So maybe the choice is yours. In November, Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior Judicial Analyst Judge, I want to break back to the beginning of what I said earlier. And the biggest thing that I want to talk about first is the fact that a judge dismissed the motion to have Trump's gag order appealed. Basically, it's like this guy is running for president and he can't talk about the political prosecution from someone who's just blew off a subpoena today. So this is this is not just a judge. So there's two gag orders here. One is in Georgia. Where the trial judge refused to modify his own gag order prohibiting President Trump from criticizing a potential witnesses in the case. The other one that came down late last night is the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, where all seven members of the court. That's the highest court in the state, decided not to hear the appeal of his gag order. Are you ready for this? Because in their opinion, it does not. You can't make this up. It does not raise a constitutional issue, does not raise a constitutional issue. It is the most profound constitutional issue of our day. Whether judges can silence people from being critical of the system outside the courtroom, they refuse to hear the appeal. So the gag order. Trump's trial was over five months ago. The gag order still applies. Well, but, judge, I mean, like, how can you you can't not even not even a hearing. They just decided not to hear it at all. Correct. There was no hearing, no oral argument. And the only reason given a head scratcher is that there's no constitutional issue involved. Even though a high school student could articulate the constitutional issue involved. So President Trump will proceed throughout the campaign, unable to speak his mind about Michael Cohen and the others who testified against him in that case, in that courtroom that we're looking at right now, Benjamin Franklin would have been grabbing muskets at this point. All right. So a Georgia judge dismissed these two criminal counts in the Rico election interference case. And then another one against some one of his allies in that. I'm glad this is happening. But it's like at some point so many things are getting dismissed and shut down for wrongful, wrongful charges and wrongfully appointing prosecutors. That eventually it's got to just fall apart. No. Well, we won't know where this case is going until November 6th if we know the outcome of the election on November 6th, if he wins the election, this case, hopefully this case is over. If he loses the election, the case proceeds. Unfortunately, the most serious charges against him were not dismissed. But you'll be intrigued by the ones that were dismissed. The ones that were dismissed, the judge found, arguably implicate federal law and state law. And since federal law is superior and the feds have not charged him with this in Georgia, it trumps lower case t the state's ability to charge him. So when federal law and state law are the same and the feds don't use it, the states have to remain silent. Very, very interesting argument. I doubt that she'll appeal it. She has such a low reputation with the court system in her own state in Georgia. I doubt she appeals this dismissal. Well, she's also got a worse reputation with the state Senate down there because she apparently just skipped out on a subpoena to go to a D.C. fundraiser. Like, hey, I don't really feel like going to this. So when that happens, the legislature at taxpayer expense has to hire lawyers to go before a judge to get the subpoena enforced. And once she is the recipient of a judicial order to comply with that subpoena, she'll have no choice but to go. Or she could end up spending time in one of her own jails. You I mean, I know you want that to happen. Oh, yes, I do. I know you hope she persists because you want to see. You want to see that outcome. May I explain something that one of those moderators said, the other night? How wrong it is when she said is no in no state in the union, is it legal to kill babies? Key word is to kill in 12 states in the union. It is legal to let them die. I mean, same thing I would, I would, I mean like outcome the outcome is the same. An affirmative act of killing is infanticide. Letting a baby starve to death dehydrate because the mother doesn't want the baby, because the baby was aborted at full term. It's hard to imagine this perfectly law