Good morning. Welcome back into Wake Up America. Glad you're here. So the Georgia court overseeing President Donald Trump's Fani Willis, election interference case just threw out a handful of criminal counts as the cases against Donald Trump continue to fall apart across the country. The judge dismissing three charges, ultimately ruling that state prosecutors did not have the authority to charge Trump in the first place. How about that? For more, let's welcome in former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano, also host of the Judging Freedom podcast. Good morning guys. If the same attitude had prevailed in the in the mind of the judge in New York state courts can't prosecute federal charges, there would have been no federal prosecution, which has resulted in a conviction. And as we know, a sentencing is now scheduled for the week of Thanksgiving. So the judge in Georgia looked at a line in the Constitution called the supremacy Clause, which basically says this Constitution and all laws written pursuant to it shall be the supreme law of the land. So if a state legislature has written the law and the feds have written a law governing the same area, the federal law will supersede. Therefore, since the feds are not charging Donald Trump for anything he did in Georgia, the state can't as well. That applies to just three of the eight charges against him, and those charges were attempting these. The allegations, attempting to falsify documents, going to the federal government to prove who the true electors were in Georgia, in other words, stating that Trump won Georgia and his electors should go to the Electoral College that is a federal area that is not available for the state to prosecute the rest of the charges against him stay. You know, it's interesting the justice Department prosecuting people for speech on the same day that Merrick Garland comes out and claims the DOJ is completely indifferent. What did you make of that in his remarks yesterday? Well, I wrote a column yesterday called Free Speech and the Department of Political Justice because the department is acting very politically. So in the same week that it charged Americans, Russians and Canadians with propaganda, the attorney general makes a speech that we believe in the freedom of speech, and we are not political. These charges are absolutely political. I analogize them to Soviet show trials where people were put on on trial for articulating political views against what the Soviet Union leaders wanted in the 60s. That's what Merrick Garland is doing. On one hand, and on the other hand, he's denying that he's doing it. Yeah, the DOJ should not be. And you say evaluating our words, the First Amendment exists to protect the speech that you do not agree with, correct? Not the speech that you do agree with. Kamala Harris on debate night, judge said that, oh, you know, Charlottesville, they were talking about Charlottesville on debate night. And Kamala said, oh, these these protesters were using, you know, hate speech. Hate to say it, Madam Vice President, hate speech is protected speech in this countr. That's why it's the First Amendment. Hate speech is protected speech. Propaganda is protected speech offensive speech is protected. The whole purpose of the First Amendment. This is not me. This is the Supreme Court, is to keep the government out of the business of evaluating the content of speech. We're not talking about a guy with a bullhorn and a residential neighborhood at three in the morning. We're talking about the content of political speech and a political forum is none of the government's business. You can't prosecute someone for it. And who cares what the government thinks of people's speech? I want to ask you about Trump's case in lower Manhattan. Do you think it could be moved to the federal courts? Well, yesterday, a three judge panel on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in Manhattan upheld a federal trial court saying, no, it is almost unheard of for a criminal conviction in a state court to be sent to a federal court for sentencing and that's basically what the feds have ruled. So the sentencing is now the week of Thanksgiving. Everything is going to turn on November fifth. If he wins that election, he's not going to be sentenced to any time in jail. The week of what if he loses that election? He is he is in jeopardy of incarceration. Do you think that happens? I here's what I think the judge will do. Judge Merchan I think he'll sentence him to six months in jail and suspend five months of