Donald Trump's Year of Lawfare

Hey, everybody. It's the end of The Charlie Kirk Show. We talk with Matt Gaetz about how Congress has done nothing, and secondly, we have Will Scharf, President Trump's attorney, for an update regarding his legal future. You're not going to want to miss this update, comprehensive, your one-stop shop. Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Subscribe to your podcast. Open up your podcast application and type in charliekirkshow. Get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com. That is tpusa.com. Become a member today at members.charliekirk.com.

That is members.charliekirk.com. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here.

I wish the Republican Party believed in the Fourth Amendment. Joining us now is Matt Gaetz. Matt, welcome to the program. What happened last week? Walk us through all of it, Matt Gaetz. Speaker Johnson comes out and basically says the Founding Fathers were wrong. That was really perplexing to me.

What's going on here? It looks like Pfizer is going to get reauthorized. It was especially perplexing to me because I spent seven years sitting next to Mike Johnson in the House Judiciary Committee where he often made the critiques of Pfizer more eloquently and effectively than I ever did. But we saw the 287,000 violations of Pfizer. We saw the fact that they were breaking the law 38 times an hour.

And not to go after terrorists in foreign caves in Central Asia. FBI agents were looking up their ex-lovers. They were looking up their neighbors. They were looking up sources and investigations. They were doing and so they were really breaking that wall that exists between counterintelligence information and criminal information.

And of course, the most famous victim of Pfizer abuse is President Donald Trump. Where we started last week was the Senate and the House leadership wanted a five-year reauthorization of Pfizer. And they were opposing a requirement for a warrant when there would be queries or collections on US citizens. They opposed a warrant requirement. Andy Biggs thought we would have the votes to pass it.

He was working hard on it. He was really the leader on that amendment. And at the end of the day, we fell one vote short on the warrant requirement.

But in addition to moving on to that vote, I demanded that we not reauthorize Pfizer under any circumstance, under any reform. Warrant, no warrant, reviews, no reviews beyond the Trump presidency. It would be a grave sin of Congress to punt past Donald Trump the opportunity to actually get in there and fix this with administration officials who want to reform the system.

Because we've already seen they're willing to go lawless. So the reauthorization as a consequence of demands that the 19 made, who voted against proceeding on to the rule, cut 60% out of that authorization. Now it's two years rather than five years, we'll get a chance in the Trump administration. But frankly, it was a deep disappointment that 86 Republicans, including the speaker, including the Intelligence Committee chairman, including people from my own delegation in Florida, voted with Democrats against the Fourth Amendment. And isn't this something Charlie, we used to have a Democratic Party that was anti-war and pro-civil liberties, pro the Fourth Amendment. Last week, you saw the Democrats with their majority kill the warrant requirement and this week, it will probably be the Democrats that provide the most votes for these foreign aid bills that I think cut against America's core interests.

Yeah, I hear you, Matt, I just the modern Democrat Party, I don't think should be the recipient of our criticism because they hate the country. What happened to Speaker Johnson? Why did he change his mind?

Is he being blackmailed? I don't have any evidence to believe that when I spoke to the speaker, I said, look, Mike, you and I were in these wars together. If you went and became speaker and encountered some information that radically transformed your views on this, you have an obligation to show me what that is and try to convince me I was your brother in arms. And everything I've seen from the people on the Intelligence Committee to try to justify this only makes me want to fight for the reforms harder. I mean, Mike Turner basically fabricated an international incident in order to block our efforts to get FISA reforms weeks ago.

And now I think you had folks unnecessarily frightened into voting against the Constitution, which is a very dangerous place for our country to be. So yeah, I mean, I spoke to people in leadership, including I didn't speak, I texted with the speaker, he said, if you knew what I knew you would vote for this, innocent Americans will die if you don't have to get a warrant. And then he said that many members who voted against this didn't go to the skiff. Did you go to the skiff, Matt, what is being shared in these meetings? Why can't they share with the American people?

Why? Why do we have to resort to secret society shadow tactics? I have been in skiffs for the last seven years getting these intelligence briefings. And by the way, I not only get them as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I'm also on the Armed Services Committee.

So I'm on the cyber subcommittee where I get the offensive and defensive briefings every single quarter about what's going on in the world, and specifically some of the intelligence that we're getting off of 702. And there's nothing here that would have put the country in danger by administering a warrant requirement, because you and I both know there's a duty judge on 24 seven, if you've got probable cause, you're going to be able to get an affidavit on that probable cause and to be able to proceed immediately. And again, this isn't foreigners in faraway land. This is if you want to do searches and queries on Americans, just imagine a circumstance in which you're trying to get a customer service through a call center, and they route you to some foreign place. And there happens to be some guy who also works at the call center, who's got a cousin who wandered by a jihadist meeting.

Now all of a sudden, are you going to be open to some expansive collection? I'm also very worried about the way that FISA was expanded to access Wi Fi. I do not believe if you're on public Wi Fi at a McDonald's or a public library, you should have a different envelope of Fourth Amendment protections than if you're walking down a public street. And when you start bifurcating the Fourth Amendment, you erode our liberties. The Democrats used to believe in that now, again, I will say for you know, you want to be critical of Republicans, but a majority of Republicans voted for the Fourth Amendment requirements. It was a majority of Democrats who voted against. No, I understand that. But I expect every Republican to actually honor the Constitution, any Democrat that happens to mistakenly stumble into the Constitution.

I find sure welcome aboard. So is that it then Matt, the the FBI has super governmental powers, and we have to hope for Trump to do this in the future. There's a reconsideration vote based on a motion made by Ana Paulina Luna. So I guess if people have been feeling the heat in their districts over the last few days, you could see it. But I think that's an improbable outcome, but there is a motion to reconsider. And then what will the Senate do? Will the Senate accept the House bill and pass it with the 50 plus reforms that again, I believe are insufficient, but are at least something? Or will the Senate try to send back a five year reauthorization that strips President Trump of his ability to really work on this? They were never really too excited about a two year reauthorization. They wanted five years, so it remains to be seen how the Senate will react.

So a few more tectonic plates to shift, but all signs point to FISA being reauthorized in a way that doesn't include a warrant and for a shorter period of time than they wanted. But certainly, we would have wished we could have had two or three more votes to get that warrant requirement on the bill. Yeah, it's just and is it true that Lauren Boebert was out with the flu that day?

Is that right? That she would have been a tie breaking vote? Lauren Boebert was there and voting and voted with me. Congresswoman Debbie Lesko of Arizona did not vote. She claimed she would have supported a warrant requirement and she claimed she had the flu and that was the reason she was not there to vote.

Got it. So it's yeah, just one vote very well could have changed the course of history and the Leviathan remains unchecked. Matt, speaking candidly, what can we share with Republican voters as to why their party cares about them? I think Republicans have been fighting insufficiently and I think we have to take drastic measures now. It's usually considered like a war crime in this town if you oppose a Republican incumbent in a primary. And I think the only way we're going to inspire Republican voters is to give them better choices. And that's why I'm supporting Brandon Herrera against Tony Gonzalez in the state of Texas. And it's why I'm supporting Trent Staggs against my colleague John Curtis in the Senate race in Utah.

I noticed you've been doing some campaigning in Utah as well for Trent Staggs. But that's the only way we're going to be able to inspire people because if you look at our record, we've spent money at Nancy Pelosi's levels. We refused to utilize leverage to shut down the border. Instead, we've surrendered the border to third world narcos and thugs and criminals. And now we just largely surrendered an expansion of spying authorities to the bureaucrats. So when you're losing on the border, losing on the bureaucrats, losing on the budget, I think a lot of voters are right to look at Republicans and say, what is it that you will do for me in the face of an unprecedented onslaught by people in power on the left who wield that power excessively? I mean, look, as we're talking right now, you've seen a coordinated federal system to try to ensnare Donald Trump in lawfare to limit the reaches of his presidential campaign.

And I think that knowing the fight we are in is so important. And we are right now in the heat of the primary cycle. Look, the establishment tried to take out Brandon Gill in Texas, and we got him through that primary as a consequence of the terrific campaign he ran. So all around the country, we got to get better candidates. And frankly, it means taking on more incumbents. It's uncomfortable to address it that way. But you have to change the people. You've been voting great, Matt. I just I speak for our audience.

I see no difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress most days. Are you ready to lose weight but not sure where to start? I understand.

I was right where you are two years ago. Let me tell you why I chose the Ph.D. weight loss and nutrition program. First, Dr. Ashley Lucas has her Ph.D. in chronic disease and sports nutrition. Her program is based on years of research and is science based. Second, the Ph.D. program starts nutrition. There's so much more they know that 90 percent of permanent change comes from the mind and they work on eliminating the reason you gain this weight in the first place. There's no shortcuts, pills or injections, just solid science based nutrition and behavior change. And finally, a probably most importantly, I lost 30 pounds.

Look, they're amazing. If you want to lose weight, you've got to go to my Ph.D. weight loss dot com. I was just texting with Dr. Ashley Lucas today. If you're ready to lose weight for the last time, call 864-644-1900. Go online at my Ph.D. weight loss dot com. Do what I did and what hundreds of my listeners have done and call today.

864-644-1900. I recommend their program. Dr. Ashley Lucas has her Ph.D. in chronic disease and sports nutrition. Her program is based on years of research and is science based.

Second, the Ph.D. program starts nutrition, but it's so much more. Go to my Ph.D. weight loss dot com. My Ph.D. weight loss dot com. Call 864-644-1900. I lost over 30 pounds. Dr. Ashley Lucas, great American. Check it out.

My Ph.D. weight loss dot com. So, Matt, we didn't get any win on the spending. We haven't gotten a win on the border.

We didn't get a win on FISA. Israel, Ukraine, what is the strategy? I am not going to vote to send more money to Ukraine. I'm worried about escalatory accident there. I also think that Ukraine is very likely to run out of men before they run out of bullets. And we're going to be asking ourselves in that conflict sort of what we're doing there in the reality where Europe can stop that war anytime they want to.

And I worry we're becoming the world's police force and the world's piggy bank. I think there's a lot more sympathy to be involved with Israel. To have Israel under attack by Iran is totally unacceptable.

Iran's actions were escalatory and deserve universal condemnation. I thought the best way to support Israel was to take the money out of the United Nations. It's a pretty comparable amount of money that we give to all these U.N. programs that would meet the needs that Israel has laid out for us and largely replenishing the Iron Dome. And a lot of that industry happens in the United States.

Matter of fact, a lot of it happens in the state of Florida. And so I would love to drain money out of UNRWA, drain money out of the U.N. to ensure that we're able to meet the needs of a defensive posture that Israel is taking in a very aggressive neighborhood. So what do you think the position of the speaker will be on Ukraine? They're talking about this is a loan, which I think I don't like that idea at all. That's just Washington, D.C. speak for, you know, we're never going to get that money back. It's a cope, right?

Isn't it a cope? Of course it is. So tell us, Matt, when is this going to come to a vote? Do you think we have a chance to block it? A majority of Republicans opposed the last measure to fund Ukraine. The next measure to fund Ukraine will take shape, I believe, this week. The speaker has indicated support for funding Ukraine.

I do not support that. And the speaker has also indicated that he didn't want to lump all of these bills together in previous public comments. However you feel about Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, these questions deserve their own dignity. The conflict in Taiwan is very different than the conflict in Ukraine, which is very different than the conflict in Israel.

It's great power competition versus asymmetric threats. And so I just think lumping them all together is a way to give people political cover to vote for Ukraine when they otherwise wouldn't. And I don't think that our sympathies for Israel should drag Ukraine across the finish line. Now, when it comes to the likelihood of the outcome that you've that you've queried, I believe the fact that every Democrat wants to fund Ukraine is likely to be dispositive.

Because even though it's a minority of Republicans who want to fund it, when you lash that to every single Democrat, I think it's two thirds or more that likely support that. And while Kevin McCarthy authorized $115 billion to Ukraine, Mike Johnson hasn't authorized any yet. I do believe he's probably likely to break the seal this week in moving some Ukraine legislation to the floor. I hope it's not lashed to Israel or Taiwan or frankly any other matter.

Yeah, I'm cynical, too. I'm expectants for our country to be further betrayed. Why don't we have that kind of urgency on the border? I think that there is just sort of a willingness to surrender on the border among too many Washington Republicans. I would not send so much as a Mother's Day resolution over the United States Senate unless it had our legislation on it to say only U.S. citizens can vote in U.S. elections. That will make a huge difference in a world in which the Biden administration has let in 10 million plus people. And we're seeing efforts to try to allow people to vote with just the documentation or Social Security number you get as a part of this broken asylum process that is really just amnesty and drag. So that's critically important if we cared about the border. Also, we should not have agreed to fund these large spending bills in the absence of real concessions on the border. I made that argument.

I made it loudly and I lost. And that's why I'm out all over the country on the campaign trail campaigning against Republicans who are voting for these bad spending bills, bad government spying bills in the absence of the reforms that our voters are demanding. So any hope, Matt? On Ukraine?

On just all of it. I mean, we have no wins. I have hope. We have yet to strike a single win.

Yeah, it is a fair question. Chip Roy often asks, you know, what is it the Republicans have delivered for you? And I think that some have said in our in our private meetings, well, at least we've been here to stop the next American rescue plan.

Mike Johnson spent no more, no less than the Fiscal Responsibility Act that Kevin McCarthy and Joe Biden negotiated. I think we should have and could have done a lot better than that. I view that as a failure on the budgeting process. And so, yeah, I mean, we're not going to win with the team we have. That's the bottom line. If you're waiting around for the next win, you have a governing coalition right now in the Uniparty that is against Fourth Amendment rights, that is for more wars and doesn't give a damn about reducing spending or making things on the border. So that's why we got to get different people.

That's the only conclusion I can draw from this is Republican primary voters have to stand up and be against some of the people voting against them. Matt, keep fighting. I wouldn't want your job right now. It's loss after loss after loss. Thanks so much. We'll keep it. We'll keep in the battle. Thanks, man.

Yeah, it's a righteous one. That's why you can't go wrong with precious metals. They've always had your back. Noble Gold Investments, American-based experts will show you how to set and forget your IRA or 401k. You'll get a dedicated professional assigned to you.

No hassle, no call centers. Colin Plume runs Noble Gold Investments. We've had him on the show before. He's awesome. I love hanging out with him.

He's terrific. I can vouch for his integrity and for his knowledge about gold and silver. In fact, I have my silver right next to me right here. I buy all of my gold from Noble Gold Investments.

I have vetted them top to bottom. In fact, I know a billionaire that just made a very big purchase of gold from Noble Gold Investments. So visit NobleGoldInvestments.com to claim your gold coin. This month, Noble Gold Investments is giving a free quarter ounce gold standard coin at each qualifying IRA investment.

That is NobleGoldInvestments.com, NobleGoldInvestments.com. Will Scharf joins the program now, one of President Trump's attorneys. Will, you've been doing an excellent job defending the president. Hate to have you do this. I know you have it kind of on autopilot now. Walk us through what is in contention here. What are the facts?

Take as much time as you need because people, they live busy lives. I do this for a living. I forget all the details associated with this. This is an old story, a ridiculous case that they rose from the dead for political purposes. Will Scharf, walk us through it.

Yeah, that's exactly right, Charlie. This New York criminal case that's been brought by Soros funded DA Alvin Bragg. It used to be referred to as the zombie case because no one wanted to touch it because of its clear legal frailties. Basically, it's called a hush money case, but it's not really about hush money at all. What this is about is business records, business records that were made in 2017 that recorded payments from Trump and the Trump Organization to attorney Michael Cohen. Those business records listed those payments as legal retainer fees. The allegation is that in actuality, those fees weren't for legal services at all, that they were either to cover up hush money payments used for election purposes.

The theory of liability has never entirely been clear, but what's at issue here is whether President Trump purposely made false business records, created false business records in 2017. This is a case involving conduct from half a decade ago that has no business in any courtroom, much less being tried in a courtroom at the height of a presidential election. We believe that it's been brought for fundamentally political purposes and yet we see the spectacle here in New York today where President Trump is forced to be in a courtroom. He'll likely be in a courtroom a lot over the next six weeks or so instead of being out campaigning.

It's election interference at its highest. It's crazy that this is going on right now, but I have full confidence in both President Trump and the team he has around him. I think that if this case were presented to a fair jury in a fair courtroom, there's no question that he would be acquitted.

Will, I totally agree. I mean, you've been a prosecutor here. Let's go through the things you would never do as a prosecutor that this prosecutor is doing.

Let's list them off. What? Just please, as far as reaching for novel theories, saying that this is covering up a crime when he's never been charged with a crime. Will, this is like against prosecutorial conduct 101. You're a very accomplished prosecutor. Walk us through it. First of all, I mean, this prosecution proceeded from the standpoint of let's prosecute Trump.

You can't do that. As a prosecutor, you're trained to let the facts lead you, to never let politics or political considerations come into play. This is a classic case of, you know, you show me the man and I'll show you the lawsuit. I'll show you the prosecution. This whole thing is really just about interfering with President Trump's ability to campaign, and that's just wrong. In terms of the minutiae of the case, there are some things I can say.

There are some things I can't say because of a wildly unconstitutional gag order that's been imposed against us here. But I will say that the star witness, the key witness here is Michael Cohen. I can't say anything about what his testimony might be, but I will say that this is a man who several previous courts have found to be a perjurer. The idea as a prosecutor that you would rest your case on the testimony of a witness who just isn't credible for that reason, it's crazy to me. It's not something we would have ever done when I was an assistant U.S. attorney if we had a witness who'd previously lied in court and the case revolved around that witness. You take a serious look at whether to bring that indictment in the first place at all.

Here we have a scenario where Alvin Bragg decided that he wanted to indict Trump at all costs, and they resurrected this crazy case from the graveyard where bad cases go to die. And now we're seeing the results of that decision. It's absolutely outrageous. Yeah, I know you can't speak on certain things because of the gag order, so let's speak about the gag order. What is a gag order? How unprecedented is this? Don't get yourself in trouble, Will.

Just dance around it. No, this gag order, it's absolutely unprecedented. In American history, before President Trump, no candidate for public office had ever faced a gag order. No court had ever upheld a gag order against a candidate for public office, any candidate for public office, much less the leading candidate for President of the United States of America. The gag order in this case prohibits us from talking about potential witnesses, even while those witnesses are up on TV and on podcasts every day trashing President Trump and trashing his defense. It prohibits us from talking about family members of the judge.

We've moved to recuse the judge here, Judge Mershon, based on what we believe are irretrievable conflicts relating to family members of his. This gag order, it's wildly unconstitutional. It should be overturned, and we've seen this time and time again in Trump's cases, most notably in Washington, D.C., where Judge Tanya Chutkin entered a wildly overbroad gag order, which was then pared back to almost nothing or pared back very significantly by the D.C.

Circuit on appeal. When we talk about election interference, prohibiting the leading candidate for the presidency from talking about matters of public interest, including these trials against him, it's absolutely insane. It's a perversion both of our legal system and of our system of elections, and it should be terrifying to Americans of all political stripes, frankly. Here's what I can say, because I'm not under a gag order. Judge Juan Mershon is a partisan Democrat who donated the Joe Biden. Judge Mershon's daughter, Lauren Mershon, runs a progressive consulting firm that raised $93 million for Adam Schiff and Senate Majority PAC, which means that if she takes like 5 percent of that, that's $4 million. Trump was slapped at the gag order for pointing out how the family makes money off of attacking Trump.

It's all rigged, and I want to get into that will more broadly. You are someone that's dedicated your life to the American justice system, to the sacred tradition of innocent and suburban guilty and checks and balances and separation of powers and the rule of law. We believe that this will not discredit Trump or destroy Trump, but it very well might permanently discredit the American justice system, or let's just say the justice system in New York or certain pockets. Your reaction, Will Scharf?

Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And look, everything you just said about Judge Mershon, we've said in court pleadings and more, New York's rules on recusal are actually quite clear and quite strict, and we think recusal is absolutely warranted here. In terms of your broader point, the fear here is that when you have political prosecutions, when you have the weaponization of law enforcement and of the courts for blatantly political ends, as you said, that undercuts Americans' confidence in our most basic institutions in the rule of law itself.

And once that confidence is lost, you're not going to get it back. That's what's so scary about this left-wing campaign to indict Trump in all these different courthouses, to drag him into court at every opportunity. They think they're defending democracy or whatever the heck else they talk about. What they're actually doing is undermining our Constitution, undermining the rule of law, and frankly, undermining the entire American experiment in a way that's not going to be easily retrievable in the future. It is so scary and so dangerous that I hope that free-thinking, even-minded people, even on the left, wake up to what they're doing and wake up to the dangers inherent in what's going on here.

Will, the dangers inherent are legitimate, and how long do you think this trial is going to last? And is it true that Donald Trump has to sit through all this? By the way, Maggie Haberman just tweeted, I think this is hilarious, Trump appears to be sleeping, his head keeps drooping, and his mouth goes slack. That's exactly how all of us would act in the intro to gender studies class at the University of Missouri.

But I think it's hilarious. So how long is this going to last? Let me speak to the Haberman thing. Look, I've been in court with President Trump, and I've always found him to be highly attentive, highly interested in what's going on. When I was last in court with him in front of the D.C. Circuit, it's been publicly reported that he was passing notes to me and had real questions about what was going on.

So I find that very, very difficult to believe. But yes, this is a trial that's expected to last between six and eight weeks. A lot of that is going to be jury selection, because it is so tough to seat an unbiased jury in light of the saturation media coverage, in light of the ongoing presidential election. That's one of the reasons we moved to have this trial delayed until after the election. After jury selection concludes, which will likely be in about three weeks, if I had to guess, then we're looking at a two to three week long trial, maybe more. But I mean, again, we're at the height of a presidential election. And as you said, the leading presidential candidate is going to have to sit through every day of this trial, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, every single day that court is in session. Court's not in session on Wednesdays until this trial concludes. If that's not an election interference, I don't know what is. President Trump's going to have to be in court in New York instead of taking his message to the American people. And we all know how effective a messenger he is. Well, I also just want to reiterate, everybody, you know, this wears you down.

So this is kind of the grind him down strategy. Think about it. You've got to wake up early, go into court, get ridiculed in a Soviet show trial. And then maybe at night, right, Will, you might have a rally in Michigan. You might be able to get on a plane, go do a rally in Michigan, land in New York by midnight, wake up at 6 a.m., get, you know, where's full suit and tie.

Everyone's photographing you. That much flying wears you down. This is all part of the grind him down campaign strategy. And every hour he's in a courtroom is an hour he can't be raising capital, is an hour he can't be calling donors. I'm a big logistics guy. I run a big organization.

We have 550 employees. I know what it takes to run big things. A presidential campaign is like the biggest thing.

And I can't imagine you have to sit in a place where you have to be attentive. Your future, your legal health, your legal status is in jeopardy. They know what they're doing here. For years, I've been talking about how our nation's public schools have been captured by progressive ideologues, especially true if you're a Christian family. For those of you worried about the best educational path for your kids and grandkids, I want to tell you about how Turning Point Academy is working with the Herzog Foundation, how you at home can also benefit from it. They have an online publication called The Lion and also Making the Leap. The Herzog Foundation offers a wide range of advice and information for Christian parents to make the best education decisions for your kids. Go to HerzogFoundation.com. That is HerzogFoundation.com. So check it out right now. HerzogFoundation.com. Portions of The Charlie Kirk Show are brought to you in part by the Stanley M Herzog Foundation.

That is HerzogFoundation.com. So I'm a logistics guy in the sense that, you know, I'm constantly on the road. I've spent last year before last. I did three hundred and thirty days on the road.

Three hundred thirty days on the road. I know what that does to you. Can't imagine running for president, having to be actively in court, have to be ridiculed, dealing with all those details. The back of your head, you're like, boy, my opponent, Joe Biden, is raising billions of dollars. He doesn't have to do any of this.

He doesn't even run the United States government. So we'll talk about the logistics of this. He has to be in court every single day except Wednesday. Is that right?

Yeah. Every day the court is in session, President Trump will be there. And it's not like with Joe Biden where if he gets tired, they can just call a lid. His schedule is not his own.

And that's that's absolutely crazy. As you indicated, traveling takes a toll. Being in court takes a toll.

Everything takes time. And President Trump is a man with boundless energy. Those of us who spent time with him know that probably all too well.

But this is a coordinated campaign to interfere with his ability to campaign effectively for office. And we need to call it what it is. Yeah. And so the the schematics then are Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday every single week.

No Saturday, no Sunday. Is that correct? That's correct. There's likely going to be some sort of a break for the Jewish holiday of Passover, which starts next week. We're not sure.

At least last time I checked, we're not sure exactly about the details there. But yeah, the court schedule is Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday every week until the trial concludes, which could be a long time. I mean, jury selection itself is going to take a very long time in this case. Again, because of the the media saturation and just how difficult it's going to be to seat unbiased jurors here.

So this is we're in for a long haul. This case is not going to be a quick in and out sort of endeavor. So who made the decision not to televise this? This would have been the most watched live stream television trial in history. Well, look, a lot of this trial is going to revolve around relatively boring business records testimony.

So I'm not sure if people would actually really be glued to their TVs for that. I mean, they call it a hush money trial, but it really has very little to do with hush money. It has much more to do with the arcana of New York business records law. I believe the decision was made by the judge in this case not to televise.

I don't know exactly how that decision was made. But look, anything to reduce the media circus around around this crazy trial, I think is important. I was down outside the courthouse this morning. I mean, you have more TV trucks down in that little cluster of New York than you probably have in some fairly large sized states.

It's pretty insane just how how wall to wall the coverage has been. And I think that's really the plan here. Distract from the fact that we're on the verge of World War Three in the Middle East. Distract from our country's terrible moribund economy. Distract from inflation. Distract from the crisis at the border.

Distract from all the failures of the Biden administration. And instead focus the entire country's attention on this case that, as we said before, should have never been brought. That relates to events that happened the better part of a decade ago. And that really has no business in being in any courtroom. Much less in a courtroom with the defendant being a leading candidate for president. Well, we'll final thoughts here as far as that we've been through the timeline, we've been through kind of all the different legal arguments and some of the minutia regarding that.

Let's just kind of go big picture. There are other legal cases that might pop up federal cases. Do you think that Trump's going to be in a federal courthouse before Election Day? Look, actually, while we were on this call, we filed our reply brief in front of the US Supreme Court on our presidential immunity appeal, which the Supreme Court is going to hear a week from Thursday. I don't believe that any other criminal trial will make its trial before the election. I think we're pretty good on that point, especially if we win at the Supreme Court on presidential immunity. And that's good.

But again, I mean, for the next six to eight weeks, President Trump is going to be tied down in this New York thing. And that's just outrageous. All right. Will Scharf, thank you so much. Excellent work. We'll talk to you soon. Thank you. Great. Great to be with you, Charlie. Thanks.