step so they didn't want to do it just because it's important. I like that. I like the fact that they weren't willing to do it just because it's important because that wasn't the right reason. That's not the reason. The reason should be that the lower court didn't get it right or something and there was a reason to appeal. That's the reason they should handle it so they stuck to it. I like it. I'm happy with that.

But here's how people are interpreting it. If you turn on any right-leaning news or watch anybody tweeting about it they will say this. That really the reason that Jack Smith wanted to expedite is so that he could put Trump in jail potentially before the election and therefore Trump you know wouldn't have a chance of winning or his chance would be much lower. He could still win from jail but his odds would be much lower. That all worked down. So that's why. How many of you have seen that reporting and therefore say the experts on the right this is pretty much proof that the prosecution is political because it was so important to get it done before the election and the only reason to do that is to stop him politically. So how many of you are on that page that the Supreme Court and Jack Smith's action are really confirming that the legal part was and it was just political? Everybody. So basically 100% of you are on that page.

Has anybody checked out MSNBC? Have you seen what the left says about this? If you haven't seen what the left says about it you're going to need to check it out. Do you know what the left says about it? It's not going to be delayed. No it might hold it up a little bit but it'll still be done before the election. I thought I was like hallucinating because I just happened to I was just flipping through some news channels and I caught a legal expert and the legal expert was very experienced in this field like he was actually a federal Department of Justice lawyer who knew exactly what he was talking about. And when people on the right are like aha you know Trump won because this won't get done before the election a guy who knows exactly what he's talking about said it won't make much difference. Yeah maybe delayed a little bit.

So now check your own propaganda situation. Have you been propagandized by your own side? Did they tell you something about this is going to make a difference? Because I don't see it. I don't see it at all. I don't see anything that happened. I'm going to go further to really make you mad. I don't see anything that suggests it's political. Why did you all see that? What are you seeing that I don't see?

Now let me be clear it could be and it probably is like my intuition my gut my experience and everything I've ever experienced in my whole life all point in the same direction which is everything's political. All 91 indictments all four cases all political. All right so you and I are 100% on the same page that everything's political. However trying to expedite a case if I were the prosecutor I would try to expedite the case for what reason? One would be purely political but what would be the other reason to try to expedite a case? How about every reason in the world. How about the best reason to expedite a case is that that's exactly what our justice system requires. The justice system requires him to try to do the job fast. If he knows it's going to end up in the Supreme Court he'd be incompetent if he didn't at least say well why don't you see if we could just handle this right away. Why would he do all this court preparation for a lower court if it's a complete waste of time? Don't you think he wants to go home for Christmas too? I mean next Christmas. No no.

So here's the thing you're making some assumptions. Here's the assumption you're making that there's one and only one valid reason for asking the Supreme Court to go fast. There's every reason to ask them to do that. Reason number one it's the right thing to do. Speedy trial. Speedy trial is the most basic well it's one of the most basic things in our system. So you're telling me that you're mad that the prosecutor tried to get a speedy trial and skip a step that's completely a waste of time. That's why we pay him. We pay him to make a speedy trial that doesn't waste anybody's time and you're and we're acting like the only way to interpret that is politically. Now keep in mind I do think everything that they're doing is political but you don't see it in that. It's not in that example. Well let me be more clear it could be entirely in that example but the alternative that he's just doing his job exactly the way you'd want him to do his job this is exactly how I want him to do his job. Don't you? How many of you would want him not to have tried to skip the unnecessary step? Would you be happier if he didn't skip the unnecessary step? Why? What's the argument for that?

Wrong. The speed to hurt defense. So some are saying that the reason for the speed would be to hurt the defense but correct me if I'm wrong does not the defense get to argue how much time they need to the court and can that not be modified based on real reasons? Isn't that normal routine that you say how much time you need and reasonable people look at it and say yeah and if something comes up they're like a real real good reason that you know there's some important evidence that just will take another month no matter what wouldn't the judge say all right that's so important we'll change the trial date to make sure we have that. So to me it seems like the defense always has the right to at least request under reasonable standards a change in the trial. Likewise the prosecution does for any variety of reasons right? So you're wrong.

Let me just say this. If you haven't seen how the left is treating this issue I feel li