We are awaiting the possibility of a Trump indictment. It would be the first criminal case filed against a former president, unprecedented in American history, and it all hinges on the alleged falsification of business records for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars payment to Stormy Daniels. We've heard from people like Nancy Pelosi and people on the left and they say, oh, well, Donald Trump's not above the law. Well, sure, you know, I'd agree with that. No one's above the law, but he's also not below it. He's not the first person in America to pay someone off with an NDA, and he's certainly not going to be the last. We all know why they're doing this. They look at Trump as a trophy and they're willing to burn down the country and the rule of law to try to get him. They've been pursuing this switch hunt from Donald Trump from the day that he announced his candidacy for presidency. They'll stop at nothing to try to get him. I mean, I don't have any faith in government anymore, do you. They've corrupted the Department of Justice, They've corrupted the FBI. I don't believe there's an eco application of the law in this country, certainly not out of the Manhattan DA's office in New York City. We'll talk to former Acting Attorney General Matt Whittaker, he was the acting Attorney General under President Trump about all of this, what he thinks about the case. We'll get into the details of the case, what you need to know about it, and also what does this all mean for both former President Trump but also the country moving forward. What sort of precedent does this set in America? So stay tuned. You're not gonna want to miss this conversation with Matt Whittaker. Matt Whittaker, it's been a while since we've caught up. I wish I was under a different circumstances than this clown show that we're going to be talking about here. Well, yes, I agree. You know, typically people called me on their worst possible days, and so you know, obviously you're not calling for legal advice, so that's good. But yeah, it's you know, what's going on right now with Donald Trump and the Manhattan DA is unprecedented and it's a little crazy. I'm sure most people listening are just shaking their heads. We're awaiting this possible indictment. This is the first criminal case that would be filed against a former president. Are they going to do it? The inner workings of a grand jury are very interesting. You know, we had Michael Cohen's former lawyer who went in on Monday and I think maybe gave the prosecutor and his team a little bit of pause. I mean, you know, you ultimately you have to get a supermajority of the grand jury to vote for the indictment, and your star witness is a convicted felon and somebody whose whole goal in life is to, you know, get Donald Trump and to punish Donald Trump. I just don't think that makes a very attractive case, certainly to a trial jury, but I think even to a grand jury. If I'm you know, a citizen of this country and I'm looking at this fact pattern, and I'm looking at all the legal jumps which we'll talk about in a little bit that they're going to have to make to make this case, I'm not sure there's a choice Lisa, that you know you have. Either what they can voting you to vote a true bill on the indictment, which means they vote to approve the indictment, and the process moves forward or they can no billet. And it's very rare for a grand jury to no bill an indictment presented to them by a prosecutor. But it happens, and and and it shows that they're actually engaged. I mean, it's often been said that a grand jury wouldn't diet a ham sandwich. And I don't necessarily agree with that extreme a case, but it's a very low bar. It's probable cause standard, not what you know, again we'll talk about later. The trial jury is gonna have to consider which is a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. So I think it's going to be a close call even to get an indictment tomorrow. And if they do get an indictment, I mean it's going to be it's going to be complete and utter chaos for a while. You know. And we're talking about a grand jury in New York City, a liberal city. So what does that kind of grand jury look like. Well, it's going to look like the citizens of New York City, citizens of Manhattan. So it's going to skew left. You know, a lot of them are not, you know, big fans of Donald Trump. But I hope we at least that we're not in a situation in our country where people just like lose their reason and common sense. You know, when I give closings at trials, I always talk to the jury about just you know, that they did not check their reason and common sense at the door. And I think these grand juries, certainly the grand jurors can certainly use their reason and common sense to look at the facts and decide whether they think that's a crime. I think there's a lot of people that don't think it's a crime. Certainly, a lot of people that don't think it's a felony. You know, whether or not he altered a business record, you know, that's a misdemeanor under New York law. And I don't see that the elevated the way they're trying to elevate this to a felony is going to be successful to me. Ultimately, we can we can get it in that as well. Yeah, you know, of course, the allegation is that there was a falsification of business records for this one hundred and thirty thousand dollars payment to Stormy Daniels. From your legal perspective, does it look like a crime was committed here? Yeah, I mean, that's that's a great question. I mean, you know sort of these these you know that that's going to be a question that the jury is going to have to wrestle with if it goes to trial, and that that an appellate court is going to have to decide what the law is on that is, you know, it is characterizing something as a legal fee, um, you know, the same as a you know, as a settlement expense. You know, I think that's a I think that's probably a closer call than a lot of people maybe originally would think until they kind of consider it, um, you know what this was for, you know, I mean, and then you know, what they're really trying to say is that it was a campaign expense. And I can tell you that, you know, while I was acting Attorney General, the Southern District in New York looked at this fack pattern. It's the exact same back pattern on the idea of a campaign finance violation, and they determined that it wasn't a campaign finance violation. I'll tell you why. I think it's you know, it's a really interesting question. First, a little history. You know, they they tried to do this, you know, remember John Edwards paid you know, his UM fair a fair partner if you will, on which call. But it was also on his campaign a settlement out of his campaign fund, not his personal funds. And DJ prosecutor John Edwards, and John Edwards was acquitted at trial UM and it was it was pretty clear from that acquittal that you know, some of these things, you know, a personal flash campaign expense, you know, might not rise to that level of the campaign finance violation. But I will tell you this, what really is is at the heart of this issue is this is the idea of a settlement agreement. Whether Donald Trump was intimate with Stormy Gans, I believe President Trump I don't think he was. But you know, either way, it doesn't matter for the for the purposes of what I'm going to explain, and that is is that certainly, in twenty sixteen, in the fall, he was running for president, he was a candidate. Certainly, a settlement to keep somebody quiet from speaking out, you know, could be argued to, you know, have benefited his campaign, but not everything that benefits your campaign is a campaign expense. If you're a candidate and you go to lunch during a campaign stop, and you pay for your own lunch. That's certainly not a campaign violation. And so on the other hand, you know, it's also a personal expense that you know, because obviously it didn't just affect his campaign, it affected his personal life. It affect his relationship with his wife, relationship with his kids, a relationship with his business. So this at best, it's a it's a it's a combo personal and campaign expense, and under the law, that doesn't make it a campaign expense and therefore a violation of campaign finance law. And I can give you a stronger argument, and that is that the Federal Election Commission looked at this exact same fact pattern as well, in addition to Southern District from New York, and they also concluded that this was not a campaign finance violation. So you know, in my mind, this is a very aggressive and it takes this campaign finance violation, this felony to get this what was otherwise a misdemeanor. We were talking about, this qualtification of business records to be elevated to a felony. And therefore, you know, actually do some you know, some real meaningful you know, legal damage to you know, the president well and campaign finance violations, you know, typically it ends up in a fine. I mean New York City's Mayor Eric Adams is currently facing likely fines for accepting legal campaign contributions, improperly accounting for them, and then also ignoring request for documentation by state election authorities. Certainly don't think he's going to be facing a felony by Alvin Bragg. And that's really where this thing gets really dubious is because, let's stay on its face, it would potentially be a misdemeanor, but the statute of limitations are up for a misdemeanor on this particular case with Trump, So they're reaching for a felony. And for that, I mean they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only did he intend, you know, declare, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended by this falsification of records to conceal the commission of another crime in the process, I mean a felony here. I'm not an attorney, you are, but just from a common sense standpoint, seems like a reach on what they're accusing him of. It is. And the other thing is, you know, I'm not prone to what about is m I don't think it really furthers the art argument very often, but in this case it kind of. I do do it sometimes I'm not going to, I know, but I mean Hillary Clinton was fined for hiding the Fusion GPS research in the Russian collusion, you know, the dossier as as payments to a law firm, and certainly that's a falsification of a business record. And you don't see album Brag showing any interest in going after her for that crime, you know. So, and then you know, we have this whole statute of limitations issue as well. So you have the felony issue that we're talking about right now, and then you have a statute of limitations challenge that's going to be very interesting how they contort themselves because the alleged behavior happened seven years ago, and the statue limitations for even a felony it's five years, misdemeanors two years. That's clearly passed time wise, and so you know, I think this case, as we break it down, just becomes a huge leap to you know, and under the guise of that, they were just wanted to target Donald Trump and we're going to prosecute him no matter what, and so you mentioned for the felony they're trying to say, as my understanding is that because he's been outside of the state of New York that somehow that like pauses the statute of limitations for the felony charges. That correct. I forget what the what it's exactly called. So my actual understanding of their argument is that the payments to Michael Cohen were over a couple of years, and that they're barely within the last payment is within that five years. I think that I haven't heard the extra jurisdictional argument. Maybe there's one that's one as well. But I read a nice piece by your colleague Andy MacArthur, or maybe it was John Turley, one of them wrote kind of a breakdown of sort of this idea of how to get within the five years, and still believe that it was a little, uh specul to try to get it within that window of five years, because I thought I was reading an article from him as well, and I forget what it was called, but there's like a certain word for it that they can But anyways, well you can toll the states, right, Yes, I don't. I don't. I just it's going to be a novel theory under a New York law. I just I think it's I don't you know, usually if you're just in another state, that's not I mean, if you're out of the country, I might pull but in another state, I don't, that's not. I'm not familiar with that because but again, this is they're going to use every aggressive technique to try to, you know, prosecute Donald Trump. That's pretty clear to me right now. But I mean it seems like even in this conversation even trying to come up with what they would possibly do, I mean, we're even reaching and trying to figure out how they would reach. So it's like, you know, and and and they have to get to a point of beyond a reasonable doubt here, and so I just feel like if we're even having a you know, trouble trying to figure out, you know, how they're reaching, I mean, how do they reach that standard? I don't know. This is I've I've found myself in trying to explain this whole situation several times just resorting to the I don't know, because it doesn't make any sense. It's unprecedented. So we're you know, we're in brand new uncharted territory. At the same time, you know, some of these legal theories and ideas that they're trying to use just don't make any sense to me. And you know, again, I'm used to where you bring a case because you not only believe in the case, but it's it's one of your priorities, it helps your community, and um, and it's you're gonna you're you're certain of that you're gonna have a really good chance of winning the case or getting a plea. This seems like completely opposite of all those tenants. Um, it's not going to help the citizens of Manhattan at all. It's certainly not making their lives better. Uh, you know. And at the same time, uh, it just does not seem like that the chance of winning this case is at best a coin flip. I think it's actually worse than that. I think the probability is probably less than twenty percent that they can actually get this to a conviction, conviction that'll stick quick commercial break more with Matt Whittaker. Here, people like Nancy Pelosi and the left and they say, oh, well, you know, Trump isn't above the law. You know, sure, I agree that no one's above the law, but I agree with that below it either you know, and he's he's not below the equal application of the law. And it's hard to imagine that this is if this was just you know, any other person, even any other political candidate, that they would be trying to reach for a felony or even trying to potentially indict that individual on this. I completely agree with you. I think this is may cause I know something. There's instant speculation that this would cause a quote unquote war, but you're going to see. I'm worried if this is successful, that there is going to be a real desire or let's just say it, for revenge for the right and their prosecutors to start targeting the left. And I don't think that. I don't think that should be done. I don't think it should be done on either side. I don't think there should be a targeting of individuals by the state. And that's unfortunately what the Democrats appear to one. I mean, they just continue to pursue this path, and I don't think I don't think they're going to end with Donald Trump. I mean, I just think all conservatives and it's certainly all you know, high profile political office holders, and you know, pundits are our fair game. And in this in Alvin Braggs and George Soils and the liberal left worldview, and you know, I guess to some extent, you know, it's just like all other lawfare. It's just one of the tools in the battle between the sides. But I just it's it's when we make the political criminal, I think we all lose. And I think our founding fathers will be very concerned about what's happening right now. Well, and what's worrisome too is I mean, look, the left looks at Trump like a trophy. You know, they're all trying to get that trophy to get up. But you know, in the process, they've set the country on fire, you know, I mean they've destroyed the rule of law. They've corrupted the FBI, they've corrupted the Department of Justice. Americans have no faith in institutions or a government anymore. So in the process of trying to get Donald Trump since twenty sixteen, they've destroyed the country. And the process isn't that what marks us to do? Ultimately? I mean, you know, they undermine the institutions, and they you know, they they they're always quick to you know, point the finger at those of us on the right and suggest that somehow we're we started or we did it. I mean, I don't think I think trying to you know, sort of uh dismantle the permanent uh, you know, bureaucratic state is actually a good goal. Um. You know, I was, you know, I don't think there's any reason we started shouldn't start having serious discussions about moving the government out of Washington, DC and into the states, you know, distributing the government to the people instead of consolidating power within one national capital. Um. I just you know, I just think I think we I think we need to really roll up our sleeves and and and rethink how we get back to these basic and fundamental um tenets of our founding, you know, our constitutional separation of powers, not only between the three branches of federal government, between the between the federal government and the states. And I think we also need to look at how, you know, the rule of law. I think we need to look at how we can make these powerful positions that prosecutors have accountable. And especially when you have these places like Manhattan where it's just one party rule, it's it's destabilizing our country, and you know, and it's also distracting our country at least. So this is what I worry about. You know, we had massive banking challenges, we have you know, serious national security challenges China and Russia and North Korea. And you know, we know that we have alliances with other countries that they're begging us to engage and protect and work with them. I'm thinking of Australia and Japan, India our prime examples of that. The world is not a safe place, and you know, the United States has to lead and right now, Joe Biden and the Democrats it's a clown show and all they want to do is prosecute Donald Trump. It's it's really sad well, and in part that might be why they're doing it, you know, as well, to try to distract from the fact that you know, the country is falling apart. And it seems right now to your point, centralization a government that has taken place, has you know, destroyed the country. You know what happens to a country when you lose the rule of law, which is the direction we're heading in in America right now. Yeah, I mean, I think it's not good. I mean, because then it becomes you know, essentially which you have in China, where there's a there's a powerful elite that decide everything. You know, they decide what the law is, they decide who the law applies to, who the law doesn't apply to, and then there's a you know, obviously a consolidation of power and um and wealth among those people in control. It's not it's not good, but you know, this is what you know. Democrats would always love to take other people's money and you know, and and pretend like they you know, they're wealthy, well, and that's the thing, and they push things like you know, socialism, but you know, all that really does is empower the elite. So if you're Bernie Stander or you're you're fine, you're part of the ruling class. It's everyone else that gets screwed. Let's say that this this goes down. You know, Trump is indicted. What sort of legal recourse does he have and all of this to try to continue to fight it? What's the process there? Knowing Donald Trump as I know him, he's going to fight with everything he has. I hope he's got a good team of lawyers. I know some of them. I don't know all of them, um, but you know there's going to be a lot of motions. If he's dined, there's gonna be a lot of emotions, um. And those motions if they're denied or could be appealed depending on what you know, what the characterization is. And then you know there's obviously potentially federal appeals that could be done, especially in this campaign finance area we were discussing earlier. And so there's there's going to be a lot of twists and turns to this and a lot of opportunities for us to talk about Elisa. So they look forward to come back on the future. It seems like it's potentially inevitable. But you know, and also I think what are the concerns too, is you know, they've tried to make working for Trump so toxic. Can he get great legal help right now? Yeah? I mean certainly, I think that has been a challenge for him, is to find really good people that you know, are willing to I guess, you know, put everything on the line to defend the rule of law. But I think, you know, again, I think the guy certainly working on the Special Council's investigation is a great lawyer, and I think there will be others, and there's plenty of you know, good lawyers in New York City that could help him on this case. And so I think you'll find I think you'll find the right person. But his you know, his fighting spirit is indomitable, and so I think that you know, that will be um, that will be good in the long term. If he is indicted, what are the next steps then that he would be facing in the process. Well, so if he's indicted, the next steps are a restaurant will be issued or a notice to appear. Um, you know, if Alvin Bragg has any class, you will just give them a notice to appear. There will then be you know, the initial parents the processing, which involves mugshot, fingerprinting and the like, and then there will be a trial schedule set and a discovery order that's put in place to for the governments from overall the evidence that they have in their possession and all exam exculpatory evidence as well, and then you know, we just had to trial. You know, I think there'll be a lot of motions, like I said, a lot of appeals in the middle of all that, and then ultimately we'll go, you know there'll be a plea or a trial. I don't expect that this will be a plea um, but you know, again, we'll just each each moment provides just a really interesting, unprecedented moment in American history that will tell our children, our grandchildren about. It's just, you know, it just I don't know, it doesn't even feel like America anymore. It's just it's really sad to see all this happened. It just feels like where our country's almost lost. Matt Whittaker. Liberty Andjustice with Matt Whittaker is your podcast? Is there anything you'd like to leave us with before we go? Everybody needs to participate in our republic. We can just all stand by the sidelines. We need to all find a way to get involved, no matter in your political persuasion at all. I just think we all need to participate in civic life. And I think that's what our founding fathers expected, and I think we all need to live up to that in our own way. Well, I appreciate it, Matt. I know you're a busy guy. Everyone wants to talk to you. I appreciate you taking the time to come on the show. Hope to catch up with you, Sue, and under better circumstances my pleasure least look forward to talking to you soon. So that was Matt Whittaker, a former acting Attorney General under our former President Donald Trump. You know, tough conversation, right, This is some depressing stuff, but it's happening, so you know, we got to talk about it and we have to cover it. I appreciate you guys for listening to the show every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen throughout the week. I want to thank John and cast you On, my producer, for putting it together. Please leave us a review on Apple podcasts, leave us a rating, a review, ways of love reading those until next time. Thanks so much for listening.

We are awaiting the possibility of a Trump indictment. It would be the first criminal case filed against a former president, unprecedented in American history, and it all hinges on the alleged falsification of business records for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars payment to Stormy Daniels. We've heard from people like Nancy Pelosi and people on the left and they say, oh, well, Donald Trump's not above the law. Well, sure, you know, I'd agree with that. No one's above the law, but he's also not below it. He's not the first person in America to pay someone off with an NDA, and he's certainly not going to be the last. We all know why they're doing this. They look at Trump as a trophy and they're willing to burn down the country and the rule of law to try to get him. They've been pursuing this switch hunt from Donald Trump from the day that he announced his candidacy for presidency. They'll stop at nothing to try to get him. I mean, I don't have any faith in government anymore, do you. They've corrupted the Department of Justice, They've corrupted the FBI. I don't believe there's an eco application of the law in this country, certainly not out of the Manhattan DA's office in New York City. We'll talk to former Acting Attorney General Matt Whittaker, he was the acting Attorney General under President Trump about all of this, what he thinks about the case. We'll get into the details of the case, what you need to know about it, and also what does this all mean for both former President Trump but also the country moving forward. What sort of precedent does this set in America? So stay tuned. You're not gonna want to miss this conversation with Matt Whittaker. Matt Whittaker, it's been a while since we've caught up. I wish I was under a different circumstances than this clown show that we're going to be talking about here. Well, yes, I agree. You know, typically people called me on their worst possible days, and so you know, obviously you're not calling for legal advice, so that's good. But yeah, it's you know, what's going on right now with Donald Trump and the Manhattan DA is unprecedented and it's a little crazy. I'm sure most people listening are just shaking their heads. We're awaiting this possible indictment. This is the first criminal case that would be filed against a former president. Are they going to do it? The inner workings of a grand jury are very interesting. You know, we had Michael Cohen's former lawyer who went in on Monday and I think maybe gave the prosecutor and his team a little bit of pause. I mean, you know, you ultimately you have to get a supermajority of the grand jury to vote for the indictment, and your star witness is a convicted felon and somebody whose whole goal in life is to, you know, get Donald Trump and to punish Donald Trump. I just don't think that makes a very attractive case, certainly to a trial jury, but I think even to a grand jury. If I'm you know, a citizen of this country and I'm looking at this fact pattern, and I'm looking at all the legal jumps which we'll talk about in a little bit that they're going to have to make to make this case, I'm not sure there's a choice Lisa, that you know you have. Either what they can voting you to vote a true bill on the indictment, which means they vote to approve the indictment, and the process moves forward or they can no billet. And it's very rare for a grand jury to no bill an indictment presented to them by a prosecutor. But it happens, and and and it shows that they're actually engaged. I mean, it's often been said that a grand jury wouldn't diet a ham sandwich. And I don't necessarily agree with that extreme a case, but it's a very low bar. It's probable cause standard, not what you know, again we'll talk about later. The trial jury is gonna have to consider which is a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. So I think it's going to be a close call even to get an indictment tomorrow. And if they do get an indictment, I mean it's going to be it's going to be complete and utter chaos for a while. You know. And we're talking about a grand jury in New York City, a liberal city. So what does that kind of grand jury look like. Well, it's going to look like the citizens of New York City, citizens of Manhattan. So it's going to skew left. You know, a lot of them are not, you know, big fans of Donald Trump. But I hope we at least that we're not in a situation in our country where people just like lose their reason and common sense. You know, when I give closings at trials, I always talk to the jury about just you know, that they did not check their reason and common sense at the door. And I think these grand juries, certainly the grand jurors can certainly use their reason and common sense to look at the facts and decide whether they think that's a crime. I think there's a lot of people that don't think it's a crime. Certainly, a lot of people that don't think it's a felony. You know, whether or not he altered a business record, you know, that's a misdemeanor under New York law. And I don't see that the elevated the way they're trying to elevate this to a felony is going to be successful to me. Ultimately, we can we can get it in that as well. Yeah, you know, of course, the allegation is that there was a falsification of business records for this one hundred and thirty thousand dollars payment to Stormy Daniels. From your legal perspective, does it look like a crime was committed here? Yeah, I mean, that's that's a great question. I mean, you know sort of these these you know that that's going to be a question that the jury is going to have to wrestle with if it goes to trial, and that that an appellate court is going to have to decide what the law is on that is, you know, it is characterizing something as a legal fee, um, you know, the same as a you know, as a settlement expense. You know, I think that's a I think that's probably a closer call than a lot of people maybe originally would think until they kind of consider it, um, you know what this was for, you know, I mean, and then you know, what they're really trying to say is that it was a campaign expense. And I can tell you that, you know, while I was acting Attorney General, the Southern District in New York looked at this fack pattern. It's the exact same back pattern on the idea of a campaign finance violation, and they determined that it wasn't a campaign finance violation. I'll tell you why. I think it's you know, it's a really interesting question. First, a little history. You know, they they tried to do this, you know, remember John Edwards paid you know, his UM fair a fair partner if you will, on which call. But it was also on his campaign a settlement out of his campaign fund, not his personal funds. And DJ prosecutor John Edwards, and John Edwards was acquitted at trial UM and it was it was pretty clear from that acquittal that you know, some of these things, you know, a personal flash campaign expense, you know, might not rise to that level of the campaign finance violation. But I will tell you this, what really is is at the heart of this issue is this is the idea of a settlement agreement. Whether Donald Trump was intimate with Stormy Gans, I believe President Trump I don't think he was. But you know, either way, it doesn't matter for the for the purposes of what I'm going to explain, and that is is that certainly, in twenty sixteen, in the fall, he was running for president, he was a candidate. Certainly, a settlement to keep somebody quiet from speaking out, you know, could be argued to, you know, have benefited his campaign, but not everything that benefits your campaign is a campaign expense. If you're a candidate and you go to lunch during a campaign stop, and you pay for your own lunch. That's certainly not a campaign violation. And so on the other hand, you know, it's also a personal expense that you know, because obviously it didn't just affect his campaign, it affected his personal life. It affect his relationship with his wife, relationship with his kids, a relationship with his business. So this at best, it's a it's a it's a combo personal and campaign expense, and under the law, that doesn't make it a campaign expense and therefore a violation of campaign finance law. And I can give you a stronger argument, and that is that the Federal Election Commission looked at this exact same fact pattern as well, in addition to Southern District from New York, and they also concluded that this was not a campaign finance violation. So you know, in my mind, this is a very aggressive and it takes this campaign finance violation, this felony to get this what was otherwise a misdemeanor. We were talking about, this qualtification of business records to be elevated to a felony. And therefore, you know, actually do some you know, some real meaningful you know, legal damage to you know, the president well and campaign finance violations, you know, typically it ends up in a fine. I mean New York City's Mayor Eric Adams is currently facing likely fines for accepting legal campaign contributions, improperly accounting for them, and then also ignoring request for documentation by state election authorities. Certainly don't think he's going to be facing a felony by Alvin Bragg. And that's really where this thing gets really dubious is because, let's stay on its face, it would potentially be a misdemeanor, but the statute of limitations are up for a misdemeanor on this particular case with Trump, So they're reaching for a felony. And for that, I mean they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only did he intend, you know, declare, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended by this falsification of records to conceal the commission of another crime in the process, I mean a felony here. I'm not an attorney, you are, but just from a common sense standpoint, seems like a reach on what they're accusing him of. It is. And the other thing is, you know, I'm not prone to what about is m I don't think it really furthers the art argument very often, but in this case it kind of. I do do it sometimes I'm not going to, I know, but I mean Hillary Clinton was fined for hiding the Fusion GPS research in the Russian collusion, you know, the dossier as as payments to a law firm, and certainly that's a falsification of a business record. And you don't see album Brag showing any interest in going after her for that crime, you know. So, and then you know, we have this whole statute of limitations issue as well. So you have the felony issue that we're talking about right now, and then you have a statute of limitations challenge that's going to be very interesting how they contort themselves because the alleged behavior happened seven years ago, and the statue limitations for even a felony it's five years, misdemeanors two years. That's clearly passed time wise, and so you know, I think this case, as we break it down, just becomes a huge leap to you know, and under the guise of that, they were just wanted to target Donald Trump and we're going to prosecute him no matter what, and so you mentioned for the felony they're trying to say, as my understanding is that because he's been outside of the state of New York that somehow that like pauses the statute of limitations for the felony charges. That correct. I forget what the what it's exactly called. So my actual understanding of their argument is that the payments to Michael Cohen were over a couple of years, and that they're barely within the last payment is within that five years. I think that I haven't heard the extra jurisdictional argument. Maybe there's one that's one as well. But I read a nice piece by your colleague Andy MacArthur, or maybe it was John Turley, one of them wrote kind of a breakdown of sort of this idea of how to get within the five years, and still believe that it was a little, uh specul to try to get it within that window of five years, because I thought I was reading an article from him as well, and I forget what it was called, but there's like a certain word for it that they can But anyways, well you can toll the states, right, Yes, I don't. I don't. I just it's going to be a novel theory under a New York law. I just I think it's I don't you know, usually if you're just in another state, that's not I mean, if you're out of the country, I might pull but in another state, I don't, that's not. I'm not familiar with that because but again, this is they're going to use every aggressive technique to try to, you know, prosecute Donald Trump. That's pretty clear to me right now. But I mean it seems like even in this conversation even trying to come up with what they would possibly do, I mean, we're even reaching and trying to figure out how they would reach. So it's like, you know, and and and they have to get to a point of beyond a reasonable doubt here, and so I just feel like if we're even having a you know, trouble trying to figure out, you know, how they're reaching, I mean, how do they reach that standard? I don't know. This is I've I've found myself in trying to explain this whole situation several times just resorting to the I don't know, because it doesn't make any sense. It's unprecedented. So we're you know, we're in brand new uncharted territory. At the same time, you know, some of these legal theories and ideas that they're trying to use just don't make any sense to me. And you know, again, I'm used to where you bring a case because you not only believe in the case, but it's it's one of your priorities, it helps your community, and um, and it's you're gonna you're you're certain of that you're gonna have a really good chance of winning the case or getting a plea. This seems like completely opposite of all those tenants. Um, it's not going to help the citizens of Manhattan at all. It's certainly not making their lives better. Uh, you know. And at the same time, uh, it just does not seem like that the chance of winning this case is at best a coin flip. I think it's actually worse than that. I think the probability is probably less than twenty percent that they can actually get this to a conviction, conviction that'll stick quick commercial break more with Matt Whittaker. Here, people like Nancy Pelosi and the left and they say, oh, well, you know, Trump isn't above the law. You know, sure, I agree that no one's above the law, but I agree with that below it either you know, and he's he's not below the equal application of the law. And it's hard to imagine that this is if this was just you know, any other person, even any other political candidate, that they would be trying to reach for a felony or even trying to potentially indict that individual on this. I completely agree with you. I think this is may cause I know something. There's instant speculation that this would cause a quote unquote war, but you're going to see. I'm worried if this is successful, that there is going to be a real desire or let's just say it, for revenge for the right and their prosecutors to start targeting the left. And I don't think that. I don't think that should be done. I don't think it should be done on either side. I don't think there should be a targeting of individuals by the state. And that's unfortunately what the Democrats appear to one. I mean, they just continue to pursue this path, and I don't think I don't think they're going to end with Donald Trump. I mean, I just think all conservatives and it's certainly all you know, high profile political office holders, and you know, pundits are our fair game. And in this in Alvin Braggs and George Soils and the liberal left worldview, and you know, I guess to some extent, you know, it's just like all other lawfare. It's just one of the tools in the battle between the sides. But I just it's it's when we make the political criminal, I think we all lose. And I think our founding fathers will be very concerned about what's happening right now. Well, and what's worrisome too is I mean, look, the left looks at Trump like a trophy. You know, they're all trying to get that trophy to get up. But you know, in the process, they've set the country on fire, you know, I mean they've destroyed the rule of law. They've corrupted the FBI, they've corrupted the Department of Justice. Americans have no faith in institutions or a government anymore. So in the process of trying to get Donald Trump since twenty sixteen, they've destroyed the country. And the process isn't that what marks us to do? Ultimately? I mean, you know, they undermine the institutions, and they you know, they they they're always quick to you know, point the finger at those of us on the right and suggest that somehow we're we started or we did it. I mean, I don't think I think trying to you know, sort of uh dismantle the permanent uh, you know, bureaucratic state is actually a good goal. Um. You know, I was, you know, I don't think there's any reason we started shouldn't start having serious discussions about moving the government out of Washington, DC and into the states, you know, distributing the government to the people instead of consolidating power within one national capital. Um. I just you know, I just think I think we I think we need to really roll up our sleeves and and and rethink how we get back to these basic and fundamental um tenets of our founding, you know, our constitutional separation of powers, not only between the three branches of federal government, between the between the federal government and the states. And I think we also need to look at how, you know, the rule of law. I think we need to look at how we can make these powerful positions that prosecutors have accountable. And especially when you have these places like Manhattan where it's just one party rule, it's it's destabilizing our country, and you know, and it's also distracting our country at least. So this is what I worry about. You know, we had massive banking challenges, we have you know, serious national security challenges China and Russia and North Korea. And you know, we know that we have alliances with other countries that they're begging us to engage and protect and work with them. I'm thinking of Australia and Japan, India our prime examples of that. The world is not a safe place, and you know, the United States has to lead and right now, Joe Biden and the Democrats it's a clown show and all they want to do is prosecute Donald Trump. It's it's really sad well, and in part that might be why they're doing it, you know, as well, to try to distract from the fact that you know, the country is falling apart. And it seems right now to your point, centralization a government that has taken place, has you know, destroyed the country. You know what happens to a country when you lose the rule of law, which is the direction we're heading in in America right now. Yeah, I mean, I think it's not good. I mean, because then it becomes you know, essentially which you have in China, where there's a there's a powerful elite that decide everything. You know, they decide what the law is, they decide who the law applies to, who the law doesn't apply to, and then there's a you know, obviously a consolidation of power and um and wealth among those people in control. It's not it's not good, but you know, this is what you know. Democrats would always love to take other people's money and you know, and and pretend like they you know, they're wealthy, well, and that's the thing, and they push things like you know, socialism, but you know, all that really does is empower the elite. So if you're Bernie Stander or you're you're fine, you're part of the ruling class. It's everyone else that gets screwed. Let's say that this this goes down. You know, Trump is indicted. What sort of legal recourse does he have and all of this to try to continue to fight it? What's the process there? Knowing Donald Trump as I know him, he's going to fight with everything he has. I hope he's got a good team of lawyers. I know some of them. I don't know all of them, um, but you know there's going to be a lot of motions. If he's dined, there's gonna be a lot of emotions, um. And those motions if they're denied or could be appealed depending on what you know, what the characterization is. And then you know there's obviously potentially federal appeals that could be done, especially in this campaign finance area we were discussing earlier. And so there's there's going to be a lot of twists and turns to this and a lot of opportunities for us to talk about Elisa. So they look forward to come back on the future. It seems like it's potentially inevitable. But you know, and also I think what are the concerns too, is you know, they've tried to make working for Trump so toxic. Can he get great legal help right now? Yeah? I mean certainly, I think that has been a challenge for him, is to find really good people that you know, are willing to I guess, you know, put everything on the line to defend the rule of law. But I think, you know, again, I think the guy certainly working on the Special Council's investigation is a great lawyer, and I think there will be others, and there's plenty of you know, good lawyers in New York City that could help him on this case. And so I think you'll find I think you'll find the right person. But his you know, his fighting spirit is indomitable, and so I think that you know, that will be um, that will be good in the long term. If he is indicted, what are the next steps then that he would be facing in the process. Well, so if he's indicted, the next steps are a restaurant will be issued or a notice to appear. Um, you know, if Alvin Bragg has any class, you will just give them a notice to appear. There will then be you know, the initial parents the processing, which involves mugshot, fingerprinting and the like, and then there will be a trial schedule set and a discovery order that's put in place to for the governments from overall the evidence that they have in their possession and all exam exculpatory evidence as well, and then you know, we just had to trial. You know, I think there'll be a lot of motions, like I said, a lot of appeals in the middle of all that, and then ultimately we'll go, you know there'll be a plea or a trial. I don't expect that this will be a plea um, but you know, again, we'll just each each moment provides just a really interesting, unprecedented moment in American history that will tell our children, our grandchildren about. It's just, you know, it just I don't know, it doesn't even feel like America anymore. It's just it's really sad to see all this happened. It just feels like where our country's almost lost. Matt Whittaker. Liberty Andjustice with Matt Whittaker is your podcast? Is there anything you'd like to leave us with before we go? Everybody needs to participate in our republic. We can just all stand by the sidelines. We need to all find a way to get involved, no matter in your political persuasion at all. I just think we all need to participate in civic life. And I think that's what our founding fathers expected, and I think we all need to live up to that in our own way. Well, I appreciate it, Matt. I know you're a busy guy. Everyone wants to talk to you. I appreciate you taking the time to come on the show. Hope to catch up with you, Sue, and under better circumstances my pleasure least look forward to talking to you soon. So that was Matt Whittaker, a former acting Attorney General under our former President Donald Trump. You know, tough conversation, right, This is some depressing stuff, but it's happening, so you know, we got to talk about it and we have to cover it. I appreciate you guys for listening to the show every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen throughout the week. I want to thank John and cast you On, my producer, for putting it together. Please leave us a review on Apple podcasts, leave us a rating, a review, ways of love reading those until next time. Thanks so much for listening.