1:10:53 We start today's show with some big breaking news and we're gonna go straight to Fox News correspondent David Spunt for the details. David. Well, Will, good to be with you. This is coming out of the Justice Department. Fox News can confirm that Attorney General Pam Bondi today signed an order directing an unnamed U.S. federal prosecutor to take evidence to a grand jury relating to an alleged conspiracy to tie then-2016 candidate Donald Trump to the country of Russia. Now, Fox News reviewed the one-page order. just
1:11:45 Bondi believes there is, quote, clear cause for deep concern, end quote, and a need for the next steps. Now, this move will comes just a couple of weeks after the director of national intelligence, you see her right there, Tulsi Gabbard, sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department regarding what she says proves there was a conspiracy to undermine Trump's candidacy and later his first term in office. Now, to be clear today, there are no charges that have been filed, no indictments, This is incredibly early in the process. What we have here is taking evidence the Justice Department believes it has to a grand jury to secure an eventual indictment or indictments. We don't know exactly where the grand jury will meet. We don't know who will go before the grand jury. And that's by design, because grand juries determine if there is enough evidence to indict
1:12:34 And grand juries are secretive in the American legal system, so it's normal not to know all of the answers. Again, the DOJ declining on any comment regarding this investigation. But, Will, big news. This was signed by the attorney general, Pam Bondi, today to take this evidence of an alleged conspiracy to a grand jury, with the hope to get an indictment or multiple indictments. Well, that is big news, David. And congratulations to you. Excellent reporting on being first on this order signed today by Attorney General Pam Bondi. I understand it is a one page order which you have been able to review. Fox News has been able to review. I'm afraid I'm going to ask you some questions that will that need to be asked, but we won't yet know the answer. So let's start with the one that everyone watching at home is interested in. Who or what names might be the target of this grand jury?
1:13:25 Well, that's a great point. We don't know. We know that Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has mentioned the names John Brennan, the former CIA director, James Clapper, who had the job before her. But I want to be very clear on the air. We don't know if their names are going before the grand jury. For anybody that has, you know, talked about former President Barack Obama seeing charges, we're told by multiple law enforcement sources that's not going to happen. And and believes that it has enough evidence to take this to a grand jury. If I may just add in here, a few weeks ago, the attorney general announced a strike force to go through some of these documents, and within a couple of weeks feels that she has enough evidence to go forward to this grand jury. So it directs an unnamed federal prosecutor to take this evidence to a grand jury, but the name of that federal prosecutor not clear at this moment.
1:14:36 Okay, just a couple more quick questions, David. Sure. Sorry to push the limits of your knowledge, but I want to make sure that we address all the things that are not only in your report, but in everyone's mind as well. The name as well, in addition to Clapper and Brennan, that people will be wondering about will be Hillary Clinton. I understand yet we do not yet have those names. We'll be waiting to hear what names are in that, that referral to a grand jury. The next thing everyone will want to know, David, is what are the potential charges? Well, the potential charges—and I want to use the word potential—would be lying to a federal official, which is a felony to do so. If you lie to an FBI agent or you lie to another federal official, there could be charges involved with there. And I'm told those could be the most likely. That's something that we saw in the John Durham investigation. He was the former special counsel that was appointed by then-Attorney General Bill Barr. And those are the types of charges that he used.
1:15:28 In his cases, he actually lost both times in court, but he did secure a plea deal with a former FBI attorney for falsifying a document. So, those seem to be—or that seems to be—when I say those, I should say that, because that's just one charge. But that's the charge, and talking to sources, that people have been eyeing for weeks. letter this initial letter Signed by the Attorney General that we review does not say anything about specific charges. It just directs an unnamed prosecutor Hey, you have jurisdiction that's out of your normal jurisdiction You can go anywhere in the United States and you could bring this evidence before a grand jury and a grand jury will come back with formal charges a formal indictment but a prosecutor whoever that may be as you point out is
1:16:11 can and should make suggestions to a grand jury on which way they decide the evidence points. Ultimately, they decide whether or not there's probable cause for an indictment. Last question for you, David. Sure. The one-page order, which you have reviewed, suggests It is an unnamed prosecutor, but it seemed to open up, and I'm listening to you intently here, it seemed to open up potential jurisdiction to anywhere that seems appropriate to that prosecutor. So I take it this doesn't necessarily mean it would be in Washington, D.C., not necessarily in New York, potentially could be filed charges anywhere in the United States.
1:16:47 Yeah, that's what we're told. We're told that the attorney general has the ability to confer that ability on any everyday federal prosecutor to give that jurisdiction to sort of widen out for the entire United States. And we're being told that this is not a special prosecutor or a special counsel, as we saw with Jack Smith and John Durham and Robert Herr. We're told this is just a a federal prosecutor that is being given this temporary jurisdiction to take this before a grand jury. But at this point, it's not being referred to as a special counsel. Just to complete the OCD of my curiosity, David, we've covered who, what and where. I am compelled to ask you then when any sense of timeline on this grand jury?
1:17:32 I'm told that it could be months before anything actually happens. As far as seeing any sort of results from the grand jury, it's not clear how long grand juries sit in each different jurisdiction. They're empaneled for different amounts of times. I've covered cases before where One grand jury hears some evidence and they're just getting ready to say, we're going to indict. And then their term and their service is over. So another grand jury comes in. I think that in speaking to the people we spoke to, they want to move quickly on this, but it all depends on what the grand jury wants to do and the amount of evidence. But I'm told that any indictments, I want to be clear if there are indictments, because grand juries can come back and say, we don't think there's enough evidence for indictments. That may take a little while.
1:18:14 Okay, David Spahn, excellent breaking news today on Attorney General Pam Bondi forwarding an order to a grand jury, to a prosecutor to seek a grand jury on the evidence we now know on what is called the Russia gate hoax. And they do that when they're seeking the indictment. So headline, the DOJ is officially seeking a grand jury with charges of seditious conspiracy. That's the name of the task force. That's its mission. That's what Tulsi Gabbard referred a coup plot to overthrow the 2016 election, to discredit and steal the 2020 election, and then to raid Trump and more in Mar-a-Lago a few years later. And when I play these ADL clips coming up from like four years ago at their gala, they say,