asking just to tell his story, and we can't give him that, that's a hundred tons. And it's not even close to a decision about whether he should or should not be pardoned. Under this situation, yeah, he should be pardoned 100%. And I don't care what he did. Tell me he killed somebody. Okay, still should be pardoned. Tell me he hurt American security. Okay, still should be pardoned. Tell me that everybody in the world and in the legal system hates him and thinks he should die. I don't care. This reason is way bigger than all of those reasons. They're not even close.

All right. There's a question of whether the president could pardon himself or let's say cleverly step down and have Pence pardon him. And the question is can you pardon somebody before there's a crime, there's a trial and a crime? Is it possible and legal to pardon somebody generically?

Well, Emily Compagno said on The Five that it's not. That's not a thing. You have to have a crime and then you can pardon it. But if you have a, well there might have been a crime, we might find one later, you can't pardon it because there's nothing to pardon.

But is that true? Wasn't true for Nixon. Nixon did get a generic pardon. Now there is a question whether that would have withstood a Supreme Court challenge, but it wasn't challenged and so it stood.

Now if Trump also got a generic pardon, and apparently generic still has to have boundaries. So in the case of Nixon there was a time-limited pardon, meaning that he couldn't murder somebody tomorrow and get away with it. He's only pardoned for a limited period of time, maybe the presidency, I think. And they could do the same thing with Trump. Say, well this is the period of time we're talking about, maybe including before the presidency if you want to go that way. And say you could be generically pardoned without any specific crimes. It's just your pardon in advance.

So I think it's possible. But in the case of Trump it might go to the Supreme Court. But he's got the Supreme Court kind of leaning his way at the moment. So I'm gonna say that it is possible but not guaranteed, meaning the pardon could work but it could get overturned.

All right, let's talk about Sidney Powell, who has filed two big lawsuits late last night. And people are poring over the many, many pages of the lawsuit. But one of the things that stands out is in one of the titles there are some really obvious misspellings. And people are saying, what's going on here? Because that's the one thing you don't expect your high-end lawyers to do wrong, misspell things in the title. Like I think there were two words that looked like typos, not misspellings. And so a lot of people are saying, what's going on?

Now if I had to guess, they were in a hurry. Something got, I don't know, maybe there was some OCR thing, has been suggested, might have been an OCR problem where it and nobody reread it. So it could have been just they ran out of time and didn't do as complete a job as they would normally, trying to meet a deadline. So I don't think that's important in any way, but everybody's talking about it. I don't have an opinion about how strong that evidence is.

But let's talk about Rudy's and Jenna Ellis and etc. were at the Pennsylvania hearing yesterday. How many of you watched any part of that hearing? It was hard to find. The networks were not covering it. Then it was long. But here's my take on it.

The basic setup is that Republicans in Pennsylvania held a hearing. Rudy Giuliani and other attorneys gave their evidence of what they have seen. But here is the brilliant part about it. So I give Rudy an A-plus and his team, I give them an A-plus for that hearing. Here's why. It wasn't a court of law and therefore obviously nothing binding is going to happen there. But if you're watching it on television it looks pretty official, doesn't it?

Now it was the opposite of any kind of a process you could trust because it was all just Republicans showing one side of the story. There were nobody on the other side. No Democrats were arguing the points. No lawyers were challenging. It was just Republicans talking to Republicans and making their case. But if you turned it on and you're just a low information voter and you happen to see it, it kind of looked pretty official looking. And all you heard was all this evidence from Rudy of allegations of fraud, lots of them. Apparently there were hundreds of affidavits, lots of the observations. And the affidavits are backed up by multiple witnesses. So it's not even like one person saw a UFO. It's like one person says they saw a UFO and there are 75 people who say the same thing, right? So that just changes your perceived credibility because you've got lots of witnesses. It's not just one person.

So in terms of the PR battle, which is a big part of this, you have to convince the public before you could have any chance of getting legislators to do something outside of the normal process, meaning to decertify or to overturn the result or to have the House pick the president.

So if you imagine that what Rudy was doing is it was providing court-like proof, well that didn't happen. He did not present anything that if you were in court you would say, oh yeah, I saw a proof because he showed it to us. No, that didn't happen. We're still into allegations and evidence and affidavits. We're moving toward that but we're not there.

And I thought the whole thing was brilliantly planned and executed because it was like a mock trial with only one point of view presented, which is as good as you can get in engineering a political theater. Now the people who criticized and said ah, that was just political theater, it was political theater by design and it was really, really good. So calling something political theater isn't really an insult if what you designed was political theater and you designed your political theater to change public opinion and in a related way change political people who have been