Post from Truth Social

Let's dig into the details of what went down today in court with traditional watch President Tom Fenton. Okay, I'd love talking to you about this because I know you like to get into the weeds, but I'd love to get your reaction to what other legal scholars are saying about what we've been watching here. This is from Jonathan Turley, a man that you know very well. I want to get your reaction to what he said today, talking about the wisdom of even A, having this circumstance play out the way it is, and B, where we are now and where we're going. This is eight days that we've all been sitting in this courthouse. This is all a vital indictment. It's an order to try and win an election, political opponent, and nothing like this has ever happened. Eight days. We're left on Friday wondering what's the intelligent design here towards conviction, and one thing that would help if you would just tell us, what's the crime? He nails it. We talked about this for just a bit with Alex Woyer. This is federal from my perspective and my brief legal training. It seems mighty federal to me, so what's the crime here, and how does Mr. Bragg get this one over the finish line? Well, hopefully it's a jury from his perspective, a jury that's anti-Trump, and just putting salacious material out there about President Trump they're thinking would be sufficient. For those of us concerned about the rule of law, Turley's absolutely right. There are no crimes here. This is an indictment about nothing. This whole week has been like an MSNBC fever dream played out in a courtroom where they're asking this publisher questions about non-crimes, so it's a crime for politicians to communicate with members of the media about stories they don't want to run. I tell you, if that's the new rule, every politician here in D.C. is going to face criminal charges for not reporting those communications on federal election forms. It can't be the law, and it isn't the law. They're making it up as they go along. We're still not sure what the crimes are beyond detailing in his ledger a legal expense is a legal expense. This is a terrible abuse of power, and it's disturbing that the court, and Judge Merchant, has allowed it to even get this far. But here's what I don't understand. I understand your point of view. It makes sense to me, and yet I watch legal analysts all day long on other networks suspend all disbelief. They simply go out there and they say, "Yep, looks like a crime is happening here," and they really don't seem to be backing up and saying, "This is an abuse of power. If we're not careful, this will happen in other states." I mean, who's to say this doesn't happen to say President Biden when he's out of office or could be some judge in Texas or some other state that decides on some, as some people have called it, trumped up charges related to whatever, and say, "You know what? We're just going to bring up dirt." Well, that's the danger when you have this normalization of the weaponization of government to go after your political opponents. All bets could potentially be off, and it will disrupt the country because, as you say, you could have Republican attorney generals start targeting Biden. Of course you could. And Biden should be praying that the Supreme Court agrees with Trump because I can guarantee you there'd be many Republican attorney generals in the future who would want to go after him on criminal charges based on what he's doing right now. A hundred percent believe that. Tom Fittin, always a pleasure. Thank you so much for your time tonight. Have a great week, and we'll see you again soon.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.