Welcome back, America, for the first time on this program. And why? I'm not sure, because John You is one of the best. I knew John You years ago before he was a famous commentator. And he knew me years ago when I was actually a litigator. Anyway, John You, a Professor, UC Berkeley law. That's got to be enjoyable. Former Deputy Assistant and Attorney General, Hoover Institution, visiting fellow. John You, quick questions here, but very important, I think, to hear your answer. I look at these cases against Trump. The civil case by LaTisha James, never been brought before in the history of the statute. The attempt by Bragg to take a misdemeanor and drag it through an FEC complaint and then create felony he's at the local level. Nobody's ever seen that before. A Riecke case where you're challenging an election, even at a different slate of electors. You know, that happened in 1876. Ellen Dershwitz has been here and said, We had a slate of electors ready to go in Florida before the Supreme Court. So that's not a crime. You have the January sixth case where there is no insurrection charge, no sedition charge, no Violent Act charge.

So we reach back to the 1871 Klan Act and the Enron Obstruction. Then finally, we look at the Florida case. The Espionage Act of 1917 has never been used against a president in American history. It's not really intended for that purpose. So when we look at this landscape, John EU, we don't really have statutes that are intended to be used in the way that they're being used. How do you approach all of what's going on against Donald Trump? What do you make of this?

Mark, great to be with you. And I'm glad you're not a litigator anymore and you're not suing people like me. But this is what's going on? You used to work at the Justice Department. I used to work at the Justice Department. One thing we understood is that prosecutors have enormous power in our society, and we have to restrain ourselves. We have to have the utmost integrity in choosing our cases because we could destroy someone's lives even if we don't win. I think that's what you see in case after case that you listed, Mark, that you're seeing prosecutors abuse their vast power because they're going after a man. They're not going after a crime. The great attorney general, Robert Jackson, who later went on the Supreme Court, warned prosecutors throughout the country, We don't go after people. That's what happens in Soviet Russia. That's what happens in Nazi Germany. Prosecutors have to go and prosecute the crime when it's in the national interest. And so what you're seeing here is prosecutors in New York City, in New York State, in Georgia, in Washington, stitching together, as you said, unprecedented readings of the law, cases that have never been brought against anyone because they just want to bring down Donald Trump.

And what I think this is a dangerous precedent because, I'm sorry to say, you've seen prosecutors acting badly. You've seen the hearings that have been going on in Georgia, for example, with Fannie Willis. I want to copyright the show title, Real Prosecutors of Atlanta. I mean, I can't believe prosecutors are acting this way. Or Alvin Bragg in New York City, who's up next, who might be the first prosecutor ever to bring a real courtroom case against a former president who is clearly making up the law. I don't even think he's really making up the law. I think he's actually violating the Constitution because he's trying to pretend he has the right to prosecute Donald Trump for federal campaign violations when the federal government investigated it and dropped it and chose not to bring any charges. This is something that the Supreme Court said is unconstitutional for state and city prosecutors to do. I think that's the important thing is, unfortunately, if prosecutors are going to act this way, they are not just going to get Donald Trump or not, but they are breaching a wall of responsibility that has kept prosecutors contained for 200 years.

What's going to when red state prosecutors want to go after Joe Biden or Hunter Biden, exactly the same way that blue state prosecutors are right now going after Donald Trump?

Let me ask you about that. We have a special counsel who issued a report that laid out by my count, at least a score of felonies against Joe Biden and the Espionage Act. And they have Joe Biden on record talking to his ghostwriter, They don't even know I have these, things of that sort. And that's when he was vice Vice President when he was a senator. And so the special counsel says, But we're not going to prosecute him because I don't think a jury would find him guilty. He doesn't have his wits about him. But that document is filled with probable cause. I mean, loaded with probable cause, which is what prosecutors look at. So my question to you is this. We have this three-judge panel in Washington, DC, that has ruled that presidential immunity in no matter follows a President out of office. Does that mean Then that the next Republican administration can take a look at that report and say, Well, that's fine. That's what Mr. Hur decided. But he's laid out a compelling, brutal case of multiple felonies committed by Joe Biden when he wasn't President of the United States. So you know what?

We're going to charge him. Isn't that possible now?

Oh, that's exactly right, Mark. If you read that report, it makes out, as I agree with you, a strong case to bring against Joe Biden for violating the very same Espionage Act laws that are currently being pressed against Donald Trump down in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. And in fact, you could say the violations are worse because Joe Biden has been collecting these classified documents ever since he was in the Senate. He wasn't the President. There's no fight, as there is in the Trump case, about whether Trump declassified that document. I'm sorry, Biden took them over a course of years, and his only defense is that, I'm a well-meaning elderly man who can't remember things.

When we come back, I have another question for you in this regard, regarding immigration and the people who've been harmed by the failure to comply with immigration laws at the federal level. People have died, people have been brutalized, people's property have been damaged, and yet we have, again, the circuit ruling that basically a citizen can bring a civil action against a former president of the United States. I'm going to ask you about that. Hey, Sean Hannity here. Hey, click here to subscribe to Fox News' YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You will not get it anywhere else.