UNBIASED - Special Report: The People of the State of NY against Donald J. Trump

Episode Date: April 10, 2023

In this episode, listen to Jordan tell you everything you need to know about New York's case against Donald J. Trump. She'll tell you in a way no one else will - unbiased and focused on the facts. Here's what you can expect:  1. Arraignment Day (1:19) 2. The Indictment (6:39) 3. The Statement of Facts  (10:57) 4. The Statute of Limitations Issue (25:31) 5. Why Some Experts Say the Case is Weak (32:13) 6. Why Other Experts Say the Case is Strong (33:25) 7. What to Expect From Here (34:03)  IF YOU ENJOYED THIS EPISODE, PLEASE LEAVE ME A REVIEW! It is truly so appreciated! Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. Subscribe to Jordan on YouTube. All sources can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. Some people refer to it just as the Donald Trump indictment. Some people say the case against Donald Trump, whatever you call it, that's what we're talking about today. So we're going to cover the arraignment, the indictment. We're going to talk about the statement of facts, which a lot of people haven't seen and is actually a separate 13 page document that gives the indictment a lot of context. It lays out the theory of the case.

So that's really going to help you understand. And then we're also going to talk about the statute of limitations issue. We're going to talk about why some legal experts think this is a weak case. Some other experts think this is a strong case. And then we'll finish talking about what we can expect going forward. So without any beating around any bushes, let's just jump right into arraignment day. The arraignment lasted just under an hour. So Donald Trump walked into the courtroom at 2.29 PM, walked out around 3.25, and that was that. There were a few members of the press allowed into the gallery, no phones, no laptops, no cameras. So no technology. It was like the old days. The reporters were handwriting their notes.

And there was one cameraman allowed to take one picture, which is that same picture we've been seeing circulate in the media, on the cover of newspapers, all that stuff. But that was it. And then as far as security goes, security was top notch. There was a court officer for every row of the gallery, which is not usual. And then on top of that, there was a bunch of secret service agents. So a lot of security. Once the arraignment actually got started, the judge read all 34 counts to which we know, of course, Donald Trump pled not guilty. The prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, he then asked for a protective order when it comes to discovery. So just discovering a case, if you've ever been involved in a lawsuit, you probably know what that is. But it's in the

simplest of terms, it's exchanging evidence. So this is, you know, it's the same in a civil case or a criminal case. It's just gathering evidence and giving that evidence to each party. So if the prosecution has, you know, evidence that they plan on using at trial, they have an obligation to give it to the defense so the defense isn't blindsided by anything at trial and vice versa. Typically in a criminal case, this is going to be more so the prosecution sharing evidence with the defense than it would be the defense sharing with the prosecution. But anyway, that is discovery in a nutshell. So Bragg was trying to avoid Trump and or his attorneys from sharing any of the information they obtain about the case during this discovery process. So what a protective order would have done is said, hey, any information that we as the prosecution share with the defense, it's protected. It cannot be shared. And in support of their argument for this protective order, they brought some of Trump's recent social media posts to the attention of the judge, arguing that these posts were

irresponsible, threatening. They jeopardized public safety, the administration of justice. And they said, we can't have him posting things like this about the case. It'll jeopardize the case. And therefore, we want a protective order when it comes to our discovery. And Trump's attorneys fought back on that, saying, we're speaking publicly? The members of the media had bits and pieces of the indictment last week through leaks. Michael Cohen was speaking on the courthouse steps virtually every day. And eventually Donald Trump got frustrated that so much information was being put out into the public, not by himself, that he lashed out on social media. So that was Trump's attorney's arguments. The judge declined to issue the protective order

that the prosecution was seeking. He also decided against a gag order, which would have just said that Trump has to keep his mouth shut about everything in regards to the case, because he acknowledged that Trump is running for office and such an order, whether it's a protective order or a gag order, it just wouldn't make sense to make him keep his mouth shut right now. But he did give Trump a warning saying, you know, you got to stop and you can't make comments that have the potential to incite violence or anything like that. And he did say that if he sees anything like that in the future, he may not be so forgiving next time. What I found interesting about this whole arraignment is that the judge made it clear that he wants this. He wants this case to move along quickly.

But then he set the next hearing for December. So it doesn't seem like it's moving that quickly. We're only in April. At that December hearing is when the judge is going to hear all of the motions that are filed between now and then. Trump's attorneys asked if Trump could be excused from attending the December hearing because of all the logistics and costs associated with his attendance. And the judge acknowledged this point. And he did agree. He did say it's a logistical nightmare. There are a lot of costs associated with it.

But he said that the court's preference is that the defendant is present at the proceeding or at the hearing. So that was that. He was released on his own recognizance, meaning he didn't have to post bail. This is standard practice for white collar offenses according to New York law. He also got out of taking a mugshot, so he didn't have to do that. And now Trump's lawyers will file various motions. These will range from motions to dismiss the case to motions to, the amount of motions would be exhaustive. So there is going to be a lot. And it's tough to say when the trial will take place. I mean, the next hearing isn't until December. Trump's going to be campaigning all of 2024 practically.

This is just such, and I know you guys have been hearing this word so much. If you've been listening to the news, this is so unprecedented. We just don't know what this is going to look like going forward. So without further ado, let's get into the indictment. The indictment is 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. And I'm going to make this really easy for you to kind of just understand as a whole. Trump made 11 payments to Michael Cohen in 2017, monthly payments starting in February, ending in December. So every three counts in the indictment relate to one invoice from Michael Cohen.

And there's one exception. There's one invoice that has four counts associated to it. But basically what what this indictment looks like is it's one count for the invoice received from Michael Cohen by Trump, one count for the check and check stub for the payment of the invoice and one count for the ledger entry. So it's three counts associated to each invoice received. So 11 times three, 33, where does that 34th count come in? Like I said, there's one invoice that has two ledger entry counts. So I'm not sure if that's a duplicate or it's supposed to be like that. But anyway, that is it. I mean, when I say I'm making it simple, that's it. So it follows that pattern all the way through. And I'm not even going to waste the time reading you the indictment. I do have it linked on my website, both in this episode's description webpage, and I have a separate webpage specifically for the indictment. So you can always click on that and

find it there. I've made it really simple for you guys to find. You don't have to jump through hoops to find it, but that is it. I mean, I just don't want to overcomplicate it and risk confusing you guys. That is what the indictment looks like. To clarify, the actual hush money isn't the issue here. The hush money in and of itself is not illegal. So you can pay someone to keep a story quiet. That's not the problem. It's the way that these payments were accounted for when they were made. So to understand the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree, you have to understand falsifying business records in the second degree. So let's do in the second degree first, and then we'll move on to the first degree,

and it'll all make sense. Per New York law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with the intent to defraud, makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise or prevents the making of a true entry. That's the simplified definition for the sake of ease. Now knowing that, let's talk about falsifying in the first degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when they commit the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, plus their intent to defraud includes the intent to commit another crime or to conceal the commission thereof. So it's an added element of intent.

So with second degree, you do have the intent to defraud when you make that false business entry. But with first degree, you now also have an intent to commit another crime. So why was he charged with the first degree? He was charged with first degree because that's a felony. Second degree is just a misdemeanor. And the misdemeanor has a shorter statute of limitations. So a misdemeanor has just two-year statute of limitations, which means you can't bring the charge after two years. A felony, on the other hand, has a five-year statute of limitations. And we're going to get into the statute of limitations issue in a second, but that's the difference between the two. One is a felony, one is a misdemeanor. First degree

has an added element of intent. To be found guilty in the first degree. Not only does the prosecutor need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump had the intent to defraud when he made the false entries on the books, but also that he had the intent to commit another crime or conceal the commission of another crime. And that crime, that other crime, the prosecutor says, is the use of funds to advance Trump's presidential campaign in violation of campaign finance laws. So this will all come together. By the end of this episode, you will completely and fully understand it if you don't already. So that is the indictment.

Now let's talk about the statement of facts, which gives the indictment context because the indictment in and of itself was very simple. It just laid out the counts and that was it. It didn't give any details or information. So let's go through this document together. I'm not going to read all 13 pages to you, but I am going to read you what I feel is important from it and what will give you the best understanding of what's going on. Let's start with the introduction. The defendant Donald J. Trump

repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election. From August 2015 to December 2017, the defendant orchestrated a crime with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the defendant's electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized for tax purposes the true nature of the payments in furtherance of the scheme. One component of the scheme was that,

at the defendant's request, a lawyer who then worked for the Trump Organization as special counsel to defendant, a.k.a. Michael Cohen, covertly paid $130,000 to an adult film actress shortly before the election to prevent her from public is Michael Cohen, by the way. Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution and served time in prison. By the way, the reason that he pleaded guilty,

this was in regards to that, that the key word there is illegal campaign contribution. Like I said, the hush he pleaded guilty, this was in regards to that, that the key word there is illegal campaign contribution. Like I said, the hush money in and of itself, paying someone to keep quiet is not an issue. It's when the campaign is happening, that's when the issues start to come into play. So further, false entries were made in New York business records to effectuate this payment, separate and apart from the New York business records used to conceal this payment. After the election, and this is when we get into the, this is, this is when we get into the illegal stuff or what's alleged to be illegal. After the election, the defendant reimbursed lawyer a for the illegal payment through a series

of monthly checks. Each check was processed by the Trump Organization, and each check was disguised as a payment for legal services rendered in a given month of 2017 pursuant to a retainer agreement. The payment records kept and maintained by the Trump Organization were false New York business records. In truth, there was no retainer agreement, and Lawyer A was not being paid for legal services rendered in 2017. The defendant caused his entity's business records to be falsified to disguise him and others' criminal conduct. Okay, so that's the introduction. Now we're going to move on to the scheme, but before we move on to the scheme, let's just summarize that.

So the illegal act was making it seem like there was this retainer agreement and that's what these monthly payments were for, when allegedly these monthly payments had nothing to do with a retainer agreement. They were not for legal services, and rather they were to pay Michael Cohen back for the payment that he made to Stormy Daniels. Okay, so let's move on to the scheme. So I'm not definitely not going to read all of this to you. But you have, you know, they lay out the catch and kill scheme, they lay out a meeting at Trump Tower in 2015, which I will read just in part. So it says at this meeting in 2015, the CEO of American Media Incorporated, which is a media company that owns published magazines like

National Enquirer, agreed to help Donald Trump with his campaign, saying that he would act as the eyes and ears for the campaign by looking out for negative stories about the defendant and alerting Michael Cohen before the stories were published. So then it goes into suppressing the doorman story. So there was a story in 2015 where the doorman at the Trump Tower was trying to sell information that Trump had allegedly had a child with someone who was not his wife. That story ended up not being true. And again, not super relevant to the situation. Then we get into suppressing woman number one's

account. This is thought to be Karen McDougal. It doesn't list anyone by name, but it says that that AMI CEO ultimately paid $150,000 to woman one in exchange for her agreement not to speak out about the alleged sexual relationship and falsely characterized this payment in AMI's books and records, including its general ledger. So just setting the precedent, so to speak, that AMI falsifies records. AMI, again, is that American Media Incorporated, the company that said that they would be on the lookout for any negative stories about Trump. So then they talk about an audio recording that they have between Michael Cohen and the AMI CEO. Trump is not named in this part of the statement of facts, but it does talk about how, according to the audio recording, the AMI CEO and Michael Cohen were talking about how to set up the payments and, you know, how much do we have to pay? How

are we going to do this? Yada, yada. And then it gets into suppressing woman number two's account, which is thought to be Stormy Daniels. And here is what it says about that. Donald Trump directed lawyer A, Michael Cohen, to delay making the payment to woman number two, Stormy Daniels, for as long as possible. He instructed Michael Cohen that if they could delay the payment until after the election, they could avoid paying it altogether because at that point it would not matter if the story became public. Ultimately, with the pressure mounting and the election approaching, the defendant agreed to the payoff and directed Michael Cohen to proceed. Michael Cohen discussed the deal with Donald Trump and the Trump Organization CFO. The defendant did not want to make the $130,000

payment himself and asked Michael Cohen and the Trump Organization CFO to find a way to make the payment. Okay, keep in mind, the payment is not the problem. It's when we get into the campaign issues, protecting his campaign, okay? So then it says on or about October 27th, Michael Cohen wired the $130,000 to Stormy Daniels' account. Let's get into the falsifying business records because this is what really matters. Again, I was just trying to give you guys context to the theory of the case. So this is where the case lies, essentially. Shortly after being elected president, the defendant arranged to reimburse Lawyer A for the payoff he made on the defendant's behalf. In or around January 2017, the Trump Organization CFO and Michael Cohen met to discuss how Lawyer A would be reimbursed for the money he paid to

ensure Stormy Daniels' silence. So the Trump Organization CFO asked Lawyer A to bring a copy of a bank statement showing the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. The CFO and Michael Cohen agreed to a total repayment amount of $420,000. They reached that figure by adding the $130,000 payment to a $50,000 payment for another expense for which Michael Cohen also claimed reimbursement for a total of $180,000. The CFO then doubled that amount to $360,000 so Michael Cohen could characterize the payment as income on his tax returns instead of a reimbursement, and Michael Cohen would be left with $180,000 after paying approximately 50% in income tax. So obviously, this is an issue, if true. Finally, the CFO added an additional $60,000 as a supplemental year-end bonus. Together, these amounts totaled $420,000. The CFO memorialized

these calculations in handwritten notes on the copy of the bank statement that Michael Cohen provided. Trump, the CFO, and Michael Cohen then agreed that Cohen would be paid the $420,000 through 12 monthly payments of $35,000 over the course of 2017. Each month, Michael Cohen was to send an invoice to Donald Trump through the Trump Organization, falsely requesting payment of $35,000 for legal services rendered in a given month of 2017, pursuant to a retainer agreement. At no point did Michael Cohen have a retainer agreement with the defendant or the Trump organization. Now, there's a couple things that matter here. One, these are all allegations. Just because this is a statement of facts, yes, it is hypothetical facts, but just remember, we don't have any hard evidence yet that's something we'll see throughout throughout the proceedings and throughout the trial so we don't know what the actual evidence is this is just what the da is alleging the facts are also

you'll notice how in that part that i just read you it says trump the cfo and michael cohen agreed that these payments would be paid in 12 monthly payments of $35,000 over the course of 2017. Whether or not Trump was actually involved in this conversation matters. If this conversation only took place between the CFO and Michael Cohen, Donald Trump is potentially out of this. Maybe he has a great defense that he wasn't involved. So just keep in mind, it really matters if Donald Trump was involved in these conversations. The DA says he was. But again, we don't know the proof. Moving on, and we're coming to the end here shortly. It says,

on or about February 14th, 2017, Lawyer A emailed the controller of the Trump organization the first monthly invoice, which stated, Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for the months of January and February 2017. The invoice requested payment in the amount of $35,000 for each of these two months. The CFO approved the payment, and in turn, the controller sent the invoice to the Trump Organization accounts payable supervisor with the following instructions. Post to legal expenses. Put, quote, retainer for the months of January and February 2017 in the description, end quote. Michael Cohen submitted 10 similar monthly invoices by email to the Trump Organization for the remaining months in 2017. Each invoice falsely stated that it was being submitted pursuant to the retainer agreement and falsely requested

payment for services rendered for a month of 2017. And again, it says, in fact, there was no such retainer agreement. These were not payments for legal services. Consistent with the controller's initial instructions, the accounts payable supervisor printed out each invoice and marked it with an accounts payable stamp and the general ledger code 51505 for legal expenses. The accounts payable supervisor then prepared checks with the attached check stubs for approval and signature. The first check was paid from Donald J. Trump's trust and signed by the CFO and the defendant's son as trustees. The checks have

falsely recorded the payment as a retainer. The second check from March 2017 was also paid from the trust and signed by the two trustees. The checks have falsely recorded the payment as a retainer fee, and the remaining nine checks corresponding to the months April through December of 2017 were paid by the defendant personally. This is important. Hear me out. Hold on. The $35,000 payment stopped after the December 2017 payment. Okay. So the reason I said that that's important that Donald Trump personally made those nine payments is because the two before that, Donald Trump actually wasn't mentioned at all when it came to the payment. So it says it was paid from the defendant's trust.

It was only signed by the CFO and defendant's son. He never signed it. Now that that matters a ton, because if he personally signed and paid the other nine, he's still on the hook for those nine. But his name was not mentioned at all for two of the 11 payments, at least. So this is all going to come down to evidence. These are the facts as the DA alleges.

I would assume that they have the evidence to back up what they're saying. We just don't know what that evidence is yet. So that is what the case is based on. I hope that clarified things for you. The statement of facts finishes by with a footnote at the end that says the statement of facts contains information that is relevant to the events described herein and does not contain all facts relevant to the charged conduct. So that is what we know from the statement of facts. Again, that gives the indictment a lot of context because it explains in detail why those monthly payments were made, why there's reason to believe it wasn't actually for legal fees. And the calculation really that they came up with

is kind of the most damning evidence because that goes to show, look, we're paying you guys back. Here's how we're going to do it. Yada, yada. Let's just remember, and I know I've said this a couple of times, but let's just remember the payments in and of themselves are not what's illegal here. It's the way they were accounted for, which is why that statement of facts talks so much about the checks and the check subs and the ledger entry and the conversations that were had in regards to those things. Falsifying business records, though, that's one thing. That's a misdemeanor. When you do this while violating campaign finance laws, that is what brings this to a felony, which is why they talked

about, you know, suppressing stories for the campaign and protecting his image for the campaign. Then you have another question. Can you attach a federal crime to a state crime? That's a whole other issue. So you can see how complex this case really is. So the reason that the DA needed to bring this up to a felony was to extend the statute of limitations from two years to five years. If this was just falsifying business records in a second, in the second degree, which would have been a much easier case to prove, it would have only been a misdemeanor that would have, the statute of limitations would have run two years, two years after, you know, the alleged crime. But you bring this up to a felony and now the statute of

limitations is five years, which this takes us into the statute of limitations issue. So let's get into it. This is the issue that everyone's been talking about. New York has a five-year statute of limitations for most felonies. This includes falsifying business records. The statute of limitations clock starts ticking when the alleged crimes were committed. So the payments at issue in this case were made in 2017. This is more than five years ago, obviously. Typically, if the statute of limitations has expired, the case is dead. You can't bring a case past the statute of limitations. So this has a lot of people wondering how this case is even being brought. In certain instances, the statute of limitations can be extended. So let's talk about how. The main exception that legal experts have kind of been throwing around is this what they

call continuously present exception. And what that says is that when the defendant is not continuously present in the state, the statute of limitations is told, a.k.a. put on pause. Specifically, the New York law that discusses this says this. In calculating the time limitation applicable to the commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included. Any period following the commission of the offense during which one, the defendant was continuously outside the state, or two, the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown. In this case, the prosecution will likely argue that Trump was continuously outside of New York while he was serving as president from 2017 to 2021. Number two is irrelevant because his whereabouts were obviously constantly known during

his presidency. So it's going to boil down to whether Trump was not continuously present in New York during these years. Because if a judge were to rule that Trump was not continuously president of New York from 2017 to 2021, technically that five-year statute of limitations would have started whenever he returned and was continuously in New York, which I don't think was ever since 2017. So that's what the prosecutor is going to argue, that he was president, he was in Washington, D.C., he was all over the place. He wasn't in New York, and therefore the statute of limitations were put on pause. Trump, on the other hand, his attorneys are going to argue that he was never continuously outside of New York.

What the argument will likely be is that even during the presidency, he spent time at his house in New York, which he had until 2019, but he still spent considerable time in New York even after moving to Florida. And because of that, the clock never stopped, it kept running, and the statute of limitations expired in 2022. Another potential argument that Donald Trump's attorneys could make is that the intention of this statute was because it's difficult to arrest any other defendant, any average Joe who is outside the state of New York. Whether it be that they're on vacation or they're a fugitive from justice, whatever it is, they're hard to find. However, being president of the United States, your whereabouts are always known. And when you return to New York, it's always known to the public. So if I were thinking

as one of the defense attorneys, that is a route I would take. The intention of the statute was for a scenario that doesn't apply to the president of the United States because the president's whereabouts are always known. If he does return to New York, it's known. It's not like he's coming back for a couple days and flying under the radar. So that's another possible avenue for Donald Trump's attorneys. Obviously, we don't know how Donald Trump's attorneys are going to defend this, but the prosecution is definitely going to argue that he was not continuously in the state and therefore the statute of limitations were told. How this is going to play out in court, we don't know. It's possible that the judge says, hey, let's

calculate the days that he was continuously not in New York. So maybe he was in New York for a week here, a week there, or a month here, whatever it was. Let's calculate those days that he wasn't in New York, put them together, and that's how long we will toll the statute of limitations for. Again, I'm just throwing ideas out there to give you guys a better understanding of what this continuously present exception looks like, but we just don't know. So that's that issue. That's that statute of limitations issue. That is the continuously present exception. I hope you guys have a better understanding of that. Another interesting possibility that legal experts have been talking about is this executive order that was issued during COVID in New York, which paused all statute of limitations in the state for about seven months during the pandemic.

This is executive order 202.8, which I have linked on my website. You can read it if you want. But this is going to be a fight in and of itself because the New York Appellate Division issued its own decision in 2021 that said that the executive orders did toll filing deadlines, meaning the statute of limitations was extended seven months, which would mean that if Trump's statute of limitations expired in 2022, add seven months to that. And that's actually when it expired. However, since then, since that appellate division decision, two cases out of the New York Supreme Court said that if the statute of limitations expired outside the tolling period, the executive orders have no effect. So in this case, the last date of the alleged crimes was December 2017. This means that the statute of limitations ran in December 2022, which is outside the tolling period, because the tolling period when this

executive order was issued was seven months from the date of the executive order. The executive order was March 7th, 2020, which means that the tolling period expired October 7th, 2020. So the statute of limitations ran outside of this told period, which the New York Supreme Court has said means that the executive order has no effect, essentially, and the statute of limitations runs when it runs. So based on these New York decisions, it would seem like the executive orders aren't really a way out for the prosecution. So they'll likely have to rely on that continuously present exception that we talked about. But there's just so many complex issues in this case, as you can tell. So there's a lot of questions left. I mean, a lot of people have a lot of questions. Let's talk about them.

Most people agree, most legal experts agree, that if these charges were for falsifying business records in the second degree, that misdemeanor charge, like I said, it would be a much easier case. But a lot of people on both sides of the aisle agree that because this is a felony with an added degree of intent, the case is a little shaky. One, does the prosecutor have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump intended to commit or conceal another crime? And two, can you tie a federal crime into the state crime of falsifying business records? We don't know. The crime here that the prosecutor is likely going to say Trump intended to commit

is a campaign finance violation. At least that's what he hinted to in the statement of facts, right? That's a federal crime. So can a federal crime count as the secondary crime under New York's state law? We don't know. Welcome to the law. There's just so many things that are unknown. So those are the questions people have that don't really think this case has much ground to stand on. But then there are those that think this case is stronger than what some are saying. Those legal experts that think that this case does have strong footing are pointing to the

fact that Bragg and his team are incredibly skilled at litigating these complex financial issues like this one. They're very well versed in it. They also tend to think that the lack of detail about how Bragg plans to connect critical dots in this case is a sign that he's saving his most lethal avenues for later and that we don't know his most damning evidence yet. So what's next? From here, Trump's team will file their various motions. As they do that, the prosecutor will have to show his hand a little bit more. We'll learn more about the specific theories of the case and their chances of success.

As of now, we have a good idea as to the theory of the case, as we've talked about five times now. But we don't have the full picture. That full picture will become clear as time goes on. For now, there's going to be a lot of different predictions from a lot of different legal experts, and there will continue to be. I mean, at every stage of this process, you're going to hear more predictions from various people on various news networks. Trump will be back in court on December 4th. At that point, the judge will probably set a trial date. No guarantees, but I would imagine. The DA's office has already asked the judge to schedule the trial for January. Trump's team requested it start later in the spring, likely because the start of the GOP

primary season begins February 5th. That's when you have the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primary on February 13th. So they're trying to push it out a little bit. Legal analysts are expecting it to extend well into 2024. I tend to agree. But again, all of this is just so unprecedented that there's really no telling. On one hand, the judge said he wants this case to move along quickly. On the other hand, the judge might not get in the way of the presidential campaign. Trials are extended all the time for various reasons. I mean, we're talking trials on a small scale, on a large scale. And this trial is so bizarre, given the fact that the defendant is running for president. So we just don't know what the judge is going to say about that. But

we'll have a better idea in December. I really hope this episode clarified things for you a little bit. I hope you learned some things. If you enjoyed this episode, please do me a favor and share it with your friends, your family, share it on social media. I think a lot of people just read the headlines, especially when it comes to this stuff, and they don't know all of the details and all of the information and it leaves them unable to make their own opinions and decide for themselves whether this is a strong case or not. So if you could just share it with people you know, I would really appreciate that. And as always, I would very much appreciate a review on whichever platform you listen. Thank you so, so much for listening. I'm so happy to have gotten you guys a second episode this week, and I will talk to you on Friday.