Skip to main content

tv   Your World With Neil Cavuto  FOX News  August 12, 2022 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT

1:00 pm
this story goes on for some time. see you back here monday at 3:00. "your world" is about to get underway as we look at a market that is taking off. it's at its highest level since may. that's good news. take care, everybody. thanks for being with us. see you next time. . >> charles: details that the fbi search warrant revealed as it officially released. are those posing more questions for former president donald trump or the department of justice? this is "your world." we have shannon bream, jonathan turley and bret baier coming up shortly. first, to david spunt who is at the justice department with the very latest. david? >> charles, this was just unsealed. fox news reviewed it more than an hour ago and matches what we
1:01 pm
reported on the air. this was a copy of the actual warrant that was released, the search and seizure warrant of mar-a-largo that took place monday down in palm beach, florida. i want to go over highlight. we have a graphic to put up on the screen. we'll show you the key items that were taken. it's called a receipt property list. four sets of top secret documents, three sets of secret documents, three sets of confidential documents, roger stone documents, unspecified binders of photos. it goes on to say the locations to be search include the 45 office, all storage rooms and all other areas within the premises used by f potus, the former president of the united states and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored. taking a look here at this warrant that was just released. we have some pages right here,
1:02 pm
charles, that show the actual evidence pages. this is called a receipt of property. i don't know if everybody is able to see it. it talks about miscellaneous confidential documents. miscellaneous secret documents. miscellaneous top secret documents. this all calm down yesterday when attorney general merrick garland here at the justice department where i am announced that doj had no options to unseal this for the public. president trump, the former president late last night on his social media platform said go ahead, release it. i have no problem with people seeing it. his lawyers agreed today. the judge signed off on it. the real question and we can't say it enough, we want to see the affidavit. the affidavit would have the probable cause and explain why, why did they go in to mar-a-largo. what exactly were they looking for. that affidavit is still under seal. that would need to be a separate motion, this gives us more information about what happened. charles?
1:03 pm
>> charles: thanks. former president trump said the seized documents have already been declassified. to jonathan serrie with more. jonathan? >> hi there, charles. as we expected, the list of items taken from mar-a-largo is heavily redacted. "the washington post" reported overnight that some of the items according to one of their sources concerned nuclear weapons, that there were documents of a highly sensitive nature. former president trump is pushing back against reports that any of those documents concerned nuclear weapons. today he posted this message on his social media platform. "nuclear weapons issue is a hoax. just like russia, russia, russia was a hoax. two impeachments were a hoax, the mueller investigation was a hoax and much more. same sleazy people involved. one trump attorney suggests the feds are leaking stories about
1:04 pm
nuking to justified their search of a former president's home. >> it was not acceptable and they're trying to come up with reasons to make it sound appropriate and make it sound okay because they don't actually have a good reason for doing what they did. >> so overnight, the former president announced that he was encouraging the release of the documents. his legal team followed up with that, filing the formal paperwork this afternoon and the release was finally approved by the judge. acting former attorney general serving under the trump administration accurately predicted earlier in the day that what would be released, the list of property items, would be heavily redacted and therefore would not shed a lot of light on the details of the investigation. take a listen. >> what is going to be frustrating for a lot of us following this very closely is that the inventory will be redacted.
1:05 pm
we saw that in the department of justice's motion yesterday. >> yeah, as predicted, many of these items are described in very generic terms because some of these items are classified. back to you, charles. >> charles: a lot to unpack here, shannon bream, the new host of "fox news sunday." congratulations, shannon. we also have fox news contributor jonathan turley, former federal prosecutor. let's start with you, katie. what stands out to you? >> of course, the doj is going to make this sound as bad as possible. we're not getting at the bottom line here. president trump was the classification authority. he has the right to declassify any information that was in his possession during his time as president. the fact of the matter here is that i think the word espionage
1:06 pm
classified words are being used without any sort of actual facts to support what these documents are. in my opinion, the fact that he has these documents in his possession is no crime at all regardless of what merrick garland or the doj says. >> charles: shannon, donald trump, former president trump wheated to that. number 1, it was all declassified. number 2, they didn't need to seize anything. they could have had it at any time they wanted without playing politics and breaking to mar-a-largo. it was in secure storage with an additional lock on it per their request. a lot of confusion about that. the president, the chief executive office, didn't he make sweeping declassifications while in office? >> yeah, that's an argument from his supporters. they say this is something that the president alone as a commander-in-chief has a lot of authority over. here's the thing. there's something that happened between june when they were having to conversations and things were going well with the
1:07 pm
former president's legal team and the government. and then at the beginning of all when they got this warrant, which the magistrate there gave them till august 19 to executed it and that raises questions if there were an urgent national security, why those lags in time. the questions that we have, the answers we don't have. they're in the underlying documents, the affidavits that will not be released today. there's a number of media outlets and judicial watch that are trying to get to the documents. they filed motions to unseal them. the magistrate in this case has given the government until monday at 5:00 to answer to those. that where the real meat of this case is, the interesting stuff is. everything is warn under oath given that judge to justify the warrant, that's what we want to get our hands on. we'll see if this judge is open to that argument. >> charles: not only was there a lack of urgency since this was gone after on august 5 at 12:00 noon and not only was it not a
1:08 pm
sense of urgency but they arrived with 30 fbi agents. you know, there seems to be parallel stories here. the media narrative, which is a lot of speculation and the bits and pieces that we're getting. can you put it together for us? >> it's difficult to put it together in a consistent narrative. it's like watching two different movies at the same time. the trump team has said that we were cooperating, we cooperated with the subpoena. there was a request to add a lock to the historic. we replied with that request. the government said this could be a violation of the espionage act. those are different accounts. there's a lot that we have to learn, the affidavit would give us that information. but the glaring questions concern that period of time. after in defense was raised, i assume the trump people said that they declassified material. did the department of justice say we disagree and they offered to remove the documents to a
1:09 pm
secure facility while they worked that out. did the trump team tell them to pound sand, that they weren't going to turn anything over. that's what's in the affidavit. the other thing that is curious ant this is in fact the delay with tssci material. this material comes with covers that clearly delineate this level of classification. when something is declassified, you literally scratch out or put a line through the classification. which is a little odd, we know in the hectic days following january 6, there was an effort to declassify material. it's not clear if staffers -- first of all, if the president declassified this material and if the staffers made the notation changes on these documents. so there could be confusion over the status of these documents.
1:10 pm
>> charles: to that point, katie, not only was there questions about the urgency with respect to the warrant but the documents themselves, the materials themselves, 19 months. they were so important that there was this sort of urgency. you had 19 months. all of a sudden, just out of nowhere, it became this huge priority where the trump team was apparently not engaged anymore and the fbi went in. what do you make of that? >> well, it does seem like a setup at this point. this was the president of the united states. of course he had access to classified and sensitive information. any comparison to any other government employee is completely irrelevant to the president. the president is not bound by the same regulations and laws that any other government employee is when they have the security clearances. tssci information can run the gamut. it's a fear factor that the left and the media are going after
1:11 pm
without using these terms. did he declassified documents? there's not a specific process for the classification authority, the president, to do that. does he need to annotate on the document to indicate such? likely, yes. but there's no prescribed method that he has to go through. so we have a lot of big questions here about the actual criminal acts that they're saying he engaged in. it's got to be more than him just possessing information that they claim is classified. >> charles: right. shannon, there's questions whether this is a criminal investigation, is it a national security investigation. where do we go from here assuming maybe we never get a chance to see the affidavit. >> yeah, we might not. what we do know on the face of this warrant, what it says, you can go after any physical documents or records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime or other items illegally possessed.
1:12 pm
then it has more ant concealment removal or mutilation of government documents. all -- three different statutes outlined here. they have real criminal implications. if you were convicted under these statutes, some of them three years in jail, 20 years in jail. these are serious allegations. they are the justifications for the warrant. if the government decides to move forward with some case, we're not going to know what that is based on. these are real federal statutes with real criminal penalties. >> charles: of course, i'm not sure what the binders, the photos, the handwritten notes from the president of france. jonathan, there is a report from "the washington post" talking about nuclear materials, nuclear information. the whole thing is now become just a wild game of speculation.
1:13 pm
how important is it that the doj and the a.g. somehow reel this in? seems like the ball is in their court to remove this because this sort of speculation can't be good over the nation. >> well, that's what really highlights what we don't know. tssci is a very high classification. if there was classified material in the former president's possession, he was not allowed to have that after he left the presidency and the government has every right to retrieve that material. but there are a lot of questions. not just about the status of the material, but the knowledge of the former president and then you have all of these leaks that are being attributed to the justice department. that's one of the reasons why it's not an easy thing for the attorney general to orreder the release of an affidavit. this is a unique historic moment. whether for good or for bad, this raid has caused a great deal of concern among citizens.
1:14 pm
in fact, a belief among many this is just another targeting of donald trump. that hurts the entire legal system. not just the justice department, fbi, it really undermines the rule of law. so this is an occasion where the attorney general needs to go against what i think is his personal inclination. to say release it. release the affidavit. let's show what there is here. by the way, the department of justice could just say just slug and say we got the documents back, we're going to be giving some back to him. we achieved our purpose. if that's the case, we might never see or might not -- we might never see the affidavit itself. there are crimes being alleged in this affidavit and in the warrant against the former president of the united states. that person is expected opponent of the current president of the united states. it is ridiculous to ignore the
1:15 pm
troubling aspects of that situation. i think attorney general garland has to do more than the statement he made yesterday. >> charles: shannon, i mentioned the donald trump treat. he added that they could have had this information at any thyme they wantand includes long ago. all they had to do is ask. there's another part to this. the bigger problem is what they're going to do with the 33 million pages of documents, many of which are classified that president obama took to chicago. earlier today martha played three sound bites together of james comey on the information that hillary clinton had on her server. he concluded that it was extreme carelessness and handling top secret information but added we cannot find a reason, a case for bringing criminal charges on her despite the fact that it was extremely careless and he had
1:16 pm
these top secret documents. are we looking at a different legal precedent here? >> i think the optics are difficult for the doj and the fbi. when this was going on with the former secretary of state, she was allowed to go in with her lawyers, go in and talk to the fbi. it was not recorded. it was handled in a way that a lot of people thought was different than most people facing these questions. it's the optics of this, especially as professor turley that is really difficult for the doj and the fbi. people see this that there's a difference in the way these cases were treated, that people were treated. it gets to the dangerous place of worrying about politics entering into these institutions that as americans that we tonight want to doubt them. but people can easily point to these other cases that were very high profile and say how come the treatment has been so different? there are political ramifications of this and it's naive to think that this would
1:17 pm
have been done in a low key way, that news week reporting, that we don't know about the sourcing of it. it pounds to senior doj officials. i don't know how you think you can carry out a rate on a former president's house and think it's going to go under the radar. >> charles: or why this sense of urgency. why stop negotiating. why not issue another subpoena. take care to show the public we made sure this is the only way we could do this and so far they haven't been able to do that. katie, i want to ask you. there's a general feeling that all of this was a pretext. national archives announcing official coming out, to seek additional information to aid with the j-6 committee, which seems like it's losing a lot of its steam. >> that's the suspicious. i don't think the doj will be sloppy enough to not make some case that the warrant was based
1:18 pm
on what they're claiming it is, which is these classified documents. and if in the course of searching those areas that they come across evidence that helps the january 6 allegations, they can in fact use that in the search was executed properly. i don't think we'll get an answer to that in terms of is this a pretext. i'm sure they hope they come across other information is helpful. this warrant signed off by the judge does allege a crime that is not related to january 6. again, this is very political. it's incredibly political. merrick garland did nothing to quell any concerns that this is some unique justification for doing this to a former president. i go back to my point that any comparison to other government individuals, even at the highest levels, possessing classified information is not comparable to the president or former president of the united states. >> charles: jonathan, yesterday there were reports that the ag
1:19 pm
was going to have the press conference. the white house had no idea about the raid. when should we expect the white house to chime in on this? >> i don't expect any time soon. this is one of those occasions where the advantage to be out of the loop. they appear to be in the minority given all the leaks from the justice department to major media about every aspect of this case. seems like the white house is not the only ones getting insider information. this is obviously kryptonite for the biden administration because of the optics that we have discussed. but they need to come forward, the justice department, and really show an airtight and undeniable case presented in front of that magistrate. anything that is short of that is going fulfill the narrative of critics of the justice department. this could not be more serious. not just for donald trump as i said, for the justice system
1:20 pm
itself. merrick garland seems to be absent without leave on this. i was surprised by his statement yesterday. he talked about one aspect outside of the documents with regard to his approval. he didn't swat down the suggestions this could be a pretext for january 6. he didn't address some of these other sort of procedural or scheduling issues. now, he is someone that is known not to be inclined to reveal information. but he's the attorney general of the united states that just ordered a raid on the former president's home and the very likely opponent of a current president. there's no way you can reproduce that in any past historical event. he's really an unknown territory. he has to do better than to simply trust us, we're the government. >> charles: thank you, team. that was fantastic. we appreciate it. shannon, congratulations. so we have been getting reaction
1:21 pm
from capitol hill on the raid and what comes next. lucas tomlinson has the latest from washington. lucas? >> charles, how republican whip steve scalise doubts the white house didn't know about the raid. >> merrick garland said he knew about it in advance and signed off. did president biden know about it? he won't answer that question. that breeds distrust, a lot of questions about who is really calling the shots here. >> rick scott written to the attorney general and the fbi earlier today. the american people are justifiably alarmed by the conduct of your agencies. this alarm has arisen because of the raid at the resident be of a former president and potential future political opponent of the sitting president and because of the lack transparency of you and the biden administration. nancy pelosi said this about the
1:22 pm
republicans. >> i know very well how vicious they can be. you would think there would be an adult in the republican room that would say just calm down, see what the facts are. >> earlier the top republican on the house intelligence committee questioned the tactics used in the raid on trump's home. >> knowing that the presidents deal with this, it's highly unusual for the president to have anything in the oval office that rises to the level of an imminent national security threat. >> turner says he wants to hear from the ag and fbi directeder as soon as possible. charles? >> charles: next, we have michael goodwin. we have an articles from "the new york times" saying this could be a massive mistakes, galvanized republicans that see president trump as being
1:23 pm
targeted by the system, particularly the department of justice. what are your thoughts about this? >> thank you, charles. every squirrel funds a nut. i don't generally agree with david brooks. he's right on that. all the things that you've been discussing, the secrecy, the leaking -- and attorney general merrick garland coming out saying this is business as usual fuels the suspicions. this is as garland and others in the white house acts as if we're many a different era of history. the rising distrust of public institutions is a serious, serious issue. that credibility can never be assumed especially when the
1:24 pm
government is going out on a limb and doing something that has never been done before. the way garland approaches it, the way the white house approaches it as if it's business as usual. and trust us, we're the government. those days are long gone. pugh did a big -- i'm sorry. gallup did a large survey on a number of institutions. all of these are declining in terms of public trust. the only ones that have majority support anymore are small businesses, the military and narrowly the police. then when you further break that down, it's -- the democrats trust the presidency, but they don't trust the police. so you have these distinctions in american society that are just being shoved aside in this moment of extraordinary events.
1:25 pm
>> >> charles: i followed that polling. it goes back to the 40s. we've become the snow ball that is the proverbial boulder. it's completely flat. we don't trust anyone or anything, including media, by the way. the fact that the presidential records act has never been used before since it was enacted in 1978 in the aftermath of watergate, that widens the net of apolitical folks out there, independents. people that don't pay attention saying whoa, maybe they are going after this guy for political reasons. >> well, you add to it the fact that if these really are such serious documents, why has it taken them 20 months? when did they discover these documents? action you've reported, they've had all the negotiations. they were there. they had meetings.
1:26 pm
the president said hello. when did they suddenly discover this sense of urgency that they didn't have until now? i mean, none of is it adds up. all the more reasons why it's got to be explained and laid out in a way and garland is nothing to see here, move along. really just has the opposite effect. >> charles: felt vernon chalant. more with bret baier later in the hour. as the massive taxes spend bill is about to become law, did the government's official number cruncher confirm what the white house has been denying? the middleman will get hit.
1:27 pm
i occasionally get bladder leaks. i tried always discreet underwear. it absorbs an entire glass of water. it fit like a glove. it just felt like real underwear. game changer! it's the protection we deserve. (vo) at viking, we are proud to have been named the world's number one for both rivers and oceans game changer! by travel and leisure, as well as condé nast traveler. but it is now time for us to work even harder, searching for meaningful experiences and new adventures for you to embark upon. they say when you reach the top, there's only one way to go. we say, that way is onwards. viking. exploring the world in comfort.
1:28 pm
1:29 pm
new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. >> charles: did we just learn the democrats new bill will have the tax man going after the mid
1:30 pm
class. this isn't just freight. these aren't just shipments. they're promises. big promises. small promises. cuddly shaped promises. each with a time and a place they've been promised to be. and the people of old dominion never turn away a promise. or over promise. or make an empty promise. we keep them. a promise is everything to old dominion, because it means everything to you.
1:31 pm
>> neil: stocks soaring today and for the week. investors hoping that while inplace is still hot, it may have peeked. that could mean the fed won't need to hike interest rates as much. time will tell. we do know this, the house will be voting on the democrat $739 billion tax and spend bill. just as the congressional budget office is saying that the middle class will take a tax hit. the cbo estimating $20 billion in revenue from the inflation reduction act will come from audits of taxpayers making under $400,000. the white house says that won't happen. jacqui heinrich is traveling with the president in south carolina. she joins us now. jacqui? >> hi, chars. the congressional budget office told lawmakers that $20 billion in revenue for the inflation reduction act will come from increased audits on people making less than $400,000 a
1:32 pm
year. they have warned that an amendment that republicans have floated to try to prevent those additional audits on people making less than $400,000 will cause the government to lose the $20 billion in revenue to pay for this bill. allowing the increased audit to move forward will not only fly in the face of the president's promise not to punish the middle class, but it's something that irs commissioner vowed would not happen. charles redding told lawmakers new funding for this big for the irs "shall not be used to increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited, small businesses or households earning $400,000 per year or less will not see an increase in the chances that they are audited". the white house has cited reddings promise that people making less than $400,000 should not worry.
1:33 pm
>> the irs commissioner was very clear on this. he said that on the record that this only will apply to those earning over $400,000. >> no new audits on anybody making under $400,000 a year? >> no. very clear. >> and i've just spoken with the white house official. they say that that message that we just employed still stands. they say director redding, a trump appointee, they point out and secretary yellen have already prohibited these funds, funds that would go towards the irs in this bill to be used for the purposes of more audits on people making less than $400,000 a year. they further hit back at ways and means republicans saying they have been lying about the inflation reduction act, which will crack down on wealthy tax cheats breaking the law and taking advantage of middle class families.
1:34 pm
charles? >> charles: let's get back to the justice department. david spunt has more details on the trump search warrant. david? >> yeah, hi, charles. i soak with an fbi official in the last hour around the time that the actual warran was being unsealed. doj has no comment. fbi has no comment about this. their comments are in their filing, which they announced that the former president's attorneys had no objection to releasing this. that's why we saw this unsealed by the magistrate. this is a copy of the receipt for property. this was released with the search warrant letting people know what was taken from mar-a-largo. it mentions miscellaneous secret documents, miscellaneous top secret documents and miscellaneous confidential documents. no other comment from the department of justice. we've heard many people talk about the affidavit being released, the latest from the justice department.
1:35 pm
there's been no motion folks for this affidavit even though this affidavit would give us many more pieces of the pie, pieces of the puzzle, whatever you want to call it. that would have to be a separate motion filed and there's no indication that would be done. other sources, federal sources, close to the department of justice tell me that it took some convincing on behalf of attorney general merrick garland to allow him to come to the cameras to speak in front of the country yesterday. that's just not something typically that he would do. most attorneys general would not speak about an on going investigation but this is an extraordinary case and it's you neck and he said there's great public interest to so. charles? >> charles: what can you tell about this potential probe for the political espionage act which apparently includes a lot of potential crimes including gathering, transmitting or
1:36 pm
losing defense information? >> yeah, it's very broad. as you heard shannon and professor turley talk, we tonight know which part the president is being accused of potentially breaking. so that's a little bit curious. that is part of what is on the search warrant. if you look in the actual united states code, it mentions 18 usc which includes is espionage act. there's different components to it. it's not clear because we want to find out as much as possible. it's not clear which part they're accusing the former president of breaking. >> charles: so the doj no comment. the fbi no comment. garland felt so i'm passioned about this even though it came out in a nonchalant matter, that the white house was not informed of this. this continues to confuse a lot
1:37 pm
of people, this is history-making stuff. they were going to do this you think, david, without checking with the biden administration? >> i've asked. i've been skeptical. other people have been skeptical. we're skeptical as journalists. we've been told there's no communication with the white house. the white house said there's no communication. president biden was not tipped off about this before. the -- when he was president-elect in january of 2021 before he took office, i believe it was january 7, 2021, he was on a stage with merrick garland in wilmington, delaware announcing him to be the pick as attorney general. he mentioned you don't work for me. this is not my justice department. everything with the justice department that comes up when the white house have asked about the justice department, they say we're not involved, we're not involved, we're not involved. that is the line from the white house that they did not know about this. >> charles: david spunt, great
1:38 pm
stuff. thanks. want to get the read from former fbi investigator bill daly. just walk us through from your past experience, what do you thinked -- what sounds consistent with what you understand, what maybe stands out? >> well, certainly my experience wouldn't apply to this because of the unique nature of what's going on here. i will give you my view of that and on the civilian side where you're involved in cases. couple of things jump out to me, charles. first of all, the search warrant appears to be broadly written. if you read it, it will say all of mar-a-largo is perhaps searchable depending where the president of the united states would spend his time, where he would travel to and have access to. it wasn't just confined to the storage area and maybe one or two locations. the other thing is that the big question here and some of the panelists touched on it earlier,
1:39 pm
what really happened here? we have gone from being where there's some private records that the president was saying he was holding on to and discussions in june and seem to be somewhat amicable, that's been characterized by other people. some people saying nothing about it. there were discussions going on. nothing happened since that time. so the question is did this search surface outs of those discussions? these are related to the high level national security documents, which, you know, apparently were not ones that were i guess subpoenaed, otherwise turned over back in june. so did they deal with the national archives or some other issue at hand here and why wasn't this flagged to the president's attorneys before showing up with a search warrant. so a couple of things here that are still -- we're trying to read tea leaves and discern things, which gets difficult. they're also concerning issues
1:40 pm
here with regard to why wasn't the president or his team asked for these documents and if they were, can the government demonstrate ask and they were rebuffed in some way. >> charles: former president trump has been out of office for a long time now. you know, the whole thing, just want the entire sense of urgency and the need to be this sort of hand fisted or heavy handed with the number of agents, it was dark, the morning, president trump wasn't there. just doesn't pass the smell test, if you will. >> if you're going to conduct -- let's put aside the former president for a second. it does -- you mentioned that it comes into play. you bring in a number of fbi personnel to collect information in a large property, you would need people to do that. i think you have to go back the
1:41 pm
predicate of this is, which is to your point, why not after several years ott not being in office, why did that rise to a level of urgency or concern that they could ask for them or couldn't have called the president's team up in bedminster and say can you meet us down there? we'd like to get ahold of these documents because we're concerned of the safety or well-being. what else is happening. something else that has struck me the other day, came from the white house during one of the white house briefings, the spokesperson, when she mentioned the fact that the white house doesn't comment on any ongoing criminal invest combinations. now, whether that was a slip mahoneyism or whether that was something that they were tied into. you know, i didn't get anywhere along the way here up to perhaps the violations have been listed and the warrant with regard to what these documents may have as far as their legal
1:42 pm
vulnerability. was it just an effort to retrieve these documents for safe keeping because of the high level of security around it, maybe something to do with nuclear or national security issues or something else afoot here? peep would like to know more about it. >> charles: it keeps coming back to the affidavit and truly trying to understand why this all went down. what was the sense of urgency. again, is it a criminal investigation, now a security investigation or is it just a fishing expedition? bill, thanks very much. i appreciate it. >> thanks, charles. >> charles: let's keep this going with alex little, former prosecutor. good afternoon. as a former federal prosecutor, i'm sure that when you put a case together or even an investigation together, you want to make sure that it's fool proof that nobody can come back
1:43 pm
later and say things weren't done right. that it was pressed and sloppy. do you get the sense that was done here? >> that's what you'd want to do, especially if you're a potential suspect included the former president of the united states. everything would have to be airtight and perfect. because of this second guessing that we're seeing here after the execution of the search warrant. i think here the question so far everything does appear to have been done appropriately. we're hearing questions but they're questions, not statements what is most notable, the fbi didn't make any statements. president announced the search had taken place. there was no public news. the search warrant was straight for ward. there's nothing about it on its face that seems to be improper. >> charles: the affidavit that everyone is talking about, what do you think the chances are that it could be made public? >> it will be made public at some point. the question is when and why. i disagree with the guests
1:44 pm
before. this is clearly part of a criminal investigation. at least the justice department is leaving open the opportunity to charge someone. maybe not be the former president but someone in connection with the retention of these records. that's why they submitted an affidavit and the judge has found established probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. they're setting the stage for a potential case. doesn't mean one will happen. they have to keep that option on the table. yes, if someone recorded it elsewhere, this does involve things like nuclear weapons. >> charles: a lot of speculation. you have to wonder how any media outlets would have that information. president trump when he was in office, he had the power to declassified information. he already has tweeted out that that's what he did. we know he made some sweeping
1:45 pm
declassification moves before leaving office. under what circumstance would he take these documents and not declassified them? if he was going to keep them? >> look, nothing about the behavior of this president indicates he's particularly careful about following the law. i think if we learned anything in the past two years, he does -- he tended to act erratically, even the people most closely have testified under oath to the case. his former national security goes on the air all the time and says he's a threat. >> charles: would the idea that the former president was sloppy, would that be a enough to -- >> there's no indication that president trump was sloppy. there's no reason to believe that that's what happened here except his tweets. if you want to believe the tweets, you can. this is a long-term investigation. likely a lot we don't know that he will have to answer for.
1:46 pm
>> charles: thanks, alex. special report anchor bret baier is with us. was the raid warranted or not? and a police update is imminent on the staffing attack on salman rushdie. a live report coming up. ♪ so i climbed into the cab, and then i settled down inside ♪ ♪ i've been everywhere, man ♪ ♪ i've been everywhere, man ♪ ♪ of travel i've had my share, man ♪ ♪ i've been everywhere ♪ ♪♪
1:47 pm
1:48 pm
...the tower cam for a - hey! folks, we seem to have a visitor. it looks like - looks like you paid too much for your glasses. ...who? anyone who isn't shopping at america's best - where two pairs and a free exam start at just $79.95. book an exam today.
1:49 pm
1:50 pm
>> charles: police set to provide new information on the attack on author salman rushdie. bryan llenas is in jamestown, new york with the very latest. bryan? >> charles, novelistic and champion for freedom expression author, salman rushdie's current medical condition is unknown. he was sent to surgery. that is according to his litary agent. rushdie was lifted by helicopter after he was stabbed in the neck by a man that ran on stage just as he was able to begin a lecture at the chautauqua institute. rushdie was pushed to the ground by a man that looked like he was punching him 10 to 15 times in
1:51 pm
front of an audience of 25 people. police officers subdued the suspect. >> a bunch of people run up on stage to help subdue the man. i did speak with a man that did that. he said it was a stab wound to his neck and a lot of blood and he didn't look good. >> rushdie is an award winning author of 14 noveling. it was his book of "the satanic verses" that got him banned in iran in 1988 and has led to death threats. there's been a $3 million bounty for the killing of rushdie after the ayatollah holmanie cold for his death. the new york state police is
1:52 pm
about to hold a press conference to give us an update on the suspect's identity and whether or not his motivations have anything to do with the ongoing death threats or iran. charles? >> charles: thanks very much. i want to go back to the search warrant used by the fbi for the mar-a-largo raid this week. former deputy assistant attorney general tom dupree is here with us. what do you make of what has happened in the last 24 hours? tom? tom obviously -- there you go. can you hear me? >> okay. i can hear you. >> charles: okay. >> what we know right now the specific charges that the justice department is looking at. the most significant, they have a espionage charge act. that concerns people that mishandle information related to the national defense. to my mind, that explains part of the reason why merrick garland made this extraordinary decision to raid the home of a
1:53 pm
former president. this is not just a tiki tack dispute about record dispute or archiving. it involves something more serious. >> charles: so many wonder then, did they just discover this? was there some sort of revelation? if this information was missing or maybe there was someone -- because the way i understand it, the warrant had to be approved, has to be someone near president trump, maybe someone in his inner circle, maybe someone in the security detail that might have witnessed something as well. >> i think that's right. in my view, there had to be someone on the inside giving information to the justice department. to me, one of the remaining mysteries, what changed? the former president has said that they had very respectful, back and forth negotiations with the justice department, which is the way the justice department normally solves things like this. they don't execute search warrants at the first
1:54 pm
opportunity. they try to negotiate a compromise, resolution. the mystery here, charles, is what changed? what changed this whole thing going from a back and forth compromised negotiation to one where the government went to the judge and said we want to go to mar-a-largo with force and seize all of these documents. >> charles: so give us a probable timeline on what happens next. obviously there's a sense of urgency here. this is of great national interest. a nation that is bitterly divided. is there a greater sense in your mind that we'll see more, perhaps the affidavit? and learn more should they be extraditing the whole process? >> they sure should be. if you go into a federal judge and said we want a warrant to break into the former president's home, you should expedite this to see what is next. basically saying we didn't find any evidence of a crime, starting to prepare charges.
1:55 pm
whatever it is, the justice department absolutely has to move with expedition here. the national interest demands it. the public is fixated by what unfolded at mar-a-largo this week. now is not the time for the just it's the department to spend months and months reviews these documents, especially given what is at stake. they have to move quickly whatever decision they should make it soon. >> charles: thanks, tom. the read from bret baier. bret, what do you make of it all? you've been taking it in. >> yeah, it's been amazing to watch. listen, what we learned today is the specifics of what they're looking for. the possible violations as you just heard from tom as three federal statutes. the espionage act, the law prohibiting the destruction of
1:56 pm
documents. just to show you how serious, the subsection of the espionage act that is most -- the criminalized part says this. obtaining information respecting the national defense by someone with the intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the united states or to the advantage of any foreign nation. so you know, you're getting to really serious possibilities here. but what we don't know is the -- how you get there and this timeline that you just talked about doesn't add up. there was cooperation. there was a subpoena. then there's not. there's a lack of follow up and then there's a search warrant august 5 and then they wait a number of days before they do this search or raid or whatever you want to call it. there's a lot that we don't know. the seriousness of the whole thing is real. >> charles: yeah, that search warrant had a two-week expiration date on it. i'm looking at the three parts that you just describe.
1:57 pm
the gathering, transmitting or losing defense information also stands out to me. if there was a sense that this information was going to be transmitted to some outside party, wouldn't there be a greater sense of urgency and couldn't there even be arrests? >> yeah, to tom's point, you'd think that they have all that they're going to get from that spot. you know, they knew what was there in june. they learned in some sense what -- some additional information late june, but then there's this break. we don't know what happens in between there. to tom's point, the doj will have to fish or cut bait at some point. they have to indict or move on pretty quickly. and in the meantime, you have the politics and environment surrounding this. it's an unprecedented place that
1:58 pm
we're in with a nation, the president and a doj and fbi looking after and into a former president that may be the political opponent that he face in 2024. >> i want to pick up on that. president trump was always under some kind of investigation or allegations throughout it all. every one of them was a dry hole. nothing came of it from the russian thing and the impeachment efforts. feels like, again, listen, we'll let this play out but right now, it feels more political to a lot of people out there, bret. >> yeah, for trump supporters, they have a lot of basis to be skeptical of any action. they have a lot of things to point to. the president does on truth social all the time about specifics. he was impeach. people look at that in different ways. there is this investigation into january 6 and what did or did not happen that day. this moment of handling of these
1:59 pm
documents or the possibility that it's something else really is about why go to this level this fast and why did this raid come to be. >> charles: so far president biden hasn't spoke out. you think he will have to soon? >> i don't know. it seems to me like they're giving it the heisman award, the stiff-arm. they're keeping the white house away from the doj. they have refused to comment. i said earlier i'm here on kiowa island. there's a big thunderstorm, for an event that was supposed to happen long ago. the president and his family are here. if he would like to speak out, we have the cameras and the technology. we'd love to have him. >> charles: you have a 50/50 shot. your reputation can get you in the door. hope you enjoy the event. appreciate your help on this, bret. thanks very much. >> you bet, charles.
2:00 pm
>> charles: the top republican in the senate judiciary committee chuck grassley will be joining neil cavuto live. you might have noticed the stock market doesn't feel like there's any real crisis here, which is interesting. really big week and big daybreak for stocks. now "the five" is next. ♪ ♪ >> hello, everyone, and dana perino, 5:00 new york city, this is "the five." ♪ ♪ the federal judge in florida releasing a warrant from the unprecedented grade and trump's florida home. the former president is potentially being investigated for obstruction of justice in violation of the espionage act. the agents took 11 sets of classified records, president trump's

79 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on