and they ended up bringing a couple of anemicson. misdemeanorsmisdem instead of pursuing these veryng seriou theses charges.arges. and yet with the indictment today, smith is willinith the ge a former president to court. and i hope and a prayer, and iot don t think he has a prayer. i think that ultimatel, hoy, evn if he can eke out a conviction, i cannot imagine how thi castand an appellate review unlessd sta he s withholding evidence that we haven t seen. i mean, this is a speakingt doe indictment, but it doesn t say very much. it basically just says that weu. think trump is lying that he actually didn t believe thi s . i mean, i can t tell you how facially ridiculous this claim is. it starts out by saying, well, you know, of course, you can say false things in the campaign, but then says, but trump knewthe , they were false. so is that the test going forward in terms of criminalizing political speech? the supreme court, in a case called alvarez, said that
court of appeals or supreme court. all right, matt, you think he wins? i d o, because ultimately this deprivation of rights is about taking away an individual s right. and under the way it s pled, i don t see any individual that his right has been away. all right, professor, we ll give you that last sentence. i cut you off. go ahead. i think he may lose in theri states court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, but i think appeals the unitedn states supreme court if they grant review and they should grant review when shoul you have the president of the united states is. people going after his opponent in a political election, it hags to be beyond reproach. it has to be without any has rec to be the strongest case in history. this doesn t meet that standard. thout an prom said, all of you, great analysis. thank you all. all right. alsopt the sase in his tonight, just the news rt.com editor in chief in-chiefder john solomon has a breaking news report on evidence given to the special