I've honestly been pretty surprised at the reaction from Colorado's Supreme Court decision being overturned, which has resulted in Donald Trump being put back onto the ballot in Colorado. And for those who aren't following this, the basics are, there's this
whole liberal line of argument that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection. On January sixth, the Constitution has this provision saying that persons who engage in quote insurrection against the United States are ineligible for a variety of offices, including to be an officer of the United States. That sort of sounds like a general Catchell.
Maybe it is, maybe it doesn't. And so Colorado had a group of citizens who sued to try to keep Donald Trump off the ballot for the Republican primary in Colorado, and the Colorado Supreme Court said, Yep, Donald Trump definitely engaged in an insurrection, so he's off the ballot in Colorado, can't run for president. And the US Supreme Court in a decision that everyone kind of expected. That's the thing. Most people expected this decision was going
to happen. Most people expect that, I mean, most of the legal commentators I was reading we're expecting this is not going to go far. This is a very difficult case to make that Colorado its courts unilaterally have the authority to decide whether or not Donald Trump should be on the ballot that he did or didn't engage in an insurrection, when that's a kind of debatable question.
What exactly is an insurrection, Like there's a federal insurrection statute which Donald Trump has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, and what exactly does insurrection mean it Insurrection as something that disqualifies you from federal office is a term that's contained in the fourteenth Amendment. And the fourteenth Amendment is one of the
amendments that was enacted into the Constitution right after the Civil War. So clearly the kind of thing that the people who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment were thinking about was it was the Civil War. That's what they were thinking about. We were saying, look, basically, if you fought for the Confederacy after having sworn an oath to the United States, and you then participated in this insurrection, i e. A multi year civil war in which you rebelled against the
authority of the United States of America to try to create another country. You can't just run for office again. Okay, you can't just run to be a member of the House or the Senate. Sorry, you're disqualified. Is January sixth the same thing as that, you don't have to think January sixth was good or not a problem to think that. You can still say January sixth was bad, but it wasn't really an insurrection as that term is used
in the fourteenth Amendment anyway. So the US Supreme Court gets this case. It's appealed from the Colorado Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court rules nine to nothing that states cannot make this determination on their own. A state court doesn't have the ability to make this determination on its own that someone has participated in an insurrection and is thereby ineligible for the office of the presidency. That that has to be some kind of federal or congressional
determination. So it was nine to nothing that Colorado couldn't just make that decision. So that decision by the US Supreme Court shuts down this whole Democrat line
of argument. I talked yesterday about the concept of deus ex machina. Deus ex machina was this sort of trope in Greek dramas Athenian dramas, where you'd have all the difficulties of this play, the whatever the conflict is at the center of the plot of the play, and near the end of it, someone who is a god, one of the Greek gods would descend from like some kind of rigging they would set up on the stage in this Greek amphitheater,
would literally descend onto the stage and resolve all the problems that are at the heart of the play and the rigging. So the Latin term for this was deus ex machina, the god coming down from the rigging. Okay, the machina, the rigging, the machine. Okay. Democrats have wanted some kind of deus ex machina solution for Trump. And I'm going to go into this a little bit more. I started talking about this yesterday. I'm going to go into this a little bit more. I'm astounded though, at the
reaction of the left to the Colorado Supreme Court. And here's why. All these liberals are outraged that the Supreme Court in a nine to nothing decision. By the way, so a lot of the ire here, they're outraged that the Supreme Court ruled this way. Their outraged that the Supreme Court didn't say, yes, Donald Trump is an insurrectionist, and Colorado, as one individual state, they have the ability to determine for their state elections that Donald Trump
violates this federal provision. Donald Trump, who's running for the one truly nationwide federal office, Colorado can decide for itself whether Trump's on the ballot, a decision that could impact people living in Florida, or in Alabama or in Alaska.
Because Donald Trump's running in a national election. The liberals all, there's this group of liberals who thought that yes, the Supreme Court was going to go along with that for Donald Trump, for a man who, regardless of what you think about January sixth, has not been tried with insurrection, has not been charged, has not been charged with insurrection, has not been charged with any kind of crime relating to the actual violence that happened on January sixth.
He's been charged with obstruction of a congressional proceeding against some kind of I think spurious fraud charge, which I don't think makes a lot of sense, fraud against the American people for trying to convince Mike Pen's not to certify the election results. But he hasn't been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of
anything surrounding January sixth. But even though he hasn't been charged with anything, even though he hasn't been convicted of anything Colorado, these liberals think should have the unilateral authority to make this decision that he is indeed an insurrectionist, strike him off the ballot, and make that decision which impacts everyone in America.
All these liberals were in this bubble that not only should the Supreme Court do it, but even that they would, And so they are totally outraged that that's not what happened, And a lot of the ire has gone towards the three liberals on the court, Kagan Soda Mayor and Katanji Brown Jackson. In fact, Keith Olberman, for those who remember the glory days when he was a pretty good SportsCenter anchor, I almost feel like he kind of rode Dan
Patrick's coattails a little bit. Oh, Dan Patrick and Keith Olberman, what a great pair. Everyone liked Dan Patrick. Olberman was fine, but like you know, I don't know everyone anyway. Keith Olberman, who went from being a sports broadcaster to hosting a really blustering MSNBC show and basically burned bridges
everywhere he went by being such a jerk. He goes on Twitter, which is the absolute worst possible platform for Keith Olberman to be on, and is ranting and raving that liberal women are useless because because justice is Kagan, Jackson and Sodomayor didn't rule the way he wanted them to rule in this case. And this is what astounds me, all right, as a as a lawyer,
putting on my lawyer hat here for all of you. I don't understand how otherwise smart lawyers, all right, Lawrence Tribe, for example, is all angry about this Lawrence Tribe. As a Harvard professor, he knows more about the law than I'm ever going to know. He knows more about the law and his pinky finger than I've known about about it my whole life. But he's a very partisan Democrat. I don't understand how these hardcore liberal lawyers,
but very smart lawyers, can make the following mental transition. I want Donald Trump to be kicked off the ballot, but I realize that that's not the right legal outcome. They go from that to I want Donald Trump to be kicked off the ballot. I think it's the correct legal outcome. But I understand that my opinion is not broadly shared, or that the Supreme Court
is likely not going to agree with my opinion. And I understand why to Donald Trump should be kicked off and the Supreme Court will kick him off the ballot. I don't understand how people made that transition, all right, I can understand. I mean, I can very much understand someone who is at position one. I don't like Donald Trump. I would love for him to be kicked off the ballot, but I don't think that's the right legal answer.
I mean, to be honest, that there's a part of me that sort of wishes that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden were somehow deus ex machi nud out of our election and that we could have the choice of someone I don't know who won't be in his eighties serving as president. I would love
a situation like that. So there's a part of me that would love for Donald Trump to sort of be magiced away and for the Republicans at the r at the Republican Committee, at the Republican Convention to nominate Ronda Santis, and Ronda Santis rides in on a white horse Joe Biden and becomes a great president. I would sort of love that, but I know that striking Trump off the ballot in Colorado is not the right thing to do. It's not the
right legal outcome. It makes no sense. It makes no sense for Colorado to wield this unilateral authority to strike someone off the ballot as an insurrectionist who has not been charged with insurrection, who has not been convicted of insurrection, whose conduct I think is a huge stretch to even call it insurrection or try to call it insurrection, who I don't even know. He's running for president, which I don't think is an office that even that section of the fourteenth
Amendment even applies to. It clearly applies to someone running for the House of the Senate. I don't know that it applies to someone running for president. So there are all these reasons why as much as I kind of am not crazy about Donald Trump and would sort of again i'd love to waive a magic wand and not have to choose between two different octagenarians being president, I recognize
that's the wrong legal outcome. I could understand someone holding that position. I could understand someone holding the position of I think this is the right legal outcome, but I understand that the Supreme Court's not going to get there, so
I'm not going to get my hopes up. It's a tough argument to make that Colorado on its own, without having convicted Trump, without Trump being convicted of insurrection, even charged with insurrection, that the Colorado State Supreme Court on its own can just make this determination for the whole rest of the country, I think, And I think even if you think it's the right outcome,
which I don't. Even if you think it's the right outcome, you'd have to sort of measure your expectations and say the Supreme Court is not going to go along with that. The Supreme Court wants to keep its hands off of this election, off of the harsh politics of this election. They don't want to take some extraordinary step of saying, yep, Colorado was totally correct to do this, because they would have to agree with Colorado that yes, Donald
Trump is an insurrectionist. The Supreme Court doesn't want to meddle with the election. They just don't, So I think, like I could understand even thinking that this was the right legal outcome, but not expecting the Supreme Court to do it. I don't understand how otherwise smart lawyers managed to convince themselves from this is the wrong legal outcome, even though I want it to happen to.
I want it to happen and it's the right legal outcome, I just don't think it's going to happen to it's the right legal outcome, and yes it's going to happen. I don't know how they get there to Yes, it's the right legal outcome, and yes it's going to happen, But a ton of people thought that. When we return, I want to talk about how Democrats have sort of overplayed their hand with some of Trump's legal battles, how Trump has kind of just been overcharged with a lot of this stuff.
And I'll talk a little bit more about this Fourteenth Amendment business that's next on the John Gerardy Show. So it's amazing to me how many people made this transition in the Trump being disqualified by Colorado kicked off the Colorado ballot case, which again the idea was if you engaged in an insurrection against the United States and you're one of these you're seeking these kinds of offices, you're actually ineligible
to seek those offices. You're ineligible to seek all these different kinds of offices if you engaged in an insurrection against the United States. That's what's in the fourteenth Amendment. Colorado said, Trump has kicked off the ballot because he's seeking the presidency, which is I don't think actually the presidency is clearly one of
those offices you're disqualified from because of insurrection. It's not explicitly listed. They say, well it The fourteen Amendment basically says, if you've engaged in an insurrection against the United States, you're ineligible to You're ineligible to serve as a member of the House of Representatives, as a United States Senator, as an
elector for the president. So one of the flunkies that like, if Donald Trump wins Texas, some state party official gets picked as, oh, you're going to be one of the electoral college votes, and you and a group of however many electoral college votes Texas has thirty, you and twenty nine other people will go to Washington to cast your electoral college vote for Donald Trump. You're ineligible for that if you engaged in an insurrection or to serve as a
quote officer of the United States, if you engaged in an insurrection. They never mentioned in that part of the Constitution. They don't mention the presidency or the vice presidency. So is the presidency quote an officer of the United States. I think it's actually kind of debatable. It's bizarre that the framers of the fourteenth Amendment would list your if you engaged in an insurrection, you can't be an elector for president. But they don't mention being president as something you're
ineligible for. You're ineligible to be in the House, you're eligible to be in the Senate, you're eligible to be an elector for the president. They don't explicitly mention being president anyway. So Colorado said, yes, Trump did engage in insurrection. Trump's never been tried with insurrection. Trump's never been convicted
of insurrection. He hasn't been convicted of anything surrounding January sixth. It's been charged with a few things surrounding January six nothing involving the violence that happened or the cops that got beat up whatever. On January sixth. Trump did engage in an insurrection. The Office he's running for is covered by that section of
the fourteenth Amendment. He he kicked off the ballot. I don't understand how otherwise smart lawyers went from I want Trump to be off the ballot, but I realize that's probably not the right legal outcome to I want Trump off the ballot. I think it's the right legal outcome, but I recognize that that's a pretty difficult argument to make and that the court is probably not gonna buy it, to I want Trump off the ballot, and yes, the Court's
gonna kick him off. I don't understand how that transition happened. A nine to nothing decision was widely predicted, or an eight to one decision was very widely predicted, and nine to nothing is in fact the decision we got.
And now you have these liberals like furious at Elena Kagan and Sonya Soda my are In and Katandji Brown Jackson, which, by the way, if you're a liberal and you're mad at Sonya Soda my Or, you got to like re examine your priorities, man, Like, no one's a better friend to you than Sonya Soda my or. All right, here's some of the other people, though, who were all all lined up for this proposition because they're insane. I think Trump just has made everyone genuinely insane. I'm certainly not
the first person to come up with that novel idea. But let's go through this. So first you have the New York Times, not in an op ed, not in an editorial. It's one of these quote news analysis pieces. This is a big genre that I've seen a lot more in media analysis pieces. It's people who they're not really straight news reporting, but they're sort of purporting not to be partisan opinion giving. They're sort of in the middle, and it's the worst combo of both because they kind of try to paint
themselves these news analysis pieces. And these are very popular, like New York Times, major media outlets, CNN, New York Times, like these guys have been promoted doing this kind of work, Guys like Chris Silizza and others who they're sort of purporting to be non partisan but trying to give like non partisan, more in depth analysis. The only person I know who kind of pulls this off is Dan Walters, who used to write for The Sacramento being
the Fresno b and writes now for Calmatters. Dot Org his own website. But I think Walters is now getting criticized, and maybe I only like him because he's critical of the Democrats, supermajority and Sacramento all the time. Anyway, New York Times had a story about the Colorado case where they cited a quote expert. They cited an expert who said Colorado's case was quote legally sound
and that the only thing that could stop it was politics. Meanwhile, the case got to the Supreme Court and all nine justices you know, reversed it. So was it really only politics? Yes, Katanji Brown Jackson and Sonya Sonamai, or they really want Donald Trump to stay on the ballots? No. The Washington Post they repeated this narrative in a headline that oh, this is a this is a legally sound thing, and they're they're experts say oh
there's a strong case for this. Again, there was never a strong case for it. Everyone with a brain thought this could be a nine to nothing decision. ABC News they again cite experts to claim both that Colorado was right to kick Trump off the ballot that Trump and company were wrong to object to it. So it's amazing how that's a lot of what's happening in these quote
analysis pieces like they are citing. They find some expert and they call them an expert to sort of clothe them in some sort of value neutrality when they're not. These experts all have partisan political opinions. Show me a lawyer anywhere who's a non partisan quote expert. I want to meet a non partisan person. Where do I find these people here on election day? Who are they? Where are they? I'd love to meet one, And especially lawyers.
Lawyers are jerks. They're the most They're opinionated jackasses, like they all have really strong opinions about politics. You're not going to find some lawyer who's a value neutral tabula raza, a political quote legal expert. All these guys wanted Trump kicked off the ballot, and so they sort of talk themselves into circles
to think that, yes, this was a likely outcome. Legal scholars increasingly raised the constitutional argument that Trump should be barred from the presidency, writes CNN, The Opposite of Politics, a conservative legal scholar says kicking Trump off the ballot is unassailable. According to Politico, citing judge Michael Lettig, Michael Ledig was this Republican appointee judge. A lot of people thought he should have been
appointed to the Supreme Court rather than John Roberts. He hates Trump so much that he's gone completely insane at any legal argument as long as it's negative towards Trump. Judge Lettig trots out a piece to support it, and he's made an idiot of himself. Salon dot com, Vox dot com, MSNBC, Lawrence Tribe, the AP. All these people thought Trump was gonna get kicked off the ballot, and I just I can't fathom how people have just sort
of talked themselves into circles about this. So anyway, let this be a grain of salt for all of you to take. Anytime you hear anything about allegedly non partisan quote legal experts assessing the merits of some case before the Supreme Court, they may just be wish casting. They may just be saying the likely outcome is the thing they want to have happened. And then if you're
gonna be a good lawyer, that's not how you operate. You have to operate with a sense and I hope that's what I do, with a sense of I want X to happen. But I recognize that maybe X is not the right legal outcome, and or I recognize that it's not the outcome the court is going to go for. When we return, I want to talk a little bit more about how Dems have overplayed their hand or Jack Smith has overplayed his hand with the mar A Lago case, with the Document's case,
with the January sixth case that's next on the John Girardi Show. I think that Democrats, and I think I will say Democrats have overplayed their hand with these prosecutions of Donald Trump because outside of the big news about Trump not being kicked off the ballot in Colorado, which which by the way, means he's not going to get kicked off the ballot anywhere, okay, Because that was the Democrat's hope was that the Supreme Court would uphold this notion that Donald Trump
could be kicked off the ballot in a whole bunch of states on the grounds that he engaged in insurrection. And their hope was maybe they could find some of these battleground states like Michigan, like Wisconsin, like Arizona that have liberal maybe more liberal leaning courts and or more liberal leaning you know, secretaries of state who could kick Trump off the ballot and thus cause Donald Trump to lose the twenty twenty four election. That is not going to happen. Trump's going
to be on the ballot in all fifty states. The other thing, though, that has gone unnoticed, is the Supreme Court agreeing to hear an appeal from the DC Circuit about presidential immunity. And this is in the context of the Special Council prosecution of Donald Trump for his conduct surrounding January sixth. Now this has gotten a little less press. It's gotten kind of eaten up by
the Colorado Supreme Court being overturned on Monday. So let me let me opine about this, because liberals are also tearing their hair out furiously over this. So let's go back a couple months. Jack Smith is the special prosecutor appointed by Merrick Garland to prosecute Donald Trump. He is prosecuting Donald Trump for all
of his alleged federal offenses. He's prosecuting Trump for the mar A Lago illegal retention of documents case, and hesper uting Donald Trump for all the stuff that happened around January sixth, specifically with January sixth, I think the charges against Trump. There are obstruction of a Congressional Act or of a congressional proceeding because Trump was trying to pressure Mike Pence not to certify the election results, and fraud against the American people. And that's kind of a I think, a
kind of clever charge that is difficult to sustain. I think it's also kind of difficult to sustain the idea that he obstructed the congressional proceeding. So that's what he's being charged with with regards to January sixth, and for his January sixth charges, Trump his legal team has tried to raise the defense of presidential immunity. Now, presidential immunity the idea that the president should be immune from
criminal prosecution for his conduct in office. It's an odd concept because it's not really in the Constitution, and frankly it was kind of cooked up by the Supreme Court. It actually has a lot more to do, I think, with ancient Roman law. So one of the principles of the Roman constitution was if you were elected to be a magistrate, if you were a consul or a praetor or equaister or whatever, you were not subject to lawsuits. And
in Rome. In ancient Rome and the Roman Republic, they didn't have the kind of division and a lot of civil law systems. I think this might still be the case. Legal systems that aren't so much based in English common law are more based on Roman civil law. You didn't have the division between criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits like we have in America today. Okay, in America, the state prosecutes you for crimes, but a private person can only sue you. Okay, if I, you know, crash my car into
your house, the state can maybe prosecute me for drunk driving. You can't sue me for drunk driving and put me in jail. You can sue me for you know, damaging your house and I'll have to pay you money. But you can't sue me and put me in jail. The state has to prosecute me criminally to put me in jail. Not so in the Roman Republic.
A private citizen could charge you with crimes and then you could suffer I guess the Roman equivalent of criminal penalties, maybe subject to the death penalty, or be banished from the city of Rome, have to leave Rome, or you know, something like that. Rome didn't really have prisons, So that was they weren't holding people in holding cells or in max security prisons or anything like that. So banishment and or execution was kind of how they handled a
lot of stuff. So, but in the Roman system, when you served in office, you weren't subject to those kinds of prosecutions. And I guess the Roman way of thinking was, well, how can this guy actually do what he's trying to do if all these other ambitious politicians could just file lawsuits against him to try to banish him from the city, Like, it's not going to work. How can you really do your job if you're constantly under
this sort of damicles that you're going to get prosecuted. So the Supreme Court issued a couple rulings sort of in the pre Scalia days before, like originalism as it's kind of commonly practiced today, really took hold. The Supreme Court had a couple decisions saying, well, president shouldn't be subject to prosecution while he's in office, and therefore he is not because we're the Supreme Court,
and that's what we're going to say. So this doctrine of presidential immunity developed, and Trump is trying to say, hey, I shouldn't be prosecuted. Not only should I not be subject to criminal prosecution while I am serving as president, but even after I'm president, I shouldn't be subject to criminal prosecution for allegedly criminal things I did when I was president. So it's kind of
a novel idea. And there he's raising a challenge to this whole lawsuit, saying, Hey, this whole lawsuit against this whole prosecution of me is illegitimate. These were official acts I did while I was president. I'm subject to presidential immunity. I should be protected. So Jack Smith, the prosecutor in this case, he tried to get rid of the issue quickly by going directly to the Supreme Court. Tried to bypass the normal court. He would appeal to the d C Circuit Court, and he said, no, we need
to get this done quickly. Well, the Supreme Court said, why do you need it done quickly? We don't need this done quickly. Go to the DC Circuit. So he goes to the d C Circuit. D C Circuit gives their opinion. Then Trump appeals it to the Supreme Court. And now the Supreme Court has taken the case, and the liberals are outraged. How dare the Supreme Court meddle in the election in this way? What do they mean? Isn't that exactly what the liberals wanted? They wanted the Supreme
Court to decide this issue. Right, No, Jack Smith and his prosecution of Donald Trump, all they really want is to have the trial and get the trial done before election day. They want to convict Donald Trump before the election so that he will lose. Smith has made that quite clear. Smith keeps talking about the need for a speedy trial, and the right to a speedy trial is a constitutional right that we have, but it's a right that
criminal defendants have. It's not a right that the prosecution has. Trump and his legal team are saying, no, we don't want We want to resolve these complex legal questions with enough time for full briefing, et cetera. There's a ton of documentation that we need to go through, especially in the mar A Laga Oh case. No, we don't want the trial to happen right away. We need more time to go through these legal issues than these complex
factual inquiries. But Smith is saying, well, the constitution demands a speedy trial. No, it doesn't demand a speedy trial. It says that the defendant has a right to one so that you're you know, you're a criminal defendant. You don't have the money to post bail like Donald Trump does. You're not cooling your heels in the county jail for you know, months and months and years and years and years and years waiting for your trial to start.
That's the idea behind the right to a speedy trial. You have a right to get your legal issues over with in a relatively efficient fashion as the criminal defendant. It's not a privilege for the prosecutor to get this thing over with. And that's the whole That's why I that's why I think it's very
fair to say. And again, as I said earlier in the show, I would love to waive a magic wand and to not have to vote for someone who's going to be an octagenarian while he's president, whether he's a Republican or a Democrat. But I also fully believe and acknowledge that the prosecutions against
Donald Trump are highly highly politicized. The timetable they're on is ludicrous, how politicized they are, Like no other trial would be trying to rush to get to the date of the trial before November for some real oh before all the latter half of twenty twenty four, when nothing important happens, you know, the first Tuesday of November. It's baldly political. And don't think I think
that Joe Biden is insulated from this. Look, Joe Biden said openly, especially after the January sixth Commission and all the other stuff, it was trying to uncover that we're going to make sure that Donald Trump can't run for president again. He said stuff like that. His Attorney general picked this special Council, and the idea of the special Council as well. The Department of Justice is too you know, it has a conflict of interests, so therefore you
need to bring someone in from the outside to do it. There's no conflict of interest for the Department of Justice as currently constituted to investigate Donald Trump. Donald Trump's not part of the chain of command anymore. They brought in this special Council so that Biden would make it look like he's not directly trying to
prosecute his chief political rival. But that's precisely what he's doing. His hand picked attorney general picked this guy, Jack Smith, who's an absolute bulldog and is actually when we were turn In the next segment, I'll explain how I think Jack Smith has shot himself in the foot by overcharging Trump. That's next on the John Girardi Show. I think Democrats have overplayed their hand against Donald Trump. The headline for a story I could have written at any point over
the last eight years. Specifically Jack Smith, the special prosecutor who is overseeing the prosecutions of Donald Trump, both for alleged conduct around January sixth and for alleged conduct around the unlawful retention of documents in mar A Laco. I think he's overplayed his hand. Let me explain. The pickle that Jack Smith finds himself in is that he's brought cases that are too complicated and as a result, he's not going to be able to get Trump to a trial in all
likelihood before the November election. And if Trump wins, he can probably shut down all these prosecutions against himself. That's the problem that Jack Smith faces. He's overdone it. Right now, all these liberals are furious because the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal about whether Trump had immunity for his presidential actions. For actions he took while he was president, still on January sixth, because the Supreme Court is going to take that appeal. And the Supreme Court
says, we don't care about the political calendar. If you want us to solve this legal issue, and we want to solve this legal issue, we're going to do it at our pace, thank you very much. We don't care about your desire to prosecute Trump before November. He's also screwed up the mar A Lago documents case because he's charged Trump with thirty one bazillion counts of unlawfully retaining this document, unlawfully retaining that document. Every single document he retained
unlawfully was a separate felony charge. And guess what that means that the discovery and the oversight of the facts of the case and the evidence in the case is going to take freaking forever. If they actually just wanted to convict Donald Trump, what they could have done is just charged him, just in the mar A Lago case, just with obstruction of justice. Don't try to make the comparison between well, Joe Biden retained documents and we're not prosecuting him,
but Donald Trump retained documents and we are prosecuting him. You could avoid all that the obvious unfairness of that. All you would have to do is say we asked Donald Trump for all the documents back from his house, a grand jury demanded that he returned all the documents. He didn't return all the documents, and we have evidence that he deliberately tried to hide the documents. He
knew he wasn't turning them all over. I think that's a really easy case to make, and a case you could make quickly and actually convict Donald Trump for it before November. Because they were so greedy, their eyes were bigger than their stomach, They're not going to get a conviction. So yeah, I think Democrats have wildly overplayed their hand. All right, Well, Happy election Day, everybody that'll do it for John Girardi Show. See you next time on Power Talk