Bonus stuff that I couldn’t fit into the quote:
“But let's do it. Let's -- let's indict a big criminal lib. Let's -- let's indict two of them. That they are going after our guy, let's go after five of their guys. There's no risk here. Some people push back against this suggestion. They say, well, we're better than them, Michael. We're -- yeah, sure. I think we are better than them. I'm not suggesting we do anything illegal or unjust. I'm not saying we go after an innocent lib, I'm saying we should go after a criminal lib against whom the law has not been applied. The argument against doing that is that we want to preserve our norms and we don't want to live in a country where we throw the vanquished political opposition into orange jumpsuits. I agree. I don't want to live in that country. But the only reason for which we should be concerned about that norm is if the norm continues to exist. The libs are breaking that norm, that's not our fault. We have nothing to say. We're saying don't violate the norm. Don't -- don't start arresting the opposition leaders in our country. But if they're going to do that, then we've got to play the game. Otherwise we're just surrendering to the people who are abusing our political system the most.
So, okay, they want to indict Trump? Fine. I want to see every Republican governor and attorney general with the political capital, with the power to do so, to indict prominent criminal libs. And I think you should indict multiple and you should throw the book at them and you should find every stupid little fake misdemeanor charge and you should trump it up as high as you possibly can. Okay? You -- the reason that you have to do this, the reason this would be good for our political order is because it would show the libs that there are consequences to their actions. It would discourage further predations on our political order.”