hot. Well anyway, the mascot went to the hospital. And I'm wondering how that job was described to the mascot. You know, was there a meeting beforehand in which the mascot probably has a boss, right? There's a boss of the mascots. And the boss was like, hey, we've got the best idea. You're gonna love this. And the mascot says, great, great, what is it, what is it? It goes, you're going to share the stage with Conor McGregor. The mascot's like, really, really? The most famous MMA fighter of all time, Conor McGregor? Yes. That's great, that's great. Well there's one more thing. Really, what is it? Well, Conor McGregor is going to punch you. Oh, what? Yeah, Conor McGregor is going to punch you. Well I thought you said Conor McGregor is going to punch me. Yeah, he's gonna punch you really hard. It'll be hilarious. Watch this. But he's gonna hold his punch, right? He's not going to give me like a full force MMA punch, right? Oh no, no, it's probably going to be three-quarter speed tops. And besides, your mascot head will be protecting you, won't it? Well, turns out that mascot head's a little softer than you'd expect. And a 75% punch from an MMA fighter kind of hurts. So he's in the hospital. Anyway, it's not funny that somebody got hurt, but I like bad management stories. So to me this just sounds like a bad management story. Like they could have worked out a few more details before sending him out to get punched by the strongest puncher in the world. I'm sorry, I shouldn't be laughing at that. I feel terrible about myself. I really do. But you might know that I treat my mascots the same way, so we got that in common.

All right. So now I've heard Alan Dershowitz take on the Trump legal risk from all of his boxes of secrets. And Dershowitz basically says there's no risk. And then I read Jonathan Turley and he's got a slightly different take on it but for different reasons: no risk. There's just no risk.

All right, here's what Dershowitz says. Basically most of the charges look like they can be easily defended against. In other words, the defense against most of what he did with the records, including not giving them back, I guess, doesn't rise to the level of a criminal case but might be a civil case of some kind and should have been handled that way or some other kind of crime. So it wouldn't be the kind of thing that would keep him out of office or put him in jail. So most of the charges are in that easy-to-dismiss or easy-to-defend concept because of some records act that defines this area pretty well. So that's what Dershowitz says.

He says there's one thing you have to worry about, though. There's one part that might put him in jeopardy, and that's the audio that they have that alleges that he had a document that he even described as something that shouldn't be shown to people, that maybe he showed to somebody. Which would be pretty bad if it were a really super secret document, which he said it was. He said it was still a secret.

And now this is the funny part. In Dershowitz, in the process of simply talking about the case, he offered up the perfect defense for the only part of the case that he thought was risky, which is the audio. Here's the perfect defense. Which do you think is more likely? Now this depends on the writer's testimony as well, right? So you'd have to hear what the writer says about it. But which of these two things do you think is more Trump? I'm going to give you an example. I'll be Trump now.

Oh man, I got these secret documents here. Got these secret documents. Why don't you read them? Here, here you go. Once you read them. Well, I sit silently. All right, okay, you got it. Did you read those? All right. So that's one thing that could have happened, and that would be really bad, wouldn't you agree? If he handed it to the writer and says take a look at this, read this. That would be very bad. Does that sound like Trump? Is that your imagination of who Trump is? That he would hand somebody a document when he's the star of the meeting, right? The meeting is about him. But he's going to give you a document and maybe sit there silently while you read it? That sounds just like him, doesn't it?

All right, let me give you another possibility that might have happened. This might be closer to it. Wow, I got these secret things that I can see because I'm a president. You can't. Whoa. Well, you imagine if you saw these. If I showed you these. Well, let me just describe what's here. There's some bad things in here, but wow, wow, you can't see it. This is some secret stuff. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I was president so I could see it. Well, I'm not president now so maybe, you know. But yeah, I didn't really do that.

Which one sounds more like Trump? It's not even close. I don't think there's a chance in the world that he handed it to him and he waited while he read it. Do you? I mean seriously. Now like I said, if the writer who was in the room, and I guess there was one other gentleman in the room, if they said that's what happened, then probably that's what happened. But it's really hard to believe. And if it turns out that all he did was flash it and talk about overall the topic, probably not a big deal.

So the Dershowitz take is that it's all easy to defend and that that's the most dangerous part. And we don't know all the details, but if it sounds the way it sounds on audio, in other words if the story is just what you hear on the audio, there's no real risk. So that's the Dershowitz take.

The Jonathan Turley take I think is cleaner and also to the same point, but his take is there's no way you could complete this trial before the election, you know, because everything takes years. So if they don't complete it before the election, Trump can pardon himself. Now that's Turley's view. Now maybe the Supreme Court would disagree, but it wouldn't stop him from doing it, would it? I mean maybe it would go to the Supreme Court, but I think they might agree. My take is that the Supreme Court is not going to say there is something in the Constitution that forbids the president from pardoning themselves. Because if the Constitution wanted that in there, it probably would be there. If it's not there, it's not there. That should be the end of the story. You know, I'm no constitutional scholar, but if it's not in there it would be hard to imagine it was assumed to be there. Like why would you assume that? On what basis could you make the assumption that they meant it to be there? I see no argument for it whatsoever.

All right. So it appears to me that the Democrats are trying to win the next election via a process of proving that everything Trump said about them is true and that it really is a witch hunt. By the way, Dershowitz says fairly directly, yeah, this is a political act. Would you feel comfortable if you were the Democrats and somebody who is a lifelong Democrat, Dershowitz, and also a leading scholar of this exact kind of stuff, tells you it's obviously political? There's no doubt about it. There's not even a gray area. This is obviously political. To me this is absolutely confirming everything that Trump said about people going after him and they would go after you next because they're going after supporters too.

So Trump is gaining energy. He is flipping people who were, let's say in the past they were anti-Trump or at least didn't care, and they've radicalized people to care a lot about defending Trump. They've also taken everybody else out of the news. Do you remember that big DeSantis news? I don't. Wasn't ready. I don't know. A few people got into the race but the only thing you heard about them is they got into the race. Do you remembe