Speaker 1: We are awaiting the possibility of a Trump indictment. It
Speaker 1: would be the first criminal case filed against a former president,
Speaker 1: unprecedented in American history, and it all hinges on the
Speaker 1: alleged falsification of business records for one hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars payment to Stormy Daniels. We've heard from people
Speaker 1: like Nancy Pelosi and people on the left and they say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's not above the law. Well, sure, you know,
Speaker 1: I'd agree with that. No one's above the law, but
Speaker 1: he's also not below it. He's not the first person
Speaker 1: in America to pay someone off with an NDA, and
Speaker 1: he's certainly not going to be the last. We all
Speaker 1: know why they're doing this. They look at Trump as
Speaker 1: a trophy and they're willing to burn down the country
Speaker 1: and the rule of law to try to get him.
Speaker 1: They've been pursuing this switch hunt from Donald Trump from
Speaker 1: the day that he announced his candidacy for presidency. They'll
Speaker 1: stop at nothing to try to get him. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't have any faith in government anymore, do you.
Speaker 1: They've corrupted the Department of Justice, They've corrupted the FBI.
Speaker 1: I don't believe there's an eco application of the law
Speaker 1: in this country, certainly not out of the Manhattan DA's
Speaker 1: office in New York City. We'll talk to former Acting
Speaker 1: Attorney General Matt Whittaker, he was the acting Attorney General
Speaker 1: under President Trump about all of this, what he thinks
Speaker 1: about the case. We'll get into the details of the case,
Speaker 1: what you need to know about it, and also what
Speaker 1: does this all mean for both former President Trump but
Speaker 1: also the country moving forward. What sort of precedent does
Speaker 1: this set in America? So stay tuned. You're not gonna
Speaker 1: want to miss this conversation with Matt Whittaker. Matt Whittaker,
Speaker 1: it's been a while since we've caught up. I wish
Speaker 1: I was under a different circumstances than this clown show
Speaker 1: that we're going to be talking about here. Well, yes,
Speaker 1: I agree. You know, typically people called me on their
Speaker 1: worst possible days, and so you know, obviously you're not
Speaker 1: calling for legal advice, so that's good. But yeah, it's
Speaker 1: you know, what's going on right now with Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and the Manhattan DA is unprecedented and it's a little crazy.
Speaker 1: I'm sure most people listening are just shaking their heads.
Speaker 1: We're awaiting this possible indictment. This is the first criminal
Speaker 1: case that would be filed against a former president. Are
Speaker 1: they going to do it? The inner workings of a
Speaker 1: grand jury are very interesting. You know, we had Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen's former lawyer who went in on Monday and I
Speaker 1: think maybe gave the prosecutor and his team a little
Speaker 1: bit of pause. I mean, you know, you ultimately you
Speaker 1: have to get a supermajority of the grand jury to
Speaker 1: vote for the indictment, and your star witness is a
Speaker 1: convicted felon and somebody whose whole goal in life is to,
Speaker 1: you know, get Donald Trump and to punish Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I just don't think that makes a very attractive case,
Speaker 1: certainly to a trial jury, but I think even to
Speaker 1: a grand jury. If I'm you know, a citizen of
Speaker 1: this country and I'm looking at this fact pattern, and
Speaker 1: I'm looking at all the legal jumps which we'll talk
Speaker 1: about in a little bit that they're going to have
Speaker 1: to make to make this case, I'm not sure there's
Speaker 1: a choice Lisa, that you know you have. Either what
Speaker 1: they can voting you to vote a true bill on
Speaker 1: the indictment, which means they vote to approve the indictment,
Speaker 1: and the process moves forward or they can no billet.
Speaker 1: And it's very rare for a grand jury to no
Speaker 1: bill an indictment presented to them by a prosecutor. But
Speaker 1: it happens, and and and it shows that they're actually engaged.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's often been said that a grand jury
Speaker 1: wouldn't diet a ham sandwich. And I don't necessarily agree
Speaker 1: with that extreme a case, but it's a very low bar.
Speaker 1: It's probable cause standard, not what you know, again we'll
Speaker 1: talk about later. The trial jury is gonna have to
Speaker 1: consider which is a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. So
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be a close call even
Speaker 1: to get an indictment tomorrow. And if they do get
Speaker 1: an indictment, I mean it's going to be it's going
Speaker 1: to be complete and utter chaos for a while. You know.
Speaker 1: And we're talking about a grand jury in New York City,
Speaker 1: a liberal city. So what does that kind of grand
Speaker 1: jury look like. Well, it's going to look like the
Speaker 1: citizens of New York City, citizens of Manhattan. So it's
Speaker 1: going to skew left. You know, a lot of them
Speaker 1: are not, you know, big fans of Donald Trump. But
Speaker 1: I hope we at least that we're not in a
Speaker 1: situation in our country where people just like lose their
Speaker 1: reason and common sense. You know, when I give closings
Speaker 1: at trials, I always talk to the jury about just
Speaker 1: you know, that they did not check their reason and
Speaker 1: common sense at the door. And I think these grand juries,
Speaker 1: certainly the grand jurors can certainly use their reason and
Speaker 1: common sense to look at the facts and decide whether
Speaker 1: they think that's a crime. I think there's a lot
Speaker 1: of people that don't think it's a crime. Certainly, a
Speaker 1: lot of people that don't think it's a felony. You know,
Speaker 1: whether or not he altered a business record, you know,
Speaker 1: that's a misdemeanor under New York law. And I don't
Speaker 1: see that the elevated the way they're trying to elevate
Speaker 1: this to a felony is going to be successful to me. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: we can we can get it in that as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, of course, the allegation is that there was
Speaker 1: a falsification of business records for this one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty thousand dollars payment to Stormy Daniels. From your legal perspective,
Speaker 1: does it look like a crime was committed here? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's a great question. I mean, you
Speaker 1: know sort of these these you know that that's going
Speaker 1: to be a question that the jury is going to
Speaker 1: have to wrestle with if it goes to trial, and
Speaker 1: that that an appellate court is going to have to
Speaker 1: decide what the law is on that is, you know,
Speaker 1: it is characterizing something as a legal fee, um, you know,
Speaker 1: the same as a you know, as a settlement expense.
Speaker 1: You know, I think that's a I think that's probably
Speaker 1: a closer call than a lot of people maybe originally
Speaker 1: would think until they kind of consider it, um, you
Speaker 1: know what this was for, you know, I mean, and
Speaker 1: then you know, what they're really trying to say is
Speaker 1: that it was a campaign expense. And I can tell
Speaker 1: you that, you know, while I was acting Attorney General,
Speaker 1: the Southern District in New York looked at this fack pattern.
Speaker 1: It's the exact same back pattern on the idea of
Speaker 1: a campaign finance violation, and they determined that it wasn't
Speaker 1: a campaign finance violation. I'll tell you why. I think
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's a really interesting question. First, a
Speaker 1: little history. You know, they they tried to do this,
Speaker 1: you know, remember John Edwards paid you know, his UM
Speaker 1: fair a fair partner if you will, on which call.
Speaker 1: But it was also on his campaign a settlement out
Speaker 1: of his campaign fund, not his personal funds. And DJ
Speaker 1: prosecutor John Edwards, and John Edwards was acquitted at trial
Speaker 1: UM and it was it was pretty clear from that
Speaker 1: acquittal that you know, some of these things, you know,
Speaker 1: a personal flash campaign expense, you know, might not rise
Speaker 1: to that level of the campaign finance violation. But I
Speaker 1: will tell you this, what really is is at the
Speaker 1: heart of this issue is this is the idea of
Speaker 1: a settlement agreement. Whether Donald Trump was intimate with Stormy Gans,
Speaker 1: I believe President Trump I don't think he was. But
Speaker 1: you know, either way, it doesn't matter for the for
Speaker 1: the purposes of what I'm going to explain, and that
Speaker 1: is is that certainly, in twenty sixteen, in the fall,
Speaker 1: he was running for president, he was a candidate. Certainly,
Speaker 1: a settlement to keep somebody quiet from speaking out, you know,
Speaker 1: could be argued to, you know, have benefited his campaign,
Speaker 1: but not everything that benefits your campaign is a campaign expense.
Speaker 1: If you're a candidate and you go to lunch during
Speaker 1: a campaign stop, and you pay for your own lunch.
Speaker 1: That's certainly not a campaign violation. And so on the
Speaker 1: other hand, you know, it's also a personal expense that
Speaker 1: you know, because obviously it didn't just affect his campaign,
Speaker 1: it affected his personal life. It affect his relationship with
Speaker 1: his wife, relationship with his kids, a relationship with his business.
Speaker 1: So this at best, it's a it's a it's a
Speaker 1: combo personal and campaign expense, and under the law, that
Speaker 1: doesn't make it a campaign expense and therefore a violation
Speaker 1: of campaign finance law. And I can give you a
Speaker 1: stronger argument, and that is that the Federal Election Commission
Speaker 1: looked at this exact same fact pattern as well, in
Speaker 1: addition to Southern District from New York, and they also
Speaker 1: concluded that this was not a campaign finance violation. So
Speaker 1: you know, in my mind, this is a very aggressive
Speaker 1: and it takes this campaign finance violation, this felony to
Speaker 1: get this what was otherwise a misdemeanor. We were talking about,
Speaker 1: this qualtification of business records to be elevated to a felony.
Speaker 1: And therefore, you know, actually do some you know, some
Speaker 1: real meaningful you know, legal damage to you know, the
Speaker 1: president well and campaign finance violations, you know, typically it
Speaker 1: ends up in a fine. I mean New York City's
Speaker 1: Mayor Eric Adams is currently facing likely fines for accepting
Speaker 1: legal campaign contributions, improperly accounting for them, and then also
Speaker 1: ignoring request for documentation by state election authorities. Certainly don't
Speaker 1: think he's going to be facing a felony by Alvin Bragg.
Speaker 1: And that's really where this thing gets really dubious is because,
Speaker 1: let's stay on its face, it would potentially be a misdemeanor,
Speaker 1: but the statute of limitations are up for a misdemeanor
Speaker 1: on this particular case with Trump, So they're reaching for
Speaker 1: a felony. And for that, I mean they must prove
Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt not only did he intend, you know, declare,
Speaker 1: they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
Speaker 1: intended by this falsification of records to conceal the commission
Speaker 1: of another crime in the process, I mean a felony here.
Speaker 1: I'm not an attorney, you are, but just from a
Speaker 1: common sense standpoint, seems like a reach on what they're
Speaker 1: accusing him of. It is. And the other thing is,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not prone to what about is m
Speaker 1: I don't think it really furthers the art argument very often,
Speaker 1: but in this case it kind of. I do do
Speaker 1: it sometimes I'm not going to, I know, but I
Speaker 1: mean Hillary Clinton was fined for hiding the Fusion GPS
Speaker 1: research in the Russian collusion, you know, the dossier as
Speaker 1: as payments to a law firm, and certainly that's a
Speaker 1: falsification of a business record. And you don't see album
Speaker 1: Brag showing any interest in going after her for that crime,
Speaker 1: you know. So, and then you know, we have this
Speaker 1: whole statute of limitations issue as well. So you have
Speaker 1: the felony issue that we're talking about right now, and
Speaker 1: then you have a statute of limitations challenge that's going
Speaker 1: to be very interesting how they contort themselves because the
Speaker 1: alleged behavior happened seven years ago, and the statue limitations
Speaker 1: for even a felony it's five years, misdemeanors two years.
Speaker 1: That's clearly passed time wise, and so you know, I
Speaker 1: think this case, as we break it down, just becomes
Speaker 1: a huge leap to you know, and under the guise
Speaker 1: of that, they were just wanted to target Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and we're going to prosecute him no matter what, and
Speaker 1: so you mentioned for the felony they're trying to say,
Speaker 1: as my understanding is that because he's been outside of
Speaker 1: the state of New York that somehow that like pauses
Speaker 1: the statute of limitations for the felony charges. That correct.
Speaker 1: I forget what the what it's exactly called. So my
Speaker 1: actual understanding of their argument is that the payments to
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen were over a couple of years, and that
Speaker 1: they're barely within the last payment is within that five years.
Speaker 1: I think that I haven't heard the extra jurisdictional argument.
Speaker 1: Maybe there's one that's one as well. But I read
Speaker 1: a nice piece by your colleague Andy MacArthur, or maybe
Speaker 1: it was John Turley, one of them wrote kind of
Speaker 1: a breakdown of sort of this idea of how to
Speaker 1: get within the five years, and still believe that it
Speaker 1: was a little, uh specul to try to get it
Speaker 1: within that window of five years, because I thought I
Speaker 1: was reading an article from him as well, and I
Speaker 1: forget what it was called, but there's like a certain
Speaker 1: word for it that they can But anyways, well you
Speaker 1: can toll the states, right, Yes, I don't. I don't.
Speaker 1: I just it's going to be a novel theory under
Speaker 1: a New York law. I just I think it's I
Speaker 1: don't you know, usually if you're just in another state,
Speaker 1: that's not I mean, if you're out of the country,
Speaker 1: I might pull but in another state, I don't, that's not.
Speaker 1: I'm not familiar with that because but again, this is
Speaker 1: they're going to use every aggressive technique to try to,
Speaker 1: you know, prosecute Donald Trump. That's pretty clear to me
Speaker 1: right now. But I mean it seems like even in
Speaker 1: this conversation even trying to come up with what they
Speaker 1: would possibly do, I mean, we're even reaching and trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how they would reach. So it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, and and and they have to get to
Speaker 1: a point of beyond a reasonable doubt here, and so
Speaker 1: I just feel like if we're even having a you know,
Speaker 1: trouble trying to figure out, you know, how they're reaching,
Speaker 1: I mean, how do they reach that standard? I don't know.
Speaker 1: This is I've I've found myself in trying to explain
Speaker 1: this whole situation several times just resorting to the I
Speaker 1: don't know, because it doesn't make any sense. It's unprecedented.
Speaker 1: So we're you know, we're in brand new uncharted territory.
Speaker 1: At the same time, you know, some of these legal
Speaker 1: theories and ideas that they're trying to use just don't
Speaker 1: make any sense to me. And you know, again, I'm
Speaker 1: used to where you bring a case because you not
Speaker 1: only believe in the case, but it's it's one of
Speaker 1: your priorities, it helps your community, and um, and it's
Speaker 1: you're gonna you're you're certain of that you're gonna have
Speaker 1: a really good chance of winning the case or getting
Speaker 1: a plea. This seems like completely opposite of all those tenants. Um,
Speaker 1: it's not going to help the citizens of Manhattan at all.
Speaker 1: It's certainly not making their lives better. Uh, you know.
Speaker 1: And at the same time, uh, it just does not
Speaker 1: seem like that the chance of winning this case is
Speaker 1: at best a coin flip. I think it's actually worse
Speaker 1: than that. I think the probability is probably less than
Speaker 1: twenty percent that they can actually get this to a conviction,
Speaker 1: conviction that'll stick quick commercial break more with Matt Whittaker. Here,
Speaker 1: people like Nancy Pelosi and the left and they say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump isn't above the law. You know, sure,
Speaker 1: I agree that no one's above the law, but I
Speaker 1: agree with that below it either you know, and he's
Speaker 1: he's not below the equal application of the law. And
Speaker 1: it's hard to imagine that this is if this was
Speaker 1: just you know, any other person, even any other political candidate,
Speaker 1: that they would be trying to reach for a felony
Speaker 1: or even trying to potentially indict that individual on this.
Speaker 1: I completely agree with you. I think this is may
Speaker 1: cause I know something. There's instant speculation that this would
Speaker 1: cause a quote unquote war, but you're going to see.
Speaker 1: I'm worried if this is successful, that there is going
Speaker 1: to be a real desire or let's just say it,
Speaker 1: for revenge for the right and their prosecutors to start
Speaker 1: targeting the left. And I don't think that. I don't
Speaker 1: think that should be done. I don't think it should
Speaker 1: be done on either side. I don't think there should
Speaker 1: be a targeting of individuals by the state. And that's
Speaker 1: unfortunately what the Democrats appear to one. I mean, they
Speaker 1: just continue to pursue this path, and I don't think
Speaker 1: I don't think they're going to end with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, I just think all conservatives and it's certainly
Speaker 1: all you know, high profile political office holders, and you know,
Speaker 1: pundits are our fair game. And in this in Alvin
Speaker 1: Braggs and George Soils and the liberal left worldview, and
Speaker 1: you know, I guess to some extent, you know, it's
Speaker 1: just like all other lawfare. It's just one of the
Speaker 1: tools in the battle between the sides. But I just
Speaker 1: it's it's when we make the political criminal, I think
Speaker 1: we all lose. And I think our founding fathers will
Speaker 1: be very concerned about what's happening right now. Well, and
Speaker 1: what's worrisome too is I mean, look, the left looks
Speaker 1: at Trump like a trophy. You know, they're all trying
Speaker 1: to get that trophy to get up. But you know,
Speaker 1: in the process, they've set the country on fire, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean they've destroyed the rule of law. They've corrupted
Speaker 1: the FBI, they've corrupted the Department of Justice. Americans have
Speaker 1: no faith in institutions or a government anymore. So in
Speaker 1: the process of trying to get Donald Trump since twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: they've destroyed the country. And the process isn't that what
Speaker 1: marks us to do? Ultimately? I mean, you know, they
Speaker 1: undermine the institutions, and they you know, they they they're
Speaker 1: always quick to you know, point the finger at those
Speaker 1: of us on the right and suggest that somehow we're
Speaker 1: we started or we did it. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: think I think trying to you know, sort of uh
Speaker 1: dismantle the permanent uh, you know, bureaucratic state is actually
Speaker 1: a good goal. Um. You know, I was, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any reason we started shouldn't start
Speaker 1: having serious discussions about moving the government out of Washington,
Speaker 1: DC and into the states, you know, distributing the government
Speaker 1: to the people instead of consolidating power within one national capital. Um.
Speaker 1: I just you know, I just think I think we
Speaker 1: I think we need to really roll up our sleeves
Speaker 1: and and and rethink how we get back to these
Speaker 1: basic and fundamental um tenets of our founding, you know,
Speaker 1: our constitutional separation of powers, not only between the three
Speaker 1: branches of federal government, between the between the federal government
Speaker 1: and the states. And I think we also need to
Speaker 1: look at how, you know, the rule of law. I
Speaker 1: think we need to look at how we can make
Speaker 1: these powerful positions that prosecutors have accountable. And especially when
Speaker 1: you have these places like Manhattan where it's just one
Speaker 1: party rule, it's it's destabilizing our country, and you know,
Speaker 1: and it's also distracting our country at least. So this
Speaker 1: is what I worry about. You know, we had massive
Speaker 1: banking challenges, we have you know, serious national security challenges
Speaker 1: China and Russia and North Korea. And you know, we
Speaker 1: know that we have alliances with other countries that they're
Speaker 1: begging us to engage and protect and work with them.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of Australia and Japan, India our prime examples
Speaker 1: of that. The world is not a safe place, and
Speaker 1: you know, the United States has to lead and right now,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and the Democrats it's a clown show and
Speaker 1: all they want to do is prosecute Donald Trump. It's
Speaker 1: it's really sad well, and in part that might be
Speaker 1: why they're doing it, you know, as well, to try
Speaker 1: to distract from the fact that you know, the country
Speaker 1: is falling apart. And it seems right now to your point,
Speaker 1: centralization a government that has taken place, has you know,
Speaker 1: destroyed the country. You know what happens to a country
Speaker 1: when you lose the rule of law, which is the
Speaker 1: direction we're heading in in America right now. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it's not good. I mean, because then it
Speaker 1: becomes you know, essentially which you have in China, where
Speaker 1: there's a there's a powerful elite that decide everything. You know,
Speaker 1: they decide what the law is, they decide who the
Speaker 1: law applies to, who the law doesn't apply to, and
Speaker 1: then there's a you know, obviously a consolidation of power
Speaker 1: and um and wealth among those people in control. It's
Speaker 1: not it's not good, but you know, this is what
Speaker 1: you know. Democrats would always love to take other people's
Speaker 1: money and you know, and and pretend like they you know,
Speaker 1: they're wealthy, well, and that's the thing, and they push
Speaker 1: things like you know, socialism, but you know, all that
Speaker 1: really does is empower the elite. So if you're Bernie
Speaker 1: Stander or you're you're fine, you're part of the ruling class.
Speaker 1: It's everyone else that gets screwed. Let's say that this
Speaker 1: this goes down. You know, Trump is indicted. What sort
Speaker 1: of legal recourse does he have and all of this
Speaker 1: to try to continue to fight it? What's the process there?
Speaker 1: Knowing Donald Trump as I know him, he's going to
Speaker 1: fight with everything he has. I hope he's got a
Speaker 1: good team of lawyers. I know some of them. I
Speaker 1: don't know all of them, um, but you know there's
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of motions. If he's dined,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a lot of emotions, um. And those
Speaker 1: motions if they're denied or could be appealed depending on
Speaker 1: what you know, what the characterization is. And then you
Speaker 1: know there's obviously potentially federal appeals that could be done,
Speaker 1: especially in this campaign finance area we were discussing earlier.
Speaker 1: And so there's there's going to be a lot of
Speaker 1: twists and turns to this and a lot of opportunities
Speaker 1: for us to talk about Elisa. So they look forward
Speaker 1: to come back on the future. It seems like it's
Speaker 1: potentially inevitable. But you know, and also I think what
Speaker 1: are the concerns too, is you know, they've tried to
Speaker 1: make working for Trump so toxic. Can he get great
Speaker 1: legal help right now? Yeah? I mean certainly, I think
Speaker 1: that has been a challenge for him, is to find
Speaker 1: really good people that you know, are willing to I guess,
Speaker 1: you know, put everything on the line to defend the
Speaker 1: rule of law. But I think, you know, again, I
Speaker 1: think the guy certainly working on the Special Council's investigation
Speaker 1: is a great lawyer, and I think there will be others,
Speaker 1: and there's plenty of you know, good lawyers in New
Speaker 1: York City that could help him on this case. And
Speaker 1: so I think you'll find I think you'll find the
Speaker 1: right person. But his you know, his fighting spirit is indomitable,
Speaker 1: and so I think that you know, that will be um,
Speaker 1: that will be good in the long term. If he
Speaker 1: is indicted, what are the next steps then that he
Speaker 1: would be facing in the process. Well, so if he's indicted,
Speaker 1: the next steps are a restaurant will be issued or
Speaker 1: a notice to appear. Um, you know, if Alvin Bragg
Speaker 1: has any class, you will just give them a notice
Speaker 1: to appear. There will then be you know, the initial
Speaker 1: parents the processing, which involves mugshot, fingerprinting and the like,
Speaker 1: and then there will be a trial schedule set and
Speaker 1: a discovery order that's put in place to for the
Speaker 1: governments from overall the evidence that they have in their
Speaker 1: possession and all exam exculpatory evidence as well, and then
Speaker 1: you know, we just had to trial. You know, I
Speaker 1: think there'll be a lot of motions, like I said,
Speaker 1: a lot of appeals in the middle of all that,
Speaker 1: and then ultimately we'll go, you know there'll be a
Speaker 1: plea or a trial. I don't expect that this will
Speaker 1: be a plea um, but you know, again, we'll just
Speaker 1: each each moment provides just a really interesting, unprecedented moment
Speaker 1: in American history that will tell our children, our grandchildren about.
Speaker 1: It's just, you know, it just I don't know, it
Speaker 1: doesn't even feel like America anymore. It's just it's really
Speaker 1: sad to see all this happened. It just feels like
Speaker 1: where our country's almost lost. Matt Whittaker. Liberty Andjustice with
Speaker 1: Matt Whittaker is your podcast? Is there anything you'd like
Speaker 1: to leave us with before we go? Everybody needs to
Speaker 1: participate in our republic. We can just all stand by
Speaker 1: the sidelines. We need to all find a way to
Speaker 1: get involved, no matter in your political persuasion at all.
Speaker 1: I just think we all need to participate in civic life.
Speaker 1: And I think that's what our founding fathers expected, and
Speaker 1: I think we all need to live up to that
Speaker 1: in our own way. Well, I appreciate it, Matt. I
Speaker 1: know you're a busy guy. Everyone wants to talk to you.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you taking the time to come on the show.
Speaker 1: Hope to catch up with you, Sue, and under better
Speaker 1: circumstances my pleasure least look forward to talking to you soon.
Speaker 1: So that was Matt Whittaker, a former acting Attorney General
Speaker 1: under our former President Donald Trump. You know, tough conversation, right,
Speaker 1: This is some depressing stuff, but it's happening, so you know,
Speaker 1: we got to talk about it and we have to
Speaker 1: cover it. I appreciate you guys for listening to the
Speaker 1: show every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen throughout
Speaker 1: the week. I want to thank John and cast you On,
Speaker 1: my producer, for putting it together. Please leave us a
Speaker 1: review on Apple podcasts, leave us a rating, a review,
Speaker 1: ways of love reading those until next time. Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for listening.