Well, come back to the Dirt Show. I'm going to have breaking news in a minute that you will hear nowhere else but put here, but I'm going to start out with a song.

I think I have.

I'm going to have to sing it myself. If any of you remember Pajama game, there's a great song. I figured it out.

I figured it out where the pencil and a pen. I figured it out. I did it. I figured out why the Justice Department didn't subpoena the classified documents.

They claim that former president Trump has in Marilago. Why they went for a search warrant instead of a subpoena, a little bit of background.

Generally, when you want documents, you subpoena them. You send a subpoena to the lawyer. You say, I want these documents, that document, documents in this drawer, documents in that drawer, any document that's classified, any document, etc.

Here in the lawyer will often turn over the documents. Here's the issue, and I'm sure I'm right about this. This is based on 60 years of experience in dealing with issues like this.

It's a very complicated matter, and I hope you will follow me because it's correct.

If the Justice Department had said to Trump's lawyers, we want you to produce this piece of classified material.

Trump's lawyers could respond by saying, no, we have a right not to produce this material.

You may have a right to have the material because the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply the things that have already been written. If they find a note, I just killed somebody.

That's not protected by the Fifth Amendment. It used to be under the old law, but it's not protected by the Fifth Amendment.

But if they subpoena from me a note, and I hand that note over to the Justice Department, then the fact that I handed over the note could be used in evidence, and that's particularly so in a case involving the contraband drugs or classified material.

So if Trump were to respond to a subpoena that said hand over classified material or hand over a document that was written on January 7, 2018, he would be incriminating himself.

It's called production incrimination. It means that the document itself is not privileged, but the act of handing over the document is privileged.

And so Trump's lawyers would say, no, we have a right not to hand over that document. You may have a right to the document, but you don't have a right to have me handed over to you and then use that in court as evidence that I possessed it had it in my possession.

I didn't have my possession. It couldn't be turned over.

So the Justice Department has a way around that. It's called production immunity. That is, they say to me, you have to produce this. We're entitled to have it, but you have immunity from us using the fact that you produced it.

And so at a trial, the document can be given to the jury, but the jury can't be told that it was you who produced it. Very technical. How many angels can dance on the head of a pen, but the Supreme Court has ruled that there's a difference between the document itself, the content of which is not protected by the Fifth Amendment.

And the act of production, the act of producing the document, which is protected by the Fifth Amendment. That hasn't always been the case in the famous case of Aaron Burr, who was being tried for trees in the front of an obscure judge named John Marshall, who was then the Chief Justice of the United States.

A subpoena was issued for material that Aaron Burr had. Aaron Burr said, no, I'm not turning over this material. It's self-impriminating. And the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Marshall, he just wrote it for himself, not for the Supreme Court.

He wrote an opinion saying that the Fifth Amendment protects because the content of the material is incriminating. That has been overruled in subsequent years.

...