Shawn Ryan Show - #89 Tim Parlatore - Unpacking the Trump Indictments | Part 2

Episode Date: December 20, 2023

Tim Parlatore is a former Naval Officer and founder of Parlatore Law Group. He has represented Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher and President Donald Trump, among other high profile cases. Part two of this series focuses on the State cases brought against the former President. Parlatore weighs in on the Georgia case where President Trump is charged with 41 state-law felony charges. We also cover the infamous "Stormy Daniels" pay off and how Trump's adversaries are leveraging the Justice Department to make political gains. Shawn Ryan Show Sponsors: https://lairdsuperfood.com - USE CODE "SRS" https://shopify.com/shawn https://betterhelp.com/shawn https://gcu.edu/military Tim Parlatore Links: Website - https://parlatorelawgroup.com Twitter/X - https://twitter.com/timparlatore IG - https://www.instagram.com/parlatorelawgroup Please leave us a review on Apple & Spotify Podcasts. Vigilance Elite/Shawn Ryan Links: Website | Patreon | TikTok | Instagram | Download Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Metrolinx and cross-links are reminding everyone to be careful as Eglinton Cross-town LRT train testing is in progress. Please be alert as trains can pass at any time on the tracks. Remember to follow all traffic signals. Be careful along our tracks and only make left turns where it's safe to do so. Be alert, be aware, and stay safe. At Beth365, we don't do ordinary. We believe that every sport should be epic. Every goal, every game, every point, every play. From the moments that are remembered forever to the ones you've already forgotten, whether it's a game-winning goal in the final seconds of over time, or a shot-on goal in the final seconds of overtime, or a shot on goal in the first period.

So whatever the sport, whatever the moment, it's never ordinary. At Beth365, must be nice and her older Ontario on its most favorite sponsor leave. You or someone you know has concerns about gambling, visit connectsontario.ca. Previously on The Sean Ryan Show And you know, you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan. Your lawyer, that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery, and they're moving it as fast as they can. So look, all I want to do is this, I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. You can't just listen to excerpts from the call. You have to listen to the entirety of the call. The entire theory of the case comes down to,

did he knowingly push false claims of election fraud to try to overturn the will of the people and install himself wrongfully as president for a second? Get away from the Trump Biden division. I think that a lot of people who can see past the candidates, this is the future of our country. That's what I'm most concerned about is, is this going to set the precedent from here on out to politically persecute your opponent? And that's a big fear that I have. And I think a lot of people share this fear. There. It's real.

I mean, it's something that I saw in my own career, not just this case, but I started my career in New York City doing criminal defense, doing in the beginning mostly state work, but then transitioning to primarily federal. And believe it or not, the only campaign that I've ever been involved in was when Morgan Thaw was going to retire as the Manhattan District Attorney after 40-some years in the position. And I actively participated

in Sive Ants' campaign. And I thought that he was really going to fix the system because he came in with all these wonderful campaign promises about how he was going to do discovery differently, how he was going to evaluate, you know, plea deals differently, how he's going to do all these things that we're actually going to improve the fairness of the system and it, any one. And I went to the party, the victory party, where his victory was only a few hours old before he said, I'm not going to do that discovery policy. And I have tried cases against that office that were based not upon what is going to keep New Yorkers safe, but based upon what is going to be the best headlines and the best campaign things for Sive Ants' re-election. So I personally am not a big fan of elected law enforcement officials' period.

I have the same problem with a lot of sheriffs. Don't get me wrong. There is some phenomenal sheriffs out there. I'm not saying this as general rule, but being an elected law enforcement official is an invitation to abuse. to abuse. It's an invitation to asking for political donations. And if you don't give the right donations, you know, what's, you know, you're going to get extra parking tickets and things like that. You know, judges in New York are elected. I had a case in a different county from where I was normally was one of the upstate counties, Westchester. And even though I was not involved in any of this politics stuff at all, I had this case before this judge who was, in my opinion, not giving the best rulings. And then all of a sudden I got a campaign solicitation from the judge.

And from somebody on the judge's behalf, asking me to donate money to the judge that I'm appearing in front of. And I sat there as I'm reading this, my blood went cold of like, am I actually being asked to give money to the judge in order for her to start giving good rulings in this case? Wow. Wow.

That is scary. I mean, I didn't. I didn't donate to her. But, you know, a big part of me sat there and read that and said, you know what, if this was all anonymous, like if there wasn't this whole campaign donor list, I wouldn't donate to her anyway because she doesn't understand the rules. She's making rulings that are not correct.

Wow. How often do you think this happens in the country every day? Bad. Every day. And that's why putting money, money in politics causes abuse. Politics and law enforcement causes abuse. Money in politics and law enforcement is a disaster. That's where you have people like Fannie Willis, Teesha James, fundraising, asking for money on the idea that if you elect me, I will get Donald Trump. I am going to use your taxpayer dollars to take out our political rival. As opposed to spending those taxpayer dollars on stopping rape and murder in our streets.

And they get elected. Yeah. Can we talk about before we leave the Georgia case? Can we talk about why is Rudy Giuliani elected? Or I'm sorry, indicted. That to me is the biggest tragedy of this whole thing. You know, Rudy Giuliani... Rudy was America's mayor. He was well loved. I don't like what they're doing to them now. You know, was everything done right in the election investigation and litigation? No. Do I agree with everything that they did?

Not necessarily. Did they make some mistakes? Yes, they did. Should he be losing his law license? Should he be losing all of his life savings? Should he be now potentially going to jail? She wants a life, she wants a jail sentence at that exceeds his life expectancy. She wants him to die in a Georgia jail so. That's not right. That's not justice. Why is he in that case? To me, people are angry at him because he was the face of the team that was pushing these election frog claims. And because they don't like that and what it led to, they want to punish people that they're angry with. And so that's why, in my opinion, Rudy is in that situation.

Last night at dinner, you had brought up that he's passed his prime. Can you dig into that? You know, I am concerned. I like Rudy Giuliani a lot. And I think that it is obvious that anybody, you know, as they continue on in their career, I think that it is obvious that anybody, as they continue on in their career, eventually they lose a few steps. Is that the cause of what happened here?

I don't know. Not necessarily, I think that quite frankly, the cause of a lot of this stuff is lack of resources. I'll give you an example in a minute, but lack of resources leads to an inability to fully investigate claims which increases the risk that you present claims that are not fully vetted. I, my personal opinion, I would have much preferred for Rudy Giuliani to be America's mayor retired. be America's mayor retired. I would much prefer for him to be writing books, giving speeches, being comfortable in the legacy that he built through what he did in New York City. And it's kind of an extreme example, but it somewhat reminds me of Jim Stockdale. You know, I was a big fan of Ross Perot.

I thought he did a lot of very good things, certainly did a lot of great things in his business and taking care of his people. I thought that he brought a lot of interesting ideas to the election when he ran as a third-party candidate. The one thing that I completely disagree with Ross Pro on was naming Jim Stockdale as his running mate because Stockdale's a hero. Yeah, he was a Medal of Honor recipient,

senior prisoner of war in Vietnam. And by the time that they got to the debates, he was unfortunately passed his prime. And now, if I walk down the street and I ask people, you know, just grab some random person. Do you know Jim Stockdale is? Yeah, I remember him. He was the guy in the vice presidential debate

that got all disoriented and started saying, who am I? Why am I here? You know, there's an element of where you want to take your heroes and allow them to be retired. You had mentioned something that he had done when he was in the Hanoi Hilton. And I didn't know who this man was before he spoke of him last night. Can you elaborate on that?

I want to show, you know, the audience what this man did for this country and how he'll be remembered. So Darrell Stockdale, then I think he was a captain. He was other captain or commander then. He was a senior US service member in the Hanoi Hilton. He was a leader. He took care of the other prisoners. He kept them all together.

When the Vietnamese wanted to do a propaganda video, and they wanted to present him in this propaganda video, he beat his own face in. face in. He disfigured himself their propaganda to be showing the brutality. And so what he did to himself actually resulted in them throttling back and it improved the conditions for the American POWs. And he was used past his prime. And now he will be remembered exactly for what you said.

Exactly. So, you know, for anybody listening to this You know if you think of Jim Stockdale as a VP candidate think of him as as the admiral the POW And that's how Giuliani will be remembered Giuliani I fear Giuliani, I fear, runs a risk of potentially dying in a jail cell. I don't think that the case against him, you've fairly heard in the appeals process, I don't think that it would be upheld. So I do think that he would, you know, be released, but the reality is,

I wouldn't want him being subjected to that. I mean, the stress of going through a major criminal case like this is something that will itself take years off of your life. is something that will itself take years off of your life. So, now, I feel very strongly about, you know, about the inclusion of him as a, as a codifend in this case. What would the worst case scenario be in the Georgian diamonds for both Trump and for Giuliani? Jail sentences that exceed their life expectancy. For both of them. Yeah.

Yeah. You got to remember, racketeering is intended for the bosses of mafia families. Yeah, a lot of the other lawyers that are doing these cases, you know, they've owe most of the lawyers that are in these cases. A lot of them are former federal prosecutors who then got out on the defense side and they become defense attorneys, although they call themselves white collar defense attorneys. I think I told you, I hate the term white collar because to me, somebody said this years ago and it really stuck with me. White collar doesn't exist.

years ago and it really stuck with me. White collar doesn't exist. White collar crime is a term that was invented by former prosecutors that would allow them to make money being criminal defense attorneys without somehow feeling dirty. The reality is, a lot of white collar crime, Bernie made off, things like that. They know, they heard just as many people. And you know, whenever I'm around these people and they're like, oh, you know, are you a white collar lawyer? I just look at them and say, no, I'm a red collar lawyer. Red collar. Yeah, white collar with a splash of blood. You get these former federal brown skaters who have never really dealt with defending a RICO case.

You get these political lawyers that are all about being party insiders and all that kind of stuff. And really what this case requires is the people that I started practicing with, the people that I learned how to practice law from, which is the core group of New York City criminal lawyers who were the backbone of the John Gotti defenses. All of the big mob cases, ironically, all of Rudy Giuliani's enemies back when he was at the US

attorney's office. And because the way that you look at an organized crime case and the way that you deconstruct a federal Rico case in that scenario is exactly what they need to be doing here. You know, because I look at it and I say, you know, one of the things that Rico requires is continuity. Continuity means that it is an organization that is not for a very distinct purpose, not for a single event. It's something that's going to continue not for a single event. It's something that's going to continue over the course of period of time.

You know, a drug cartel is going to continue to sell drugs, to kill people, commit murder, mayhem, and all those things. A mafia family is going to continue to have all of these, you know, loan shark and gambling, all of these, you know, loan shark and gambling, all of these things. A campaign that is trying to challenge the results of one election has no continuity to

whatsoever. And the precedent that they're trying to set in this case by ignoring that continuity requirement means that anytime that two or more people get together and commit two or more crimes together, Fannie Willis says that's a Rico. So if you and I decide, yeah, we're going to go rob a bank, okay? We're going to go steal a gun, we're going to steal a car, we're going to rob a bank. We're going to have three hours of absolute mayhem, right? Under Fannie Willis, that's racketeering.

It stretches the definitions far beyond what the legislature intended. Are you saying just the conversation alone is racketeering? In theory, in theory, the other thing. Well, more than the conversation, you can't just have a conversation. You have to have an over-dacked and further insummit. So you have to actually start the planning. You have to actually start the planning, you have to, you know, actually go do something. You know, we need, we need at least need the still car. We haven't committed

racketeering on the camera yet. But under her theory, that three hour episode is racketeering. And that's the reason why I believe that this case should be considered by federal appellate court or district court to say, you are not in accordance with the Supreme Court case law on the continuity requirement of Rico. And once you rip out the continuity, then this whole building that she's built here, you rip out continuity. Now Rico goes away.

Now her ability to touch what's happened in coffee county goes away, what happened in the state house goes away, what happened in County goes away. What happened in the state house goes away. What happened in Pennsylvania goes away. And all she's left with is a very tiny case. Because hardly anything happened in Fulton County. Interesting. How do you think George is gonna play out?

Interesting. How do you think George is gonna play out? I think that they're gonna keep trying to push for the speedy draw. I think that the judge is smart enough to realize that's not gonna happen. I think that people are gonna start to file motions to dismiss on some of the things that I've mentioned here. I think he's gonna get bogged down in motion practice.

I think that ultimately, especially when you're talking about a four to eight month long trial, and potentially a few extra months for jury selection, I think it's gonna get pushed down past the election. And I think it's one of those things where it's a big bang in the beginning, and my prediction is gonna end more of a fizzle. And by missing anything when it comes to the Georgia case.

No, I mean, that's the big thing there, is that it is like the DC case, but structurally less sound. And that's one of the problems with, as lawyers, you always try not to overstep. And because if you have a legitimate claim and you try to inflate it into something that it's not You risk losing the whole thing whereas you would have maintained your credibility by just coming in with whatever that legitimate claim was You know if they have issues with how certain things were done in Fulton County Go with that counting, go with that. But I think the really what you're going to see here is that Fannie Willis, because she is focused on her own election, and I suspect the presidential election,

because she's focused on political factors as opposed to legal factors. I think that that's where this is going to fail. Well thank you for diving into Georgia. Let's take a break. When we get back, we'll get into the classified document and I meant to down in Florida. All right. When I first started this whole podcasting thing, an online store was about as far from my mind as you can get. And now most of you already know this, but I'm selling Vigilance Elite Gumby Bears online. We actually have an entire merch collection

that's coming soon. And let me tell you, it is so easy because I'm using a platform that is extremely user friendly and that Shopify. Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business. What I really like about Shopify is it prompts you. All the things that you want to do with your web store like connect your social media accounts, write blog posts, just have a blog in general. Shopify actually prompts you to do this.

You want people to leave reviews under your items? You can do that on Shopify. It's very simple. Shopify helps you turn browsers into buyers with the internet's best converting checkout 36% better on average compared to the other leading commerce platforms. Shopify is a global force for millions of entrepreneurs in over 175 countries and power 10% of all e-commerce platforms here in the United States. You can sign up right now for $1 a month. It's Shopify.com slash Sean, that's all lowercase. Go to Shopify.com slash Sean.

Now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in, that Shopify.com slash Sean. This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. How many of you out there are looking forward to the upcoming holiday season? It's right around the corner. Or are some of you dreading the upcoming holiday season? Maybe a struggle to be upbeat, maybe a struggle to be cheerful, look, a lot of us let the holiday stress get to us around this time of year and believe it or not, it is not that uncommon.

This time of year can be a lot and it's natural to feel some type of sadness or anxiety about it, but adding something new and positive to your life can counteract some of those feelings. Therapy can be a bright spot amid all the stress and change, something to look forward to and make you feel grounded, and to give you the tools to manage everything going on, and it's very convenient with better help. It's entirely online and designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with the licensed therapist and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Find your bright spot this season with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash shon today to get 10% off your first

month. That's BetterHelpHELP.com slash shon. All right, Tim. We're back from the break. Let's let's move into Florida, the classified documents. So 2022, the Justice Department opened an investigation into Trump's retention of classified documents after his presidency. June, 2022, a lawyer avowed that Trump had turned over all classified records, but two months later, the FBI searched Mar-Lago and seized 102 documents with classified markings. Trump pleaded not guilty on June 13, 2023, 27th July, 2023, Superseating indictment, adding three new felony charges. New indictments include allegations at Trump, NADA, and Day

Olivaria sought to destroy security camera footage at Mar-a-Lago after investigations tried to obtain the footage. Trial schedule for May 20, 2024 in Florida charges. Forty felony charges, 32 felony counts of willful retention of national defense information and violation of the Espionage Act six felony accounts of obstruction related crimes two felony accounts of false statements the Espionage Act makes it a crime to retain records containing sensitive national security information. First question, why would they have deleted the security footage?

They didn't. They didn't. That was one of those kind of surprising charges there because DOJ subpoenaed the footage and they turned it all over. Are you serious? I am. How was he being? They're claiming,

their claim is that some people had a discussion about deleting footage. And that some of the employees said, can we delete the footage? And the answer was, no, you can't delete the footage. And that's the charge. So no, no footage was deleted. So the charge, I'm sorry. Let's me the charge is that they had a discussion about deleting the footage

It's not that they actually deleted the footage correct. There was a discussion correct And if you read the indictment even though it charges president Trump as being part of it They're actually claiming that there was a conversation between two other people and that one of them said, the boss would like the footage did it deleted. But nobody'd actually say, well, that he actually said that. And here's one of the things that I learned in representing him. When I'm told, the boss would like, it doesn't always mean that the boss would like. Oftentimes it means I'm just using his name to make you do what I want you to do.

I don't understand how this is a crime. I mean, some of this stuff just seems like an initial reaction. Yeah. You know, I mean, some of this stuff just seems like an initial reaction. Yeah. You know, I mean, so yeah, the Florida case is weird. It's different from all the others. So the Florida case was investigated by the National Security Division, which is the National Security Division, which is not where you get your top criminal lawyers at all. In fact, most of the people in this case have no clue what they're doing in the courtroom. Okay. The guy in charge, a guy by the name of Jay Bratt, in my opinion, based on my observations of him, I think that he is a completely unethical person who should not be anywhere near government service.

If you look at the way that this case was investigated, he wanted to do a search warrant from the beginning before having any information about there being any potential improper conduct. He has throughout lied to federal judges in my presence. He has tried to do everything he could to turn this into a criminal case when it didn't need to be. And based on my experience, this is the type of case that was handled differently from the beginning in order to create a criminal case than how it is handled with anybody else innocent in the other circumstances, because ultimately, if you have a spillage of classified material,

what you should be doing is you should be having the intelligence community, working in administrative investigation to locate and contain all that classified information, then do an assessment of whether there's been any damage. You don't turn that over to some rabid DOJ attorney who thinks, oh, I can use this to get Donald Trump and then let him go hog wild without any respect to his own ethics. And so the manner in which this case was approached from the beginning was overly antagonistic

and designed to cause him to dig in his heels, and in the absence of evidence, create an appearance of non-compliance. Now, everything that, from the time period that I was involved in, fits exactly what I just described. Yes, there was a subpoena. Yes, there was certification. Didn't say that he'd turned over all classified records. What it said is we've conducted the diligence search

and all responsive records are enclosed. Let me say that again. We conducted the diligence search and all responsive records are enclosed. It doesn't say everything's been turned over. It says, we searched. Everything we found found here it is They wanted more time to do the search and

DOJ refused to give them more time to do the search They wanted you know in later searches We invited DOJ to come with us Really yes, did they know? We invited DOJ to come with us. Really? Yes. Good day. No. No, when they wanted us to search Trump Tower,

Bedminster, we invited them, send your FBI agents with us to do the search. They refused. And I believe that the reason that they refused is because we were trying to show them that we had nothing to hide. And if they had sent the FBI along with us, it would have given the appearance of cooperation. Contrast this to the search they didn't Delaware. I don't understand, like, I'm trying to collect my thoughts here. I mean, from the

research I've done, it seems like they are claiming that there were nuclear codes in these classified documents and secrets to military weapons inside these documents. And so we kind of already covered it, but if there are nuclear codes in information that is compromising some of the top weapons that the US military has in their inventory, then why wouldn't the FBI see it? Whoever, why wouldn't they not want to accompany you to recover those codes or the information on those weapons. They just left it up to the legal team

to rummage around Mar-a-Lago for nuclear codes. Correct. In any other circumstance. So first of all, I mean, if you lose a weapon, a pistol in the military, everything shuts down until that is recovered. Correct. Everything, all operations, all everything,

shuts down to find a pistol. And we have nuclear codes, supposedly, that are out there. Where are they coming up with us? If it's out, nuclear codes, I never saw any evidence of that. You know, that to me is something that was just told to the media to make it sound worse. Mm-hmm. But, you know, here's what I did see.

Let's talk about how they got out first because that's important. There's a big difference between somebody stealing, classified information so that they can put it on WikiLeaks and they can give it to Russia and they can do all these other things with it. And what happened here, because what happened here is the White House has horrible document management procedures.

I didn't say the Trump White House. I said the White House. In general, every administration, they do not follow the same standards that we followed in the military. They do not follow the same standards that the intelligence community follows. They have documents outside of a skiff on desks, moving around. You have, you know, there was that picture of, you know, during the Obama administration where you have a room full of reporters and Joe Biden is standing in the back

with a classified folder in his hand. They don't treat documents the same way in the White House that they do in the rest of the government. And what that results in is an intermingling of classified non-classified documents. documents and at the end of every administration, when they pack up, all of the documents, the National Archives picks up straight from the White House. And what the National Archives does is it rents a facility in the city where the future presidential library is expected to be built, which also happens to be where the future presidential library is expected to be built Which also happens to be where the president has decided to go move to so you know Ronald Reagan leaves he moves to California

National Archives gets a facility in California nearest house. They put all of his documents there They've done this presidential record act was signed into law by Jimmy Carter. It didn't apply to Jimmy Carter. It applied to everybody from Reagan forward. So, starting with Reagan, every single president, they got a facility where that president moved to and put all the documents there. Except for Obama, they got a facility in Chicago for him and then he decided to stay in DC anyway. President Trump is the first person that they said, no, we're not getting any facility for him. And so what happened is when he left office, was it more chaotic than any other turnover? Yeah, it was. A lot more because of a whole bunch of things, not

the least of which being the election contest. Also, when you look from Reagan forward, how many one-term presidents do you have? Is that a George H.W. Bush was the only person, other than Trump, subject to the Presidential Records Act, who did not have four years notice of the exact date that he was going to be departing. That's an interesting take. So really, up until January 6th, he believed there was a likelihood that he was going to stay there. So January 7th is when the transition really happens. Nash Archives is not going to get the facility down in Florida, and so all the documents

get boxed up and they will go to Florida. There are the famous pictures of the boxes all, you know, on the driveway outside the white house being, you know, put into trucks being moved by GSA, General Services Administration, US government. And the archivist is sitting there saying, yes, that picture was very disturbing because, you know, I realized that those were was very disturbing because I realized that those were national archives or NARA, which is national archives and records administration, those are NARA records that are going down to Florida. I didn't say anything at the time. Had anybody asked President Trump, hey, would you like us to hold on to these and, you know,

we'll put them in a facility there, he'd been fine with it. But the reality is everything got boxed up, everything got moved down there. The first time since President Carter that a president has all the boxes moved to his house. And they're a new because they have essentially four decades of data on this that every single administration, the boxes are commingled with classified documents. Every single one. We had had a conversation also about what those class classified documents actually looked like. And I think it would be important for you to explain what kind of classified documents were in those boxes. We're not talking about nuclear codes. We're talking about briefings. We're talking about, yeah, I've gone

through the boxes. I went to the, I spent a few days at the National Archives and I went through all those boxes myself, which are a fascinating archeological dig into the presidency by date. And so you see on each date here are the date, the newspapers that he read that day. Here are his daily schedules. Here's all the phone messages that he got. Here's the classified document. And a lot of those classified documents fit with the schedule.

Because you see on the schedule, you have a phone call this afternoon with President, you know, whoever, of a foreign country. And then right after that is, you know, here's the briefing sheet, a classified briefing sheet on all the questions we would like you to ask this foreign leader. And I'll give you, I'll give you an example that everybody's seen, okay, from the impeachment proceeding, when he had the phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. And Alexander Vennman prepared for him the script of these are the questions we'd like you to ask Zelensky.

That script is classified. But the moment that you read it on the phone to the president of the Ukraine is not a secret anymore. And in the impeachment proceedings, we went through all this stuff because, you know, obviously, Venom was upset that he had gone off of his script and, you know, asked other questions. But that document, that's really what we're talking about here. That's the majority of what these, you know, so-called classified documents are. It's schedules, things that are highly classified at the time. Tomorrow, we're going to fly to Afghanistan to have a surprise Thanksgiving dinner with the troops. Very classified. Really don't want

the Taliban and the al Qaeda and everybody to know that tomorrow, the biggest juicy is target in the world is going to be flying right over their airspace. But the moment that he walks out into the mess hall with hundreds of troops and a bunch of TV cameras, if there's any secreting work. Yeah. And so that, but the schedule is still marked, classified, correct. And so these are the type of classified documents that they're recovering. But the schedule is still marked classified.

And so these are the type of classified documents that they're recovering. Where did they come up with the, where did they come up with the nuclear codes? Is that just a flat out conspiracy? As far as I can tell, that is a flat out lie that was told to the media to try and make things seem much worse

than they were. So I have another question. You see, all of these counts of conspiracy, charges of conspiracy for Trump and the other people that got indicted. So couldn't they, couldn't they flip the script and sue whoever leaked that with conspiracy? If it's not true. You don't know who did it though. That's the problem. Well, I mean, you would have to make an investigation, just like they're making on. Right. But ultimately, ultimately, you have to convince a journalist to give up his source. I have a couple of strategies. But so that wouldn't work. But you know, one of the things to remember here, you

talk about how there's 40 counts or something One other question. I'm sorry. I mean we're joking around you would have to get a journalist to give up a source Well if he doesn't give up a source then I can't then couldn't you say just came from him? I Mean because that's just passing the book because then that then then this source could say oh well I got it from another source. I mean it it's either, who did you get the information from or it's you? I mean, what we're talking about here is a defamation claim, civil defamation claim.

And, you know, journalists is not going to be liable for that if that's what a source told them. So you're not going to be able to really get the journalist unless you can show that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. So that you're not really going to have any leverage in that way. And ultimately trying to get a journalist to reveal their sources as part of a civil defamation claim, it's just not going to have. Not going to happen.

So it is unfortunately one of the features of these leak investigations that is just you're never going to get there. And even there, President Trump has a major problem with filing any type of defamation claim to begin with because, yes, when you put out nuclear codes, that sounds really bad. Did it change anybody's mind?

Did any Trump supporters say, yeah, it's okay, you classified that, woo, one of them is nuclear codes. Okay, well, now I don't like him anymore Now I'm gonna vote for Biden No It the country is so polarized already at this point that I Don't think that President Trump could ever have a viable defamation claim because anybody who puts out knowingly false information about him is just going to have the people that hate him, have more ammunition for why the

hate him, and the people that like him are just going to say that's fake anyway. So it's not going to change anybody's opinion. And that is a requirement really in the definition claims you have to, it has to be something that is damaging to your reputation in a way that it changes people's opinion of you. So I don't think that's going to get anywhere. Okay, but one interesting point, you know,

when you bring up the 40 counts, each one of those counts is an individual document. So now go back and take a look at it where they say that they found hundreds of documents. The vast majority of them they didn't charge. Why is that because the vast majority of them were overclassified, in my opinion. It's not about willful retention of classified information. It's about willful retention of national defense information, meaning that the, this information, if divulged, would be damaging to national security. And having a daily schedule in your house in 2022 that says in 2019, we're going

to fly to Afghanistan. He's not national defense information. It may not have been properly declassified, but at present, it shouldn't be classified. It should be declassified. And so classification has no bearing on this case whatsoever. Classification is somebody's opinion as to whether something constitutes national defense information. And so if it's people have been acquitted for possessing top secret documents that were overclassified, people have been convicted for possessing unclassified documents that should have been classified. So classification doesn't really matter.

But the vast majority of those documents, they didn't charge. And I believe because the vast majority of those documents didn't constitute national defense information. What do you think the outcome of this is going to be? I'll tell you, this is the one that probably I think poses the greatest threat to him. And specifically because of the whole story of obstruction, not the deleting of the video. That's kind of silly, but the story about having Walt Nott to move the boxes the night before Evan goes in to do the search.

That story, when I read that in the indictment, that was not something I'd ever heard before. That was not something that was consistent with anything that I knew about during my year of representing him. If true, if backed by evidence, that's the count that I think he would have difficulty overturning on an appeal. If true, the flip side of that is, they're claiming that they have video of wall-moving all these boxes. They've put screenshots of everything in there.

They have pictures of the boxes sitting on the stage, the boxes sitting in the bathroom, the boxes sitting on the stage, the box is sitting in the bathroom, the box is sitting on the truck, the box is sitting in the basement. The single most damning photo that you could possibly have is pictures of Walt moving 60 boxes the night before, you know, timestamped Leo late the night before Evan Corpon shows up to do a search. That screenshot's not in there. When they did their press conference, they didn't play that video for anybody. I think that any time you've seen a prosecutor do a press conference of, we just arrested this bank robber and they're going to show you the video of the bank robber, you know, running out of the bank and everything. That video would be the single most damning piece of evidence. They claim that they have. Why have we seen it? Do you think they're withholding or do you think

it's a flat out lie? I don't know. That's the problem. Why would they withhold? I don't know. This team, the Mara Lago team of prosecutors, they don't act like normal prosecutors. They don't act like normal ethical strategic prosecutors. They did a whole bunch of stuff throughout that whole case that we would just sit there and scratch our heads at and say, these people really working for DOJ. Like, what, how do they not understand basic principles? So I really don't know. I really don't know. But that piece of the indictment to me is going to be the most damning because ultimately, the will for retention to have difficulty showing whether it is national defense information, they have difficulty showing that he did willfully retain it. And ultimately, it was brought there legally.

It was, this is an issue of document management procedures and had in the first instance, if instead of somebody from DOJ, instead of sending, you know, J. Bratt and the Keystone cops, they had sent somebody from the office of the Director of National Intelligence to say, NARA has informed us that there may be a spillage of classified documents. We'd like to work together to make sure that we, you know, protect, you know, our nation's secrets and everything. If they had done that, you know what President Trump would have done? He was like, go ahead, please. Please, he... Well, help him out.

But they didn't do that. So that's the problem. What is he facing there? Again, that's... He's case scenario. That one, I think, I didn't look up the time on those several years. From my understanding you had a role in searching Trump tower. Would you like to go into that? Sure. Sure. We did a lot of subsequent searches. And these were done at the request of DOJ. They thought that there were more documents out there and that they had this theory that,

he was playing a shell game of moving documents back and forth between that minister, Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower, and so we searched. I hired a team of contractors to do the search. We invited the FBI to tag along, the FBI refused. hired a team of contractors to do the search. We invited the FBI to tag along, the FBI refused. One of my colleagues had overseen the search at Bedminster where they found nothing. And ultimately, I personally oversaw the search

at Trump Tower, which was definitely one of those, things that I never expected to ever be doing in my life, growing up right outside of New York City and then starting my legal career as a New York City criminal defense attorney. Gossar's Trump Tower for classified documents was not one of those tasks that I ever envisioned being on my to-do list. But we did. We did. And yeah, really interesting experience. Beautiful building. Very beautiful spaces. We started in the office area. You know, beautiful spaces, you know, we started in the office area. And he's got this phenomenal office, you know, corner office with the panoramic views of Central Park and everything. And then we, you know, when we finished searching there, we went through all of his records that had your real estate deals going

back to the 70s. And we were sitting there laughing like this is silly. They were searching this place because there's nothing here post 2016. 2016 because when he was elected he moved and everything is like almost frozen in time there. You know, went up to the apartment which was stunning apartment. Yes, searched all around. We were in the dining room and the guy who was taking us around, he pointed up and he said said I like that chandelier Beautiful chandelier is like you see it moving And you could the chandelier was just never so slightly swaying back and forth

I can't why is that he says chandelier's not moving the building is moving the chandelier layers swinging because of that. Because those big buildings they flex. Wow. So you know we went through the whole place and quite frankly halfway through I started to feel very uncomfortable because especially when we got to the bedroom and stuff like that, it's a very personal space. And the fact that I'm having to search Donald Trump's closet for classified documents. It felt very wrong to me. It felt like it was very invasive. Obviously, I appreciate that he trusted me and my team to do that. And it's obviously better for us to do that than for the FBI to do it. But going through that place, it was totally frozen in time in 2016. Wow.

You know, found nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. Is there anything that we're not covering when it comes to the classified documents case? I mean, those are the big things. Yeah, it's just the obstruction, allegation, if proven, is the biggest danger to him, not the documents themselves. Okay. Let's take a quick break.

When we come back, we will get to the last one, New York, New York, Stormy Daniels. Oh yeah. Which I thought was done, but I guess not. Then we all. Those of you that have been around SRS for a while know that we take mental health very seriously here. So seriously that in almost every episode, you'll find a segment where we discuss

how to improve your mental health. And part of improving your mental health is keeping your mind sharp. And part of keeping your mind sharp is given at the fuel that it needs to balance energy, focus, cognition, and just regenerating your brain. That triggered me to go on a journey to find the supplement that supports brain health with the cleanest of ingredients on the planet. And I found it. I was actually going to start my own company and do this, but I found lared superfoods. I've partnered

with them now, I'm a partial owner. And I really believe in these products. Here's my favorite product, performance mushrooms by lared superfood foods. Brain fuel. You can put this in your coffee, you can put it in your tea, you can drink it raw, you can mix it with their greens, you can do all kinds of stuff. Bottom line is, this is the best possible supplement with the cleanest ingredients.

All sourced in the United States that supports brain health. And here's two other products that I'm a fan of. Lared superfoods creamer. Guess what? Contains functional mushroom extracts. Put this in your tier coffee. And most of you know I'm not a caffeine or coffee drinker, but a lot of you are,

and they just happen to have Lared superfoods coffee, organic-proven coffee with, you guessed it, functional mushrooms that support and regenerate your brain. Go to laredsuperfoods.com, use the promo code SRS, you'll get 20% off. Guys, this is the real deal, these are the finest of ingredients.

Check it out, laredsuperfoods.com, promo code SRS, 20% off. At Grand Canyon University, they believe that the military men and women are the unique among the uncommon. You fought for our freedom. Your bravery and leadership are celebrated by all Americans. GCU matches your commitment to excellence. With our counselors specializing in military benefits and over 260 flexible degree programs online as of March 2023, GCU makes higher education possible for our nation's protectors and their families

to pursue your next journey. GCU salute you. God bless America. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private, Christian, and affordable. Visit gcu.edu slash military. TEM were back from the break. This is the last one.

So we got the hush money case, Stormy Daniels. I thought this was done a long time ago to be honest with it when I started doing the research and I saw this come up. I was, yeah, I thought this was settled. It was. Didn't the attorney go down? Yeah, that's what I thought.

So it's such a bizarre thing. And just I think they called it the zombie case, even because it just came back from the dead. It shouldn't have ever been a criminal case to begin with. Michael Cohen is a moron for how he wrote up that settlement agreement. And it should have never come back to life. Let alone come back to life as a criminal case.

And it was closed. The prosecutor who was brought in to do the case was upset. He wrote a book about it, about why he was upset that they didn't do it. And it was all in history. book about it, about why he was upset that they didn't do it. And it was all in history and then all of a sudden, surprise, here it is back again. And in the most legally incompetent form possible.

So March 2023, I'm in Hatton Grand jury voted to indict Trump 34 accounts of violating a New York law it. So March 2023, I'm in Hatton Grand jury voted to indict Trump 34 accounts of violating a New York law on corporate record keeping. Trump turned himself into authorities was processed as a criminal defendant pleaded

not guilty and was released without having to post bail. Trial is scheduled for March 25, 2024. 34 counts on New York penal law, falsifying business records in the first degree. Trump charged with crimes in the investigation. Prosecutors will likely argue that Daniels pay off constituted in a legal contribution to Trump's campaign, a violation of either state or federal election law, the Trump furthered

by falsifying his company's records. The way I understand this is, actually I don't understand this, but falsifying business records, labeling the payoff as a legal expense from the campaign. Is that in my correct? So what they did here was Michael Cohen decided to pay her personally. And then he was to be reimbursed by Trump. And so these are checks to Michael Cohen that are then booked as, you know, legal expenses. Did he write the checks himself? I don't think so.

But one of the interesting things here is that New York State loves to take a single count and turn it into many counts. So when you say about how there's 30-some-odd counts, really what that is, every check is a separate count. And then every memo entry in the checkbook is a separate count. And then every memo entry in the checkbook is a separate count. So for each check, there's two counts. Yeah. And they do this with a lot of things. I remember years ago I had a New York state version of a Rico case. It was a more traditional, you know, go case. It was a more traditional, you know, a tie-in organized crime, you know, gambling and loan shark in case. And I go in and they hand me the indictment as a stick. And I

started to look into it and I'm like, my God, this is the biggest indictment I've ever seen. And it turns out they took every bad and charged them all as separate counts. You know, over the course of a couple of years that they were running a sports book, it's like every bad-on-foot ball games was separate count. It was the most incomprehensibly stupid waste of trees ever. And, but that's what they do. And that's what they did here is they're taking really it's just one transaction that was

paid out in a couple of it in a few different checks and they expanded out like that. Okay. So the feds don't do that. The feds would have charged this as a one count in diamond probably. Okay. Maybe two or three. But wouldn't it be this, you know, 30-some odd? Is the federal government behind these state ones? I mean, are they coaching them like for George Owen?

I don't know. I don't know. I've heard that rumored. I haven't seen it, so I'm not going to give it oxygen one way or the other. I don't know. Yeah, I have heard that though. But yes, ultimately what we're talking about here is there is this, you know, she made an allegation. Michael Cohen worked out a deal to pay her off. He wrote it up Michael Cohen worked out a deal to pay her off.

He wrote it up stupidly. And, yeah, and she got paid. There was an NDA. She wasn't allowed to talk about it. And she violated it. And now they're trying to say that the payment was, you know, some kind of campaign contribution. The campaign argument, I think falls because that's already been tried in other circumstances. John Edwards, for example, and paying off somebody to keep

an extra marrow affair silent is not a campaign thing. Yeah, campaign expenses have to be something that's purely for the campaign. The campaign, you know, personal, you know, peace to it. And so he's also interested in having her not tell the world because it would hurt business, marriage, et cetera, then it's not really a campaign finance issue, which is exactly what happened with John Edwards. So I don't think that they're going to get there with that. I think that they have statute limitations problems because this thing happened so many years ago and they're trying to extend the statute of limitations based on the idea that well, we can extend it because he spent all that time in DC.

So he was outside of New York. So I think that they could potentially have problems with that. But just the baseline of this thing just doesn't, doesn't just doesn't make sense. Of all the indictments, this is foreign above the weakest. Really? Oh, yeah. How do you think all these, I mean, they all came in four and a half months. Obviously, there was some kind of, I mean, this was, what did this happen? there was some kind of, I mean, this was, what did this happen? No, that was, that was, that was May, I think. I mean, what, what initially? This was before he was president. Yeah, it was back in like 2015, 2015, so what? So, I mean, somebody's definitely

convoluting all of this and, and, and coordinating, correct? You don't get 91 felony counts in four different states in four and a half months. I don't know. I mean, obviously the the Florida and DC cases are connected because it's the same, you know, the same boss at DOJ on both of those cases. Those two are obviously connected. The other two, quite frankly, strike me as more of, you know, local prosecutors that are trying to ride the wave. Okay. Yeah. They're trying to jump on the band way. And maybe there's some coordination, but I doubt it, because my personal opinion is that there's not the coordination because first of all, I don't think the federal government has any legitimate interest in Alvin Bragg bringing a weak case that is almost certainly going

to get thrown out. Okay. I don't think the federal government has any interest in Fannie Willis bringing a case that directly contradicts the federal prosecutors' theory of their case, and, you know, inside lines a whole bunch of their witnesses. So I don't really see that coordination going on, at least with the government. Okay. You know, are there possible coordination with, you know, fundraisers and things like that? of these two elected district attorneys, maybe, I don't know. But it definitely struck me as more of a, you know, want to jump on the

bandwagon. Oh, we indicted him too. Yeah, I mean, they definitely, if anything, they're definitely getting a ton of publicity out of it. Sure. But, um, okay. Where do you think this is heading? This muscle. This muscle? Relatively soon. I would think it should be heading for a dismissal. Same with the others.

I mean, this one is a pretty legally incompetent theory. So if this one doesn't get dismissed, yeah, I think it would get overturned by Anapil. Oh, good. Is there anything we're missing with the Stormed Anials case? No, that's, I mean, that's the outline of it. It's just, it's, it's a weak case. A weak's being brought for nakedly political purposes. So with you wrapping up the interview, you're one of the four lead attorneys on this at the beginning. You have more insight into all of this than anybody else.

In your opinion, is this political prosecution that we're seeing? Is this going to become the norm? I believe that it is politically motivated. I think certainly the two state prosecutions are without a doubt politically motivated. I think that the federal prosecutions are because of the disparate treatment of him to other, you know, similarly situated defendants. I do see politics involved there.

And I think that, you know, I don't like to be the guy saying, oh, it's a political witch hunt. You know, I don't like using the word witch hunt at all. But here's the thing. When they go in and they try to demand a ludicrously speedy trial, nakedly for the purpose of getting it done before the election. of getting it done before the election. You feed that narrative. If you are engaging in litigation strategies that are so obviously intended to be timed

related to the election, you feed the credibility of those that say that it's a political witch hunt, that it's election interference. If, and I look at this, yeah, I have a different perspective on these things, not only because of my personal, prior personal involvement, but also because I spend a career working in the federal criminal justice world. And so when I look at the manner in which these prosecutors are acting as compared to every other case, that it's that, you know, delta of the treatment that supports, you know, the conclusion that's being done for political purposes.

Are there any charges that you believe may be valid? A legitimate concern. I think that the most legitimate concern is the obstruction counts in Florida if everything that's in the indictment is true. If, big if, I've obviously had a lot of success in my career going in and winning cases where the things that they put in the indictment are not the be true. So I don't believe everything that DOJ writes into an indictment. Okay, but if all of the allegations, if everything in all of these indictments were true,

I think that the obstruction of Florida is his single greatest threat. My next concern is fair trial. The jury. Good luck. Exactly. I remember when I interviewed Eddie Gallagher, he talked extensively about how they tried to, well, they didn't try.

They did pack the jury. Is there any, is there even any hope that they will have a fair trial with a legitimate jury? And how would you even, I mean, what the, all I ask that question later. And how would you leave? I mean, what the... I'll ask that question later. You know, here's the problem with that.

That is an issue for any defendant in a high profile case. And certainly any politically charged case. Can you find jurors who will be fair? Sure. Sure, I mean, the Georgia grand jury was not unanimous. There were people in there that thought he should not be indicted. I'm sure that the grand jury in DC also was not unanimous.

The Florida case, obviously, is gonna be tried in the jurisdiction where the jury pool has a lot more people that voted for him than against him. Ultimately, as a trial lawyer, what I want are jurors who are going to keep an open mind that haven't preached just the case. Given the amount of publicity in these cases, I think that's going to be very difficult to find. And that's not just a Trump thing. You know, I think that Hunter Biden is going to have the same problem. Bob Mnenda is to a certain extent is going to have the same problem. It's the reason why, back in 2016, when Jim

Komey came out and said, you know, no reasonable prosecutor will bring the case against Hillary Clinton, I agreed with him. Different reasons, but I agree with his conclusion, because I believed there's no way you're going to be able to pick a fair and impartial jury to try a USB Clinton because everybody has already been so saturated with the stuff that they're going to have their opinions already made up. That's what I was actually my next question. You know, that's about Hillary Clinton about Trump Yeah, it's you can't find the jury I don't think

It's not gonna bring their own you know baggage. Yeah I mean look I I tried to case years ago very different circumstances I tried the case of the three guys who base-jumped off of the top of one-world trade center. And it was big news in New York at the time. The GoPro video footage was, you know, amazing. It got millions of views on YouTube. And when the jury came in, and the judge, you know, said, Hey, has anybody heard of this case before?

We lost half the panel right there. Because half the panel stood up and they got in line and they said, yes, I've heard of this case. Have you formed a opinion of this case? Oh, yeah, what they did was freaking awesome. And I'm sitting there watching all my best jurors leave. But that's the point is that I lost half the jurors in that case. If you play the same standard Donald Trump, by the way, same good, same judge tried that

case that has the Manhattan case for Trump. If you play that same standard of, hey, jurors, how many of you have heard of this case? Everybody's out. Yeah. I don't. It's, to me, it seems impossible. I mean, everything is politically charged in this country at this point. You're either a pro-Trump or anti-Trump.

There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. So when I'm talking about a fair trial, I'm not just talking about a panel of anti-Trump jurors. I'm talking about pro-Trump as well. Where would you even begin to find neutral jurors? With this defendant, I don't think you can't. Do you think they'll try to pack the jury? Well, look, I mean, the way the juries get selected, there's not that

much you can really do about it. You know, people are randomly selected based on their driver's license registration and there's a process. So it's different in a military jury because there the convening authority picks the panel that you start from. But in a civilian system, the jury is already packed based on bringing the case in a jurisdiction that is so polarized. If the Georgia case gets removed to federal court, then you have a much wider jury pool. So you would have a jury pool that goes into other counties, the divot for Trump, for example. But you have to start with the idea that if you have a full county jury,

then how many votes did he get in that county? That's probably the percentage you got. Which doesn't mean 100%. I don't know what the numbers were there, but even if Biden won by 70%, that means 30% of your potential jurors vote for Trump. That means 30% of your potential jurors vote for Trump. And ultimately, you need a unanimous verdict to convict somebody. And so if you have a third of your jurors, so out of 12, 4, 8 to 4, assume that the

jurors ignore all the evidence and they just vote based on who they voted for in the election. Even there you're going to have difficulty because you're going to have an eight to four verdict. Interesting. It's going to be really interesting to see all this all plays out. Are you worried for the country? I am.

And yet I'm not. You know, all of, I think that all of the calls for, oh, this is the greatest threat to democracy. And, you know, we've never had a situation like this before. I think those are somewhat overblown. And I think that those are primarily being pushed by people that have not studied our own history, because we have had plenty of strife in this country and survived. Is this next couple of years going to be utter chaos? Yes.

Could it devolve into something worse? Yes. Is it going to be the end of our country? I don't believe so. I study history and I look at, I love reading books about, you know, historical figures and when you read them, especially if you read them today, you're going to pick out interesting things in those books, the parallel, what you see today. And so you see that the discord here is it really that much different from a lot of the discord that happened in the late 17, 17, hundreds

or late 1800s, not really. Is it really that much worse than when half the country decided to seed and We started shooting each other No, I Don't think it's that bad I Think the differences I think the biggest risk is back then as bad as it was people didn't know about it because we didn't have Twitter and Fox News and CNN and all these other things.

News traveled at the speed of a horse. We had a very interesting conversation in our last night on over correction and how the Pendulum is swinging and how you kind of had mentioned that this had started with Obama. I think that there's an element of that. I mean, you know, each time you have the pendulum swing, you know, Obama, you know, kind of swung the pendulum to one side, which, you know, brought the conditions that would bring Trump to office, as the swings over to the other side, and then it goes way over in the reaction to Trump. And I think one of the interesting things is Trump, one of his strengths or weaknesses, depending how you look at it, is he brings out extreme positions from his opponents. And so if you look at, for example, immigration, historically, there's been a debate about

immigration. And if you go back and watch, in fact, I invite you to go back and watch the 1995 State of the Union address by Bill Clinton. And watch the part where he's talking about immigration. And when you watch that, you're going to sit there and shake your head and say, my God, I forgot that Bill Clinton was a Republican. Because his talking points aren't that much substantively different than Trump's on reducing illegal immigration, building a wall,

we're a nation of immigrants, but we're a nation of laws, things like that. And yet then when Trump pushes this whole, build the wall, you then get the backswing of, well, if Trump wants to build the wall, then we want open borders. And then you have a situation like you have now.

This country, and in fact, I think the world, this country, and in fact, I think the world, politics suffers from abuse, corruption, over correction, and ultimately getting back to an equilibrium. The same is true of you know bail reform I think I told you about this last night bail reform Everybody's talking about how you know New York has got and a lot of these states have gone with the no cash bail reform Where you know nobody gets held in pre-truck confinement and all these people are out on the street and they're killing cops and And all the everything's terrible and yet I look at it and I say, that is an over correction of a legitimate problem. Because when I started out my career in New York City, they were jailing people pre-conviction for things that they did not need to be jailed for. They weren't dangerous to the community, they weren't risk of flight. They were putting men jail to make them more difficult to defend themselves.

And it's like I had a guy once he was in Rikers Island, his case primarily consisted of audio recordings. You know, we'd hundreds of hours of audio recordings. He wasn't allowed to have a computer. So under the way that the system was set up, the first time he's allowed to hear any of the evidence against him is when it's played for the jury. And this is a guy that we knew for two years, he was under investigation. We knew it. And about once a week, I call up the prosecutor and say, Hey, you want my guy to surrender? You know, where are we at? Are you ready to charge him? You want me to bring him in? No, no, not this week. Come again next week. They finally get to the point

where they want to charge him. And they show up at his house, 5.30 in the morning. He always woke up at 4 o'clock in the morning because he knew that they would do this. And so he would go out for a walk. And so when they showed up, he's sitting on his porch drinking coffee. They show up at the SWAT team. And he's sitting there. Oh, hi guys. Hold on a second. I'll be right down. He finishes coffee, walks down, he held his hands out. Five hours later, we're in front of a judge.

He must be held in pre-truck confinement. He is a risk of flight. If we don't hold him, he's gonna disappear. Look, wait a minute. We've been talking for two years. And sure enough, the judge put put him on Microsoft Island where he couldn't review any of the discovery against him. That's just one example of many where bail was an abusive system that was robbing people

of their constitutional rights. It was undermining their fundamental right to be able to defend themselves. And it needed to be corrected. But no cash bail is a massive over correction. And so now they're going to have to swing the pendulum back. And eventually we're going to get to an equilibrium. And once you reach the equilibrium, everything's gonna be fine for a while

until the institutional memory fades. And then it will fall off again. And then you'll be back in the pendulum. You got a great way of relating things back to history to them. Not right. You know, phenomenal job at it. You got a great way of relating things back to history to them. I try. You know, phenomenal job at it. Well, I just want to say thank you for coming and unpacking all of these indictments.

And I just, you know, I think people don't understand what this is all about. I didn't. And you really, you just did a great job of explaining everything and thank you for coming down to do that. Well, thank you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. You're welcome. One last question.

Sure. If they wanted you back on that legal team, would you go? Ah, I would have some conditions. The answer is yes. I would consider going back, but there would be certain conditions based on my past experience that I would want to make sure that certain barriers and personalities are removed. Fair enough. But other than that, I mean,

the reason why I took the case on in the first place is unchanged. It's an important case. It's, you know, very, you know, consequential issues to this country. And let's be honest, I didn't become a trial lawyer because I wanted to just do a volume DWI practice. I like getting into the biggest, loudest fights, and this is one of them. But I would just need to be,

have the conditions right to where I could actually fight it. Definitely understandable. I need three recommendations from you on who do you think would be good on this show? Who would you like to see here? So the first one we've talked about before and I think I've already connected you with them is the former governor of Missouri, Eric Gritons. I think that he'd be a really interesting guest. Relevant to a lot of the things we're talking about here because he as sitting governor was indicted for crime he did not commit by a politically elected

district attorney. He was forced to resign as governor. And then after he resigned, it came out that the lead investigator ended up pleading guilty to tampering with evidence. And the prosecutor also pleaded guilty to an ethics violation for presenting false evidence. And ultimately she had to step down. But none of that puts him back in office. the political aim of that prosecution had been fulfilled. And he's also just a really interesting and brilliant guy, former seal as well. So I think you would enjoy,

and your audience would enjoy talking to him. Perfect. The second one is a good friend of mine and a good client, Tommy Vax. So Tommy is a, he's a heavy metal musician. He doesn't fit the demographic for most heavy metal musicians. He's black. He grew up in the streets of Brooklyn.

He is a twin brother. And his life story is the perfect illustration of how personal choices affect where we end up. Because he and his twin brother, both grew up on the streets, both got into a lot of trouble. Tommy went straight and he went sober. His brother did not. His brother is serving time in prison right now for attempted murder of Tommy. Wow. The summit is really interesting. Tommy, because of his decision to go straight, is a world touring rock star and an incredible human being. I think you would like him a lot.

Perfect. And the third one is actually somebody that I don't know. The first two are admittedly clients of mine. The third one somebody I've never met before I'd like to meet. Mike Simpson. I recently read his book and have been listening to his podcast. It really fascinating guy. He started off as a ranger, then became a Green Beret enlisted and then went to medical school. He went from being an 18-dalt special forces medic to go in the medical school and then went back

to special operations as a physician to support the special operations troops. And now he's retired from that and he's really focused on longevity. He just published a book, Not Too Long Go, Cloth Hound, Finding Your Edge as a Man Over 40. It's something I've been reading about how to, you know, find to my diet and exercise and lifestyle. And he's a fasting podcast where he talks about a lot of these things. So I think that he's somebody else that you find very interesting. So those are my three recommendations. Thank you. Well, definitely look into them. And yes, you did connect me with Eric.

And I do. I have had conversations with Mike. So I will. And I know you'll connect me with. Tommy, absolutely. Perfect. I never would have pictured you as a heavy metal that. You know, one thing about Tommy, he used to be the frontman of a band called

the Bad Wolves. He took over his temporarily frontman for five finger death punch when their late singer went into rehab. He's done so much to help so many musicians and celebrities with substance abuse issues. And you know, one of the interesting stories about him is he was going to be doing a duet with Dolores Arridden of the Cranberries, a redo of their famous song, Zombie. And the night before they were supposed to record the duet, she died. Wow. As a result of, I think she actually drowned, but it was an alcohol-induced death. And so he went forward with the song, which got millions of years. It was a very, very popular song. But he donated 100% of the revenue or the profits to her children.

That's a hell of a guy. So he is, he's a heavy metal musician with a deep story. Perfect. Perfect. Well, hopefully we'll get him on. Yeah. Thank you for the recommendations. Thank you, brother. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Former Navy SEAL Mike Ritland keeps it real on the Mike Drop podcast. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the stage Rudy Reyes. The ethics of martial art is why I joined the Marine Corps. I never thought I was going to join the military because I'd been around so much gun violence and I wanted to be the antithesis of that. I love fighting hand-to-hand, it's fair. You don't have to kill your opponent.

You can beat them with ability and skill. Bike drop, raw, unfiltered, intellectually sound, wherever you listen.