Welcome back, America. Professor John You, these decisions against Trump do have consequences for future presidents and ex presidents, which is my point. Let me ask you on the civil side, the court has basically thrown open the door in many respects. They've allowed people to sue Donald Trump over January sixth, police officers and others who claim injury as a result of his alleged actions or lack of actions. So my question to you is this. The federal immigration laws are very specific about what should and shouldn't be done. Mayorkas has been impeached. They've laid out a pretty strong case when you read these articles. They've issued executive orders. They've done all these things, and people are being damaged. People are dying from the drugs coming across. Their properties are being damaged. People are being raped and brutalized, and God knows what. Does this not at least open the door to lawyers to push the argument that, wait a minute, you ruled in Washington, DC, that a President could be sued civilly for conduct or actions that rationally follow from his decisions or lack of decisions. Doesn't that spring opened thousands of doors for possible litigation?

Yeah, Mark, you still got that litigator mindset in your head. I think that's exactly right. If the Supreme Court is going to start undermining the principle of presidential immunity, as the lower courts are doing the DC circuit, then eventually you are going to see more lawsuits, not just against a Donald Trump. You're going to see them against a Barack Obama or against a Joe Biden, because the whole point of immunity was to make sure the presidents could reach policy decisions without constantly having to worry about being sued. We want them to make the decisions that are best for the country and not just best for their personal legal liabilities. But if the DC circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court, I think, start to question the immunity that presidents have, as you say, in the January 6 trials by the police officers, for example, who were harmed in the riot, then that's going to bring that doctrine and protection for presidents into doubt. And there's no reason why President Biden then would be immune when Donald Trump is not.

One of the other things that seems to be a common thread in these cases, particularly at the federal level, is the rush to judgment, the cutting corners on appeal, the cutting corners on the right to even bring an appeal. You see that at the DC circuit where the three judge panels said, Oh, by the way, you don't appeal here, and you have seven days to appeal to the Supreme Court. I can tell you in all my years, I've never seen anything like that in my life. I think it raises a serious due process question. And it's almost like the New York case where they're saying, Oh, you can appeal, but cough up $400 million. And if you don't cough it up, we're going to steal your property. We're going to sell them pennies on the dollar. And that's the punishment you're going to get just because you want to appeal. Have you seen things like this before, let alone against the former President of the United First, Mark, this has never happened with the former President.

We have never allowed the legal system to harass someone like this with these cases in both federal and state court. I still have some waning faith in the federal court system, at least in Washington DC, that the Supreme Court justices are watching that, and they've already rebuffed the special counsel, Jack Smith, a few times. What worries me is what's going on in the state courts, like New York. You just said it, Mark. I think in part, this 350 Million Damages Award, which has $100 million of interest tacked onto it, is so large, not connected to any damages anybody suffered on whether Donald Trump allegedly inflated his assets to get better mortgage terms. That amount, I think, is so large in part because it's designed to prevent Donald Trump from appealing. Because to appeal that case, he has to put up $450 million just to get a hearing in the appellee court to correct what I think looked like bias from the trial judge in that case.

That's a great point. It's the first time I've heard it. So you make the penalty so high that basically, effectively, you're trying to prevent him from appealing. I think the President's people should immediately move for a stay, try and get this case in the federal court, and try and get it to the Supreme Court under the eighth Amendment or some other aspect, because to keep going to Democrats who act like Democrats rather than real prosecutors and real judges becomes a problem. John, you I want to thank you. It does amaze me that you're a professor at UC Berkeley Law, not because of your brilliance, but because of your attitude and your viewpoint. So hang in there.

Thanks. We all need to have thick skins these days, and I certainly have it in Berkeley.

Yeah. Well, God bless you, my friend. You're great.

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.