Welcome back, America. We're here with our friend John Yu, really one of the foremost legal scholars in the country, former Deputy Assistant Attorney, General, US, UC Berkeley Law Professor, Hoover Institution, Visiting Fellow, and all-around great guy. John, you. You see this case in Manhattan. How bad is it for our nation? How bad is it for our electoral system? How bad is it for the rule of law, for federalism, the whole kick and caboodle?

Mark, thanks for having me back. I am saddened at what this case has now done to our political and constitutional system. It's hard to exaggerate the harm that it's going to do not just to Donald Trump. He's important. But the more important question is, what does this do to our institutions? As you said, our legal system, our electoral system, our system of federalism and the separation of powers for all future presidents, for all future citizens. First, we have never prosecuted a former president before. This was not because past presidents hadn't done anything bad. It's because we thought it was the best thing for our separation of powers to leave presidents alone. The reason why is because the Constitution concentrates so much responsibility and authority in the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, to protect the country from foreign threats, that we don't want our presidents, when they're making the hardest decisions on behalf of the country, to be worrying about whether they're going to be prosecuted or not. We don't want our presidents to be insurance claims adjusters, worrying about risks and balances of their own personal finances in their own personal legal situation.

We want them to decide what's best for the country. Now, because this case was so frivolous, because it was based on such concocted legal theories, it opens the door wide now for any Any DA, and there are 2,500 of them in the country, any DA to sue and prosecute any president, any past president, perhaps any sitting president under the theories that were put forward earlier. I think an even worse problem is for the rule of law, because what we've all learned now, I think, is that prosecutors can destroy a person. They can destroy a person's reputation, his finances, just by investigating them, even before they get to court, just by publicly announcing that they're investigating investigating someone. We have, for 230 years, relied on prosecutors, on our elected chief executives, governors and presidents, to show against statesmanship, to show good judgment, not to abuse this power. But now what we've seen is that I think the Biden Justice Department and these Blue City DAs are abusing this power, not to try to stop crime, but to target individuals because they don't like them, because they're unpopular, and then to find the crimes to fit the man.

That is a direct assault on the rule of law. And that harms all of us in the country, all the citizens, not just Trump, not just presidents, but you and me and everyone else.

And what about the electoral system when you have one of these DAs deciding that they get to decide or try to decide the outcome of an election through the process, they can make a ambiguous reference to federal law, seize jurisdiction, from what is a complex layer of federal authorities and decision-makers when it comes to federal election campaign law, let alone seize the authority from federal courts and the Supreme Court to make these decisions, regardless of what the New York courts say up and down the chain. I mean, whatever the New York courts say up and down the chain, that is not the final decision. If the federal Supreme Court decides to step in, that's the final decision for your New York. So if I'm in California and I see that it worked in New York because we have this lumbering appellate process, but I can interfere with an election. By the time the appellate process catches up with me, so be it, they're going to time it the same way. This can really become a cancer on the political campaign system of the highest federal official in the United States and the election there, too.

No? Mark, I appreciate what you said in your opening statement, because the Supreme Court has made clear, not just in one off-site comment, in three very clear decisions that only Only the federal government can enforce federal law. Only the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission can prosecute and bring suit for violations of federal election law. They're the guardians of how federal election should run. And so what happened here is that the DA, approved by this judge, Judge Murchon, grabbed the authority away and basically decided to prosecute his own interpretation of federal law. That's not permissible under our separation powers and federalism, and the Supreme Court will reverse if, as you say, Mark, they get a chance to hear this case.

When we come back, John, that is my question. So should we sit on our hands, say there's nothing we can do, let it all work its way through the courts in New York? Despite all the impacts we said, despite the fact that those courts can't even catch up with the electoral process, and that's intentional. That's why the case was time when it was time. Should we just sit back and say, Well, that's a rare chance that they'll take it, and so forth, and so on? And that's that. That's my question to you.

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.