Speaker 1: There's been a lot of legal news this week, with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump in DC to attend an appeals court hearing
Speaker 1: over the scope of his presidential immunity as he faces
Speaker 1: continued prosecution from Jack Smith. You've also got Hutter Biden
Speaker 1: making his first court appearance a connection to his criminal
Speaker 1: tax case. Of course, he was charged with nine counts
Speaker 1: in December. So we're going to dig into some of
Speaker 1: those issues and how does that impact the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four election when you look at the stuff that Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden is being charged with, as well as what the
Speaker 1: left is trying to do to Donald Trump. So in
Speaker 1: this case, we're going to turn to Matt Whittaker for
Speaker 1: his take on all of this. He of course was
Speaker 1: the acting United States Attorney General under President Trump. He's
Speaker 1: also an Iowan, so we're going to get his take
Speaker 1: as someone who was born in Iowa, who attended the
Speaker 1: University of Iowa. He was a tight end for the Hawkeyes.
Speaker 1: He also served as a United States Attorney for the
Speaker 1: Southern District of Iowa. So we're going to get his
Speaker 1: take on all these legal issues from this past week
Speaker 1: and also get into a little bit of presidential politics
Speaker 1: as someone who's there in the state of Iowa, and
Speaker 1: you will be out, you know, caucusing on January fifteenth.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned for Matt Whitaker. Well, Matt, it's great to
Speaker 1: have you back on. You've been in Iowa. Give us
Speaker 1: the temperature, you know what, we'll freezing, I'm sure, but
Speaker 1: you know, tell us what you're hearing from voters and
Speaker 1: caucus goers there.
Speaker 2: It's interesting. I mean, you know, obviously the circus comes
Speaker 2: to town every four years, and Iowans are a very
Speaker 2: politically savvy group, especially at the base of the base
Speaker 2: that turns out for the Iowa Caucuses, and so there's enthusiasm.
Speaker 2: I feel like it's going to probably be similar to
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen, you know, but there's just not as many
Speaker 2: candidates and you know, and so all things being equal,
Speaker 2: I think we're going to have a good caucus, a
Speaker 2: good turn out. It's not going to be probably record breaking.
Speaker 2: And these candidates, you know, President Trump and the vat
Speaker 2: Roma Swami and Governor DeSantis and Nikki Haley have all
Speaker 2: spent a lot of time there. And you know the
Speaker 2: famous thing I like to tell my friends from out
Speaker 2: of the state, you know, Iowa call us go typically
Speaker 2: when you ask them who they're supporting to say, or
Speaker 2: if you ask them about a particular candidate, So I
Speaker 2: really don't know. I've only met that person three times.
Speaker 2: So I mean, they're very you know, they're they're connoisseurs.
Speaker 2: They show up, they want to ask their questions, they
Speaker 2: want to meet these people, and so I would expect,
Speaker 2: you know, a very discerning judgment here on on Monday.
Speaker 1: Do you think, you know, looking at what the polls
Speaker 1: have been indicating and then being on the ground, do.
Speaker 3: You think that's what we're going to see? Will there
Speaker 3: be any surprises?
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any surprises. There's two things I'm watching,
Speaker 2: and you know, full disclosure, I've endorsed President Trump, who
Speaker 2: I worked for and as the zach Entary General, so
Speaker 2: I know it well. But the things I'm watching is,
Speaker 2: you know, does President Trump get fifty percent of total
Speaker 2: of the total vote? And then you know, the record
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty eight was set in a competitive caucus
Speaker 2: by the margin of victory of twelve points, and so
Speaker 2: I would you know that I would see if if
Speaker 2: President Trump can win by more than twelve that would
Speaker 2: be unprecedented record. You know, the highest percent was in
Speaker 2: two thousand, George W. Bush got forty one percent, a
Speaker 2: little over forty one percent. So those are the two
Speaker 2: numbers that I'm kind of tracking. I don't believe the
Speaker 2: polls were President Trump is not going to win by
Speaker 2: thirty plus points. If he does, I would say the
Speaker 2: contest is pretty close to over nationally because that would
Speaker 2: be just a blowout victory. But you know, I think
Speaker 2: I think those you know, smart people that are paying
Speaker 2: attention think that President Trump probably gonna win by fifteen
Speaker 2: plus points, which again would be a record in Iowa
Speaker 2: caucus history.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I'm sure he's trying to get as
Speaker 1: high as he can to try to then you know,
Speaker 1: push some of these other guys out of the race
Speaker 1: and cleared the field I wanted to. You know, obviously,
Speaker 1: he was off the campaign trail in d C. To
Speaker 1: attend an appeals court hearing about presidential immunity from this
Speaker 1: prosecution he's facing from Jack Smith.
Speaker 3: Where do you think that case is going? And does
Speaker 3: he have a case for presidential immunity?
Speaker 2: Yeah, a couple of things. You think about what he
Speaker 2: did in twenty four hours. See, he went to the
Speaker 2: appeals argument. He flew to Iowa, did the town hall
Speaker 2: with Marcia and and Brett and then and then and
Speaker 2: then went back to the final closing arguments for his
Speaker 2: fraud trial in New York. And then you know, in
Speaker 2: the meantime, you know, he's obviously his mother in law
Speaker 2: has passed away, and so he's dealing with that. You know, he's,
Speaker 2: he's he's just tireless. You know. The presidential community case
Speaker 2: is very interesting, and you know, I've heard a lot
Speaker 2: of legal commentary, you know, across the spectrum, and I
Speaker 2: think I think there is a belief that certainly there
Speaker 2: is a limit to presidential immunity. And the question is,
Speaker 2: are these allegations in Jacksmith's case within the limit, you know,
Speaker 2: that the outer bounds of those limits, because you know,
Speaker 2: the media love to talk about this, you know, hypothetical
Speaker 2: about you know, if the Seal Team six was ordered
Speaker 2: to go murder of political opponent, I think everybody, all
Speaker 2: Americans would create us probably outside of the bounds of
Speaker 2: presidential immunity. And so you know, but the question is
Speaker 2: where are those bounds? And I don't think there's a
Speaker 2: good case law on that right now. And you know,
Speaker 2: every you know, at least I think I don't know
Speaker 2: if we've talked about it before, but I you know,
Speaker 2: I certainly believe in all these President Trump's cases, these
Speaker 2: are all novel legal theories, right, They're all there's no
Speaker 2: case law on this. It's never been seen before, it's
Speaker 2: never been tried by prosecutors. You know what. I was
Speaker 2: a prosecutor here at Des Moines, Iowa for five and
Speaker 2: a half years. You know, the cases we would bring
Speaker 2: were within fact patterns, and we had case law and
Speaker 2: the well worn road of prosecutions. And in Jack Smith cases,
Speaker 2: he's trying novel legal theories. And uh, you know, Fanny
Speaker 2: Willis down in Fulden Counties trying novel legal theories. Alvin
Speaker 2: Bragg in Manhattan novel legal theories, and Letitia James has
Speaker 2: never brought a case under this code section in New
Speaker 2: York history. And so all of these things are sort
Speaker 2: of you know, first impression. And it's hard, you know,
Speaker 2: for somebody like me that you know, is kind of
Speaker 2: a basic blocking and tackling lawyer, you know, main street
Speaker 2: kind of prosecutor to to to figure out exactly what's
Speaker 2: going on or how he's going to turn out, because
Speaker 2: it's to some extent. It's going to depend on the judges,
Speaker 2: uh and how how they ultimately judge these cases and
Speaker 2: what the evidence shows.
Speaker 1: I mean, we know they're going to you know, keep
Speaker 1: them pretty tied up in the court over the next
Speaker 1: few months. Is that their strategy is to keep them
Speaker 1: off the campaign field. And then also, you know, how
Speaker 1: will that impact us with you know, wanting to get
Speaker 1: him in the White House if he's the nominee.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it sure looks like that's part of the strategies
Speaker 2: to try to bottle him up and process and proceedings
Speaker 2: and not allow him to campaign as much. I mean,
Speaker 2: like I said in the last twenty four hours, I mean,
Speaker 2: he still he did it in spite of anything. And
Speaker 2: you know, he's a very effective campaigner, and his people
Speaker 2: are willing to show up for him, and you know,
Speaker 2: he's had obviously a lot of high profile supporters nationally
Speaker 2: that are also willing to do some of the heavy
Speaker 2: lifting of the campaigning. But there's no substitute for the candidate,
Speaker 2: and so you know it's going to certainly affect that.
Speaker 2: I think the biggest concern I have as I look
Speaker 2: at these legal proceedings is just how aggressive Jack Smith
Speaker 2: has been to try to bress this Washington d the
Speaker 2: case he's got to. He brought the case mostly because
Speaker 2: you know, he knew that the judge in Florida was
Speaker 2: maybe not going to see the world the same way
Speaker 2: he sees it. And it most likely gives Trump the
Speaker 2: time he needs given that he's running a national campaign
Speaker 2: for president. But I think Jack Smith has found a
Speaker 2: judge in Judge Shutkin in Washington, d C. That's willing
Speaker 2: to press this case. But obviously the immunity case has
Speaker 2: been appealed already and the Supreme Court didn't put it
Speaker 2: on a rocket docket, so they you know, the Eth
Speaker 2: Circuit has it, and then they'll probably appeal to an
Speaker 2: on bunk and then ultimately Supreme Court. So I don't
Speaker 2: know if they're going to be able to hold that
Speaker 2: prial date. It was supposed to start the day before
Speaker 2: Super Tuesday on March fourth, March fifth being superdud there.
Speaker 1: Do you think that goal then with Jack Smith, as
Speaker 1: he's trying to get a conviction before election day, is
Speaker 1: that what he's gutting for here?
Speaker 2: Yes? No, no, no doubt. In my mind, the polling
Speaker 2: shows that a conviction could influence you know, the swing
Speaker 2: voters in their decisions, and so I think that's exactly
Speaker 2: what Jack Smith's trying to do. I think it's a shame.
Speaker 2: You know, defendants typically are given a lot of leniency
Speaker 2: when it comes to the timing, and especially First Amendment
Speaker 2: considerations and political campaigns are typically given consideration by the courts.
Speaker 2: But you know, in this case, obviously you are never
Speaker 2: stray too far from Trump duragement syndrome. That it affects
Speaker 2: a lot on the left, and it appears to really
Speaker 2: you know, Washington, d C. Is not friendly Trump territory,
Speaker 2: and there's not a lot of you know, friends that
Speaker 2: he's going to find in the courthouse in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: So we're just going to have to see if people
Speaker 2: give him a fair hearing and consider his legitimate arguments.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not hilarious because it's despicable, but I
Speaker 1: guess there's got to be some humor in the fact
Speaker 1: that they're talking about a threat to democracy while simultaneously
Speaker 1: trying to unilaterally remove him from ballots and states and
Speaker 1: deny people the opportunity to vote for him.
Speaker 3: But so that's the world that we live in.
Speaker 2: That is that is the definition of iron.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like, I don't it's not funny, but
Speaker 1: it's like I just feel like in this crazy world,
Speaker 1: you almost.
Speaker 3: Kind of just have to laugh or it's it's too much.
Speaker 2: I feel the same way. I think that, you know,
Speaker 2: the other thing that just show I mean, the left
Speaker 2: always shows how they really despise our systems and our
Speaker 2: you know, constitutional rights. And the way that Colorado violated
Speaker 2: the due process of President Trump and took him remove
Speaker 2: him from the ballot. And then the way that the
Speaker 2: main Secretary of State just absolutely unilaterally, you know, used
Speaker 2: power she thinks she has to take him off the ballot.
Speaker 2: It just shows you the left just it will do
Speaker 2: anything to not have Donald Trump run for president because
Speaker 2: they know that, you know, it's and when he wins,
Speaker 2: it is going to change our country for the better
Speaker 2: and obviously is not going to serve you know, their
Speaker 2: world view, which is a steady march towards the cliff
Speaker 2: of socialism and the really of our you know, liberty
Speaker 2: and freedoms during the United States.
Speaker 1: Take a quick commercial break more with Matt Whittaker. My
Speaker 1: biggest concern is I just I don't know how independents
Speaker 1: are going to view all this when it comes down to,
Speaker 1: you know, leading into election day. I think that's that's
Speaker 1: the big question mark for me. Do they see this
Speaker 1: as a political hit job or do they buy the
Speaker 1: argument that they're being told and sold. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know yet. You know, there's there's there's kind
Speaker 2: of mixed messages out of these swing states at Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Speaker 2: Wis Thompson, Arizona and the Battle those kind of places.
Speaker 2: I think it's too soon to tell. I think there's
Speaker 2: just going to be have to be a lot more
Speaker 2: road behind us in this twenty twenty four election before
Speaker 2: we really know what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: Speaking of you know, irony in the sense of what
Speaker 1: we're talking about with the you know, trying to you know,
Speaker 1: talk about democracy while trying to remove him from the ballot.
Speaker 1: You've also got Fulton County District Attorney Fanny Willis, who
Speaker 1: is prosecuting Donald Trump from racketeering charges, who has recently
Speaker 1: been accused of having a romantic relationship with a Special
Speaker 1: prosecutor Nathan Wade, who you know, she's involved in this,
Speaker 1: and he's made I think something like nearly a million
Speaker 1: dollars in legal fees since he was appointed.
Speaker 3: Could that sink her case?
Speaker 1: And you know, and that obviously she's going after Trump
Speaker 1: alleging that he's corrupt, and then she's engaged in something
Speaker 1: that is entirely improper and you know, corrupt. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, how do you think this will
Speaker 1: impact it?
Speaker 3: Will it impact it? You know, what's what's your take
Speaker 3: on that?
Speaker 2: Quite possibly some extent it We just we have an
Speaker 2: allegation and we don't know the extent of of this
Speaker 2: allegation and how much is true. But you know, certainly
Speaker 2: on the headline is very shocky. And you know, the
Speaker 2: suggestion that he, you know, was essentially pushing money to
Speaker 2: his law firm and then they were and going on
Speaker 2: trips and essentially funding a lifestyle she couldn't afford as
Speaker 2: a public servant. I think is is offensive. I think
Speaker 2: the voting public and the taxpayers of Fulton County are
Speaker 2: going to be very upset if their money was funneled
Speaker 2: to this guy so that he could romance the prosecutor.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, I think we're just gonna have
Speaker 2: to see how it plays out. Ultimately. I'm not sure
Speaker 2: that it has a dramatic impact into the Trump case
Speaker 2: other than you know, to your point, which is, you know,
Speaker 2: it's it's it's it's pretty rich to have a corrupt prosecutor,
Speaker 2: you know, choosing somebody else of being corrupt. It's it's
Speaker 2: really irony is probably the best word we have in
Speaker 2: the English language, but does not do enough to you know,
Speaker 2: really capture what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Well, it also just kind of like underscores that this
Speaker 1: is all political, right because clearly, you know, they don't
Speaker 1: care about democracy if they're trying to remove him from
Speaker 1: the ballot. They don't care about the rule of law
Speaker 1: if they're doing improper things themselves. So you know, it
Speaker 1: just sort of underscores and you know, demonstrates why they're
Speaker 1: really doing all this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and apparently you know.
Speaker 1: He purchased tickets for them to travel on like cruise
Speaker 1: lines like the Royal Caribbean and they went to nap
Speaker 1: about So I mean that seems like it should be
Speaker 1: illegal if she's paying him this money and then essentially
Speaker 1: sort of getting this kickback in the in the uh,
Speaker 1: you know, in the way of you know, travel paid
Speaker 1: travel right from him. So I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: illegal or not, but it should be ver least it all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well it's certainly unethical, you know, and based on
Speaker 2: these types of statutes that they're trying to get, you know,
Speaker 2: to again for the first time apply to you know,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and what they you know, accuse his behavior
Speaker 2: being certainly the sound like are you know a Fanny
Speaker 2: Willis Rico conspiracy? To me, doesn't it?
Speaker 3: It's it's wild stuff.
Speaker 1: I wanted to you know, Hunter Biden interrupted a House
Speaker 1: Oversight Committee vote overholding him in contempt of Congress. You know,
Speaker 1: he showed up. Apparently they weren't expecting them. Why do
Speaker 1: you think he did that? Uh, you know what point
Speaker 1: was he was he trying to make? And what do
Speaker 1: you think they're they're reasoning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was trying to make the point that hey,
Speaker 2: I'm willing to show up. I've been willing to show up,
Speaker 2: just not based on you know, I just won't do
Speaker 2: a closed door deposition. And I think they've done a
Speaker 2: good job messaging kind of their their position. I thought
Speaker 2: your colleague Jonathan Turley had the best quote of you know,
Speaker 2: the coverage, which was, you know, if you're gonna if
Speaker 2: you're going to you know, be part of the circus.
Speaker 2: You don't have to put on the big shoes in
Speaker 2: the red nose and talking about the Democrats, you know,
Speaker 2: trying to support Hunter Biden at that at that at
Speaker 2: that committee hearing. But you know, abu Ole is a
Speaker 2: very talented, sophisticated political operator and lawyer in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: So this, you know, was all intentional and the you know,
Speaker 2: the what happened was exactly what they wanted to happen.
Speaker 2: And once they had received enough of it, then they
Speaker 2: walked out and were able to sort of you know,
Speaker 2: make it, you know, get the video and and and
Speaker 2: again overcome uh and change the narrator. Ultimately, there was
Speaker 2: going to be a hearing to vote on contempt charges
Speaker 2: and that was overwhelmed by just you know, the spectacle
Speaker 2: of her Biden sitting in the front row with his lawyers,
Speaker 2: as you know is uh bong ripping best buddy and benefactor.
Speaker 1: You know. And he also made us first court appearance
Speaker 1: in his criminal tax case. He's been charged with nine
Speaker 1: counts in December, you know, failure to pay taxes, evasion assessment,
Speaker 1: and falseter fraudulent tax return. We've seen them get a
Speaker 1: sweetheart deal before obviously it blew up, but we've already
Speaker 1: seen his Barisma taxes that the you know elapse and uh,
Speaker 1: why mind blanking on?
Speaker 2: Oh statute of limitations? Yeah, well yeah, what's run out right? Exactly?
Speaker 3: Statute of limitations.
Speaker 2: Thank you, I'm I'm here for you.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that, Thanks, Matt. That's why we have you on.
Speaker 1: Do you think he's just gonna, you know, get like
Speaker 1: a you know, a pat on the hand, or do
Speaker 1: you think he's in some you know, serious trouble here
Speaker 1: with us?
Speaker 2: So I think he's in serious trouble. And I think
Speaker 2: he should have been in this serious trouble a while back.
Speaker 2: You know, I think he had this unbelievable sweet artdeal
Speaker 2: not only the statue of limitations, did it run and
Speaker 2: was allowed to run, which prosepcutors should never have done
Speaker 2: for his most lucrative packs here to twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen.
Speaker 2: But you know, he was getting kind of this deferred
Speaker 2: judgment on the guns, and he's getting misdemeanors on the taxes.
Speaker 2: Now he's facing you know, three felony gun charges, three
Speaker 2: felony tax charges. Everything else is a misting miror is
Speaker 2: gonna have probably a misdemeanor contempt of Congress charge potentially
Speaker 2: if the part Adjustice you know, willing to bring that,
Speaker 2: similar to the way they charged Banning and others, Peter Navarro,
Speaker 2: and so all that being said, I think, you know,
Speaker 2: it is yet to be seen, but this is much
Speaker 2: more serious than that deal he had up in Delaware
Speaker 2: where he almost walked away with you know, with his
Speaker 2: with a slap on the rest to your point.
Speaker 1: And his attorney, I mean, he helped kind of blow
Speaker 1: that up too. So I mean, do you think would
Speaker 1: he have been smarter to just you know, taken some
Speaker 1: sort of deal or taken that deal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he should have done it much faster. And you know,
Speaker 2: I mean what happened was once the you know, people
Speaker 2: started complaining about it and shining a lantern on it,
Speaker 2: obviously the judge took a close look at it, and
Speaker 2: then the US attorney replaced the trial team who probably
Speaker 2: took a closer look at it. And you know, they
Speaker 2: had a really advantageous deal for Hunter, and you know,
Speaker 2: just they just couldn't get it across the goal line
Speaker 2: because there was just too much interest and attention on it.
Speaker 2: And again it was you would never have done that deal.
Speaker 2: I was a Us' trade for five and n half years,
Speaker 2: and you know, you just would have never offered that
Speaker 2: deal if you were serious about prosecuting someone. And so
Speaker 2: it just demonstrates, what, you know, kind of how ridiculous
Speaker 2: this was. And then they appoint you know, the Special
Speaker 2: Council as the guy who had agreed to this deal
Speaker 2: in the first place. So the whole thing to me
Speaker 2: seems like Hunter Biden was getting every advantage of being
Speaker 2: the president's son and that shouldn't be the case. You know,
Speaker 2: in are in a system where allegedly, you know, justice
Speaker 2: is blind.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I mean I remember those days there. Those
Speaker 1: are a nice days, Matt. We don't have those anymore.
Speaker 1: Do you think Republicans in Congress, particularly the House, are
Speaker 1: doing a good enough job of trying to tie Joe
Speaker 1: Biden into all of this and to try to prosecute
Speaker 1: the case against him with his business dealings at least?
Speaker 2: I think the biggest problem for the Republicans in the
Speaker 2: House is they just have a very small majority, and
Speaker 2: so it's hard, you know, if you if you want
Speaker 2: to put some teeth into what you're doing, ultimately you
Speaker 2: need to have a block that the majority can vote
Speaker 2: to do things, whether that's to impeach, whether that's old
Speaker 2: people in contempt. When you have a three vote advantage,
Speaker 2: it's just very difficult to do that kind of business.
Speaker 2: And so I think there, you know, James Comer, I
Speaker 2: would point out as a as an example example of
Speaker 2: where they've done some good things and turned over some
Speaker 2: good evidence. I think, you know, Jim Jordan, it seems
Speaker 2: to me to be working hard, but he has not
Speaker 2: turned up as much maybe his investigations as people were hoping.
Speaker 2: But you know, that being said is I think they're
Speaker 2: doing an effective job. Obviously all of this is done
Speaker 2: through the lens of politics, and it just you know,
Speaker 2: then it then it ends up being you know, kind
Speaker 2: of what color jersey you're wearing and what you believe
Speaker 2: the evidence shows. But there's no doubt that you know
Speaker 2: that Joe Biden knew what Powter was doing, that he
Speaker 2: anticipated in what hud was doing, either knowingly or as
Speaker 2: you know, as as a father who wanted to help
Speaker 2: his son be successful, and that Hudder Biden was selling influence,
Speaker 2: and especially when his father was the vice president the
Speaker 2: United States, there's no doubt about that.
Speaker 3: Quick break more with Matt.
Speaker 1: Do you think voters care or do you think it's
Speaker 1: just already kind of baked in the cake that politicians
Speaker 1: leverage power to enrich themselves and their families.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I hope we're not to that point yet, Lisa,
Speaker 2: But I think that there is a lot of cynicism
Speaker 2: among the electric. They understand that, you know that none
Speaker 2: of these people are perfect, and none of these people
Speaker 2: are able to resist power and money. But at the
Speaker 2: same time, we need to hold everyone to a higher
Speaker 2: standard and have everyone, you know, do the right thing
Speaker 2: for the right reason. And unfortunately we're just not there.
Speaker 2: And obviously the Biden's have somehow become very wealthy after
Speaker 2: Joe Biden being in public service for forty years and
Speaker 2: only having four years outside since the government in the
Speaker 2: last since the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, how else does a you know, crackhead
Speaker 1: and a play dress become so rich?
Speaker 2: So only in America?
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, special place. What do you think the big issues
Speaker 1: should be for Republicans heading into the selection?
Speaker 2: Well, as I mean, I get around the state of
Speaker 2: Iowa right now a lot and taught me to a
Speaker 2: lot of folks. Obviously, the border is top of mind
Speaker 2: that every community is being affected by the border right
Speaker 2: now and what's happening, and it's an insecure border, in
Speaker 2: the in the system of asylum and all those things.
Speaker 2: And then you know, obviously the economy. I think a
Speaker 2: lot of people are not stealing the strength of the
Speaker 2: American economy. And I think mortgage rates are part of that.
Speaker 2: You know, it's becoming very hard for anyone to buy
Speaker 2: a house. You know, the interest rate spike has caused
Speaker 2: mortgage payments to almost double if you have to buy
Speaker 2: a house now from what you would have had. And
Speaker 2: so I think those are what people are feeling. You know,
Speaker 2: in my home state of Iowa, agriculture issues are very important,
Speaker 2: as you can imagine, you know, big act state and so,
Speaker 2: but you know, it's the national issues are are the
Speaker 2: issues that I think a lot of people are thinking
Speaker 2: and chealing. I think there's also just sort of what
Speaker 2: I would describe as a as a as a as
Speaker 2: a cultural issues. You know, whether it's the drag queen brunches,
Speaker 2: you know, whether it's you know, sort of the whole transgender,
Speaker 2: the men and women's sports, all those issues are are
Speaker 2: certainly people are are are thinking about it about as well.
Speaker 1: I hope that we, you know, effectively prosecute the case
Speaker 1: on all of those fronts. Matt, I know you're busy guy.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you taking the time to join the show.
Speaker 1: Always enjoy talking with you, Lisa.
Speaker 2: I am a big fan of yours and I think
Speaker 2: you know I'm always looking forward to when I can
Speaker 2: catch you on television. And you know, I think your
Speaker 2: podcast is wildly successful, even though you know your producer
Speaker 2: is kind of marginal and best, but you know otherwise otherwise,
Speaker 2: I always enjoy spend a time with you. So thanks
Speaker 2: for having me on today.
Speaker 1: And for those listening. We say that and Jess because
Speaker 1: they're friends. So Matt, always appreciate you coming on. I
Speaker 1: feel the same about you, so appreciate you bring us
Speaker 1: your insight and for taking the time my friend.
Speaker 2: Thank you, all right, thank you.
Speaker 1: That was Matt Whittaker. Appreciate him taking the time to
Speaker 1: come on the show.
Speaker 3: Great guy. Always fund having him on.
Speaker 1: I want to thank you guys at home for listening
Speaker 1: every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen throughout the week.
Speaker 1: I want to thank my producer, John Cassio for putting
Speaker 1: the show together until next TI time