/or he gave the money to Hunter.
	And we know that's true because Hunter is facing from all the leaks serious IRS exposure.
	And it's based on the fact that they feel that he hasn't reported income commiserate of the type with the type of money that he was spending.
	And so I think it's demonstrable.
	And that may explain why Ray was so scared to release that because he thought it might be explosive enough to bring down a president.
	Right.
	And it's not apparently some nutcase who they're relying on in this document.
	It is an informant that the FBI has trusted for a number of years.
	And that is what leads some to believe there's a connection that just as the investigation into Joe Biden for the first time, it names Joe Biden.
	All the rest so far has been circling around the Biden family, the brother, the son.
	This is Joe Biden as vice president, allegedly sold out his country, as Mace said.
	You know, it's that same day, we find out Trump's been indicted.
	And I will say this, I want to correct myself.
	He didn't say I'm honest in response to that soundbite about, you know, it's all malarkey.
	I didn't, I didn't take money.
	He said it about whether he interfered with getting the DOJ to come after President Trump.
	Many people see a connection here, but here for the record is how Joe Biden responded to that allegation in South World.
	You notice I have never once, not one single time, suggested to the Justice Department what they should do or not do, well, to bring in a charge and not bring in a charge.
	I'm honest.
	Just a pro tip.
	You shouldn't say I'm honest if you want us to believe you're honest.
	Don't say that.
	That's not what honest people say.
	Go ahead.
	Nobody's going to believe that because Anthony Blinken called up Mike Morrell and he was the ramrod for the Biden campaign.
	He doesn't do anything unless Biden knows.
	And he was worried about Biden was going to be in a debate with Donald Trump in the 2020 election.
	And he said, round up 51 intelligence experts.
	So we know that Joe Biden is perfectly willing, even as a candidate, to interfere with government bureaucrats and get them to have a narrative that he can use.
	And so that's what, and when he, I almost thought he'd say, believe me as a Biden, and that's the giveaway that he's lying.
	But the problem, again, is with all of this is that Joe Biden, this is the, we can say it without any doubt that the FBI interve interfered in the 2016 election with the whole crossfire hurricane bogus operation.
	We can say with pretty good certainty they interfered in the 2020 election in two fashions.
	They were contracting out to Twitter and probably Facebook to suppress information that would have been embarrassing to Joe Biden.
	And more importantly, the FBI had in their hands a laptop, which they knew was Hunter Biden's because Tony Volbolinsky had said that these messages were genuine and there was no evidence that it was Russian discipline.
	And they put that on ice to help Joe Biden in the debate and his candidacy.
	And now we have a third time, Megan, where it's the most egregious.
	They're interfering in the 2024 election.
	And at some point, people are going to say, we don't have a republic.
	These people are totally out of control.
	They either have to face severe prosecution and legal exposure, or we've got to take the whole hierarchy and fire them and break up the agency or do something because these people are very, very scary.
	And I think a lot of Americans, they're angry, but they're also scared.
Interference in the 2024 Election 00:02:48
	They think at any time, anywhere, anybody on anything can have their lives destroyed.
	As we saw a lot of people, you know, parents at a school board meeting or a protester at an abortion clinic, and you just protest and they show up in performance art fashion at your church and Latin mass.
	These people are crazy and they're dangerous.
	And this isn't their country.
	This week was January, June 6th, D-Day.
	And these people didn't die on Omaha Beach to give our generation a free country and then turn it over to Comey and McCabe and Ray and Clapper and Brennan and all of these bureaucrats to hijack what these people died for.
	And, you know, they're going to have to really, whoever the candidate is, I think it would be a very smart thing to say when I am in office, I'm getting rid of all the security clearances for these people who go on and pontificate on and weaponize and monetize their security cleanse.
	I'm going to hold every general responsible who violates the uniform code of military justice.
	We're not going to have retired generals saying the president of the United States is Hitler, Mussolini, a liar, a coward, should be removed sooner or later.
	And if you're an FBI director, CIA, and you lie under oath to Congress, you're going to go to jail.
	And I think that would resonate with the Americans.
	They are sick of this.
	It's almost a slow motion coup.
	It really is.
	I want to say you wrote a great article on D-Day this week.
	I tweeted it out if people want to go read it.
	It's always worth reading VDH.
	But in other news, I'm actually going to be on vacation next week, which is unfortunate because I would like to be live covering the Trump arraignment.
	But I'm not canceling my vacation because I'm going with my family to France.
	And the first place we're going, Victor, is Normandy, because Doug and I, I've never seen it.
	We want our kids to see it.
	We're actually having them write little articles about it before we get there so they can actually learn about this historic moment and what happened and what our guys were fighting for against all the odds, which is beautifully laid out in your piece.
	People need to go back and study.
	And here we are all these years later, and we're getting farther and farther away from what those guys fought and died for.
	Thank you for reminding us, as only you can do so eloquently.
	Thank you.
	We're going to be right back with Charles C.W. Cook, and we'll get into how the Republican candidates are responding to all of this, plus an update on whether a federal investigation remains underway right now into these allegations that we just discussed that Representative Comer discussed last night.
Bill Barr Indictment Details 00:15:38
	They're throwing all these process crimes and all these crimes that grow out of the criminal investigation against Trump.
	What did he do with the documents?
	Did he sell them to the enemy?
	No.
	Did he burn them all?
	No.
	All of a sudden, it's in Miami.
	All of a sudden, we have a Florida grand jury.
	You want to talk about an insurrection?
	This is an insurrection.
	Don't be bamboozled by these cable channels and these fools who come on and tell you, well, he's not above the law.
	Are you kidding me?
	There is no law.
	What's going on here is a disgusting disgrace.
	It is war on Trump.
	It is war on the Republican Party.
	And it is a war on a republic.
	So I feel like Mark Levin, the great one, is against the indictment.
	He is a legal genius and always worth listening to.
	Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show.
	Joining me now for more reaction to Trump's second indictment this year.
	Charles C.W. Cook, senior writer for National Review and Florida resident, where this case now will be heard.
	The next move is, again, Trump's arraignment on Tuesday.
	Charles, your reaction to what we have seen in the past 24 hours.
	Well, the risk of annoying Mark Levin a little bit, I think this is actually quite complicated, but I do think there are some really big problems with it.
	And I'll just quickly say, of course, I have not seen the indictment.
	But assuming that there is nothing particularly explosive in the indictment, it seems to me that two things are probably true at once.
	The first one is that Trump did do this, but he's pretty much admitted that he did this.
	And it is a crime.
	And in a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with prosecuting people who commit crimes who happen to be running for president or used to be president.
	The idea that that per se makes us a banana republic, I think is wrong.
	What worries me, again, absent some bizarre news from the unsealed indictment, is that there's nothing that I can see about this case that is substantially different from the Hillary Clinton case.
	Both involved the Espionage Act.
	Both involve claims of obstruction.
	I mean, Hillary deleted, what is it, 30,000 emails?
	Both were willful.
	Trump didn't end up with these documents by accident.
	Hillary installed a home email server in her house, knowing full well the sorts of emails that would go in and out, and that that was against protocol.
	Now, I made at the time the case probably three or four times in writing that the case against Hillary Clinton was strong and that if the government wanted to bring a case against her, it could have done so.
	But it didn't.
	It didn't do that.
	Famously, James Comey said, no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case.
	Well, we now fast forward.
	And the person in the crosshairs is Donald Trump, a Republican, obviously a highly controversial figure.
	And we've seen an indictment.
	And to me, that is the thing that I find the most alarming.
	It's not that we are prosecuting people who are powerful or who are running for office.
	It's that unless there is something in the indictment that substantially separates what Trump did, it just looks as if we have two sets of rules.
	And this isn't just bad politically and in terms of how people see their institutions.
	It's really bad for the stability of the law.
	The way the law works, you're supposed to have some sort of easy comprehension in the public as to what is illegal and what is not, and what meets the threshold for prosecutorial discretion and what does not.
	Well, we don't have that here, as far as I can see.
	We have caprice.
	And I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say, hang on a minute.
	Why did one person get away with it and the other one not?
	The other problem is, I mean, there's just been so much attention on Trump.
	Very few people could withstand, at least people who had been president of the United States and in politics for long, could withstand this kind of scrutiny.
	You know, we've talked before about how if you take a look at any individual long enough, you're going to find some laws that he or she has violated.
	I mean, nobody's taken this hard a look at the Clinton Foundation.
	Trump right now is trying, he's fighting to keep his business alive in the state of New York because the attorney general wants to shut it down forever, trying to say that they didn't keep the right books there either.
	Not to mention what Alvin Bragg is alleging about the bookkeeping.
	No one's doing that to Hillary and Bill.
	No one had the appetite to do that.
	And people understand how unfair this is.
	So far, Trump's winning.
	You know, so far, he's managed to beat back most of these challenges because when you take a hard look at it, while he's not like, he's a New York real estate guy, they cut some corners.
	They haven't been able to prove illegality in any of his behaviors.
	I don't know whether he's going to withstand this challenge or not, but that's what feels so unfair.
	Well, yes and no.
	I think that we have to separate out the cases.
	I mean, this swine is a little different in that he did it and he's almost boasting.
	I'm not saying that.
	I don't know that he has confessed that.
	This case requires intent and that it hasn't been admitted.
	Well, I mean, it requires him to have done it consciously, which willingly, yeah, which he did and then has been uncooperative.
	I think the other cases you mentioned.
	That's what you believe.
	That has not been admitted.
	I think there's a well, he seems to be proud of it.
	And in interviews, he doesn't push back.
	His lawyers must cry themselves to sleep every night, given the way he talks about it.
	Trump says he declassified the documents and therefore believes he had a right to the documents.
	That is not an admission that you willingly withheld classified documents from the feds.
	Now, if he doesn't have to prove classified prosecutors, if all they have to prove is it was national defense information and you willingly withheld it, as we discussed in our first panel, that could change things for Trump.
	But I don't think it's legally correct to say he's admitted it.
	Okay.
	Well, we can quibble over that.
	But the broader point is that this one is a lot stronger than the other ones.
	And I think you're right when you say, I mean, the last indictment, I came on your show and talked about this.
	The Alvin Bragg indictment is a joke and it's a disgrace.
	It's unbelievably weak.
	It should never have been brought.
	It would never have been brought against anyone else.
	And the investigations into his business is a perfect example of what happens when the government goes after the man rather than the law.
	I mean, this is one of the things that worries me the most about the way the FBI operates is that very often it seems to go after people rather than crimes.
	And as you say, and let alone somebody who's run many businesses and been president, if the FBI, and this is not an invitation, if the FBI came into my house now and looked around for enough time, I'm sure they would find something that I've done wrong.
	But we don't have a system or we shouldn't have a system that works like that.
	But I do want to draw some distinctions there.
	I mean, Trump is hardly, you know, purer than the driven snow.
	Agreed.
	And, you know, there are some times when what he is accused of, he has done.
	And there are some times when he hasn't.
	What bothers me here, as I say, is that there seems to be a double standard on prosecutorial discretion.
	And, you know, I hear some people say, well, just because James Comey got it wrong with Hillary doesn't mean that the federal government has to get it wrong in their view.
	Now, I actually sort of think that it does.
	I mean, I think that if you're going to set a standard like Comey did with the same law and essentially the same set of accusations and say this doesn't meet the threshold, we don't want to do this.
	Then, yeah, you have to do the same thing the next time that it comes up.
	And this is, of course, before we get to Joe Biden, who, you know, the details are a little bit different, but Joe Biden has a whole bunch of classified information in his possession as well.
	not all of which came from the vice presidency, some of which came from the Senate, which I'm given to understand means that he has to have actually taken that out of a skiff explicitly, deliberately, consciously, and taken it home.
	So, you know, if we end up in a situation where Hillary wasn't charged, Trump is indicted, and then Biden gets away with it too, then we will be in an even worse position than we look as if we're in now.
	And on top of all that, you've got this separate investigation.
	Not only has Hunter Biden not been charged despite a grand jury proceeding that appears to have been ongoing, starting off and on again, I guess, for five years, despite very clear admissions on his part about illegalities relating to guns and drugs and on and on.
	But now we have this information about Joe Biden, you know, as outlined by this FBI informant that, you know, has alarmed, alarmed normally reasonable, fairly quiet, moderate Republican lawmakers.
	And one of the interesting things about this is Jamie Raskin, you know, he's the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee.
	He's the Democrat saying, who's saying, well, you know what?
	In August of 2020, Bill Barr and his quote, handpicked U.S. attorney closed the assessment into this form.
	This is old news.
	This is what the Democrats always say.
	This is old news.
	Bill Barr, a Republican under Trump, already closed this investigation.
	So there's no there.
	But Bill Barr happened to be on, he went on the Federalist on Wednesday and said, that's not true.
	Bill Barr said, I had a U.S. attorney take a look at the form just to see if we believed this was a credible source and worth further probing.
	And that U.S. attorney said, yes, it is.
	And yes, it is.
	And Bill Barr said, what we did at that point was pass the evidence on to the U.S. attorney in Delaware who had an open investigation on this.
	And Bill Barr said, quote, nothing was closed.
	And Comer was talking about this last night on Fox saying, people need to understand that is an admission that there is now an open U.S. attorney investigation into Joe Biden right now in the state of Delaware, in the federal courts in Delaware, presumably involving a grand jury.
	And this could, I mean, Charles, we could be looking at a situation where the two men running for president against one another on the GOP and Democratic side are both under indictment.
	That is possible.
	Yeah.
	And I think it's worth saying, given I'm so keen to draw distinctions, that if this is true, it is much more serious than the Trump indictment.
	They decide whether or not Trump did it.
	I mean, it's hard to find a way of looking at this, if the facts that have been reported turn out to be correct, that is not utterly damning.
	I mean, obviously, if Joe Biden was actually taking money from foreign organizations in exchange for changing government policy, then that is a big enough scandal that he should immediately resign in disgrace, if not be impeached or indicted.
	Even if he wasn't, why would anyone who wishes to be seen as above board, who says, as you noted in your previous segment, you know, I am honest, set up this extraordinary elaborate means by which to move money around?
	And I don't do that.
	I'm sure you don't do that.
	There's no offshore accounts.
	Right, but the quote that I read in the New York Times was that the sort of labyrinth way that this has been established is it could take 10 years to uncover.
	That was the intention.
	Well, why?
	Again, I understand that there could be differences when the truth comes out.
	And I understand that some people do have good reason to have a relatively complex financial setup.
	But for the man who was a senator his whole life and then vice president and then moved into running for president, that is a very big red flag.
	So even if there was no provable quid pro quo here.
	That should alarm people in and of itself.
	If this turns out to be true, it's going to be a lot worse than the Trump classified documents scandal, which is bad, but is a scandal that seems to affect everyone.
	It affected Trump's last opponent, Mike Pence, is now under investigation for this.
	Joe Biden is himself.
	Right.
	And there's no allegation that Trump actually shared these documents with one of our enemies.
	By the way, there were allegations that the Chinese had accessed Hillary Clinton's server and seen documents that they were not entitled to see.
	Another distinction that doesn't bode well for the Democrats here.
	Again, I just want to read again to this Nancy Mace quote to Fox News Digital after reviewing that document with a confidential informant.
	She said, there is damning evidence the sitting president of the United States sold out his country in an ongoing bribery scheme.
	My God.
	I mean, again, this is not this a lawmaker we know who is prone to hyperbole.
	With all due respect to Marjorie Taylor Greene, I don't think I'd be that moved if I heard that from her, but from Nancy Mace?
	Well, and if you look back to when this story first leaked into the newspapers, the person whose name was all over it was Chuck Grossley, who's another person who is not really associated with hyperbole, who doesn't tend to get carried away, who's quite careful.
	And I thought at the time, well, that gives it some credence.
	But as you say, the fact that this has now been seen and echoed by Nancy Mace is telling.
	Usually when I'm on a show, whether it's yours or my own podcast or the editors at National Review, and Nancy Mace's name comes up, it's because she's savaging Republicans.
	That's why she makes the news.
	She criticizes Republicans all the time.
	She has an ongoing feud with Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	Well, now both of them are saying the same thing.
	That suggests to me that she went into a room, she looked through this information, and she came out shocked.
	Same.
	I want to mention quickly a couple of reactions.
	By the way, the indictment just hit.
	So I'm going to look at it in one second.
	But can I just ask you, as a matter of politics, the reactions that have come in?
	I mean, remember when Mitt Romney was trying to become the nominee and he did become the nominee, but he was always the last to say anything.
	It just showed this sort of timidness to him.
	You could argue it was jurisdiction.
	It was prudence too, but to me, it seemed timid.
	Well, it took 24 hours for both Nikki Haley and Mike Pence to say anything.
	And so far, they're really not saying much of anything, to be honest.
	But Tim Scott said the following.
	Americans deserve to have confidence in our justice system.
	As president, I will purge all the injustices in our system.
	So every American is seen by the lady of justice with a blindfold on.
	Okay.
	Chris Christie, we don't get our news from Trump's truth social account.
	Let's see what the facts are.
	No one's above the law.
Uneven Application of Law 00:02:55
	DeSantis, to me, I think he came closest to hitting the right note for Republicans.
	The weaponization of federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society.
	For years, we've witnessed an uneven application of the law depending on political affiliation.
	Why so zealous in pursuing Trump, yet so passive about Hillary or Hunter?
	The DeSantis administration will bring accountability to the DOJ and so on.
	The vape Ramaswamy says it'd be much easier for me to win this election if Trump were not in it.
	But I stand for principles over politics and I commit to pardon Trump promptly upon becoming president.
	We could go on.
	your thoughts as i review this indictment on how so far the the other candidates have responded well i think desantis said the right thing which is to focus on the inconsistent application of prosecutorial discretion between hillary and trump which as i say unless there is some big surprise in the indictment is going to be the story and should be the story here.
	Why is Trump being treated different than Hillary?
	I'm not a great fan of the other statements, and the Ramaswamy one is just too much.
	I mean, he hasn't been convicted.
	It doesn't show a great deal of confidence that he is innocent.
	And, you know, promises of pardons, this electoral politics make me feel a little bit queasy.
	So I think DeSantis was good.
	This will suck up all of the oxygen in the room for a little while.
	And the other candidates are just going to have to respond to that.
	And now how, I mean, what happens now, Charles?
	What happens now?
	Trump is 30, sometimes 40 points ahead of DeSantis' nearest rival.
	It's not January.
	It's June.
	Like we're getting closer and closer to the debates and, you know, where the GOP will wind up picking their guy or gal.
	And you got Trump under indictment in two places, possibly facing two more as he's running away with the nomination.
	My God.
	Well, what I hope happens now is that Republicans choose someone who isn't Donald Trump, not because of these indictments, although they don't help, but because I think Trump disqualified himself by trying to rewrite the 12th Amendment and because I don't think he can win.
	Whether that's going to happen, I have absolutely no idea.
	I mean, I've been hoping that that's going to happen since 2015.
	So I don't have a great record.
	I do think there's a long way to go, though.
	I mean, there's no doubt Trump's in a very strong position.
	There's no doubt that he is doing better against DeSantis than we assumed in January when DeSantis was sort of high up in the polls.
	You're right, it's not January, but it is June.
	People haven't switched on.
	It's going to be interesting to see how this changes if at all when the debates start.
	I know we're both just getting a look at this indictment.
	It just hit.
Risks of Exposed Allegations 00:14:59
	These are the charges.
	It's a 38-count indictment.
	Counts one through 31, willful retention of national defense information.
	Count 32, conspiracy to obstruct justice.
	33, withholding a document of record.
	34, corruptly concealing a document of record.
	35, concealing a document in a federal investigation.
	36, scheme to conceal.
	37, false statements and representations.
	38 is the same, presumably with respect to different statements and representations.
	Just spitballing what I'm seeing here so far, the hold on, let me find the actual count three.
	Hold on.
	So in paragraph three, this is what they allege, Charles.
	The classified documents Trump stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the U.S. and foreign countries, U.S. nuclear programs, potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack, and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack.
	The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the U.S. military and human sources, and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection materials methods.
	At one point in the indictment, they offer up a picture of where they say Trump kept some of these documents at some point.
	And it shows a picture of several boxes.
	I can't even count how many on what appears to be a stage, like a stage on which one would perform, you know, as an acting troop, saying that this was where the boxes were moved.
	I'll read the paragraph 25.
	From January through March 15th, 2021, some of Trump's boxes were stored in the Mar-a-Lago Club's white and gold ballroom in which events and gatherings took place.
	Trump's boxes were for a time stacked on the ballroom's stage, as depicted in the photograph below, redacted to obscure the individual's identity, I guess, who told him about this or took the picture.
	So this is where they're going.
	Now, we don't know when they say nuclear and military, like we don't know whether it is possible for a prosecutor to overplay his hand and try to make it sound worse than it is.
	It is no prosecutor's beyond that when crafting an indictment.
	But the goal by any measure is to make this sound as dire as humanly possible.
	Yeah, and there is the rub because the phrases that you read sound very bad, and they may well be.
	I mean, we don't know what's in those boxes in Biden's garage either.
	And we don't know exactly what was in those emails on Hillary's server.
	But whenever information is exposed in this way, there is a risk.
	The problem is, as you intimated, that you can, for example, describe a document that lists where America's nuclear weapons are kept, that is public knowledge, as classified information about America's nuclear program.
	Because we do have a problem with overclassification.
	That doesn't justify what anyone might do to break the law, but it's hard to know.
	If though, those descriptions are accurate, then it's bad.
	I mean, as I say, I mean, we can argue about whether he has admitted it and what that means, but he did this.
	Like, this is not some wild eye conspiracy.
	He definitely, there's no question he had classified documents down there that he may or may not have tried to declassify.
	There's no question he had a bunch of material down there that was at one point classified.
	Sure.
	But so even if we were to assume that he unclassified, declassified this information in his brain, as he puts it, he did it in his mind.
	And we were to assume that the president possesses that power, which is a matter of dispute on which I'm not an expert.
	Correct.
	Let's suppose that he did that.
	He, no, he then put it on the stage in Mar-a-Lago.
	I mean, that is not more.
	There's more.
	There's a question.
	Let me add some color to that because that would be bad enough to leave it sitting there on the stage.
	I want to remind the audience, these are allegations.
	They're allegations that I'm sure Trump is going to deny, and they will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury.
	But this is, according to the indictment, it says that on two occasions in 2021, Trump showed classified documents to others.
	One was in that recording that we discussed earlier in the show in connection with Mark Meadows' book, where he was allegedly saying, look at Mark Milley.
	He's the one who wanted war with Iran.
	You know, I guess I can't show this to you because I didn't declassify it.
	So I don't know whether he did show it or didn't.
	He at least waived it according to this.
	And the other was in August or September 2021 when he showed people without clearances, quote, a classified map related to a military operation.
	So they're getting specific on saying not only did he see them, but he showed them around.
	And then here's the second thing.
	Here's the second thing.
	Again, this is via other people's reporting since I haven't had the chance to look at all this.
	Maggie Haberman in the New York Times reporting that this is an allegation in the indictment.
	Quote, wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here, end quote, Trump said to his lawyers after the grand jury subpoena was issued, according to the indictment.
	Now, again, a word of caution.
	That's a question by a client to a lawyer.
	Yes, it seems to be suggesting a lie, but just because the client says something erratic and inappropriate doesn't tell us how the lawyers answered or what happened after that moment.
	Maggie Haberman goes on, Trump also praised whoever deleted Clinton's emails according to the indictment.
	They're certainly painting a picture that doesn't sound unlike Donald Trump.
	But again, it doesn't mean, it doesn't tell us what he did after the fact.
	These other allegations about what they know, what happened to the documents, who saw the documents, who moved the documents are the meat of the case.
	Yes.
	And as you say, these are allegations.
	They're not proven.
	But if they are true, leave aside the criminal question, which can be complicated.
	This should reveal that Trump is not the ideal person to be president of the United States.
	And if you go back to 2015, I thought that the sheer arrogance that Hillary Clinton displayed and still displays, you mentioned her tweet this morning, good lord, was disqualifying.
	I mean, the idea that she considered herself to be above the law, that she would install an unencrypted, unsecured server in her house and do State Department business on it because she wanted to, was instructive.
	It should have, and it turned out that it did inform the American public as to who they were dealing with.
	Well, if these allegations are true, they should tell us something about Donald Trump.
	That is irresponsible behavior.
	I'm not really a hawk on this stuff.
	I'm a bit of a criminal justice squish.
	I don't like the Espionage Act, and I think that we overclassify.
	But that bothers me with all of those caveats.
	That bothers me.
	That is cowboyish behavior that is beneath the role and responsibilities of the executive branch.
	And if those allegations are true, however, it shakes out on a criminal basis, I think Republican voters ought to take that into their consideration because I just can't imagine, say, Ron DeSantis behaving like that.
	Can you?
	No, but I can't imagine Hillary and Joe Biden behaving like that.
	I can too.
	But I'm pretty harsh about Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
	Right?
	I mean, that's the problem.
	Like, these are the choices.
	A little bit more color, Charles, during a search, again, from the indictment of Mar-a-Lago.
	They say this is what was found in Trump's office.
	And again, remember, he had said that they had produced everything through his lawyer.
	His lawyer sent a letter saying, we gave you everything we have.
	No more classified documents here.
	And then they raided Mar-a-Lago.
	And they say after that representation, which they say was untrue, this is what we found in Trump's office, 27 documents.
	Six were top secret.
	18 secret, three confidential.
	In the storage room, 75 documents.
	Of those, 11 top secret, 36 secret, 28 confidential.
	It is possible for a president, a sitting president, to declassify anything, even top secret.
	Charles is right.
	There are debates as to exactly how it can be done.
	Can it be done in your mind?
	Can it be done with a magic wand?
	Do you have to follow a protocol by going back to the agency that designated it as top secret to begin with and get their buy-in?
	There are disputes.
	I've had the best legal minds in the country on the show for a year now, and we still don't have a clear answer on that, which means there isn't one.
	A court is going to have to decide that.
	And it's going to be this court more than likely.
	But, you know, it's designed to sound scary and it does sound a little bad.
	I mean, not a little scary.
	It does sound bad for sure.
	Top secret.
	You don't want top secret documents about nuclear secrets and military plans sitting on the stage at Mar-a-Lago.
	But I can't help.
	And I don't mean to, you know, both sides on every question, Charles, but I can't help but wonder what would we have seen in those Hillary Clinton emails and those Hillary Clinton server?
	And what would we see if they actually produced the Joe Biden documents that they found near the Corvette in a garage that wasn't?
	I mean, at least Mar-a-Lago's got security all over it.
	At least it's somewhat secure.
	You know, I don't know.
	And we're never going to know.
	And that's what leads the six, sick feeling in my stomach.
	And I'll end with this question.
	I asked a friend of mine who's a pro-Trumper.
	She loves him.
	And she's open-minded to DeSantis too.
	She's not like, I'll only vote for Trump.
	But I asked her this morning, what do you think of these stories?
	You know, he's indicted.
	This is what they say he did.
	And she said, I don't care.
	This is not going to make me not vote for him.
	I think they're out to get him.
	This is just another evidence, another piece of evidence that they're out to get him.
	And that's the real question.
	Does any of this move votes?
	First of all, I mean, really, the only vote is the only question is with respect to the Republicans, because of course, the Democrats, we know what's going to happen with them.
	But with respect to this Republican Party that has him 40 points up or 30 points up, does this change anything?
	I don't know.
	I just don't know.
	I mean, I mean, they are out to get him.
	That doesn't mean, though, that he hasn't done a whole bunch of terrible things.
	Those two things are true.
	This is one of the reasons that it's quite frustrating talking about Donald Trump is that, you know, a lot of the accusations that are made about Trump are correct.
	It's just there's an awful lot of fluff that is not.
	That's why it's important, I think, to distinguish between cases.
	Now, I don't know whether primary voters will, and your friend seems not to be interested in doing that.
	If she said, well, I just don't care.
	You know, this is probably not going to be what determines whether or not Donald Trump is the nominee.
	I don't think it's going to make him the nominee.
	I don't think it's going to take away the nomination from him.
	I think that Donald Trump will lose the Republican nomination if voters come to believe that he would lose the 2024 election to Joe Biden.
	And this might have a small effect on that.
	It might make people think that we shouldn't run candidates under indictment, which, by the way, has its own issues because it's an indictment, not a conviction.
	I criticized a piece in the New York Times that I read this morning where Damon Linker, who I usually like, argued that anyone who is under indictment should immediately become toxic to voters.
	Well, that's crazy because that's essentially saying that anyone who is accused of something ever should, before they've had a trial, before we know anymore, be disqualified.
	But, you know, Trump has a long history of this stuff, and he is seen by voters in the middle, independent voters, especially, as a man with a lot of baggage.
	And I think insofar as that changes Republican primary voters' minds as to his electability, it will have a little effect.
	But I don't think this is what it's going to be about.
	I think we're going to have some debates and people are going to say, who do I want to lead us into this fight?
	And who do I think is most likely to win?
	And at the moment, you don't think then, Charles, you don't think after, you know, the way we saw after the Alvin Bragg indictment in New York, his poll numbers shot up.
	I mean, DeSantis was actually kind of gaining on Trump.
	And then the indictment came.
	We actually went back and looked at this on a graph of the polls and the events in New York Time.
	And the indictment came in, I think it was late April.
	I'm trying to think of the exact late, maybe it was late March.
	And then the arraignment was on April 4th.
	And the number went, it was like this, you know, his poll numbers.
	So do you think this will have a similar effect or that it's just he's gotten all the wind behind his back he's going to get?
	No, I think it might, but that did somewhat pass.
	And, you know, I mean if, if he goes up to 90, it's obviously over, but i'm i'm just at the very least, what this will do is keep those numbers up.
	But I I don't think that when the primary starts for normal people that this is going to be the main issue.
	I mean, at the moment, the people who are engaged are political junkies, it's the.
	The average person is just not following this and he has no.
	I I texted another friend of mine who I talk about the news with all the time last night.
	I'm like oh, can you believe the Trump indictment?
	And she was like what?
	I mean, most people are out there living their lives and not obsessing over this stuff like we are.
	But the Gop debates are going to be really interesting because none of these other candidates wants to touch this with a 10-foot poll other than you know like they want to find the right message.
	Like DOJ is bad, Biden's bad, political persecution other than Christie, Right.
	So they're all going to be like bad bad, but they all secretly love it, right?
	They all, they all secretly love it and are probably banking on it to take out the frontrunner.
	Yeah although, as you say, the last time this happened it helped the frontrunner, so maybe they should have hoped for a.
	The lack of an indictment rather than an indictment, um it, it does make you wonder how high can his numbers go.
	Well, and how and and at what point does the teflon wear off the pan, if ever?
	I mean, there are just some people who are untouchable.
	Some people's political careers get derailed by the tiniest of things and they never recover.
	And then there are some people in politics who just seem to get away with it forever.
Political Outrage and Facts 00:01:55
	Howard Dean got forced out of politics because he started yelling states names.
	Yep yeah oh, my god, Charles.
	Well, all right, so it's.
	These are not good.
	If these allegations are true, this is not a good story, not a good story for our country, not a good story for Trump.
	But it's so much more complicated than that, as we've outlined over the past two hours, always appreciate hearing your point of view, Charles.
	Thank you so much for being with us on a big show, thanks for having me and thanks to all of you for joining us today.
	My goodness, you know, I knew that.
	Why couldn't Jack Smith wait two more weeks before I came back, right like the big news always breaks right before you're going off to do something, but it's fine.
	When I come back uh, we'll get into everything that's happened and um, don't believe anybody between now and then, because most of the people out there have an agenda and they're trying to mislead you.
	We're going to try to keep it factual on this show so that you actually know what's happening without just tickling your outrage nerve.
	You know that's there, that's there, but it doesn't really do much good to just get ticked off without actually understanding what's likely to happen here.
	What are the actual allegations, what is the proof, what is the standard and what's likely to happen in this jurisdiction before this judge and the likely jury that he's likely to get?
	My god, these are about as big a stakes as you can get when it comes to presidential politics.
	All the best to you guys over the next couple of weeks.
	Um, we're again next week and have all new episodes that we've been working on, some of which I have mentioned in the teas to you.
	In our hot crime summer week we've got Jared The Subway Guy.
	Oh, my god, that one's so disturbing, but you have to listen to it.
	Uh, answers on what happened to the missing plane Mh370 cults, Jodi Areas and more.
	All the best and we will see you when I get back.
	Thanks for listening to THE Megan Kelly SHOW.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:03 Serious Evidence Against Trump
00:14:56 Prosecutorial Discretion Limits
00:30:44 Declassification and Document Possession
00:43:38 Prison Presidency Questions
00:56:56 Double Standards in Justice
01:01:12 IRS Reports on Biden
01:15:03 Interference in the 2024 Election
01:17:51 Bill Barr Indictment Details
01:33:30 Uneven Application of Law
01:36:26 Risks of Exposed Allegations
01:51:25 Political Outrage and Facts