commanding poll numbers, it s like one giant leap for a presidential candidate. it s so far ahead and so durable that it s super interesting to see how the democrats have believed that the more they file lawsuits against him or bring indictments that now, of course, they believe the republicans are going to walk away from president trump. i don t know how many times they have to try to learn this lesson. but it doesn t hurt him. it has shown to help him. i think one of the things, neil, that you can believe that january 6th was an abhorrent situation and even at the white house acted in a disgraceful manner and still think like what john yoo just said, this case is not airtight. that makes it even more difficult for people who want to say look, it s time to turn the page on president trump. some people say, i have some sympathy for the guy. are they going after my thoughts next that say let s just say i was a climate denier. i m not. let s say i am.
the trial and say i m going to send these issues up to the d.c. circuit. that could end the case right away. most trial judges and andy is right, are more likely to say let s have the whole trial first. if donald trump is acquitted, we don t have to have any appeals. let s see what happens. then we can pick up these really important legal issues at the end. neil: tom, is there a sense in the couple minutes here, that prosecutors will try to coordinate amongst themselves, whether it s governor georgia next or the ones we have and arranging trials and follow up events and where the president s civil cases go or do you have to go blindly with that? i suspect that the prosecutors will coordinate, neil. right now we re in a situation that is bordering on literally impossible. expecting the former president to defend himself in three, maybe four criminal proceedings. at the same time, he s running for president of the united
fourth indictment. and the real jury is likely the one that will be voting for 2024. i think we re already seeing how this is impacting them. i have to tell you, in this case, i should think that trump would welcome aspects of this case. precisely because of that issue and also because he has these threshold legal questions that he should be able to get to the appellate courts fairly quickly. so smith has to be careful what he s asking for. the trump team might give it to him. it s unlikely he will get a trial in front of the florida trial but they could help him out in moving these issues to the appellate court and asking them, is this the criminalization of this information? are you about to criminalize false political speech? in the past, the court has been extremely skeptical of laws that attempt to do that.
theories about the crimes and has to fill some holes in the facts since they could never make a direct connection between donald trump and the january 6 rioters. the january 6th rioters on their way from the white house and the elipse to the capitol that day would have marched in front of that courthouse. i would have had an office. i used to look out on the path that they were taking that day. neil: by the way, you were referring to this case today, not the prior cases. you say they were tighter case. this case today, right? yes, yes. neil: got it. all right, guys. don t wander too far. we ll talk to you later. those just joining and watching right now, this historic myment, the third time to bret baier s point and we re getting used to it. it s scary stuff for him with the latest charges.
was trying to argue about the 14th amendment and that that alone, you know, which shows you can t hold off if they ve engaged in a rebellion and bending over backwards saying he caused a rebellion. the reason why that is important to democrats is that that would disqualify him from being president of the united states. that s the leap they re taking. what do you think of that train of thoughts and that leap? that is not the connection that is going on here in this case. no. it s really approaching the urban legend status. because he s not charged with incitement. he s not charged with insurrection. he s not charged with seditious conspiracy. he s not charged with all of those things, the democrats impeach him on the second time. so they re really big-footing the constitution here. it s not there. but the question is what is