Has she actually come out and just completely denied any of the accusations that are being made about her in public?

Well, she issues these blanket denials and continuously says, oh, it's a political vendetta and, you know, it is a right-wing conspiracy.

Well, if it was a right-wing conspiracy, why did a left-wing President Obama investigate it? She has had all along the opportunity to offer proof, DNA, for example, but she's never done that.

And You know, when you read the New York Times report, they dropped any potential charges against Omar because they thought the five-year statute of limitations would cause some problems.

Well, that doesn't make any sense because the clock resets under law from the last overt act of fraud or submitting false documents, which was being done within the five-year statute of limitations.

So, you know, for example, immigration filings, tax filings, dissolution petitions, all of that was filed after the marriage, the sham marriage.

That means the statute was still ticking.

How does this look like it might play out for you?

Has she actually come out and just completely denied any of the accusations that are being made about her in public?

well she issues these blanket denials and continuously says oh it's a uh... political vendetta and you know it is a right wing conspiracy well if it was a right wing conspiracy why did a left-wing president obama investigated uh... she has had all along the opportunity to offer proof uh... dna for example but she's never done that and you know when you read the new york times report they dropped uh any potential charges against omar because they thought the five-year statute of limitations would cause some problems well that doesn't make any sense because the clock resets under law from the last overt act or a fraud or submitting false documents which was being done within the five-year statute of limitations.

So, you know, for example, immigration filings, tax filings, dissolution petitions, all of that was filed after the marriage, the sham marriage.

That means the statute was still ticking.

And, you know, not only that, if the purpose behind a sham marriage is immigration fraud, there is no five-year statute of limitations.

It's 10 years.

So that doesn't make any sense.

How does this look like it might play out for you?

But tell us, how is Ilan Omar doing? What do you imagine she's doing today?

Yeah, well, we know what she's doing.

She's appearing or has appeared with Hasan Piker, a rather notorious figure who, based on his rhetoric, appears to be virulently anti-Semitic, a purveyor of hate speech.

But her willingness to appear alongside him today at an event And he suggests that she shares his belief.

Even prominent Democrats like Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and others in Omar's home state have called for the event to be canceled.

They call it polarizing and dangerous.

So it's pretty stunning that Omar was so willing to appear, but it may speak volumes to voters about her beliefs.

Is she that dumb that she doesn't know you could delete it all you want and it could still be recovered from a server somewhere?

Is there anything that's giving you sense that maybe there's more being wrapped up into this investigation?

Well, this was an investigation of Omar that actually initiated under Joe Biden.

And then the warrants that were signed off and approved last week were by a Democrat judge.

because he believed that evidence of a crime was inside her home.

Now, that's not done lightly when you sign off on a warrant of a city member of Congress less than 60 days before an election.

So, you know, I can only tell you my experience as a lawyer that, you know, going before judges, that would have been, had to have been really compelling and persuasive evidence of probable cause.

So this claim by Democrats that this is a political vendetta is actually undermined by the very fact that a judge of their own party found probable cause.

Is... is the dna necessary in order to prove who she's related to what where does the dna come into this investigation

So already, Gregg Jarrett, you're one step ahead of Ilan Omar, who seems to be confused as to actually when she was born.

Yeah, she does.

And, you know, I had to laugh at Barack Obama's defense of her.

You know, he declared on multiple occasions over the last decade or so that nobody is above the law.

Apparently he has an exception for Democrats on that.

And, you know, he overlooks that the Omar investigation was actually initiated under Joe Biden.

And, of course, the warrant was signed by a Democrat judge who, by the way, clerked for an Obama appointee.

Do you think Ilhan Omar, at the end of the day, is going down?

to

be something wrong with it.

And there's several things wrong with it.

First of all, a municipal mayor does not have the authority to arrest anyone.

Second of all, as you point out, the ICC is a joke.

America never signed on to it.

In fact, we rejected it and passed a law that makes it illegal for anybody to follow its dictates.

for 46 years, you

stupid

does.

And you're right that this is a boy mayor who never held a real job, never built anything, never accomplished anything.

He's young and doesn't know much.

But, you know, I think even a high school civics student, you know, would red flag this idea of arresting Netanyahu, recognizing there's got to be something wrong with it.

And there's several things wrong with it.

First of all, a municipal mayor does not have the authority to arrest anyone.

You

stupid is as stupid does.

And you're right that this is a boy mayor who never held a real job, never built anything, never accomplished anything.

He's young and doesn't know much.

But, you know, I think even a high school civics student, you know, would red flag this idea of arresting Netanyahu, recognizing there's got to be something wrong with it.

And there's several things wrong with it.

First of all, a municipal mayor does not have the authority to arrest anyone.

Second of all, as you point out, the ICC is a joke.

It just is mind boggling that this is the person in charge of the city.

That sounds like a no-no.

It's quite serious.

Smith could be facing... criminal charges for perjury and false statements, which is what Chairman Jim Jordan is accusing him of.

You'll recall that about seven months ago, Smith testified that he and his legal team never obtained or read any communications from members of Congress, but newly revealed DOJ documents show that they did.

Indeed, they read the text messages and probably emails of more than 40 members of Congress, as well as text messages from White House phones.

Now, you know, Smith may try to weasel out of it by claiming that, well, I really said in my testimony I didn't recall.

That's not true.

Where's that going? Because he doesn't have too many more legal options left, right?

of this case and of jack smith i mean there are people who were sent to prison for other things steve bannon uh peter navarro a whole bunch of people and now you have the former special counsel it looks like he wasn't being honest under oath so here is greg jarrett we talked with him earlier on cats and cosby and we asked him what he thinks of jack smith

Yeah, I mean, I think Jack Smith could be facing charges for perjury and false statements because you're right, Rita, seven months ago, he testified under oath that he and his legal team never read any text messages from members of Congress, never received or accessed them.

But, you know, the Department of Justice has uncovered documents that show just the opposite, that they did.

And they read the communications of more than 40 members of Congress, including texts from White House phones.

You know, they had a filter team, but that was, it turns out, just for show.

Because Smith and his team covertly bypassed it to secretly access and read the text.

And then Smith lied about it under oath.

Here's a little bit more from Greg Jarrett of the weaponization against President Trump.

So tell us what you know.

Yeah, I mean, I think Jack Smith could be facing charges for perjury and false statements because you're right, Rita, seven months ago, he testified under oath that he and his legal team never read any text messages from members of Congress, never received or accessed them.

But, you know, the Department of Justice has uncovered documents that show just the opposite, that they did.

And they read the communications of more than 40 members of Congress, including texts from White House phones.

You know, they had a filter team, but that was, it turns out, just for show, because Smith and his team covertly bypassed it to secretly... access and read the text, and then Smith lied about it under oath.

So, you know, it's a grotesque abuse of power that shredded constitutional protections like the First Amendment and rights to privacy.

Smith and his Confederates targeted, in fact, the entire Republican apparatus, a total of more than 430 individuals and organizations spying on their communications, their phone metadata, and now it turns out their text messages, probably emails as well.

This is what he said, and now we know the facts are different.

How serious is this, Gregg Jarrett?

Oh, it's very serious.

And, you know, I have said on the air that I suspected Plattner wasn't going to make it.

all the way to the deadline for withdrawing his name as the nominee for his party.

I forget the date of the cutoff.

I think it's mid-July, so it's going to be coming up pretty soon, but he would need to drop out by that deadline, and the party would then have to very quickly pick a replacement, which might be the current Democrat governor who dropped out and has now suggested that she's willing to jump back in.

So, you know, this is pretty serious stuff.

And, Greg, before we let you go, the latest in the Tyler Robinson case, this is the guy accused, of course, of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

How serious is this? Gregg Jarrett.

Oh, it's very serious.

And, you know, I have said on the air that I suspected Plattner wasn't going to make it all the way to the deadline for withdrawing his name as the nominee for his party.

I forget the date of the cutoff.

Yeah, I think it's mid So, you know, it's going to be coming up pretty soon, but he would need to drop out by that deadline and the party would then have to very quickly pick a replacement, which might be the current Democrat governor who dropped out and has now suggested that she's willing to jump back in.

So, you know, this is pretty serious stuff.

This guy, you know, has got more baggage than, you know, the baggage claim at JFK.

And, Greg, before we let you go, the latest in the Tyler Robinson case, this is the guy accused, of course, of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

How serious is this, Gregg Jarrett?

Oh, it's very serious.

And, you know, I have said on the air that I suspected Plattner wasn't going to make it.

all the way to the deadline for withdrawing his name as the nominee for his party.

I forget the date of the cutoff.

I think it's mid-July.

So, you know, it's going to be coming up pretty soon, but he would need to drop out by that deadline, and the party would then have to very quickly pick a replacement, which might be the current Democrat governor who dropped out and has now suggested that she's willing to jump back in.

And, Greg, before we let you go, the latest in the Tyler Robinson case, this is the guy accused, of course, of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Greg, what did you make of this big decision on mail-in ballots? President Trump said this is a big loss.

Well, it's not about ideology.

It was a specific reading of existing federal law.

And the court said that the federal statute specifies when voters must vote, but says nothing at all about when mail-in ballots must be received.

So, you know, it's up to Congress to pass such a law, uh, if it wants ballots to be received by election day.

And until then states have the power to manage ballot counting, which is what Mississippi did in this particular case.

You know, this is consistent with the Constitution.

So he tells

The Supremes went both ways today on me.

Well, that's why Roberts wrote both opinions, because it's nuanced.

He very narrowly crafted a constitutional and statutory line encircling the Federal Reserve.

He drew a distinction, said the Fed's unique.

It's different than all of these other regulatory agencies where the president does have rights.

Broad authority to fire at will.

But the central bank said, Roberts, that's different because Congress structured it to operate independently, recognizing that monetary policy is meant to be protected from political pressure.

It could be.

What's the difference in these two cases that defined or refined executive authority?

Well, so on the one hand, the Supreme Court today in the so-called slaughter case gave the president broad authority to fire leaders of federal regulatory agencies because they're exercising executive power.

And they must report to the chief executive, the president, who controls those federal agencies so he can unilaterally fire at will.

But insofar as the Federal Reserve is concerned, the Supreme Court drew a constitutional and statutory line around the central bank.

The majority said the president cannot fire a Fed governor today.

without satisfying the standard in the Fed statute, which is for cause, and that includes giving Lisa Cook due process.

And the court said, wait a minute here.

What do you think? What's your reaction when you're seeing socialism, especially those elections in New York City that pick those socialist candidates? Is this something that the whole country should be watching with a little bit of nervousness, anxiety?

What's the difference in these two cases that defined or refined executive authority?

Well, so on the one hand, the Supreme Court today in the so-called slaughter case gave the president broad authority to fire leaders of federal regulatory agencies because they're exercising executive power.

And they must report to the chief executive, the president, who controls those federal agencies so he can unilaterally fire at will.

But insofar as the Federal Reserve is concerned, the Supreme Court drew a constitutional and statutory line around the central bank.

The standard in the Fed statute, which is for cause, and that includes giving Lisa Cook due process.

And the court said, wait a minute here, we're not sure you really gave her due process.

You just sort of said you're fired.

Can you speak to what the Department of Justice is looking into here or where maybe you'd like them to look into here?

What's the difference in these two cases that defined or refined executive authority?

Well, so on the one hand, the Supreme Court today in the so-called slaughter case gave the president broad authority to fire leaders of federal regulatory agencies because they're exercising executive power.

And they must report to the chief executive, the president, who controls those federal agencies so he can unilaterally fire at will.

But insofar as the Federal Reserve is concerned, the Supreme Court drew a constitutional and statutory line around the central bank.

The majority said the president cannot fire a Fed governor today.

without satisfying the standard in the Fed statute, which is for cause, and that includes giving Lisa Cook due process.

And the court said, wait a minute here, we're not sure you really gave her due process.

Can you speak to what the Department of Justice is looking into here or where maybe you'd like them to look into here?

So this is a unanimous decision, right?

Yeah, and, you know, it was an easy one for the court, as shown by the fact that it was, you know, nine to nothing.

It was a slam dunk.

that this was a violation of the Second Amendment right to defend yourself with a firearm, particularly in your home.

The government tried to argue that historical laws restricted gun use for, quote-unquote, habitual drunkards.

should also be applied to marijuana users, which, you know, common sense tells us that's absurd on its face.

There's a material difference between the two.

Now, the one that I have almost no hope for, based upon what I've seen, see if you can give me any hope, is the birthright citizenship, even though I think they are distorting what birthright citizenship was meant to mean.

So this is a unanimous decision, right?

Yeah, and, you know, it was an easy one for the court, as shown by the fact that it was, you know, nine to nothing.

It was a slam dunk.

that this was a violation of the Second Amendment right to defend yourself with a firearm, particularly in your home.

The government tried to argue that historical laws restricted gun use for, quote-unquote, habitual drunkards.

should also be applied to marijuana users, which, you know, common sense tells us that's absurd on its face.

There's a material difference between the two.

Now, the one that I have almost no hope for, based upon what I've seen, see if you can give me any hope, is the birthright citizenship, even though I think they are distorting what birthright citizenship was meant to mean.

So this is a unanimous decision, right?

Yeah, and, you know, it was an easy one for the court, as shown by the fact that it was, you know, nine to nothing.

It was a slam dunk.

that this was a violation of the Second Amendment right to defend yourself with a firearm, particularly in your home.

The government tried to argue that historical laws that restricted gun use for quote-unquote habitual drunkards should also be applied to marijuana users, which, you know, common sense tells us that's absurd on its face.

There's a material difference between the two.

Smoking pot does not mean somebody is so diminished that they can't handle their daily affairs, which was, you know, the argument that was being made in court.

Now, the one that I have almost no hope for, based upon what I've seen, see if you can give me any hope, is the birthright citizenship, even though I think they are distorting what birthright citizenship was meant to mean.

What are your thoughts on the case?

Well, you're right on several counts.

Generally speaking, in a case where the verdict comes back so quickly after the end of closing arguments, it favors the prosecution.

because the evidence is so clear and so obvious of guilt.

In 99 out of 100 times, it works out that way.

Sometimes people are surprised, and jurors, for whatever reason, didn't buy the prosecution's arguments in the very beginning, didn't believe the witnesses here.

The witnesses overwhelmingly supported the prosecution's case.

You know, what do you make of all the people that are trying to bring race into this?

Does it hold up, or will it end up in the Supreme Court?

Well, Judge Cooper's decision was, I think, only half right.

It's true that by statute, the Kennedy Center's name can only be altered by Congress.

But Judge Cooper's order to cease all repairs at the centers, is completely without judicial authority because the board of directors by law has the sole power and discretion to undertake renovations whenever they decided it's needed.

And the directors did that by voting to approve major structural improvements.

And in fact, the judge in his ruling admits that renovations are long overdue and desperately needed.

And he admits the board has the authority to do it, but then he does this magical legal pirouette by saying, well, they didn't spend enough time thinking about it.

How do you make, and is there a way, and there may not be a way, to make the judges responsible, Gregg Jarrett?

Nobody is coming to save us

And I'm Gregg Jarrett.

I've got the final word on the Fox News Rundown.

What's on your mind?

Joe Biden's elaborate game of hide and seek over his suspected theft of highly classified government documents may finally be coming to an end.

The Department of Justice announced, "Ready or not, here I come," so the former president scampered to a federal court begging for protection to prevent public release of his audio recordings in which he is known to have incriminated himself.

Biden is asking a federal judge to effectively cover up evidence of crimes, whether charged or not.

The fact is, Biden did share classified information to his ghostwriter, who had no security clearance whatsoever.