RealClear

CNN host Dana Bash on Thursday interviewed Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie and asked why his anti-Trump message is not working with voters. DANA BASH, CNN: Meanwhile, the former president's lead has actually expanded. We saw it not just in a new national CNN poll this week, but in early contest states where these will be decided. Why do you think Republican voters aren't buying the anti-Trump message that you're selling? GOV. CHRISTIE CHRISTIE: First off, I think a lot of them are. We're at 14% in new Hampshire. We're going to continue to climb in new hampshire, I suspect. But secondly, this is going to take some time. This is a guy who has been at the front of every Republican voter's mind for the last eight years. And it's not going to happen overnight. But as these things become more and more real, as the trials approach and as they do approach, you're going to see more of what happened now with this cooperating witness. Ut will become more real to people. And when it does, they are going to realize that we simply cannot nominate Donald Trump. Whether you think the indictments are fair or unfair, as a Republican, they are a reality. We now have to deal with them and his underlying conduct that caused them. And both of those things in my view are disqualifying as a candidate and I think that Republican voters will ultimately come around. But they're not going to come around without people like me being out there continuing to make this point patiently and with persistence. That's exactly what I'm going to do because it's the truth.

MSNBC's Michael Beschloss on 'Morning Joe' today called former President Donald Trump a "monster" who wants to destroy our democracy and likened him to the threat of the Confederacy, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the 9/11 attacks. MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Jack Smith delivered that indictment with the help of a courageous grand jury, how does this fit into the larger American story? I think the last 12 hours fit perfectly into the American story. And that is this. From time to time, America faces threats from monsters who want to destroy our democracy. That happened in 1861 with the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln and northern soldiers and northern voters came to our rescue, saved the union. The same thing in 1933. Almost at the last minute, Franklin Roosevelt came to power, saved our economic system. Pearl Harbor, 1941, we were bombed. Our system was very much in danger, our democracy, many people were giving it up and saying the democracy had seen its last days. Franklin Roosevelt helped put a coalition together at the last minute to save democracy and freedom around the world. 9/11, 2001, Osama bin Laden hated our democracy, tried to destroy it. You see where I am going. What we see in this indictment is that on January 6th, 2021 Donald Trump just like those other threats to American democracy, tried to destroy our system, to take away our rule of law. Came very close to doing it, to take away our system of elections, to take away our tradition of peaceful transfer of power to a new elected president. It almost happened. The thing is, Joe and Mika and Willie and everyone, it's almost happening again this morning. Just as your said. Who is the Republican frontrunner? Donald Trump threatening to do it all again but even more effectively saying he's going to institute a presidential dictatorship that we may assume will take our democracy away and this indictment, and I will close with this, is coming at almost the last minute. I think if it had been two or three months later, we'd be less optimistic about the chance a trial can take place before next year's election. Never underestimate American democracy, we protect ourselves, we save ourselves from danger.

HBO host and comedian Bill Maher talked to Sharon Osbourne about the homeless crisis in the United States on the latest episode of his podcast "Club Random." "It's again the same principle as I was saying before about the reverse of what liberalism really is. Liberalism is, 'For the sake of humanity and compassion, can we get these people off the streets.' Woke is, 'How dare you ask them to move, this is their home.'" "There's easily a better solution to this," Maher proposed. "Get a barracks, they're not that expensive, and people who don't-- if you absolutely don't have a home, we will provide you with one, we will do our best to keep it secure. We'll have security guards. We'll keep the lights on, whatever. It's not undoable." "This is where the sanctuary city people got hoist by their own petard," Maher said of the homeless in hotels. "Liberal states have said, 'We believe in the concept of a sanctuary city,' and then the states where the migrants were coming over the border like Florida and Texas, they said, 'Oh, okay, well, we'll send them to you then.' Of course, they didn't like it." "It's just a good example of, could everybody just stop the posturing?" Maher asked. "Don't pretend that you love migrants so much and then when we send them to you, you don't like them. You're full of shit and we can see that. You liked them when it wasn't your problem because you're not a border state. Then when they show up in Chicago, in New York, you're like, 'What the fuck are we going to do with these people?'" "There's got to be a solution to this that is compassionate. Is it that hard to be compassionate without being an asshole?" Maher asked. MAHER: The world has made great strides in getting people to stop shitting in the street. It's-- OSBOURNE: Other than Los Angeles now. MAHER: In the-- [laughs] OSBOURNE: Because there's a lot of people shitting in the streets here. MAHER: If you're going to be picky, yes, and San Francisco. OSBOURNE: Yes. MAHER: Well, you call it shitting in the streets, I call it justice shitting. No, it's wrong, but let's not be judgmental about shitting in the street, but there was up until pretty much the end of the 20th century, a real problem with about a billion people around the world shitting in the street regularly. Public defecation was not unusual. We have greatly reduced that number of people shitting in the street. If you just text the number on your phone there to our- [...] MAHER: I never read about a homeless problem in London. OSBOURNE: There are homeless but nothing like here. MAHER: But they're not on the streets. OSBOURNE: No, they are not. MAHER: That-- OSBOURNE: You can't. Because you can't. MAHER: Okay, exactly, because that is the decision of public officials. OSBOURNE: You cannot set up home in the street, you could sleep in the street, in a doorway, but you cannot take up home. MAHER: No tents. OSBOURNE: You cannot put a tent. No. MAHER: That's where it all went wrong for us. OSBOURNE: Yes, and no cardboard boxes, nothing like that. MAHER: It's the street. It's again the same principle as I was saying before about the reverse of what liberalism really is. Liberalism is, "For the sake of humanity and compassion, can we get these people off the streets." Woke is, "How dare you ask them to move, this is their home." OSBOURNE: They have rights. MAHER: No, it's not. There's got to be-- there's easily a better solution to this. Get a barracks, they're not that expensive, and people who don't-- if you absolutely don't have a home, we will provide you with one, we will do our best to keep it secure. We'll have security guards. We'll keep the lights on, whatever. It's not undoable OSBOURNE: With the amount of money that they've had for it- MAHER: Oh my God. OSBOURNE: -and not done anything with it. MAHER: Instead they put them in hotels. That's your answer, hotels? OSBOURNE: Can you imagine what those hotels are like? MAHER: Oh, we know. This is where the sanctuary city people got hoist by their own petard. Liberal states have said, "We believe in the concept of a sanctuary city," and then the states where the migrants were coming over the border like Florida and Texas, they said, "Oh, okay, well, we'll send them to you then." Of course, they didn't like it. It's just a good example of, could everybody just stop the posturing? Don't pretend that you love migrants so much and then when we send them to you, you don't like them. You're full of shit and we can see that. You liked them when it wasn't your problem because you're not a border state. Then when they show up in Chicago, in New York, you're like, "What the fuck - OSBOURNE: Fuck is going on. MAHER: -what are we going to do with these people?" There's got to be a solution to this that is compassionate. Is it that hard to be compassionate without being an asshole? OSBOURNE: The thing is, I would say 95% of immigrants want to work. MAHER: Of course they do. OSBOURNE: They want to work. They want to take care of their family. MAHER: Oh, we need immigrants. We always have. This is a nation of immigrants. They're the lifeblood of this country. It would be like stopping eating or something that nourishes you over time, but you have to do it. You don't eat 12 meals in one sitting, which would be like a million people showing up at the border at once. Again, why can't Biden-- I get that the republicans are not at all organized. That's not their thing. It's all about performance art and how you feel in your gut. We love America even though we're actually traitors to it in a lot of ways. We love Russia, but somehow we love America. We don't believe in democracy, but we love America. I get it. It's all the flag and that bullshit. Democrats were always supposed to be the-- we know how to make government work. A lot of them did. Obama did. Hillary Clinton would have. They're wonky people. When Biden got in, I was like, "Really? I thought you were that kind of guy, but you didn't know how to pull out of Afghanistan. You can't seem to get a thing going on the border that's compassionate but not stupid." Again, the competency worries me more than the ideology. It makes me think no matter what politics you people are, you're the same person who can't get anything done. OSBOURNE: A lot of promises, but nothing is done. It was as if, because he said, "I'm going to pull troops out of Afghanistan." First thing he does is pull troops out of Afghanistan with no planning.

American trader and CNBC contributor Guy Adami weighed in on the U.S. economy on Tuesday: "Tim said it at the beginning of the show, I think 140%, probably 150% debt to GDP in this country, that's an atrocity. No developed country in the history of mankind since the Roman Empire has been able to sort of recover from numbers like that, yet we don't even talk about it. So, good for Fitch. Maybe they are late to the dance, which they are. And that Janet Yellen response, it sounds like they had that at the ready, to me that didn't just sort of come off the pen that quickly."

Former federal prosecutor Paul Butler on Wednesday said on MSNBC said the judge presiding over the Jack Smith prosecution of former President Donald Trump is a black woman immigrant that will deliver "poetic justice." Butler said if found guilty, Trump can expect Judge Tanya Chutkan, appointed by former President Barack Obama, to send him to prison for "a very long time." "I'm thinking about two kinds of justice poetic and legal," Butler told MSNBC. "The poetic justice is that presiding over Trump's trial will be a black woman immigrant. Trump doesn't like being challenged by anybody, but he especially hates feeling challenged by black women. His targets have included our colleagues, Joy Reid and Kristen Welker. Plus Tanya Chutkan is an immigrant from Jamaica and remember Trump's disgusting words about Caribbean nations." "The legal justice is that none of that will matter to Judge Chutkan," Butler said. "She's a former public defender, she will give Trump all of the fairness and process that he is due. She'll let the jury decide the case. And if it returns a verdict of not guilty, she'll be fine with saying those words that defendants love to hear, Mr. Trump, you are free to go. But if he's convicted, based on her sentencing and other January 6th cases, judge Chutkan is likely to send the former president to prison for a very long time."

MSNBC contributor and former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann told MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace on Wednesday that special prosecutor Jack Smith's charges are not "novel legal theory." Weissmann said the prosecution of Trump is "going to be a test" of how much Americans care about the facts and the law. "My big take home from this indictment was this is not going to be about the facts or the law," Weissmann said. "I remember a judge in the District of Columbia saying the courts are where facts and laws still matter. Here obviously the government has to prove it, has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously." "This is going to be a test of us and how we're reacting and whether we care about the facts and the law because the allegations here, and there's so much evidence here, are really crystal clear. The charges are so mainstream in terms of this is not a novel legal theory, this has been brought over and over again. To me, this is really going to be about whether people in this country care about the facts and the law."

NBC News correspondent Steve Patterson talked to Nevada voters about former President Donald Trump. WOMAN: That January 6th situation, it was -- it was a tipping point for me. He can be bought and he can be sold. MAN: Business as usual. It is all a scam. REPORTER: What makes you say that? MAN: Nothing to it. They're out to get him. They're going to do everything they can to destroy him. Ain't going to work. REPORTER: And, of course, you have people digging their heels in, emboldened by the Trump news, people that support Donald Trump.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told "Rob Schmitt Tonight" on Newsmax on Monday that the Jewish state will act to defend itself from Iran's alleged nuclear program with or without support from the Biden administration. "I have a longstanding view on all these deals and agreements with Iran or the previous JCPOA and other agreements of lesser magnitude," Netanyahu said. "I think that any deal with Iran that doesn't set back Iran's nuclear infrastructure is basically not worth it because it means nothing." "They basically take what you give them, but they don't set back. They don't roll back the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, or the components of nuclear weapons. So, you really get nothing for it. And my view hasn't changed. I can't tell you whether such a deal will be advanced. It may. And so, my views are the same whether or not it's advanced." "With or without a deal, with or without an understanding, whether without a maxi-deal or a mini-deal, Israel will do what it needs to do to defend itself by itself against the threat of Iran to annihilate it with nuclear weapons," he said.

The hallmark of a productive debate is not persuasion, but insight. So says Adam Grant in this wide-ranging conversation with John Donvan and Intelligence Squared CEO Clea Conner. A good argument is not only about convincing, Grant explains, but also to learn. In his new book, Think Again, Grant explores a set of cognitive skills that might matter more than pure aptitude: The ability to rethink and unlearn. That is the focus of this conversation; the capacity to change your mind, and why it matters more than ever. Adam Grant, Host of the podcast "WorkLife with Adam Grant" from the TED Audio Collective, Best-Selling Author, Organizational Psychologist Recognized as one of the world's 10 most influential management thinkers and Fortune's 40 under 40, Adam Grant has been consistently recognized as one of Wharton's top-rated professors. His books have been named among the year's best by Amazon, Apple, the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan and his B.A. from Harvard University and has received awards for distinguished scholarly achievement from the Academy of Management, the American Psychological Association, and the National Science Foundation. His latest book, Think Again, examines the science behind changing your mind and persuading others to change theirs.

Via Kite & Key Media -- About 1 million metric tons of plastic end up in the ocean each year. Where does it come from? 20%-30% of plastic pollution in the ocean comes from marine sources like fishing nets and lines. The rest, however, is land-based waste that ends up in rivers and gets washed into the ocean. While many Western nations restrict the use of plastic in order to reduce this pollution, over 80% of the plastic that goes from land into the ocean comes from rivers in Asia. In fact, seven of the 10 rivers responsible for the most plastic pollution are located in the Philippines. Critics have long argued that countries like the U.S. are still responsible because we export our trash to the countries that mismanage it. But recent research suggests that's not much of a factor - because most plastic waste isn't exported. In fact, 98% of the world's plastic waste is disposed of in the country where it's generated. While exporting less of our waste could help a little, the biggest step we can take to prevent plastic pollution is to improve waste management systems in the countries causing the problem.

Via Open To Debate -- Social media platforms have become an integral part of the modern digital landscape, shaping how young individuals connect, communicate, and perceive the world around them. However, concerns have been raised regarding the potential negative consequences on children's mental well-being. Even recently, the US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released an advisory stating there's a risk of profound harm to children and adolescents' mental health and well-being. Those who agree claim that excessive social media usage can make children experience low self-esteem and negative body image. They also highlight cyberbullying and online harassment, which can contribute to increased stress, anxiety, and depression. Those who disagree say that when used responsibly and with proper guidance, social media can enhance social and creative skills, foster a sense of belonging, provide access to valuable educational resources, and help support communities. They also note that studies measuring social media's impact on kids' mental health don't always take into account other prominent factors. With this context, we debate the question: Is Social Media Bad for Kids' Mental Health? This debate was recorded at The Aspen Ideas Festival on June 25, 2023. Yes Jim Steyer, Founder and CEO of Common Sense Media Jim Steyer is a children's advocate, civil rights attorney, and the founder of Common SenseMedia, a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the lives of kids and families by providing the trustworthy information, education, and impactful voice they need to thrive intoday's world. Prior to founding Common Sense, he was the founder and president of Children Now, an educational kids' media company, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and clerked for California Supreme Court Justice Allen Broussard. Steyer has also taught civil rights, civil liberties, and education at Stanford University, where he received the Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching. He is the author of The Other Parent: The Inside Story of the Media's Effect on Our Children, Talking Back to Facebook, and Which Side of History: How Technology is Reshaping Democracy and Our Lives. He frequently appears on national television and radio as a commentator on programs including The Oprah Winfrey Show, The Today Show, Good Morning America, Fresh Air, CNN, Fox News, and 2020. He went to college at Stanford University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and was awarded the Lindsey Peters Award for Outstanding Work in American Government, and received his JD from Stanford Law School. No Candice Odgers, Professor of Psychological Science and Informatics at University of California, Irvine, and Director of Research and Faculty Development at University of California, Irvine's School of Social Ecology Candice Odgers is a Psychological Science and Informatics professor at the University of California, Irvine and a research professor at Duke University. At UCI, she is also the director of research and faculty development in the School of Social Ecology. Her research focuses on how new technologies, such as mobile phones, wearable devices, and web-based tools, can be used to understand and improve the lives of young people and how early, daily, and online experiences influence children's health and development. Odger's research has resulted in authoring over 100 scientific publications, which have been distributed through The Economist, New York Times, Scientific American, and The Washington Post. She is a member of the National Scientific Council on Adolescence and the Co-Leader at the Connecting the EdTech Research Ecosystem at UCI. She is also the program co-director of the Child and Brain Development Program at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. For her research contributions, Odgers has received multiple awards, including the Distinguished Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest Early Career Award from the American Psychological Association and the 2016 Advanced Research Fellowship from the Klaus J. Jacobs Foundation. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Virginia and an AB and MA from Simon Fraser University.

MSNBC legal analyst Neal Katyal argued it would be "dangerous" not to televise the prosecution of former President Donald Trump by special prosecutor Jack Smith. Katyal, a former U.S. acting Solicitor General, told MSNBC host Joy Reid, "Jack Smith has done a really important thing for American democracy, which has frankly been spit on a lot in the last few years." "The reality is TV and visually seeing it in live, real-time is going to be the most important antidote for disinformation and the idea that we're going to have this trial, the most significant trial in our lifetime not on television I think is really dangerous," Katyal said. NEAL KATYAL, Jack Smith is not a Biden official. biden had nothing to do with his appointment. Jack Smith is a career prosecutor, not appointed by either party. He's independent and he's operating under special counsel guidelines that give him the independence to do this prosecution without talking to Biden or others in his administration and seeking their approval... Second thing that I think needs to happen, because of the amount of disinformation, I think the public needs to see this trial for themselves. It would be great to have the book club that Senator McCaskill talks about and I hope everyone joins it, but the reality is TV and visually seeing it in live, real-time is going to be the most important antidote for disinformation and the idea that we're going to have this trial, the most significant trial in our lifetime not on television I think is really dangerous. We faced this in the George Floyd prosecution in which I was special prosecutor and it was televised, even though Minnesota had never televised a criminal trial in its history up until that point. I think it was powerful for the public to see it all. I think the same thing is true here. Jack Smith has done a really important thing for American democracy, which has frankly been spit on a lot in the last few years, but in order to bring the task home, I think it's really important for all Americans to see this trial, see, you know, whether these allegations against Donald Trump and all the details of the 45 pages we're talking about. Can Jack Smith prove it and prove it up under the highest standard belied against him in the law, beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect he can but let's see it for ourselves... I do think a certain number of people are going to be swayed by the criminal trial itself. But the way in which it gets done would be historic, is for the Chief Justice, John Roberts, to authorize the televising of this trial. He has the absolute power to do so and I think for reasons of American democracy he very much should.

Former Vice President Mike Pence offered these comments in response to the latest indictment of former President Trump Wednesday in Indianapolis. "Irrespective of the indictment, I want the American people to know i had no right to overturn the election," Pence said. "Sadly, the president was surrounded by a group of crackpot lawyers that kept telling him what his itching ears wanted to hear."

Former Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer, whose testimony this week excited Republicans, told Tucker Carlson on Twitter about his relationship with the president's son. Archer admitted that in retrospect, their business model of touting access to the vice president was "an abuse of soft power." "The power to have that access and that conversation is not on a scheduled conference call and that's a part of your family. That's like the pinnacle of power in this city," he said. "At the end of the day, he had the best advantage to do that because of where he was. We thought when we went into business it was a great opportunity for us. " TUCKER CARLSON: What were the skills, the specific skills, that he brought to clients? DEVON ARCHER: Well, at the end of the day he had a career in Washington, he graduated Yale law school and had a very big network in DC and brought that know-how and understanding of DC, and ultimately, the Biden brand. TUCKER CARLSON: The know-how. So as far as I can tell, he wasn't doing legal work, I mean he wasn't in the counsel's office at Burisma, right? DEVON ARCHER: No, no. TUCKER CARLSON: So the network and the Biden brand sounds like the key component of what he was bringing. DEVON ARCHER: Absolutely. TUCKER CARLSON: Do you think that he would have been in those businesses, not having a business background, without his father being in the government position? DEVON ARCHER: It's hard to speculate in those regards. I mean, yes, I think when we initially met and he talked about his advisory business, his business that needed to transition from lobbying to advisory, and the interest in private equity, it seemed like a new and interesting network for us to expand our business. Whether he could have been in that position is hard for me to speculate. Obviously, the brand of Biden adds a lot of power when your dad's vice president. TUCKER CARLSON: For sure, and there was a time maybe ten years ago when private equity, maybe like AI now, it was just one of those terms... But the mechanics, having done it, coming from a business background yourself, are kind of complex. DEVON ARCHER: Absolutely, it is a complex business. Business takes years of training, but the initial idea around the business, was that they were going to provide the government insight and an additional network to raise capital and then, you know, deal with regulatory issues you might have at the corporate issues. TUCKER CARLSON: Right, regulatory issues. DEVON ARCHER: That would be his, right? TUCKER CARLSON: But did he have a sophisticated understanding of regulation, do you think? DEVON ARCHER: I think that he led a team that had a sophisticated team that had a sophisticated level--- TUCKER CARLSON: Ha! OK. I lived in Washington for a long time around a lot of regulations, and also a very complex area. DEVON ARCHER: Absolutely, I think there's, you know, you've got to be an expert in knowing the guy. And he was the guy who was an expert in knowing the guy. TUCKER CARLSON: He was an expert in knowing the guy. And who was the guy he knew? DEVON ARCHER: He knew a lot of people. Some familiar, his father, his brother, and some of his father's siblings. He knew a lot of people. And obviously, I know you're pointing to the father being the key relationship. TUCKER CARLSON: Well, no, I'm just trying to get a sense of -- Washington is not a money town. People aren't in business in Washington for the most part, and most people don't have business skills -- just in 30 years of living here. So really, the business of Washington is selling access, that's what it looks like to me. DEVON ARCHER: Yeah, not just under Biden. I think that's one of the core misconceptions. It seems like ... understanding a regulatory environment is selling access, at the end of the day. That's how I interpret it. And I think that's how most people on Wall Street, whether they admit it or not, interpret it. TUCKER CARLSON: So we've got a complex business that intersects with government and we need a guy who knows government. DEVON ARCHER: Right, how do we deal with getting a guy a visa that needs to come over for a business deal? Call our lobbyist who knows a guy who works in DHS or used to work in DHS or in Customs and Border Patrol, or people at the embassy and State Department that might be abe to help. Very tactical elements that are regulatory and compliance and governance that you have to go through. And you have to know that guy that worked at the old agency that now has a lobbying firm who can go back to the agency and get the things put to the front of the line. TUCKER CARLSON: So the reason I'm asking this is not to give the Bidens a pass, hardly, but when people say there's some question about whether Hunter was trading on his father's name, if you live in Washington, like that's the whole city right there. DEVON ARCHER: Right, I think you know the answer to that. At the end of the day, he had the best advantage to do that because of where he was. We thought when we went into business it was a great opportunity for us. TUCKER CARLSON: So when you hear people say it is an "open question" about why they hired Hunter Biden, that's pretty disingenuous. No? DEVON ARCHER: When you look at the whole, there were people who were maybe sons or relatives or brother-in-law of other high-ranking officials, but I think what we ran into with Hunter ran was like an Icarus issue. It was a little too close to the sun, it was a little too good to be true. And the connections were too close and the scrutiny was too much, and it end up destroying -- left a wake of a lot of destroyed businesses over a number of years. TUCKER CARLSON: It has been reported and you have said there were occasions when you said Joe Biden would call in with clients present on the speakerphone. How many times do you think that happened? DEVON ARCHER: Over a ten-year partnership, the number I'm going with is 20. That's probably the amount. A lot. TUCKER CARLSON: So Joe Biden, who is very much a product of Washington, of course, must have known that he was calling in to effectively a business meeting his son was having. he must have understood that that was kind of what his son was selling. DEVON ARCHER: It's hard for me to speculate on that. TUCKER CARLSON: Just to keep it to the facts, Joe Biden, then the sitting vice president, knew that there were Hunter's business associates in the room? DEVON ARCHER: I can definitively say, at particular dinners or meetings, he knew there were business associates. He knew we were, if I was there, I was a business associate too. So I think if you know any of the other colleagues from the DC office or the New York office who were there. So, at times there were from the -- to be completely clear on the calls, I don't know if it was an orchestrated call-in or not, it certainly was powerful. If you're sitting with a foreign businessperson and you hear the vice president's voice, that's prize enough. That's pretty impactful stuff for anyone. TUCKER CARLSON: It's been reported, and I know that it is true that Hunter and his brother were very close with their dad. DEVON ARCHER: Absolutely. TUCKER CARLSON: I've got kids, I talk to them every day. Never called them on speaker during a business meeting. That's weird. You've got kids, you're close to them. Do you call them on speaker during business meetings? ... I mean, what is that? A grown man calling his dad on speakerphone during a business meeting? DEVON ARCHER: To be clear, sometimes the call was coming in and the speaker would come on. You have to be, you understand DC right, so the power to have that access and that conversation is not on a scheduled conference call and that's a part of your family. That's like the pinnacle of power in this city. ... Yeah, in the rearview, it's an abuse of soft power. TUCKER CARLSON: An abuse of soft power, interesting. When did you meet Joe Biden? DEVON ARCHER: Joe Biden I met for the first time, probably at the 2000 convention, I think it was in LA, and then Boston was 2004. Those two times I probably shook hands as they made kind of power circles around the events, through the skyboxes. And then following that, when our partnership started in 2008, 2009-ish, conversations started. That's when I really met Hunter and sit down and mill with him. We talked about the transition from lobbying to strategic advisory and some type of coalescence around having a private equity fund that would have this unique access and understanding of a regulatory environment. TUCKER CARLSON: How many times do you think you met Joe Biden over the course of your relationship with Hunter? DEVON ARCHER: How many times? Um, I should have this off the top of my head since I've been asked so many times. Probably 20.

Donald Trump's attorney John Lauro debates CNN's Kaitlin Collins about whether the former president's effort to search for voter fraud in the 2020 election counts as protected political speech. "Political speech, under the First Amendment, has an almost absolute protection. Nobody gets to judge, whether it's true or not, except the American people. And we do that in an election. We do that in an election. We do that in the case of a President, by impeachment. But we don't indict people for speech," he said. "There was an effort, to get alternate electors, which is a protocol that was that was used in 1960, by John Kennedy. And it was a protocol that was constitutionally-accepted. So, there's nothing wrong about that. In fact, in the indictment itself, it doesn't allege that there was anything wrong." "And the final ask that Mr. Trump made, to Vice President Pence, was simply pause the voting. There's nothing inherently unconstitutional or illegal about that. In fact, he had an opinion, from a very well- known constitutional scholar that said, that's fine, that that's legal. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN: You talk about free speech. Jack Smith noted Trump's right to free speech, and to contest the election results. But what he says, in this indictment, is that when that did not work, the defendant, your client, pursued unlawful means, of discounting legitimate votes, and subverting the election results. And that is why he is being charged here, not because of anything related to free speech. JOHN LAURO, TRUMP ATTORNEY: Yes, but that's factually inaccurate, because the ultimate request that Mr. Trump made, to Vice President Pence, was "pause the vote counting, allow the States to weigh in," ultimately, an audit or recertify. And under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the actual responsibility for qualifying electors, is in the state legislatures. Mr. Trump had the advice of counsel, Mr. Eastman, who was one of the most respected constitutional scholars, in the United States, giving him advice and guidance. That's pure politics. You may disagree with it. And people have spirited arguments about the law all the time. And that's why lawyers are in business. But we've never had a situation, where a spirited debate, about the Constitution, has become a criminal case. What's going to happen when there's a Republican administration? Is there going to be an effort to criminalize speech by Democrats? Is there going to be an effort to characterize something that a Democrat politician says, that's not -- that doesn't meet some kind of truth standard, at the Department of Justice, that that's going to be the subject of a criminal indictment? We've now entered a constitutional abyss as a result of this indictment. COLLINS: But John, I should note that you're saying that he was just asking him, to send them back. I was just talking to the Chief of Staff, who was with Pence that day. He said he was being asked to do something illegal, and that Pence did not have the right to do, to reject them. And you mentioned the attorneys there that you say. John Eastman, he's a co-conspirator, in this indictment, I should note. And the indictment lists all of the people, who told Trump that his claims, about election fraud, weren't true, including the Vice President, senior Justice Department leaders, the Director of National Intelligence, CISA, which of course is in charge of making sure elections in the U.S. are secure, senior White House attorneys, campaign staffers -- LAURO: OK. But what was not true? COLLINS: -- state legislatures that you just mentioned there, and the courts. LAURO: Right. What was not true, that there were States, where ballots were sent out without people asking for them, where there were changes in verification, where there were instances where ballots were not being supervised at drop-off places? The President was told, given advice, that under these circumstances, the state legislatures have the ultimate ability, to qualify electors. He followed that advice. Now, you may disagree, as to whether or not those things actually occurred or not. That's why we have political debate. We don't have criminal trials, over that. We have the discussion, like we're just having. COLLINS: But it matters, if those things actually occurred or not, John. LAURO: Not under the First Amendment. COLLINS: But it matters if those things actually occurred. LAURO: No. Not at all, because under the First Amendment -- COLLINS: It does matter, if there was actually fraud. LAURO: No. No. The First Amendment allows -- COLLINS: But John, let me stop you there. Because if he's saying that there was fraud, the First Amendment doesn't allow the President of the United States, to go and claim there was fraud, when he was told there was not fraud, and then try to subvert the election, by overturning legitimate electors. LAURO: The First Amendment protects all speech. COLLINS: I mean, it says it right here, in the actual indictment. LAURO: Absolutely. The First Amendment protects all speech. If we're going to have a situation, where the Department of Justice is going to fact-check politicians, and indict politicians, for political speech, and whether or not they're factually accurate, then this country will shut down, politically, because it's a never- ending cycle of tit for tat. And that's the risk of injecting politics into the criminal justice system. So, right now, people disagree with President Trump. What's going to happen, four years from now, if somebody disagrees with President Biden, in terms of what he said during the election? That's why we don't criminalize political speech. Political speech, under the First Amendment, has an almost absolute protection. Nobody gets to judge, whether it's true or not, except the American people. And we do that in an election. We do that in an election. We do that in the case of a President, by impeachment. But we don't indict people for speech. COLLINS: I got to stop you there. But Trump is not being indicted, for lying here. He is being indicted for using unlawful means, of discounting legitimate votes, and trying to subvert the election results. LAURO: Well what's the unlawful means? There was an effort, to get alternate electors, which is a protocol that was that was used in 1960, by John Kennedy. And it was a protocol that was constitutionally-accepted. So, there's nothing wrong about that. In fact, in the indictment itself, it doesn't allege that there was anything wrong. And the final ask that Mr. Trump made, to Vice President Pence, was simply pause the voting. There's nothing inherently unconstitutional or illegal about that. In fact, he had an opinion, from a very well- known constitutional scholar that said, that's fine, that that's legal. Mr. Trump is not a lawyer. He's a businessman. COLLINS: His own Attorney General, and officials, said that that was not fine, that that was certainly illegal, that he was asking them. They weren't just asking for a pause. He was asking to overturn the legitimate results. But John, let me ask you, because you're running point on this. Is Trump going to show up in person? LAURO: He was asked to pause. COLLINS: Is Trump going to show up in person, for his arraignment, on Thursday? LAURO: That's up to the court. The court makes those decisions. So, we're prepared to follow whatever the court rules are. The judge issued a summons, and he will appear either virtually or in person.

MSNBC's Chris Hayes gives this take on the historic nature of the latest indictment against former President Trump: CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC: My first reaction, which is just a personal one, in having covered this, like all of us have, and like the viewers too, is right, yes, I'm not crazy. If this wasn't a crime, nothing is a crime. We watched him do it on television. We sat at this desk a year ago at the January 6th committee, we knew what he was doing. If that's not a crime, that nothing is a crime. That part of it is just like, I find it really important and gratifying. There is a kind of ballast to it. Yes, yes, of course, this was corrupt. Of course, this was fraud, of course, there was a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. We all saw him engage in the conspiracy to defraud the U.S. The second thought I had is about the magnitude of this moment, which I think is just worth taking a second on. With Donald Trump, lots of things are unprecedented. The first time he was indicted was unprecedented, and the second time was indicted was unprecedented, because a federal indictment had never come down. This is in the canon of American events, January 6 and its aftermath. The reason is that for 159 years after the cannons fired at Fort Sumter, there is an unbroken chain of peaceful transfer of power. Not only that, the core story of the American experiment is its fight within itself to be true to the radical promise of democracy. That is why Lincoln says at the battlefield at Gettysburg that the question before the nation is whether a nation of, by, and for the people can long endure. It's a test whether the thing can last. That is in a category of itself in American history, the Civil War and the death and misery. But this is the greatest political crime since secession. And the gravest test, that Lincoln called on the battlefield in Gettysburg of whether a nation of, by, and for the people, that we are our own masters, whether that can long endure. So I feel profoundly gratified by reading this document because it calls into question in a way that has not quite been called yet. Like, if the law is not for this, what is it for?

New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman reports on the reaction inside Trump's circle to the third indictment of the former president, Wednesday morning on CNN. MAGGIE HABERMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: They're pretty angry, which should not surprise anyone. We have seen him get progressively angrier as these indictments have been coming. This is the third case in which he is indicted. But on this one in particular, there is a sense of indignance around it. You are hearing people close to the former president say they now feel like they can move to subpoena everybody who might have done something related to 2020. That does not mean a judge will actually allow them to do that, but that's what their plan is. They are looking at how they can maximize this politically, if nothing else. MATTINGLY: Maggie, the biggest question I have out of all of this is Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, was not an unnamed co-conspirator. There are references to him, some new things tied to him in the 45 pages, but it's not clear whether or not he's cooperating, which has been the big question. What's your sense of where Mark Meadows sits in all this right now? HABERMAN: So, look, Mark Meadows, as you say, has been a huge question, not just for us, but for people around Trump. And Trump has had a lot of questions about what is going on with Mark Meadows as well. You are correct. There are clearly shades of Mark Meadows in various pieces in this indictment, but there's cooperating, which is meeting your legal requirements, and then there's cooperating, which is being a full-blown witness who is aiding the case in a certain way. I have no reason to believe that Meadows is actually doing that. And, frankly, there isn't a ton in there that suggests that he actually was doing that. But, yes, the absence of him is certainly notable. There's also a lot from Mike Pence. You see him in various places. You see that there were notes provided by him. I'm told it was under subpoena. So, I think that Meadows in particular is going to remain a big question. I suspect a lot of these questions will be answered as time goes on. HARLOW: Can you speak a little bit more about the role that the former vice president, Mike Pence, played in this indictment? Because there's three, if not four, big chunks that stood out to me. And in the indictment, there's new stuff there about his interactions with the president and what the president said to him and what the president said other people, Maggie, about basically I got it, I'll handle Pence. HABERMAN: That, to me, Poppy, was one of the most interesting pieces of this indictment, where you have Trump saying -- this was new information, Trump saying to someone else who said, should other people go talk to Mike Pence, while Trump was engaged in this pressure campaign, to get Pence to throw the election his way, essentially, when the Electoral College certification happened, and Trump said, no, I've got it. I'm paraphrasing, but it was, I've got it. I'm talking to the vice president. No one else should talk to the vice president. That was new and interesting that that was Trump's perspective. Much of what we know from the Pence-Trump conversations has actually been out either through the House select committee or media reports. But there were more details. There was more meat on the bone. There were notes that this was based on that Pence provided under subpoena. You have Pence saying to Trump that he doesn't -- in one conversation, that he doesn't have the authority to do what Trump wants. And Trump, as you noted, saying you're too honest. That actually wasn't Pence's book last year. But there is lots of detail about Trump calling Pence at various points, or Pence calling Trump to wish him a happy holiday and Trump taking these as opportunities to berate Pence. MATTINGLY: Maggie, there's a default sense that this will automatically help the former president in the Republican primary. This will be a huge boon to his fundraising efforts. I'm not going to try and dispute either of those. But based on what we've seen over the course of the last several days, in particular, with the significant cost these indictments have brought in terms of legal fees and the fact he's going to have to run in a general election, how does the campaign feel about how sturdy they are at this point? HABERMAN: Look, there is a concern about money around Trump. It's been going on for quite some time. It's part of why you're not seeing him do a lot of rallies. Among the reasons is they are incredibly expensive. They have been running a different kind of campaign this time. Now, he can't use campaign fees for lawyers, as far as I know. I believe that most campaign finance experts say you can't do that. At the moment, they are starting a legal defense fund for people who are around Trump. His own legal fees are not expected to be paid by that. But you are right, this has been a huge drain on resources. Generally, there is concern about it. We are less than six months from the Iowa caucuses. If Trump is the nominee, they believe that they will be able to get the money they need. And, remember, everything with Trump is about surviving increments of time. But you are correct that this is a concern.

Alan Dershowitz weighs in on the third indictment of former President Trump, Tuesday evening on Newsmax with Greta Van Susteren. "It's just not strong enough or specific enough to satisfy the very high standard that's required when a president of the United States allows his Justice Department to indict his opponent, and influence the outcome of the election," Dershowitz said. "It doesn't satisfy the high standard that should be required when you're going after your political opponent. That's banana republic, when you go after your political opponents by indicting them." ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Well it's just not strong enough or specific enough to satisfy the very high standard that's required when a president of the United States allows his Justice Department to indict his opponent, and influence the outcome of the election. That is such a serious matter that it can't be based on vague conspiratorial notions, proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. No, this is a charge that will result in a conviction in the District of Columbia, because just as a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich, a jury, a petit jury in the District of Columbia will certainly convict somebody named Donald Trump, as long as the evidence is plausible. But it doesn't satisfy the high standard that should be required when you're going after your political opponent. That's banana republic, when you go after your political opponents by indicting them... and denying your right to vote for him or against them. I want to vote against Donald Trump and I don't want the prosecutor to deny me that right. GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: What about the whole concept of a special counsel? We had an independent counsel, which of course, Ken Starr was investigating former president Bill Clinton back in the 90s. That statute sunset, and that was the special independent counsel selected by three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals. But when that sunset, we then went to the special counsel and that's appointed by the attorney general of the United States, who of course, is appointed by the president of the United States. Is there a place to go back to something like an independent counsel? So we escape the suggestion that the choice is a poisoned one. Or is the special counsel something that we should do more of, or less of? What's your thought on it? DERSHOWITZ: Well it should be independent, and it should be picked by judges if it is going to be picked it all up. The ultimate answer is to have two departments, one political justice department that advises the president, a member of the cabinet. Most countries have that. And then a director of public prosecution, which is a civil service job, not answerable to the president. If you have that division, you don't need special counsel or independent counsel. The reason we need independent counsel is because we have a schizophrenic Justice Department, that half the day it's supposed to be the president's political advisors to help them get reelected, and the other half of the day, they're supposed to be independent, and only indict people based on on the merits. But we combine those two roles, which is why we need special counsel. But it's much better to have whatever that person is called, appointed by three judges, not appointed by the person who was appointed by the president, especially in cases where somebody is running against the incumbent president. The standard has to be so high for that, and it does not look like it's been met by this indictment. It certainly wasn't met by the indictment in New York, and questionable whether it was met by the indictment in Florida, or will be met by the indictment in Fulton County. In my book on Trump, I went through all of these indictments and showed how politicized our system of justice has become, and today's indictment seems to demonstrate that. VAN SUSTEREN: We have talked about the selective prosecution, asking about why Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority leader, wasn't indicted for what he did and Trump was here. Let me go to the whole issue of selective prosecution, as it relates to the classified documents down in Florida. Look, all the people who have classified documentation, whether it's vice president Mike Pence, President Biden, who had them in two places, one in his garage, that I suspect a lot of people have access to, and one in a closet in downtown DC, and I can tell you these closets, even if they're locked in these office buildings, you can pop them with a credit card. That was silly. It seems to me that Trump's indictment was almost a self-inflicted wound, because they all have it in their heads that they want to do something sinister. They've all got intel in their head that they could do. They don't need a bunch of papers on the desk, but it almost seems like Trump was a self-inflicted wound because he was he seemed to be rather obnoxious or uncooperative. But was he treated fairly? DERSHOWITZ: No, he wasn't treated fairly. Now we have to see whether the obstruction charge sticks. It's based apparently on triple hearsay. I've read the indictment. It doesn't say that Donald Trump himself told and eye or ear witness to erase videotapes. Apparently, there were no erased videotapes. All the videotapes were turned over. So that obstruction charge seems to be based on triple hearsay, but we'll wait and see how it uncovers and develops. The charge itself of classified material doesn't meet the standard of the same justice for all, because it doesn't seem all that different from the allegations made against other people of the Democratic Party. So, so far, I've seen nothing that warrants prosecuting the man who is now in a 44-44 poll tie with the incumbent president, and trying to influence the outcome of the election through prosecution. To do that, the standard has to be so high, like in the Nixon case, I don't think it was met here. VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask you about the New York state case, which I haven't dug into in a little while. As I see it very generally, it's he that he used his company, privately held, not public... perhaps to pay hush money, and perhaps, it has been proven, signed some documents saying where the money is going. Is that a more fair prosecution or not? DERDHOWITZ: No, it's the worst indictment I've seen in 60 years of practice. Never in the history of America, and probably never in the history of the world, has somebody been indicted for paying hush money, the purpose of which is to keep people quiet, and they're not publicly not acknowledging the payment of hush money on a corporate form. It's unheard of. It's never been done. It's a made-up crime. It's the worst of the four indictments... It's the worst. The strongest indictment is the obstruction indictment in Florida, if there's evidence to support it, it looks like maybe there isn't evidence to support it. But the self-inflicted wound of waving a classified document, saying I could have declassified when I was president, but I didn't. But again, that is not a serious enough crime to warrant interfering with an election. VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, I think they're all hoarders. I mean, every single one of these people hoards, and I know every single one of them has been charged with classified documents. But you take Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and you know, I do not think she was ever going to do anything with the documents. I just don't believe it. I don't, but they ended up on Anthony Weiner's computer, who's got he's got all these sort of sex crimes, he pledged to it, and he's the husband of her chief of staff or something. I mean, it is so sloppy. What are classified documents doing on her chief of staff's husband, who's got questionable problems, he got convicted, I think. It's all sloppy, it's terrible. But I mean, you know they all ought to be treated the same. DERSHOWITZ: It was worse than a crime, it was dumb, and it may have cost her the election, because Comey basically said what you've just said, that although it's not a crime, it was serious. VAN SUSTEREN: Let's talk about Comey for a second. He's the director of the FBI, and he leaks, improperly, records, and he doesn't even have the courage to put his name on it. He doesn't have the courage to leak it himself, he launders it through a friend in New York, so he doesn't get caught. If that isn't sneaky, what about him? DERSHOWITZ: I agree with you. I used to like Comey, he used to come to teach at Harvard, and I used to like him very much. But the idea of laundering secret information through an NYU law professor? I just can't imagine a person of high integrity doing that. The standards of morality and ethics have gone so low in America today for so many people, equally on both sides of the political spectrum, and the excuse they all have is, well, they did it first. Two wrongs make a right, the victim is Americans who want to have a system of due process in place, and equal application of the law. We're very far from that today.

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough savages Republicans and their media repeaters who "spent months undermining America's confidence in democracy" ahead of January 6, 2021 and "are now undermining America's confidence in our judicial system" after the indictment of former President Trump. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let's be very clear here. I talked about all the Republicans that chose the country over an attempted coup last night, there are people like Kevin McCarthy, though, and there were also some people on other TV networks who continued to lie. These are people who spent the months after November the fourth, Election Day, spent months undermining America's confidence in democracy, savagely choosing Donald Trump over American democracy, and lied about it repeatedly. The evidence here in black and white. They lied about it. They knew they were lying. Just like Kevin McCarthy knows he's lying. What are they doing now? All of their lies led to January the Sixth. That's why people came and rioted, because they lied about American democracy. So they've been sued. They've paid out almost a billion dollars. They're probably going to have to pay out another billion dollars. And what are they doing now? Let's be really clear about this. Now, Kevin McCarthy and Donald Trump's allies in right-wing Trump media are now undermining America's confidence in our judicial system. Yes, James Madison's third branch, that balances out the other two and protects the Constitution of the United States. Now, it wasn't enough. From November through January the sixth to undermine Americans faith and confidence. When I say Americans, 35, 36, 37%. But enough. Enough to cause chaos. Yeah, enough to try to make a run at overturning the federal government. That's how they spent their fall in 2020 and winter, now they're spending their fall and spring of 2023 and summer of 2023, undermining America's faith in our judiciary, in our Justice Department. Just like they savage the military, just like they savage the intel community, just like they savaged universities and colleges, the best in the world. They're savaging every institution in the name of a failed reality TV host, a failed president who has lost in elections from 2017 to 2023. And yet they continue to savage it. And so now, what's Kevin McCarthy doing after savaging American democracy? He's now savaging our judiciary. And let's just say a lot of opinion hosts on other TV networks are doing the same thing. And I can see why they don't want to read this document. We were watching, but nobody read it, they were drawing on it, doodling on it, joking about it, talking about others for good reason. Why? Because of these facts. This Republican indictment, it's not something that you're going to want to read if you've spent the last couple of years, depending on websites run by Chinese religious cults. Let me say that again. If you are depending on Chinese religious cults, for your information about the United States of America, the greatest country on the face of the Earth, or maybe Aunt Mabel's Facebook postings that she got from somebody, like in Russia, you're not going to want to know the truth from Republicans.

"System Update" host Glenn Greenwald warns that the Department of Justice is "inciting violent action, which is what you saw on January 6," with the latest indictment of former president Donald Trump. "If you don't have a legal system in place, with a Justice Department that people can at least trust to somewhat fairly administer the law, and people now really believe there is a concerted effort to give up on trying to defeat Donald Trump and simply indict him and imprison him using the Biden Just Department, to the point where he's going to be in prison, unable to run, I think the effect is going to be a lot worse than whatever their worst nightmare is about a Trump victory," Greenwald said. "We're heading down a very dangerous path where almost every institution of authority is held in extremely low regard, from the media, to the Justice Department, to the intelligence community, to large corporations -- all of whom are perceived as being willing to cheat against the interests of the AMerican people who don't agree with their views." Watch more from this edition of "System Update" with Glenn Greenwald: