Welcome back to the Dirt Show. I'm getting calls from the media now. Several of them saying be ready for an indictment to come down against Donald Trump. Maybe tomorrow, maybe Thursday, maybe Friday.

I don't know whether it's true or not, but my sources in the media tell me that the indictment would not be for mere unauthorized possession of classified material.

But for obstruction of justice in trying to prevent the justice department from getting to the bottom of the issue of how the classified material came to be at Marilago and what role Trump may have played in bringing it there. As you know, I predicted on this podcast, I predicted in print that there would be no indictment simply simply for the possession of classified material.

Obviously, we know that Joe Biden and Pence and others have possessed classified material and haven't been indicted, but I also predicted that the government would be seeking an indictment based on some obstruction of justice, some process charge, some charge relating to what he said.

And that's very common. People say it's always the cover-up. No, it's not. Most cover-ups, unfortunately, work, or at least the great many work. We only know about the ones that don't. And when a cover-up is exposed, yeah, there's a very high likelihood that we criminal prostitution.

But look, I haven't seen all the evidence. I haven't been to the grand jury. I haven't spoken to anybody who has confidential information. So I'm just speaking from what I read in the newspapers in here on the media, but from what I've seen, I don't see criminal obstruction of justice.

What I see is a difference between how the Biden's behaved, particularly how President Biden behaved, and how Trump behaved Biden immediately cooperated, said, yeah, do search anything. Do anything you want. Call me in, I'll answer all your questions. Completely, completely cooperative, which is, this is right. And probably in some moral sense, the right thing to do.

A Trump did not cooperate. He tried to make it harder for the government to obtain information that he believed they were trying to use to put him behind bars. That is his right under the Constitution, under the fifth and sixth amendments to the Constitution.

But the defendant doesn't have to cooperate with law enforcement. Whether you cooperate is not a matter of law or even a question of morality. It's a question of tactics.

Sometimes I have my clients cooperate when I think that we'll get them a better deal. But when I think the government has made up its mind, no way. You're not talking to them. You're not giving them permission to search. You're making every possible motion you can to prevent the search.

You are trying to obstruct what they believe is justice, what you believe is an injustice. I use obstruct loosely to mean prevent them from getting what they want.

Now there's a line between mere obstruction, which lawyers do all the time, raising motions, challenges, and illegal obstruction.

The line is not always clear. It's a very wiggly line between proper obstruction, constitutionally protected obstruction. Look, anybody takes the fifth amendment.

Anybody who plays the fifth amendment obstructs justice. Anybody who makes a motion to return a material that was seized in violation of the fourth amendment, the way, for example, the Marilago documents were obtained in violation of the fourth amendment. My constitutional belief, that's always obstructive, but it's not illegally obstructive. It's constitutionally protected obstructive.

The constitution talks about confronting witnesses. That's obstructive. You know, people in the B2 movements say, oh, you shouldn't be allowed to cross examine rape victims because they won't come forward. If they have to be cross examined, first of all, we don't know whether they're rape victims or whether they're victimizers. That's what a child is supposed to determine.

But you can't presume guilt. You can't presume that a person who claims to be sexually assaulted was sexually assaulted. You believe them enough to start an investigation, and then you go where the evidence takes you. If the evidence takes you to false charges, you go there and you cross, keep the false charger.

But you don't base your rules on presumption of guilt, the way they do. In many cases today, for example, keeping the names of alleged rape victims out of the newspapers and away from the jury sometimes even for a while.

That suggests the presumption of guilt, and that shouldn't be allowed to apply under our constitution.

So I'm anxious to see what the evidence is against Trump. Why they think he crossed the line from lawful obstruction to unlawful obstruction. The statute is completely unclear as to what makes the line.

Crossed completely unclear. The words in the obstruction of justice statute is so unclear, corrupt, motive. What does that mean as this thing which from a self-serving motive. These are issues that juries are asked to define judges, given the instructions, but the instructions are often as vague as the statutes.

And so you can easily stretch the obstruction statutes to fit political opponents, which is what I'm concerned, maybe happening in the Trump case again. I don't have to say this. I've said it too many times. I'm not a Trump supporter. I voted failure.

Hillary Clinton, I voted for Joe Biden, regrettably even voted for Barack Obama for his second term. I wish I hadn't. I wish I had voted for him. He would have been a better president, certainly on foreign policy.

...