Dave Davies

But when you look at how and why it happened in a lot of times, it's just normal human stuff.

I mean, like the Justice Department was overwhelmed trying to prosecute the January 6th attackers.

And so, you know, it was distracted.

And the Michigan attorney general was

had a problem with pursuing it maybe because she was a Democrat seeking reelection.

There are just a lot of factors and considerations that imposed caution and led to the delay.

But I'm wondering, you know, as you talk to FBI leaders about this now, do any of them express regret?

Do they say, yes, we should have moved with urgency?

I would ask a question that might be a little outside your lane and you can pass if you want to but I'm curious about it.

It strikes me that the American people deserved a chance to hear the evidence that the Justice Department had developed about Donald Trump's alleged interference and make a judgment.

I mean a jury of course would also make a judgment.

given the constraints of the trial and the legal arguments and all that.

But it would have been a useful thing for the American public to really hear their case about what happened and hear Trump's defense.

That didn't happen.

But on the other hand, I think realize, you know, anybody who saw the January 6th congressional hearings said,

I don't know how you could see that and not be appalled by it.

And it seemed there was a very persuasive case that Trump sought to overturn the results of a fair election.

But it sure doesn't seem that a majority of American voters believe that, right?

I mean – and I just wonder.

Do you think it would have made a difference in terms of his electability, in terms of how the American people feel about him if there had been a trial?