Are we seeing the revitalization of conservative civilization, all over the world has been a massive backlash against globalization, its leftist leadership, and its anti-cultural liberal values.

And it's just the beginning.

I'm Dr. Steve Turling. I believe the liberal globalist world is at its brink and a new conservative age is rising.

Join me every day as we examine these worldwide trends, discover answers to today's toughest challenges, and together learn to live in the present in light of even better things to come.

This is Turley Talks.

Um, she and along with many others, of course, are wondering about Trump. What's going on there? What are your thoughts on the venue changing?

Then do you see right now?

Oh, yeah, by, by, oh, well, that, that's intentional. That's meant to, that's definitely meant to convict him. I mean, he will be convicted. That's not, but unless the Supreme Court steps in beforehand, as part of the appeal process.

But he will be convicted. That's, this is a puppet court. This is his third indictment and, you know, make no mistake on that.

The charges, ironically, of the four charges, what was missing, of course, was any insurrection charge.

Now, that's huge because there was some concern that the charge itself or its inevitable conviction in a corrupt DC court would prevent Trump from running or even being elected.

I'm glad we don't have to have that debate. I don't think it would have, but it would have been part of the debate.

DeSantis would have used it as part of his, uh, his, uh, I think incoherent strategy of relying on these indictments to get the nomination.

But that's off the table now, which is good because obviously they didn't have it. There was nothing there that they could use.

When you read the legal analysis of people like my name, St. Jonathan Turley, who's my go-to source for legal analysis, Alan Dershowitz, of course, is very good. Robert Barnes is excellent.

They all believe that this is without a doubt one of the poorest, most pathetic cases they've ever seen.

And that Dershowitz said it was the, it was the worst, it was, it was the least plausible legal cases ever seen in his entire career as a Harvard Law professor and as an attorney.

Turley's argument is that this is basically the prosecution free speech, but you might have heard that.

In other words, this corrupt prosecutor Jack Smith's case is entirely predicated in the notion that Trump knowingly lied about the election.

He has to do that because he knows that were he to try to try Trump on Trump declaring what he believed to be true.

He knew that would be a violation of First Amendment. So what he's trying to do is he's trying to say, well, Trump was a charlatan.

He was a charlatan that was pushing what he knew was a false conspiracy theory.

...