Laura Ingraham: NY v Trump prosecutors are 'trying to make a dead dog bark'

>> John: NATE FOY SETTING THE TABLE FOR US WITH THE UPCOMING TESTIMONY. THANK YOU, SANDRA? >> Sandra: LET'S BRING IN LAURA INGRAHAM NOW FROM THE INGRAHAM ANGLE. GREAT TO HAVE YOU ON THE PROGRAM TODAY. WE EXPECT COURT WILL RESUME A FEW MOMENTS FROM NOW. WE WOULD LOVE TO KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS AS WE HEAD INTO ANOTHER DAY OF THIS. >> WELL, IN THE LISTENING TO WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING AND READING THE TRANSCRIPTS THE ROUGH TRANSCRIPTS OF WHAT HAS COME OUT OF TODAY, IT SEEMS LIKE THE TRUMP HATERS OUT THERE ON SOME OF THE OTHER NETWORKS AND THEIR LEGAL ANALYSTS ARE VERY CONCERNED BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THROUGH THIS CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS MR. PECKER, THE TRUMP TEAM HAS SUCCESSFULLY NORMALIZED WHAT AMERICAN MEDIA INC. HAD BEEN DOING FOR MANY, MANY YEARS FOR HIGH-PROFILE PEOPLE, WHICH IS TO GET RID OF INCONVENIENT STORIES. GRABBING ONTO THE STORIES AND BASICALLY MAKING THEM GO AWAY FOR A FEE. THAT THIS WAS NOTHING NEW. AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE SENSATIONAL THING THAT I THINK ALL A LOT OF THE PROSECUTION'S FOCUS WAS ON IN THE PRECEDING DAYS. AND I THINK THEY TOOK A LOT OF THE WIND OUT OF THEIR SAILS TODAY. I THINK THAT IS NOT EASILY REHABILITATED IN A REDIRECT. >> John: ALTHOUGH, LAURA, THERE ARE SOME LEGAL JOBBERS OUT THERE WHO SAY THE PROSECUTION MADE A COUPLE OF VERY SIGNIFICANT POINTS. ONE WAS THAT THEY GOT DAVID PECKER TO TIE THE KAREN McDOUGAL PAYING THAT TO THE CAMPAIGN. NOT TO THE CAMPAIGN ITSELF BECAUSE THE CAMPAIGN DID NOT PAY FOR IT BUT TO THE IDEA OF PROTECTING THE CAMPAIGN. AND THEN THE FACT THAT THE PECKER KAREN McDOUGAL'S STORY AND KILLING IT WAS NOT IN THE "NATIONAL ENQUIRER"'S INTEREST. WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN IN THEIR INTEREST WAS TO BE TO PUBLISH THE DARN THING. >> NONE OF THOSE CATCH AND KILL STORIES ARE IMMEDIATELY IN THE PUBLISHING WORLD'S INTEREST. THEY COULD PERHAPS SELL MORE COPIES AT ANY GIVEN TIME THEY MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL ABOUT WHETHER IT WORKS OR WHETHER A DOZEN. MAY BE THEY ARE FRIENDLY ONE WEEK WITH ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, MAY BE THEY ARE ANTI-BILL CLINTON ANOTHER MONTH AND MAYBE HE IS FRIENDS WITH TRUMP. BUT THE QUESTION AT HAND HERE IS NOT WHETHER ANY OF THIS IS UNSEEMLY OR BAD BOOKKEEPING. IT IS WHETHER A CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN THE WAY THIS BOOKKEEPING WAS DONE. THIS HAS TO BE DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF A CRIME. AND THEY HAVE BEEN ON SHIFTING SANDS. EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO ARGUE HERE I AM NOT THE FIRST TO SAY THIS, BUT I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE A DEAD DOG BARK HERE WITH THIS CASE. IS THERE SOME SALACIOUS STUFF? YES. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SALACIOUS STUFF BECAUSE THE BOOKKEEPING AND ADMINISTERED OF SIDE OF THIS IS PRETTY BORING AND I WOULD SAY IN MANY WAYS FOR A HIGH-PROFILE FIGURE WHO MAY BE HAS GOTTEN INTO SOME HOT WATER QUITE CONVENTIONAL. >> Sandra: LAURA CONSIDER YOUR EXPANSE WITH THE PORT SUPREME COURT I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE IMMUNITY CASE WHICH THE FORMER PRESIDENT SAID HE WISHED HE COULD HAVE BEEN AT THE SUPREME COURT FOR YESTERDAY AND WHAT WILL COME FROM THAT IF OUR TEAM COULD TEE UP THIS WAS THE SOUND FROM THE FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP YESTERDAY AS HE WAS EMERGING FROM THE TRIAL HERE IN NEW YORK HE SAID WHAT HE HAD HEARD HAPPENED AT THE SUPREME COURT ON THE IMMUNITY CASE THE F-14. >> YESTERDAY I HEARD THE SUPREME COURT HAVING TO DO WITH IMMUNITY I HEARD THE ARGUMENT AND I LISTEN TO IT LAST NIGHT AND I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT. ALL PRESIDENTS HAVE TO HAVE IMMUNITY OR WE DON'T HAVE A PRESIDENT. CERTAINLY NOT A PRESIDENT IN THE MARKET. >> Sandra: HE HEARD IT WAS BRILLIANT AND HE HEARD IT WENT WELL REALLY GREAT. WHAT DID YOU THINK? OF THE ORAL ARGUMENTS? >> I LOVED EVERY MOMENT OF THIS ORAL ARGUMENT. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO ONE HOUR IT WENT TWO HOURS AND ALMOST 40 MINUTES. I WAS MAD TOO THAT I WASN'T THERE BECAUSE I REALLY WANTED TO BE IN THE COURTROOM. BUT IT'S CLEAR A MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICE IS AT LEAST FIVE BUT MAY BE MORE LIKE SIX SEE THEY ARE OPENING UP HER REAL CAN. THEY GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE WHAT THEY WANT, WHICH IS NO IMMUNITY, PERIOD. THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FOR THE PRESENT HERE FOR ANY CRIMINAL MATTERS. REMEMBER THE DISTINCTION HAS TO BE MADE WHEN YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAVE BEEN IN THE FUTURE BETWEEN PRIVATE ACTS AND OFFICIAL ACTS. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COURT WAS LEANING TOWARDS THE IDEA OF REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH GUIDANCE. GENERAL GUIDANCE OF WHAT COULD CONSTITUTE OFFICIAL VERSUS PURELY PRIVATE WHICH WAS AGAIN RUNNING OUT IN THE STREET AND SHOOTING SOMEONE WILLY-NILLY FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL GAIN. TRUMP ARGUES AND I THINK HAS SOME LIGAMENT POINTS HERE THAT HE WAS DOING THIS IN FURTHERANCE OF WHAT HE BELIEVED WAS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY AS THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY TOUGH FOR THEM TO GET ANY TRIAL IF THIS EVEN GOES FORWARD IT DONE BEFORE THE ELECTION WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF I THINK IT'S AT LEAST A PARTIAL WIN FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> John: I THOUGHT WAS VERY INTERESTING ABOUT YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS, THERE'S PROBABLY MORE ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF EVERYTHING BUT THE JUDGES WERE NOT LOOKING AT THIS AS A DONALD TRUMP CASE THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE BIGGER PICTURE. I THINK IT WAS BRETT KAVANAUGH WHO SAID TO THE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS ARGUING THIS CASE LOOK, THIS IS NOT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. THIS IS A DECISION FOR THE AGES. SO WE HAVE TO BASE THIS ON THE FUTURE. OR MAYBE IT WAS ALITO WHO SAID THIS WE HAVE TO BASE ON THE FUTURE NOT RIGHT NOW. >> LOOK. THEY TAKE THEIR JOB SERIOUSLY. OKAY? DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN APPOINTEE OR A DEMOCRAT APPOINTEE. THE COURT AS AN INSTITUTION HAS A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION TO MAKE HERE. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT TRUMP. THIS WILL AFFECT EVERY PRESIDENT GOING FORWARD. AND REMEMBER, CAVANAUGH WAS THE TOP TOP STAFFER FOR GEORGE W. BUSH. IN THE WHITE HOUSE DURING THE BUSH YEARS. REMEMBER, EVERY OTHER 5 MINUTES THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS BEING ACCUSED OF BEING A WAR CRIMINAL, AND LEGAL INTERROGATIONS, AND SO CAVANAUGH HAD HIS OWN EXPERIENCE WITH THAT AS STAFF SECRETARY IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL OF THAT HAPPENING AT THAT TIME. SO, COULD GEORGE W. BUSH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP ON CRIMINAL CHARGES AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? OBAMA FOR DRONE STRIKES? YOU KNOW, IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON IN HISTORY. SO I THINK THE JUSTICES WERE VERY, VERY KEEN TO FIND SOME TYPE OF MIDDLE GROUND HERE IN THE DISTINCTION IS GOING TO BE IMMUNITY FOR TRULY OFFICIAL ACTS VERSUS PURELY PRIVATE ACTS, WHICH I WOULD THINK MOST OF THEM WOULD SAY THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FOR. BUT THAT WILL BE THE RUBDOWN AT THE REMAND. IF IT GOES THE WAY I EXPECT IT WILL GO. >> Sandra: LAURA GRAY TABBY ON THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. >> AND WE ALL HAVE BLUE LOOK, JOHN HAS A BLUE TIE, YOU HAVE THE BLUE TOP, AND I HEARD SO I WORE LIGHT BLUE I THINK IT COORDINATE

Channel: Fox News

Views: 104,040

Keywords: america reports, fox news, fox news channel, john roberts, laura ingraham, sandra smith, donald trump, fox news media, former president donald trump, trump, trump case, trump court case, trump trial, michael cohen, hush money, stormy daniels, us news, new york, 2024 elections, alvin bragg, trump hush money trial, trump hush money, donald trump news, president trump, fox news voices

Id: dRQxvkpRAU0

Length: 7min 33sec (453 seconds)

Published: Fri Apr 26 2024