Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Should Trump Be Allowed To Criticize court Proceedings?; The Most Revealing Moment In First GOP Debate; Plane Crash Reportedly Kills Russian Mercenary Prigozhin; Harvard Astrophysicist On Extraterrestrial Life. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired August 26, 2023 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:26]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Fair trial versus First Amendment. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

With this question, can Donald Trump campaign within the parameters of the terms of his release? Consider this, Trump was booked on Thursday in Fulton County, Georgia. His fingerprints and mugshot both recorded. His subsequent release was determined by a consent bond order, which was filed with the court three days prior, the order was agreed to by the judge, Scott McAfee, the district attorney, Fani Willis, and three Trump lawyers. It enables Trump's release upon the posting of 10 percent of the $200,000 bond.

By the way, kind of interesting that ending cash bail has become a rallying cry for progressives but not in this case. More important going forward are the limits placed on Trump's release, he was warned not to threaten or intimidate witnesses or his co-defendants, quote, "The defendant shall perform no act to intimidate any person known to him or her to be a co-defendant or witness in this case, or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. This shall include but is not limited to the following." And then here's one example, "The defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any co-defendant. The limitations on Trump more restrictive than those placed on any of the other 19 defendants in this case. For example, Trump's order uniquely included limitations on his use of social media, including reposts, quote, "The above shall include but are not limited to posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual on social media."

On Monday, prior to his bond being set, Trump had taken to Truth Social to attack DA Fani Willis. He called her "crooked, incompetent and highly partisan." The bond agreement doesn't seem to have deterred him. On Thursday, prior to his court appearance, Trump turned to Truth Social and posted, then deleted, then reposted this, "I have to start getting ready to head down to Atlanta, Georgia where murder and other violent crimes have reached levels never seen before to get arrested by a radical left low life District Attorney Fani Willis."

By the way, Trump has similarly attacked federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, who's presiding over the January 6 case. He's called her among other things, "very biased and unfair." Well, then, after being booked, Trump spoke to the media adjacent to Trump Force One.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Really believed it's a very sad day for America, that should never happen. If you challenge and election, you should be able to challenge an election. I thought the election was a rigged election, a stolen election. And I should have every right to do that.

As you know, you have many people that you've been watching over the years do the same thing, whether it's Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams or many others. When you have that great freedom to challenge you have to be able to otherwise you could have hurt this honest elections. What has taken place here is a travesty of justice. We did nothing wrong, I did nothing wrong. And everybody knows it.

I've never had such support. And that goes with the other ones too. What they're doing is election interference and trying to interfere with an election. There's never been anything like it in our country before. This is their way of campaigning. And this is one instance, but you have three other instances, it's election interference.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Here's the thing, unless Donald Trump changes his ways, I don't think there's any way that he can run a Trumpian campaign for president without running afoul of the terms of his bail. It's yet another uncharted area in a unique case, how to reconcile Trump's first amendment rights as a candidate running for president with the courts desire to hold a fair and unbiased trial, free of intimidation of witnesses, co-defendants and jurors. In the history of the country, we've never been here before.

Does Trump get treated like any other defendant or any other defendant running for president? Trump's campaign thus far, it's been all about his indictments. Since announcing his candidacy last November, his campaign has been all about responding to criminal investigations and to date, at least up until the first debate on Wednesday night for Republicans, the polls show that he's benefited politically from his legal peril.

But how might it play out now? If Fulton County prosecutors can convince Judge McAfee that Trump violated the bond order, the judge can issue a gag order. And if Trump violates the gag order, the judge can hold them in contempt and threatened him with jail or just send him to jail. Prosecutors pushing that envelope just shy of jail could pay political dividends for Trump.

Consider that he didn't wait for his real mug shot to be taken on Thursday, his campaign was already selling fake mug shots on mugs and on T-shirts complete with height markers and bearing the date of his New York indictment not withstanding that he was not mug shoted in that case.

[09:05:12]

As soon as the Georgia mug shot was released, the campaign immediately began fundraising off of it. And this became his first post on X, formerly known as Twitter, since Elon Musk allowed him back on the platform.

As counterintuitive as it all sounds, this all might help Trump recapture the White House. Ass pointed out in the "Washington Post" by Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. attorney, "It's a win-win situation for him. If he's not gagged and jailed, he can disparage prosecutors and witnesses with impunity. If he is jailed, he can portray himself as a victim of persecution."

And what does it all say about us? For those who still support Trump, does it say that they don't support the rule of law? Or does it mean that they value personal freedom over political prosecution? And for those who support the prosecution of Donald Trump, does it mean that they believe in politically weaponizing the prosecutor's office or does it mean that they value the rule of law? That so many Americans seem locked into one camp or the other unwilling or unable to recognize even the slightest merit to the arguments of the other side is perhaps the greatest and longest lasting threat, one which corrodes both our body politic and our justice system.

Joining me now to discuss is Francesca Procaccini, Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School, where she specializes in federal courts and constitutional law, particularly First Amendment law. Professor, thank you so much for being here. Can Donald Trump continue to say the election was rigged?

FRANCESCA PROCACCINI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, VANDERBILT LAW SCHOOL: Yes, he can continue to say that the election was rigged. Donald Trump has the same rights, same first amendment rights as any other criminal defendant, which include the rights to criticize our government, to criticize the court system, and to express his opinion about all of his trials. But he does not have the right to do and nor do any other criminal defendants is the right to obstruct the administration of justice. And that includes through his speech. So that would include through threats or directed intimidation to those involved in his trials.

And that is the same for any criminal defendant. But that should not get in the way of expressing his opinion about the election.

SMERCONISH: So, you've heard just a sampling of some of that, which he has said about the judges involved in these cases, does any of that which I've just shared run afoul of the court order? Does it jeopardize his ability to be free on that bond?

PROCACCINI: I don't think it does yet, but we shall see, as you noted. He tends to escalate his rhetoric. So, who can say what will happen. So far by my analysis, he's still within the realm of criticism, insult, certainly. And these words can be deplorable, they can be dangerous, but the First Amendment allows us to say a lot of deplorable and dangerous things. What it does not allow us to do is obstruct the fair, safe, effective administration of justice. So if he crosses the line from insult to intimidation, then we have a problem.

SMERCONISH: OK, here's another one. So in the debate on Wednesday night, the conduct on January 6 of then Vice President Mike Pence was at issue, by the way he seems to have received uniform praise from those who are at the stage or at least agreement that he did the right thing. What if Donald Trump takes on Mike Pence relative to how Pence handled the events of January 6? I mean, after all, that goes right to the heart of this prosecution, then does he run afoul of the gag order? I should have said ordered not gag order.

PROCACCINI: Yes, of course. He will run afoul of the order if his words appear to be intimidating, either what Pence might say in another case, or this case as a witness or appear to be intimidating to other folks who might be witnesses in the case. It's going to be contextual. The First Amendment is not black and white, free speech is not black and white, in particular for criminal defendants. But that is true for all of us, the judge is going to have a hard time but this is what judges do every day. And I'm sure Judge McAfee is well versed in how to draw these fine lines between what crosses the line from insult to intimidation.

He can attack Pence politically, what he cannot do is threaten the former vice president or intimidate him or anyone else who might be a witness in this trial so that they might change their testimony or be too scared to engage in the, you know -- to truthfully and effectively show up in this process. That'll be a tough job for the judge. But I'm sure he's up for it.

[09:10:03]

SMERCONISH: You're channeling Potter Stewart, I think. It's the old pornography, I'm going to know it when I see it. It's very hard to define exactly what we're talking about that would run afoul of the order that enabled his release. You get the final word.

PROCACCINI: So, you know, the -- what's get a matter here is how direct are his words. Is he speaking to specific individuals? How reckless is he being with his language? He has a very large bully pulpit, that matters, context matters. So, he is toeing that line.

He's right up to it. I don't think he's crossed it yet. But I'm sure his lawyers are a bit wary. And he would do well to stick to the politics and not to try to interfere with the trial.

SMERCONISH: Professor, thank you for your expertise. We appreciate it.

PROCACCINI: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll share some responses throughout the course of the program as we do each and every weekend.

Eric says, Trump could choose his VP, Vivek, and have the VP say whatever Trump wants to say. I don't think he's looking to delegate the responsibility. I think he relishes the opportunity to defend himself. But as we go forward, the reason that I wanted to make this a front and center is that I think this is the looming issue. How far will he push the envelope? What will be the response from the judge in this case, and whether it will continue to be to Trump's benefit to tout the fact that he's now, you know, four time indicted.

I want to know what you think on a different issue. Go to my website at smerconish.com this hour and answer this week's poll question, is the existence of Donald Trump's mugshot a political net plus or minus for him?

Up ahead. Debates are usually a war of words but when the candidates were asked who'd support Trump even if he's convicted, I thought this moment spoke volumes.

And two months to the day after Yevgeny Prigozhin led a brief insurrection against Vladimir Putin, he seems to have died in a plane crash with now being attributed to a, quote, "catastrophic inflight incident." Putin is talking about him in the past tense. He seems to have joined an ever growing list of Putin enemies who suddenly died like Alexander Litvinenko or been poisoned like Alexei Navalny. Is anybody surprised?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:16:10]

For my money, the most revealing responses of this week's first GOP presidential primary debate were nonverbal. I want to remind you to be included, they were all required to sign a pledge promising to support whoever the party's nominee would be.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You all signed a pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee. If former President Trump is convicted in a court of law, would you still support him as your party's choice? Please raise your hand if you would.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Note the audience reaction, six hands went up in the air, everyone except former governors Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson. In other words, as David Firestone put it in "The New York Times," "Six candidates apparently would not be bothered to see Mr. Trump stand on the Capitol steps in 2025 and swear an oath to uphold the Constitution no matter if he had been convicted by a jury of violating that same Constitution by, take your choice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, lying to the U.S. government, racketeering and conspiracy to commit forgery or conspiracy to defraud the United States."

But above and beyond that, I found that a bit hard to reconcile how most of those who raise their hands answered this question about January 6.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: So President Trump's former vice president is on this stage tonight. He has faced hecklers on the campaign trail over his actions on January the sixth. On that day, the vice president move forward with the certification of the election. So do you believe that Mike Pence did the right thing?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Vivek Ramaswamy, sidestepped the question talked again about pardoning Trump. But among the others, Tim Scott said, "Absolutely, Pence did the right thing" before going off about the weaponization of the Department of Justice. Ron DeSantis, had to be asked repeatedly but finally said "Mike did his duty." Doug Burgum said "Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6." Nikki Haley said, "I do think that Vice President Pence did the right thing and I do think that we need to give him credit for that."

Mike Pence, who after all, was the person this all happened to said that Trump, quote, "asked me to put him over the Constitution, and I chose the Constitution and I always will." How can Pence and the others who raised their hands about supporting Trump if he's convicted also say they support Pence's actions on January 6 to defend the electoral process?

Joining me now to discuss is Salena Zito, National Political Reporter for The Washington Examiner, columnist for the New York Post and Kristin Tate columnist for The Hill.

Ladies, let's have brooder the tape. Kristin, first with Vivek Ramaswamy, I guess no surprise that he was the first hand in the air when asked this question, because after all, he said he will pardon Donald Trump. Any reaction to Vivek?

KRISTIN TATE, COLUMNIST, THE HILL: Yes, I thought Vivek was very strong in this debate. And Ron DeSantis who was, you know, the, the number two candidate up until now look very weak in comparison. When the moderators asked who would support Donald Trump as the nominee, even if he were convicted, Vivek immediately put his hands into the air, Ron DeSantis looked around kind of sheepishly then raised his hand to his shoulder as though he were a terrorist. Vivek was the big winner, DeSantis was the loser of this debate. And you know, not because he had a poor performance, he was fine.

But you know what, Michael fine is not going to cut it when you're trying to defend your position as the number two candidate. Vivek was bold. He unapologetically said that he would defund Ukraine, that he wanted to get rid of a bunch of these government agencies and that he thought the climate change agenda was a hoax. All of this stuff is just music to the ears of conservative voters, especially after decades of the GOP just promoting these geriatric career politicians who just like spout off 1980s talking points. So, Vivek was the big winner.

[09:20:03] SMERCONISH: Salena, how can Mike Pence say that he'd be supportive of Donald Trump if he wins the nomination and is convicted, at the same time say that Trump wanted him to put the Constitution in a subservient role?

SALENA ZITO, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, WASHINGTON EXAMINER/COLUMNIST, NEW YORK POST: Because voting is complicated and because there's, you know, it's a binary choice. And so, you don't have any other choices supposedly, unless there's a vibrant third party candidate. When you go into the voting booth in a general election, it's either the Republican or the Democrat most of the time. And so, you can believe that Pence did the right thing, and also be either enthusiastic or resigned to vote for Trump when you go into a general election, mostly because you are unhappy with the direction that President Biden has taken the country, and not because it is a full throated or robust support for Trump.

SMERCONISH: Kristin, you referenced it, we're going to show it. It's when Governor DeSantis needs to look both left and right before answering this question. By the way, I would have thought this would have been, you know, a layup in terms of a question that would be asked that you would anticipate but there's no doubt as you look at it, and I don't know if you're able to see it, but certainly you watch the debate, but he's got to look every which way before kind of sheepishly putting up that hand. Is that going to cost him at all?

TATE: Yes, that was the moment right there that knocked him down a notch. Up until now the media has really only been treating Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump as the two serious candidates. I mean, a couple of months ago, most Americans had no idea who Vivek Ramaswamy was. Now almost everybody knows his name. So, Ron DeSantis has got to be nervous right now.

And then he got kind of unlucky with that question about Mike Pence. I mean, he really didn't want to answer that question. His answer on that one was really, really kind of wishy washy. Vivek got to avoid that question and that really helped him in a big way. That is not a question that is beneficial to enter politically for these candidates who are hoping to kind of appeal to Trump supporters.

SMERCONISH: Salena, you know that I regard you as a Trump whisperer or you seem to have your finger on the pulse of his constituency. So let me ask you today's poll question, the mug shot, the mug shot, how does it play politically for Trump, a net gain or a net minus or something else?

ZITO: Well, a little of both. I think that the defiance, it works in the favor of where we are with our institutions in this country, right? As we all know, that regard and that relationship between voters and institutions on both sides of the aisle is at a record low, we don't sort of trust it. So the defiance works right now. However, I'm not -- you -- we -- I think it's way too early to say if it has longevity. I think that in talking to Trump supporters, his biggest challenge right now is to not just run on being that guy in a mug shot, right? It has to be more than just about him. It has to be about voters, and he has to talk about them. And that's where I find his weakness among voters. He's not talking about them and he's talking too much about himself.

SMERCONISH: Kristin, conservatives are having quite a cultural moment these days, not the least of which Rich Men North of Richmond, a subject that came up in the debate. Oliver Anthony, I thought had something very interesting to say on YouTube about the role of his song in the current conversation. Let's all watch and listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLIVER ANTHONY, SINGER: The one thing that has bothered me is seeing people wrap politics up into this. I'm disappointed to see like it's aggravating seeing people on conservative news try to identify with me like I'm one of them. It's aggravating, seeing certain musicians and politicians act like we're buddies and act like we're fighting the same struggle here. Like it was trying to present the same message.

It was funny seeing my song in the -- it's fun -- it was funny seeing it to presidential debate. Because it's like I wrote that song about those people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Kristin, I got to believe that he had to provide the rights for that song to be used in the debate. But I have to say I was rather surprised that to hear him say, hey, I was talking about the people on that stage. What did you make of that?

TATE: I was kind of surprised to hear that too. But I think he represents the views of a lot of Trump voters out there. These folks look at what they believe is it a two tier justice system that is out your silence, punish and sometimes even imprison political enemies of the left which is what Trump's mug shot is a symbol of for these voters. And yes there's a lot of anger towards the media, the mainstream media that even includes outlets like Fox News, that many voters on the right believe no longer aligned with their beliefs.

[09:25:17]

On the mug shot, you know, I think this is all upside for Trump because again, that mug shot represents more than just Trump it represents for so many Trump supporters a fight that they believe they are all in together. And love Trump or hate Trump doesn't matter, one has to admit that he really nailed that mug shot. He doesn't look stare, he doesn't look angry. He just looks determined, determined to fight. The guy was a T.V. star for a reason.

He knows exactly how he looks on camera. And that's going to be hugely -- that image will be hugely motivating for his base.

SMERCONISH: Salena, quick final comment, Richmond north of Altoona, you're thinking what? ZITO: You know, I wasn't surprised at all of what Oliver Anthony said. People don't believe they are defined by their politics. Their lives aren't defined by politics. And they look at the establishment equally with skepticism and cynicism. And they don't like everything they do in their lives to be defined by politics.

So I wasn't surprised at all of what he said. That is a sentiment that I hear all the time from voters.

SMERCONISH: Thank you both for being here. Appreciate your analysis.

TATE: Thank you very much.

ZITO: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: From the world of social media, what do we have Katherine (ph)? From Twitter -- from X, I have to get used to saying, that party above all other pathetic. Party above all other pathetic. I guess is what you're saying about the incongruence of -- look, you can't sink those views. You can't say, way to go Mike Pence.

And if he's convicted, and is our standard bearer, yes, I'll still be supportive of him. And what you saw in terms of Governor DeSantis looking left and right was really him looking at the base, like, do I have to raise my hand for this? Yes, I guess I do.

I want to remind you go to the website at smerconish.com. Here's the poll question of the week, is the existence of Donald Trump's mug shot a political net plus or minus for him.

Up ahead, this plane allegedly with Wagner mercenary leader Yevgeny aboard crashed suddenly outside of Moscow this week, killing everybody on board. Two months to the day after for Prigozhin led a brief rebellion against Vladimir Putin. Coincidence? Bill Browder thinks not.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:48]

SMERCONISH: Was it yet more dastardly payback from Vladimir Putin? A private plane reportedly carrying Russian mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin crashed this week in a field northwest of Moscow. Video from a Russian state media outlet appears to show the plane descending rapidly against a bright blue sky and a zoom in reveals it's missing a wing.

An analysis by CNN now suggests that the plane experienced at least one -- quote -- "catastrophic inflight incident" not visible on the video. Experts suspect an on-board explosion. U.S. and western intelligence officials have told CNN they believe it was deliberate.

A passenger manifest released by Russia's civil aviation agency listed both Prigozhin and Wagner's top commander Dmitry Utkin among seven passengers and three crew members all said to be killed. The crash came two months to the day after Prigozhin launched a short-lived mutiny against Russia's military leadership challenging President Putin's authority.

Now, the Kremlin has yet to officially confirm Prigozhin's death. In public comments Thursday, Putin referred to him in the past tense. And according to the state news agency of Belarus, President Alexander Lukashenko, who provided a haven for Prigozhin after the rebellion, says he twice warned Prigozhin to -- quote -- "watch out" for threats to his life.

As the A.P. recently summarized, "Assassination attempts against foes of President Vladimir Putin have been common during his nearly quarter century in power." It catalogs a list of political opponents, former intelligence operatives and journalists who were poisoned, shot in cold blood or fell out of a window. Russia denied it had anything to do with this week's jet crash. President Biden said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know for a fact what happened, but I am not surprised.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you believe Putin is behind this, sir?

BIDEN: There's not much that happens in Russia that Putin is not behind but I don't know enough to know the answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Bill Browder joins me now. He's the CEO of Hermitage Capital Management and was once the largest foreign investor in Russia. Now one of the Kremlin and Putin's biggest critics and enemies. He's also the author of the recent book "Freezing Order: A True Story of Money Laundering, Murder, and Surviving Vladimir Putin's Wrath."

Bill, I imagine you're the least surprised, if in fact, it was Putin after all. Sergei Magnitsky, your 37-year-old lawyer, spending nearly a year in jail, tortured and ultimately murdered met a similar fate.

BILL BROWDER, CEO, HERMITAGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT/AUTHOR, "FREEZING ORDER": Yes. I mean, unlike President Biden, I'm sure of the facts here. Vladimir Putin is a well-known serial murderer. He kills people for a variety of reasons, for money, for politics, for deceit and betrayal. There's a long, long list of dead bodies of people who he has killed.

And of all the people who have ever challenged him in any way, Yevgeny Prigozhin did it in the most humiliating way two months ago. And so, it's just plain as day that Vladimir Putin assassinated his chief rival and that's where we stand as of now.

SMERCONISH: If you're right, would the motivation have been to remove a rival who threatened Putin, or to serve public notice that this is what happens when you come for the king?

[09:35:08] BROWDER: Both. First of all, he had to get rid of this guy because every day that Prigozhin was running around was a day of humiliation for Vladimir Putin. Putin has been in power for 23 years very successfully because everybody has believed for the longest time that if you challenge Putin terrible things happen to you. And all of a sudden, somebody did the most terrible thing to Putin, which was to march on his government. And pretty successfully, to say the least, going through Rostov they were -- they were, you know, laying down their arms and so on and so forth.

And to have this person not dead says to everybody, well, gosh. Maybe Putin has lost his touch. Maybe he's not such a mean guy. Maybe it's not such a dangerous thing to do. And so, he had to get rid of him to reestablish himself as the meanest, toughest guy in the prison yard.

SMERCONISH: At the time that the plane went down, Vladimir Putin was at a solemn World War II ceremony. I happen to be looking at the print edition of "The New York Times" which has the photograph in today in color. Is he so calculating and sophisticated that he would time the event taking out Prigozhin, his chief rival, with when he would be in a solemn religious World War II ceremony?

BROWDER: I don't think things work out that conveniently. I mean, basically, they had a plan to kill Prigozhin. The plan was based on when Prigozhin and his colleagues were going to enter that aircraft. That was the defining moment was -- when there was the opportunity to do it.

And I should say, to do it in a spectacular way. I mean, the fact that they blew up a plane, however they did blow up that plane, and got a video image of it careening to the ground, that was their primary objective. Where he happened to be at that moment, I think, was just a matter of happenstance.

SMERCONISH: Final question. What does it mean relative to Ukraine?

BROWDER: It's good news for Ukraine on a variety of fronts. First of all, Prigozhin was the warrior that the Ukrainians rated the highest. He was the one that they really had the toughest time going against.

He was creative. He was terrible in the most unbelievable ways. I mean, they really caused -- he really caused Ukrainians great problems. Not having him there is an extremely valuable thing for the Ukrainians.

The second thing is that the more infighting there is in Russia, the more problems they have internally, the more distracted they are, that's also good for the Ukrainians. And thirdly, I would say that the reason this whole Prigozhin thing happened in the first place was because the Ukrainians were gaining ground. The Ukrainians were doing well and that caused all the backbiting and infighting that led to this whole blow up between Putin and Prigozhin.

The better the Ukrainians do, the more infighting there is. And maybe that the Ukrainians don't have to win the war. Maybe that Russia self- destructs at some point between now and then because of all this infighting.

SMERCONISH: Bill Browder, thank you so much for your expertise as always.

BROWDER: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Reminder to everybody, make sure you're answering this week's poll question at Smerconish.com. By the way, register for the free daily newsletter when you're there. Is the existence of Donald Trump's mug shot a political net plus or minus for him?

Still to come, "The New York Times" calls him the world's leading alien hunter. I'll ask him about his recent analysis of a meteor that he recently retrieved from the Pacific Ocean.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:55]

SMERCONISH: Rumors of a government coverup of possible UFO information just won't go away. And this week the topic even infiltrated the first GOP presidential primary debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR, FOX NEWS: OK. Now for something a little out of this world and this is for you, Governor Christie. Do you believe the recent spike in UFO encounters --

CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I get the UFO question? Come on, man.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The exchange happened to coincide with a "New York Times" magazine profile of my next guest, "How a Harvard Professor Became the World's Leading Alien Hunter. Avi Loeb's single-minded search for extraterrestrial life has made him the most famous practicing astronomer in the country and possibly the most controversial."

A few months ago, Dr. Loeb led an expedition that retrieved metallic fragments from the Pacific Ocean floor off the coast of Papua New Guinea to study their composition. They are remnants of a January 2014 fireball from space that crashed through the Earth's atmosphere, whose data was recorded by U.S. government sensors.

In his 2021 book, "Extraterrestrial," about the first interstellar object that passed through the solar system in 2017, that was a best seller, and his latest is due out this month. It's called "Interstellar: The Search for Extraterrestrial Life and Our Future in the Stars." Dr. Avi Loeb joins me now. He's the head of the Galileo Project and founding director of the Harvard University's Black Hole Initiative.

Dr. Loeb, great to see you again. Do the guffaws at the debate about that question suggest mainstream America is still not ready to accept the idea of UFOs being alien life?

AVI LOEB, PROFESSOR OF SCIENCE, HARVARD UNIVERSITY/FORMER CHAIR, HARVARD ASTRONOMY DEPARTMENT: Well, thanks for having me. The good news is that it's not up to the American people. The reality that we live in can be figured out by seeking evidence. And that's what it used to be in the days of Galileo Galilei when he argued that the Earth moves around the sun. It didn't matter that they put him in house arrest. Now, when we launch spacecraft, we rely on the fact that the Earth moves around the sun.

[09:45:00]

So, reality doesn't care about social media.

SMERCONISH: I know that you're about to formally announce this week the results of your exploration of what you found on the floor near Papua but give us a taste.

LOEB: Right. So, we went to the Pacific Ocean to find the remnants of an interstellar meteor, a meteor that was moving too fast to be bound to the sun based on U.S. government satellite data. And we went there. And we found indeed a concentration of molten droplets from the surface of the object when it was exposed to the fireball that surrounded it as a result of its friction with air.

And then we found more spherules, more of these molten droplets along the meteor path. It was a very challenging task. We are talking about particles that are the size of a grain of sand, less than a millimeter across the region of 7 miles when the ocean depth is more than a mile. But we managed to bring home more than 700 of them.

And over the past two months at Harvard University, we used the best instruments that the world has to offer to figure out their composition. And guess what? We are able to demonstrate that they are from outside the solar system.

SMERCONISH: Wow. OK. And you'll be making that formal announcement this week. In that "New York Times" profile of you, it said this, "Where Loeb departs from almost all of his colleagues is in thinking that aliens on other planets could have already made their way to us." Do you believe and does this finding support the idea that aliens have already made their way to us?

LOEB: Well, the question that we address here in the first paper is whether the material is from outside the solar system. The next question is whether the composition pattern that we find in terms of elements indicates some technological origin. And, of course, the best way to figure it out is to find the big piece of the object because then you can tell the difference between a rock and a technological gadget. A gadget will have buttons on it.

And actually, in my class at Harvard University, I asked the students, what should we do if we find a technological gadget with buttons on it? Should we press the button?

Half of the class said that, please don't do it. It will affect all of us. The other half said, please do it because we would like to know what would happen. And I said, I would bring it to a laboratory to examine it before engaging with it.

The good news is that we have the ability to collect the data and figure it out. It's not a matter of science fiction. It's not a matter of people talking about it in talk shows or politicians discussing it in the Congress. It's something that scientists can get to the bottom of. And, you know, for me --

SMERCONISH: Dr. Loeb --

LOEB: Yes, go ahead.

SMERCONISH: Thank you for the -- thank you for the preview of this week's announcement. We really expect it. I'm putting it in the gadget category. That's my take away. And I appreciate your time and expertise.

LOEB: Thanks for having me.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments. And have you voted yet at Smerconish.com? Is the existence of Donald Trump's mug shot a political net plus or minus for him?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:53]

SMERCONISH: Time to see how you responded to this week's poll question at Smerconish.com where I asked, is the existence of Donald Trump's mug shot a political net plus or minus for him? It's essentially 60/40, as you can see on the screen, of approaching 30,000 votes. People saying it's a minus.

I'll tell you who I think thinks it's a plus. Donald Trump. First of all, of course, he rehearsed. If you knew you were going to be mug- shotted and you knew that in advance, would you not think to yourself, how do I want to, you know, Madonna, strike a pose for this?

Of course, he did. He wanted defiance. And I'm sure his only beef with that mug shot is to complain about the lighting.

But the reason that I think that he wanted it, if you gave him a choice, you could be mug-shotted or not mug-shotted, the reason that I think that he would say, yes, take my mug shot, is because he had already ginned up a mug shot photo corresponding to the New York indictment for which he was not mug-shotted. And it was complete with the date of the indictment and it showed him with sort of a height marker behind him. And I'm sure he has been able to fundraise to great effect on the Web site with the fake one. So now he has got the real one.

Here's some social media reaction that came in during the course of the program. What do we have?

Within a week, there will be thousands of people wearing mug t-shirts. That image will be everywhere --

Oh, Ernie, it's -- within a week? What makes you think it's going to take a week? What else came in during the course of today's program? Love it when we get to respond to your social media.

Trump has the First Amendment right. So, the fact that they're trying to limit his social media is a violation of the -- his constitutional right like it or not.

I hope you got a kick out of that and learned something from the conversation. I think it's -- it's going to be the dominant issue going forward. How is he going to comport himself and will prosecutors in Fulton County Georgia, Fani Willis and her team, go to court and try and limit his speech?

The more that they do so, I think, the more that it strengthens his hand among those who believe that it's a political prosecution. Because heretofore we have seen the data.

[09:55:01]

He has benefited each time among Republicans, not a general election strategy mind you, for the indictments. So, he's going to keep at it, I think, as the comments via Truth Social and what we play from his statement after being arrested and photographed indicate. So, that's a tough call for prosecutors. You know, do they want to rein him in or not so much?

Another one if I've got time. What do we have?

Michael, why don't you stop pretending and just formally join Trump's defense team? You're working for free.

Why, David, because I don't sound like everybody else that you're used to seeing? I'm here to call balls and strikes. I think there's an interesting issue in this case as to whether Trump's First Amendment rights are being curtailed in that bond order.

And what? I'm not supposed to raise the issue and bring on an academic like Professor Procaccini and have that dialogue because that looks like I'm in the tank for Trump? No, that's what you get from me each and every week, and I will see you next Saturday.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)