Post from Truth Social

Supreme Court, three and a half years later, eight to zero, to exonerate Governor Bob McDonald, who went through hell and so did his family, Governor McDonald. What did they do to your wife? Well, Mark, they charged her, too. She's a volunteer. She's not a government employee. They charged her with all of the same charges and a few more. And then, of course, during the process of the investigation, tried to get her to testify against me, and they would drop all the charge. And, of course, there was nothing she could say. And to her credit, full credit, we both said, "We're not going to plead to anything. We'll see you in court." And they did the same thing with the businessman that was involved. They gave him two transactional immunities, full immunities, ten statements, and he went from saying there was nothing that happened here to testifying against me. And I feel like the leverage that they used was highly destructive to me and my family. But thank God for redemption and restoration. You know, the other thing, Mark, that's important is we had 13 amicus briefs in this case. We had the five previous White House counsel from every president, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, 83 former attorneys general of the states. And they all said the same thing in their briefs. This is wrong. This is destructive. It's a bipartisan condemnation of the theory of the government. And I think some of that really carried the day in John Roberts' unanimous opinion about why this was harmful to the American political system to do what they did. I mean, it set up meetings for a donor. That's essentially what happened. And they criminalized it. Let me ask you this. If you're the attorney general of the United States, and you can pick from any lawyer you want to be special counsel in a matter that involves a former president who's the leading Republican nominee in the Republican primary process, and we have an ongoing election taking place, is this the man you would select to be the special counsel to conduct the investigations given all the history with you, the Supreme Court decision, the jury decisions in North Carolina and New Jersey and all the rest of it? Is this the man you would choose? Is he the careful, thoughtful individual that you would want investigating somebody like this at a time like this? No, it's a stunning decision. Look, he's a Harvard law guy. He looked early in his career, had a lot of high profile, complicated cases from all follow, you know, feedback from that did it well. But when he got this five years in the public integrity section, he took on high profile cases against people in both parties, Mark, and he, and he lost the cases in cases that arguably should have never been brought. As you know, Mark, as a lawyer, the duty of a government lawyer is very different than any other lawyer. You're supposed to seek truth and justice and not merely to convict. It's not like being a zealous advocate if you're a defense attorney. And I think that's where Mr. Smith may be falling down in his judgment about calling balls and strikes. That's what prosecutors are supposed to do. Just like judges, if the facts in the law don't match up, don't bring the case. And it seems like he's had a habit of bringing cases in order to win that he shouldn't have brought. But I listened to you, governor, and I, and I, and I read these other cases and I read the Supreme Court decision. I see what these other juries did. I'm the, I'm the attorney general. I sit there. I was chief of staff to attorney general Mays. And if somebody brought to me, this is the guy that should be special counsel. I would have advised the attorney general, have they lost their minds? This is one of the last guys who should be handling a case like this. You agree or disagree? No, I agree because I think you want somebody, this is historic, never has a president United States been indicted, much less tried or, or convicted. And he's also the leading candidate for a party. You want to be absolutely beyond reproach and given the, given the train of losses and what I would say abuses of the process in order to win. I think Mr. Smith, despite his early career and his, his clear academic pedigree was not the right guy because again, he's, his judgment, I think is tainted by desire to prevail. And that's not the right formula credentials to try to evaluate charges against president United States. Well, I want to thank you governor and I appreciate you coming on the air and, and explaining to the American people some of the background involving your case and Jack Smith. Good luck to you and God bless you, sir.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.