January 24, 2024 • 41 mins
Savannah Chrisley has been advocating for criminal justice after her parents, Todd and Julie Chrisley, were convicted of multiple counts of fraud in 2022. Today she joins Sara and Jim for a conversation about the way her family was treated in both the media and at trial, and how it led to a violation of not only their presumption of innocence, but multiple other constitutional rights. She says they were the target of celebrity injustice. Savannah makes her case about her parent’s wrongful conviction, the unfair punishment they both received as a result, and their pending appeal. Savannah will return next week to continue the conversation!
Art – Simon & Associates
Music – Caleb Fletcher
Art – Simon & Associates
Music – Caleb Fletcher
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:22):
Hello everyone, and welcome to thePresumption with me and my favorite guys,
Jim Griffin and Matt Bondelier. Andtoday I think our guest needs no introduction.
You know her from everything from mainstreammedia to social media to reality DV
to her new podcast Unlocked. WelcomeSavannah Chrisley. Thank you so much for
(00:45):
having me. Of course, bythe way, we also really like guests
who have that Southern accent to kindof balance out with Jim, so that's
another So look, you know,I I'm going to be honest with you.
Well before I get back to you. We're covering a lot of ground
today. Uh, starting with yourparents' case. We're going to let you
(01:08):
make your case about what you believewas an injustice, prison conditions that your
father is facing, First Amendment rightsrelated to that, and then some things
that I've heard about potential avenues ofjustice for your parents. But you know,
one other thing I'm going to behonest with you is we're lawyers.
(01:29):
We're white collar lawyers, like kindof lawyers that helped your parents. And
this is the Presumption Podcast. Soyou you know, you've been very vocal
about your parents were deprived of thepresumption of innocence and that they were wrongfully
convicted, and you maintain their innocenceand you know that they got over punished.
Where there's I mean, all ofit right and so but one of
the things that we're not is we'renot reality to be followers. And I
(01:53):
have to be honest with you.Just want to get it out of the
way. You know. When Ifirst heard about your parents' case back in
whenever they got in Dited twenty nineteenor so, I was like, who
are these people? And oh realityTV? Like I you know, I
probably have never watched an episode ofthe Kardashians and that's fun. Yeah,
and I thought, God, like, why do I need to know about
(02:13):
these rich people and what they do? And then this girl's really pretty,
but like, you know, it'sjust like a rich brat, you know,
and whatever. You know, andyou have turned it around for me.
You have because of the work thatyou are doing. And it's not
just for your parents, but itgoes beyond that, and so you know,
(02:34):
on the shallow side. I didwatch the one California episode because I
really wanted to know the prosecutors werealleging and Jim and I have seen this
in so many cases. Oh,they bought this kind of car, they
got this kind of haircut, youknow. And the prosecutors were saying that
your parents were flying to LA whereI live, and they were getting really
expensive haircuts from a celebrity hairstylus.And of course I have been to all
the hairs longs, so I waslike, what hairstylus is that, you
(02:57):
know, so out of curiosity Iwatched that episode. But you know,
we're not about reality TV, andthat's really not why we're having this conversation.
We're having this conversation about something that'sreally far more important. You know,
our clients say the same thing.Our clients also say I should have
never been convicted or my my fathershould have never been convicted. So I
really want you to make your case. So going back to the period of
(03:24):
the government alleged the crimes occurred,this was two thousand and seven eight or
eight nine, so two thousand andeight, two thousand and eight, and
during that time your parents were runningwhat kind of business, an asset management
company. So it was one ofthe largest asset management companies in the country.
(03:46):
Had government contracts with Fanny May,Freddie mac and then when Obama came
into office, it kind of thatbusiness went downhill and that's when all this,
all these things started to occur.But there's you know, there's something
about a loan out company or something. What is that for people that don't
know, Yeah, so a loanout company. It's people in the entertainment
(04:11):
industry are very aware of it becausein order for production companies to pay you,
they need to pay a loan outcompany. And the loan out company
was that's who the contract was with, was seven Ce's production. And then
it's paid to the loan out company. Then the loanout company will pay the
individuals and so and paid by theloan out company. Yes, okay,
(04:34):
and you reported that as your company. Okay, all right, I'm going
to turn it over to Gym toto get us started on some of the
background that pretends to Yeah. Yeah, I just want to I mean,
before we get to your parents' case. You know, you grew up in
reality TV. I guess, Imean what was that all about? Yeah,
(04:56):
you know, growing up in frontof a camera, and what was
it like? Well, you know, obviously I am I was born in
South Carolina. My parents are fromright outside of Anderson and Seneca Westminster.
You made know the area, Savannah. I was born and raised in Anderson
Pendletons where I grew up and hada lot of friends in Seneca and Wahalla
(05:18):
and Oconey. Yeah, that beautifulpart of the world. My dad worked
at one of the plants right therevery early on, like in his twenties,
and I was born right there atOconey Memorial Hospital, and so my
parents grew up very very white collar. My dad barely finished high school,
(05:41):
that is ged. But with howI you know, we started TV and
I was fifteen years old, andlife really took off theen for me personally.
I tried to attempted to go tocollege. But when you're eighteen years
old and you can afford to payfor your own college education that's fifty sixty
thousand dollars a year at a privatecollege, it's kind of hard to be
(06:04):
motivated, you know. If I'malready at the point to be able to
pay for the education, it washard to stay motivated. Also, filming
about forty eight weeks out of theyear was a lot, and it was
a full time job, and Igot to work with my family day in
day out, which now is ablessing because I don't have them all here,
and financially it paved a way tohave a great life, but it
(06:29):
also puts a lot of targets onyour back and then you know, living
in the spotlight, and then yourparents get charged. I mean that that
obviously had a huge impact on yourwhole family. Can you tell us what
that was like? Yeah, Imean when the indictment happened, and first
off, the case, you know, there were state case, federal case,
and there was you know, therewas a specialist who came in who
(06:54):
evaluated the loss amount and around sixtyfive million dollars and it was rough.
You know, when you and twowhenever you get a piece of paper that
says you'll know our one of ourlead lawyers called the day of the indictment
that just wanted to let you knowyou've formally been indicted. I'll need a
million dollars in my account. Iclose a business today if you want me
(07:15):
to represent you. And at thatpoint it all started, and seven million
dollars later, they're sitting in federalprison. Jesus wow. So that that
that was the cost of the defenseseven million dollars. I would say five
and a half six Now we're nowwe're close to that. That was that
(07:40):
was attorney's fees and experts and allof that, right, yeah, yeah,
but the attorney's fees took up tookup a big portion of that,
especially in such a case like this, there was five there was five attorneys
on the case, and then youhad your investigators, and it just it
(08:01):
never stopped. Well, and youknow, with with just for our for
our audience, when you have taxcharges that you know a lot of times
they they have a lot of casesthat are not tax fraud cases, but
uh sort of other conduct puts thespotlight on tax issues. And once the
tax stuff comes in, it getsway more expensive because you need a forensic
(08:24):
accountant, which sometimes costs more thana lawyer. And you know, I
use an expert who's a former IR. S guy, and then that's
another's who that's who used was aformer guy. So maybe maybe you're a
guy's mind. I don't know.We'll talk about so like you recently sat
down with your parents current lawyer AlexLittle, who's very passionate. Obviously,
(08:50):
this is a rather biased interview becauseit's like your parents and their lawyer.
But but it was great. Ilistened to it on Unlocked your podcast,
and Matt's going to play a littleclip of you know, my favorite part.
I don't know if Jim's seen itor not, but it's very on
point. You know, we hadthis idea in America of you know,
(09:11):
presumption of innocence. That's what wesay on paper. It does not exist.
I mean, the moment that somebodyis charged with a crime, everybody
just check out Instagram or Facebook oryou know, they're guilty. Presumption of
innocence. So in twenty nineteen theyare charged both in a multiple count indictment
(09:33):
and then later it comes a supersedingindictment. You know, everything from conspiracy
to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, filing,
fraudulent tax returns, and obstruction ofjustice. Then in twenty twenty two
they go to trial and we're foundguilty. You see, they're targeted for
their celebrity and they didn't do thiscrime. There was no crime. There
(09:56):
were no documents to support some ofthe charges, and so they definitely shouldn't
do the time. And now thatthey're doing the time, it's this whole
other issue that comes in, whichis the conditions. So the conduct that
the government alleges you said goes backto twenty seven and eight, right,
yes, okay, according to theindictment, and it involves a loan out
(10:18):
company, which you discussed with us. We have a lot of questions,
right, so I'm going to turnit over to Jim. I asked him
to take a deep dive into thepre sentenced report for your parents that the
probation prepared. So we have somequestions about sort of what the recommendations were
for your parents. Yeah, so, Savanna, you mentioned loss amount and
(10:43):
I'm sure you were educated in thecitizen guidelines and loss amount is a big
driver. And as you know,I looked at the precise report and thanks
for sharing that with us. Butyou know, the Probation office set the
loss amount of over sixty five milliondollars, almost sixty five to one hundred
million. And by the time theyadded all the enhancements, I mean,
(11:03):
your dad's guideline range with life Imean and life means life. I didn't
look at your mother's, but I'msure it was a you know, very
very high up there, and yourdad got enhancements for you know, being
organizer, leader, et cetera.But but then the government comes in and
says, okay, well, wellwe'll go with their objections and and so
(11:24):
we want to be conservative. Andyou know, so were your dad's looking
at twenty years and he ultimately getsI think, uh, twelve twelve years.
Yeah, and that was recently reduced. So you know, I mean,
what was that like going through Andyou know, you're I mean,
you're looking at your dad thinking he'sgoing to prison for the rest of his
(11:45):
life. I mean, that's ascary proposition for sure. Yeah, it's
it's scary because you're also in aplace to where you're looking at it and
you see cases to where lives aretaken or there's abuse that has occurred and
they don't even get this time.And unfortunately, we have a government to
where money means more than life.And I saw prosecutors who said, you
(12:07):
know, they were asking for lifein prison. And also when it comes
to the loss amount the loss.Just to clarify the loss I was speaking
about at the very beginning of theinterview, the sixty five million was just
our career loss damages. When someonecame in and evaluated what we lost career
wise. Now with the government.The government was stating there was a thirty
(12:28):
six million dollar loss and then theydropped it down to sixteen million. Sixteen
seventeen million is what they say theloss amount is. Our argument from the
very beginning was show us the loandocuments. Show us the loan documents,
so you can show us where yougot this loss amount, because it's not
correct. And wait a minute,though, the loan documents that you're talking
(12:50):
about, I understand pertain to thebank fraud charges. That's right. The
tax charge the tax laws was sevenhundred thousand dollars and that tax office is
bogus. There was no tax lawsand that any any paid those taxes.
I mean, you know, that'swhat that jumped out at me, Savannah.
(13:11):
I mean, you know, fora while we've heard Hunter Biden paid
his taxes, so why is hebeing prosecuted? And you know, I'm
sure you feel strongly about that.I mean, that's oh I do.
I do. Because our case wasin Fulton County, Georgia, the most
democratic county in the state, andthe prosecutor stated, ladies and gentlemen,
what we have here are the Trumpsof the South and My argument to that
(13:33):
is, I've written a letter toCongressman, I've spoken to a ton of
people, and I've said, ifyour argument and your case is that strong,
why did you feel the need toinvoke the name of Donald Trump in
order to incite anger? That wasthe only reason that name was used.
And were you the Trumps of theSouth? You know what? According to
(13:58):
prosecutors, I guess we were.But people's people's opinions and beliefs are different.
I mean when it comes to forme and my family, obviously,
the federal government knows what you votefor well before they take you to trial.
And it just for me. It'sthe whole tax thing was complete.
The state of Georgia just paid usa million dollars. So how is one,
(14:20):
like Alex says, how is onearm of the government going to fight
to imprison you while another arm ofthe government is paying you a million dollars.
Oh, we're going to get tothat. The Revenue Department all that
down down this interview. But okay, so, so part of your argument
is also politics and political disposition tojudge and all that, which I want
(14:45):
to ask you about. But youhave been very clear about your mom getting
sucked into this vortex of criminal accusationssimply because she was married to Todd and
that they really had nothing on yourmom. So tell me number one,
(15:07):
what was the evidence against your mom? Who were the government's witnesses just in
general against both of them at thetrial? And then third part, I
know it's a compound question why yourparents didn't testify. Our blisteners always want
to know. So when it comesto my mother, there was not one
ounce of evidence. There just wasn'twhen it came to obviously, everyone's going
(15:31):
to have their opinions on the taxfraud. The government they started off a
four week trial with the tax fraudcase in order to create this image of
these entitled, rich, selfish peoplewho don't pay the government and they're above
the law. And because they're notpaying their taxes, guests, who has
to suffer you the jurors, you'reworking in paying but these rich people are.
(15:52):
So they created this whole narrative aroundthe tax case in order to assassinate
their character to then their bank fraudcase and for the loan documents. You
know, my mom seven counts ofbank fraud. But the government's own witnesses
who they brought in. Who werethese bankers who were vice presidents presidents of
(16:12):
these banks? Our lawyers asked,have you ever met miss Chrisly? The
only time we ever met her waswhen we came to their house for a
Christmas party. She never gave usa document. She never they had never
met her in a banking setting,and her name wasn't original bank club.
(16:33):
She never signed a document that therewas not a single loan that was in
her name. And so my theoryon that is, as you all know,
our Department of Justice or injustice asI like to call it, they
love to go after spouses because theyfeel like we go after them, you'll
plead and that's why the FBI hasa ninety eight percent conviction rate. Well
(16:57):
did you plead up? The ideais right when you have spouse's other family
members. I mean, that's that'sa common strategy they do that. So
that and there was a point intime to where my mom, you know,
to where my dad said, Ithis could you get scared? You
know, when the government's coming afteryou and they're saying, oh, life
(17:21):
in prison, all these things,and my dad the thoughts of my mom
going to prison, My dad waslike I didn't do this, but like
you're I cannot have you sitting inprison. I just can't do it.
And I will never forget my momlooking at him and saying, we know
what we've done, and we knowwhat we haven't done. So we're going
in this together and we're coming outof it together. Wow. Maybe you
(17:42):
know this just to be just tobe clear on the timing, just playing
Devil's at you here. This prosecutionis stems from a time when President Trump
was in office. So it wasPresident Trump's deed that Department of Injustice that
you're talking about. Yeah, Butat the same time, let's look at
(18:06):
just the state in general, andthere's only so much a president can do.
That's why on this appeal, Trumpdid a great job at stacking a
stacking the court, and so onthis the Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court, there
are a lot of Trump appointed judges. So for that, I hope they
look at these remarks of Trump's ofthe South and kind of the government overreached
(18:26):
the Fourth Amendment violations. I hopethey look at it and take it seriously.
And at the same time, youknow, it's for me, it's
it's tough now I think President Trumphis case is in Fulton County. Ours
was in Fulton County, and nowhe knows firsthand kind of how dirty and
corrupt they really are. What whydidn't your parent look at We know why
(18:49):
people testify don't testify, you know, we know all about that. But
just for our listeners, well,if they didn't do it, if they're
so, why didn't they testify?Because of how the government. You know,
the government can easily take and twistand turn and even though you may
(19:10):
not have done it, unless thereis alex our attorney said it, beast.
He's like, when I have clients, unless there is a if you've
killed someone, unless there's a videoof a gun in your hand and you
shooting it, you do not testify. He's like, because the government can
take and turn and twist things howeverthey want to twist it. True.
(19:33):
You want to circle back to yourquestion from a few minutes ago, Well,
I forgot what that was, Matt. I will tell you, Matt,
though I did read in some ofthe papers that that Savannah's parents were
getting twenty thousand dollars an episode oftheir podcast, and I'm mad. I
got to ask you, we're missinga lot of money here. But you
know, we're counting on Savannah tospread the word. Maybe we're gonna get
(19:56):
those numbers out, all right.I love that Jim's focus. Listen,
Jim, can you buy a newhouse? Matt. Every time, every
time there's a guess on uh,there's always some some added perk to Jem,
Like you know, like if it'slike you know, I don't know
(20:18):
a forensic expert or whatever, hegets a little bit of tidbit of information
you can use in his next trial. You know, in your case,
he wants to know the podcast canmake more. Hey, it's great.
I love it. I made greatmoney, so I will take it for
you. The you know, Imean, your parents' case had a lot
of stink on it just by thefact that they pled, they went through
(20:41):
bankruptcy and discharged twenty million dollars adebt, right, I mean that's and
so you know, you pray thatin front of a jury, and you
know jurors don't like that. Butbut I want to read from the government
sentisy memorandum and it's sort of howthey portrayed your parents, and I want
to get your reaction. And thisis the government submitting to the court,
(21:02):
it said Todd and Julie Christley arecareer swindlers who have made a living by
jumping from one fraud scheme to another, lining to banks, stiffing vendors,
and evading taxes at every corner.The empire was built upon the backs of
defrauded community banks that collapse while ToddChrisley used a stolen money to fly to
Los Angeles for biweekly haircuts and theirfraud. As their fraud imploded, the
(21:26):
Christlies managed to shirt responsibility by abusingthe bankruptcy system and writing off twenty million
dollars. Undeterred, they started areality TV show where they flaunted their wealth
and lifestyle to the American public.As they began making money from the show,
they hit it and refused to payfederal income taxes that their viewers pay
every year. Even while making millionsof dollars, they insisted on defrauding everyone
(21:48):
that encountered in the smallest ways imaginable, the bp OL spill fund out of
money intended to help afflicted homeowners.A California homeowner out of rent money,
even the network the air the showfor extra airline tickets and believing themselves to
be untouchable. Todd and Julie triedto obstruct the grand jury investigating their crons
and put their family members and friendsto lie for them at trial. That's
(22:11):
pretty hard stuff. What do yousay? And first off, when it
comes to evading the taxes. Nowon appeal, we have Betty Carter,
who was the IRS agent at trial. She our current CPAs went to her
and said, Hey, if myclients are owing money, then I need
to know exactly what they owe becauseI need to get it taken care of.
(22:33):
And her exact words were, whatI said on the stand actually wasn't
true. They don't owe anything becauseper his calculations, they were owed returns.
And as you know, on thesetax cases, you can see every
time they log into the system,you can see how many times they've viewed
the our tax returns, what keysthey clicked, what pages they went to.
(22:57):
She accessed them over to twelve thousandtimes. Oh, well, you've
accessed him over twelve thousand times.How do you not know the exact dollar
bounce cents of what's owed? Andwe are now privy to internal communications that
shows that she knew at the timeof trial when she testified that there was
(23:18):
no money owed, and the prosecutorsknew that as well, which is why
we have alleged, you know,Brady violations their misconduct. And so when
it comes to the tax thing,that's fogus. When it comes to hiding
money, that everything went through acorporation, the corporation filed taxes, and
(23:38):
that the whole thing that that's justwild to me. And what the government
fails to mention is my dad's formerbusiness partner who my dad went to the
police. The guy's name is MarkBraddock. My dad went to the police
because this guy had stolen millions ofdollars from the company. So my dad's
(23:59):
the one who started with law enforcement, and the government ended up giving him
full immunity, not just a littledeal, full immunity. And this guy
got on the stand and said,I committed these crimes. I forged their
names to documents, I gave thesebanks these loan documents. I was in
(24:19):
their emails. I was doing allthese things. And so that's what the
government forgets. And also one ofmy favorite moments that I will never forget
is when Alex at sentencing, Alex, that FBI agent was on the stands
(24:40):
going through all their documents, andAlex said, I just want to because
this is when Alex came on board, and he said, I just have
a question. What steps did youtake to authenticate this evidence that it is
what you say that it is?And that FBI agent goes, what are
you talking about? He said,what steps did you take? He was
like, if you have quantico withyour fingertips, what steps did you take
(25:03):
to verify that these emails are exactlywhat you say they are. They came
from where you say they came from. They didn't do one thing to authenticate
the evidence, and all of theirevidence came from my dad's former business partner,
who they gave full immunity hundreds ofthousands of surprising because usually they may
you plead to something to be ableto preserve a credibility so that someone like
(25:26):
Alex doesn't eviscerate, you know,the guy when he testify. So I'm
kind of I mean, giving hima non prosecution if he in fact had
exposure is not you know, isnot common. But when it comes to
swindling banks out of money and thewhole bankruptcy, they went through almost a
(25:48):
two year bankruptcy bankruptcy court, therewas never one allegation made of bankruptcy fraud
anything of that nature. And thenthe government's own witnesses from the banks,
one of the presidents of the bankgot on the stand and he said during
eight when the world was on fire, he said, everyone was throwing their
loans back at us. They werebasically saying good luck. And his exact
(26:11):
words were, during that time,mister chrisly came to us and said,
hey, what can I do tomake you as whole as possible. Let's
figure this out. Let's work together. Let's do it. Because you're in
the real estate world, so obviouslythere's investments, all these things. He
said, let's do a short saleon this property, that property, Let's
try to get you as much moneyas possible. That's not someone who's trying
(26:33):
to defraud banks, right. Andone thing that I didn't notice, there
was no referral out of bankruptcy courtby the US trustee to prosecute your mom
or dad. I mean that's so, I mean that there's no bankruptcy fraud
that was charged, which you knowand a lot Yeah, not in your
(26:55):
dad's mom's case for sure. No, And they started investigating this and twenty
twelve. So if your case isthat strong, it took you seven years
to issue a formal indictment. Sevenyears. And that's where my thing is.
I've said from the very beginning,I'm not just a daughter who loves
(27:15):
her parents. At the end ofthe day, if they did what you
say they did, and you canprove it without a shadow of a doubt,
they need to serve their time andlearn their lesson and move on.
But I know wholeheartedly if you're ifyou've got such a clean case, there
shouldn't be Fourth Amendment violations, Thereshouldn't be government misconduct, there shouldn't be
(27:36):
prosecutors who have lied. And nowthe main prosecutor is no longer at the
US Attorney's office, and we don'tget an answer as to why he's not
there. He didn't show up atsentencing for the biggest case of his career.
He might have an answer, bigfirm no, No, he didn't.
He's apparently at the FDIC right now, which doesn't make much sense.
(27:56):
Okay, So let I will sayjust the fact that your parents got seven
years and twelve years when the guidelineswere so damn huh. I know that's
a lot of time, but thatin the case to me that the judge
has some serious questions about the case. And so because I don't think you
can get just twelve years for yourdad without departing on a variance or something.
(28:19):
I don't know what the guidelines actuallywork through objections. But but you
know, well it's the whole thingwhen it comes to our judge at trial.
I will hold on because I havethe actual statistics right here. It's
obviously on appeal, as you know, it has to do within the records.
(28:41):
Something within the records is wrong ourjudge. Out of fifty six appeals,
she's been reversed eleven times. Shewas reversed six times in twenty twenty
alone, and remanded back to herseventeen times. And well, that right
there. The biggest thing was whenwe alleged the prosecutor's misconduct, we asked
(29:06):
for there to be an evidentiary hearing. Anything we asked for, she denied.
She wanted to get the trial overwith. She sent a juror home
on the as she read them theirrights to go into the deliberation room.
She read them their rights, theywent, they were going to the deliberation
room, and she left one jurbehind and sent the juror home. So
(29:27):
there were Yeah, there was justa lot of things that happened and a
lot of motions that she did notgrant that. We just wanted to prove
our case. We wanted to havethe opportunity to show the evidence that we
had, and she would not allowit. And she also wouldn't allow us
to talk about the state case either, which is where things got messy,
(29:48):
because if it wasn't for the statecase, the federal case would not have
existed. So a couple of things. First of all, you come with
stats and receipts, which I appreciate, but definitely one of the first guests
to bring statistics with them. Sowait till you hear is some other stuff
she's got. But you know,Jim was reading all that horrible stuff.
(30:11):
It really paints her parents and likethe worst I ever. But at sensing,
you know, we also make argumentsfor our clients about mitigating factors.
So even though they're these horrible,corrupt people, look at with the life
that they've lived, you know,not just the fact that they don't have
a record, but also maybe maybethat a drinking problem maybe they had,
you know, and the fact thatthey're really good parents to you know,
(30:33):
I don't know six kids, sobut I don't think nothing really popped out
at me in terms of mitigation.Was there any look you can't get I
mean, you can't make stuff upobviously, but well, no, when
we were there, we obviously they'retwo minor children, sixteen and ten at
the time, and Chloe she ismy oldest brother's biological daughter, my parent
(31:00):
to Patter since she was a baby, and she's been legally adopted by them,
and she struggles a lot with justmental health and things of that nature.
And we asked at sentencing to speakabout those things, but we also
asked for the courtroom to be closedbecause it's a minor child. You're discussing
mental health issues. And the judge'sexact words were, this is a very
(31:25):
public case and the public deserves tohear it. So no, I'm not
doing that. So because of that, we did not discuss any of those
issues. There were letters from therapistsdiscussing very in depth traumatic things, and
Chloe suffers from separation anxiety, sheabandonment issues, all these different things,
(31:45):
and now she was about to experienceat times too. So we asked for
what, you know, staggered youknow, sentencing, all these things,
and the judge looked back at myro of family and said, you know
what, where's her biological mother?And that was no place for this judge
(32:06):
to bring that in, and weobviously were just we were just taken back
by it. And she said,well, you know what, there's a
whole row of people back there thatI bet would be happy to take care
of these kids. I'm denying that. Well, it's interesting because staggered sentencing,
which comes up with couples. Italso came up in the VORs City
(32:27):
Blues case, yep, another casewhere people were saying it was celebrity,
you know, white privilege, allthat stuff, and a lot of the
couples were asking for staggered sentences ifthere's no law that says they need to
get it, but it's usually upto the discretion of the judge and if
there's a good reason for it,they do that. So I was a
(32:49):
little surprised, and you know,just for people that don't know out there.
One of the reasons I admire Savannahis that she is running a business.
It's not just media and going out. They're advocating for her parents,
but she's also adopted her siblings.So Chloe, the girl that was adopted
by her parents is now you know, adopted by Savannah. And then and
(33:12):
then your brother you've also adopted.He's seventeen, right, Yes, he
just turned seventeen. Yeah. Soand you have a boyfriend, which if
he's like my boyfriend, that's yourthird child. Hey, he's got three
kids, so there's a lot amongstus. So the other part to this
is you keep mentioning the Georgia Departmentof Revenue. What did that have to
(33:37):
do with the federal case. Sothe Georgia Department of Revenue, there was
an agent there by the name ofJosh White, and he took a very
unusual interest in the case. Thereas a judge who has said that in
their rulings that there was a veryunusual interest that was taken in this case.
(33:58):
And he was just he did alot of the com cases in Georgia,
and there was just a weird interestthat he took on my family in
their case, and he started investigatingit for tax fraud and he went around
to family members a bunch of thathe knew there were strings ties with he
(34:20):
was giving them taxpayer information, whichis against the law he cannot do,
and he started building a case.And then he decided one day he's going
to seize a warehouse that had myparents' belongings in it. And he went
in with a search warrant that wasnever signed off on by a judge,
waved it up in the air andsaid told the owner of the warehouse he
(34:42):
was going to arrest her. Shedid not give him access, and therefore
she gave an access. And that'swhere apparently ninety percent of their evidence came
from. The magistrate judge. Wehad filed emotion to suppress everything that came
from there. The magistrate judge ruledthat none of the none of the fruits
(35:04):
derived from the warehouse or you know, elsewhere was allowed in a trial.
It's all thrown out. But thenwe get to trial and the trial judge
allowed all that so called evidence tocome in. And so that's where it
gets messy. Because the state wasworking with the Feds, and there was
also two women at the Georgia Departmentof Revenue. There was an unrelated case.
(35:30):
They had been wearing wires for abouta year and they reached out to
our lawyers and said, we thinkyou want to see this information, Like
we feel so bad about about what'sgoing to occur here. You have to
hear this. We have hundreds ofhours of audio of them talking about wiping
(35:51):
government devices clean of anything that hasto do with the Chrisly case, about
how they know what they're about todo is breaking the ball, but you
know they're going to do it anyway. You have the I mean, you
have very high up because of us. It wiped the whole Georgia Department of
Revenue clean, it special investigations everyone. There was about forty people that got
(36:15):
fired because of us because of thethings that we uncovered. And they had
a dartboard with my dad's face onit, and before he was ever indicted,
and they used a dartboard with hisface on it, and then come
to find out there are photos ofJosh Waits. He took photos of my
(36:35):
dad sitting in a chair from theshow, and he would go and mimic
that photo on that furniture that hesees or laying on a bed, mimic
that. It was a very weirdobsession with our family in general. You
could use the lawsuit against them,right, so for a million dollars.
So what was the claim in thelawsuit. The claim in the lawsuit was
(36:59):
the government and the conduct and youknow, giving taxpayer information. He was
working with WSBTV, and he wouldnotify them, not only on our case,
but other cases. He would notifythem when he was about to make
a bust, whether it was forthese koem machines or a big tax case.
When he's seizing stuff. He wantedto be the big guy on camera,
(37:22):
going in showing a badge, seizingeveryone's items, and he would notify
the press of this before he woulddo that. And that was one of
the things we alleged. We allegedjust the throwing the dartboard, you know,
just so the Fourth Amendment violations,all of those things. We all
(37:43):
of those things we alleged. Solet's let's let's close today's conversation with what
the appeal because you're arguing in March, what is the appeal about? What
are the headlines on appeal? There'sthe Fourth Amendment? What else prostitutoral in
Wisconda, Yes, Fourth Amendments.The misconduct you got the r S agent
(38:06):
lying on the stand. You alsojust have insufficient evidence. I mean especially
that's more so on my mom,just because how does someone go to prison
on seven accounts of bank fraud whentheir name wasn't on a single bank loan.
But the governments they said she benefitedfrom the loans. That was their
argument, right, Jim. Shouldn'tthese issues have been brought up in pretro
(38:28):
emotions? I mean, sure,I suspect they were seven six million dollars
in turning fees. I don't.I mean, the good lawyers involved us,
I could tell I know, you'vegot a good law firm doing the
appeal now for sure. And youknow, And so I'm I can't say
what happened or didn't happen, Butyou know, I'm curious about that million
(38:50):
dollar settlement. Did the federal thefederal government swoop in and take it and
apply it to fourth material Orgza.Yeah, so it's funny. They they
were notified of this settlement back inOctober and they obviously we have not spoken
about the settlement because due to justwe weren't allowed to. But then the
(39:13):
moment it hit the pressed, therewas nothing we could do about it.
So therefore it was public knowledge thegovernment was notified of it back in October.
They choose to do They chose todo nothing about it. I never
touched any of the money. Obviously, there's hefty legal fees that had built
up from the Georgia case, fromthe federal case appeal, so all of
(39:34):
that went to lawyers and now thegovernment, you know, they're going to
try to call it back, whichI had Art Leap who was our forfeiture
attorney and he helped create forfeiture lawsfor the government, and he's like,
I've never seen this happen. He'slike in all my times. They the
government even tried to take my commissionfor selling my parents' house. I'm a
(39:55):
licensed real estate agent. It's athree percent commission. I I have sold
sixteen million dollars worth of real estatelast year, so this is not a
for sale by owner. The governmenttried to take my three percent commission.
A great So the government, they'retrying to take anything they can get their
hands on. So at this point, if they want that million dollars,
(40:15):
they're going to have to fight lawyersto get it. R wow. I
mean, I did see the garnishmentthat the latest filing, which had to
do with garnishing on that restitution order. Anyway, We're going to rest,
right, Jim, and we willbe back next week with more continued conversation
(40:37):
with Savannah Chrisley. Yes, andbefore we do, I want to just
give a quick plug to Savannahs podcastUnlocked. Right, you can subscribe by
assuming on all podcast platforms. Yes, they're all right, and same thing
with the presumption. We're also onall the podcast platforms on YouTube at the
presumption. And yes, we willbe back next week to continue this conversation.
(40:58):
So Sarah and Jim, why don'tyou guys go ahead and rest and
we'll be back. Yep, werest, rest h
Hello everyone, and welcome to thePresumption with me and my favorite guys,
Jim Griffin and Matt Bondelier. Andtoday I think our guest needs no introduction.
You know her from everything from mainstreammedia to social media to reality DV
to her new podcast Unlocked. WelcomeSavannah Chrisley. Thank you so much for
(00:45):
having me. Of course, bythe way, we also really like guests
who have that Southern accent to kindof balance out with Jim, so that's
another So look, you know,I I'm going to be honest with you.
Well before I get back to you. We're covering a lot of ground
today. Uh, starting with yourparents' case. We're going to let you
(01:08):
make your case about what you believewas an injustice, prison conditions that your
father is facing, First Amendment rightsrelated to that, and then some things
that I've heard about potential avenues ofjustice for your parents. But you know,
one other thing I'm going to behonest with you is we're lawyers.
(01:29):
We're white collar lawyers, like kindof lawyers that helped your parents. And
this is the Presumption Podcast. Soyou you know, you've been very vocal
about your parents were deprived of thepresumption of innocence and that they were wrongfully
convicted, and you maintain their innocenceand you know that they got over punished.
Where there's I mean, all ofit right and so but one of
the things that we're not is we'renot reality to be followers. And I
(01:53):
have to be honest with you.Just want to get it out of the
way. You know. When Ifirst heard about your parents' case back in
whenever they got in Dited twenty nineteenor so, I was like, who
are these people? And oh realityTV? Like I you know, I
probably have never watched an episode ofthe Kardashians and that's fun. Yeah,
and I thought, God, like, why do I need to know about
(02:13):
these rich people and what they do? And then this girl's really pretty,
but like, you know, it'sjust like a rich brat, you know,
and whatever. You know, andyou have turned it around for me.
You have because of the work thatyou are doing. And it's not
just for your parents, but itgoes beyond that, and so you know,
(02:34):
on the shallow side. I didwatch the one California episode because I
really wanted to know the prosecutors werealleging and Jim and I have seen this
in so many cases. Oh,they bought this kind of car, they
got this kind of haircut, youknow. And the prosecutors were saying that
your parents were flying to LA whereI live, and they were getting really
expensive haircuts from a celebrity hairstylus.And of course I have been to all
the hairs longs, so I waslike, what hairstylus is that, you
(02:57):
know, so out of curiosity Iwatched that episode. But you know,
we're not about reality TV, andthat's really not why we're having this conversation.
We're having this conversation about something that'sreally far more important. You know,
our clients say the same thing.Our clients also say I should have
never been convicted or my my fathershould have never been convicted. So I
really want you to make your case. So going back to the period of
(03:24):
the government alleged the crimes occurred,this was two thousand and seven eight or
eight nine, so two thousand andeight, two thousand and eight, and
during that time your parents were runningwhat kind of business, an asset management
company. So it was one ofthe largest asset management companies in the country.
(03:46):
Had government contracts with Fanny May,Freddie mac and then when Obama came
into office, it kind of thatbusiness went downhill and that's when all this,
all these things started to occur.But there's you know, there's something
about a loan out company or something. What is that for people that don't
know, Yeah, so a loanout company. It's people in the entertainment
(04:11):
industry are very aware of it becausein order for production companies to pay you,
they need to pay a loan outcompany. And the loan out company
was that's who the contract was with, was seven Ce's production. And then
it's paid to the loan out company. Then the loanout company will pay the
individuals and so and paid by theloan out company. Yes, okay,
(04:34):
and you reported that as your company. Okay, all right, I'm going
to turn it over to Gym toto get us started on some of the
background that pretends to Yeah. Yeah, I just want to I mean,
before we get to your parents' case. You know, you grew up in
reality TV. I guess, Imean what was that all about? Yeah,
(04:56):
you know, growing up in frontof a camera, and what was
it like? Well, you know, obviously I am I was born in
South Carolina. My parents are fromright outside of Anderson and Seneca Westminster.
You made know the area, Savannah. I was born and raised in Anderson
Pendletons where I grew up and hada lot of friends in Seneca and Wahalla
(05:18):
and Oconey. Yeah, that beautifulpart of the world. My dad worked
at one of the plants right therevery early on, like in his twenties,
and I was born right there atOconey Memorial Hospital, and so my
parents grew up very very white collar. My dad barely finished high school,
(05:41):
that is ged. But with howI you know, we started TV and
I was fifteen years old, andlife really took off theen for me personally.
I tried to attempted to go tocollege. But when you're eighteen years
old and you can afford to payfor your own college education that's fifty sixty
thousand dollars a year at a privatecollege, it's kind of hard to be
(06:04):
motivated, you know. If I'malready at the point to be able to
pay for the education, it washard to stay motivated. Also, filming
about forty eight weeks out of theyear was a lot, and it was
a full time job, and Igot to work with my family day in
day out, which now is ablessing because I don't have them all here,
and financially it paved a way tohave a great life, but it
(06:29):
also puts a lot of targets onyour back and then you know, living
in the spotlight, and then yourparents get charged. I mean that that
obviously had a huge impact on yourwhole family. Can you tell us what
that was like? Yeah, Imean when the indictment happened, and first
off, the case, you know, there were state case, federal case,
and there was you know, therewas a specialist who came in who
(06:54):
evaluated the loss amount and around sixtyfive million dollars and it was rough.
You know, when you and twowhenever you get a piece of paper that
says you'll know our one of ourlead lawyers called the day of the indictment
that just wanted to let you knowyou've formally been indicted. I'll need a
million dollars in my account. Iclose a business today if you want me
(07:15):
to represent you. And at thatpoint it all started, and seven million
dollars later, they're sitting in federalprison. Jesus wow. So that that
that was the cost of the defenseseven million dollars. I would say five
and a half six Now we're nowwe're close to that. That was that
(07:40):
was attorney's fees and experts and allof that, right, yeah, yeah,
but the attorney's fees took up tookup a big portion of that,
especially in such a case like this, there was five there was five attorneys
on the case, and then youhad your investigators, and it just it
(08:01):
never stopped. Well, and youknow, with with just for our for
our audience, when you have taxcharges that you know a lot of times
they they have a lot of casesthat are not tax fraud cases, but
uh sort of other conduct puts thespotlight on tax issues. And once the
tax stuff comes in, it getsway more expensive because you need a forensic
(08:24):
accountant, which sometimes costs more thana lawyer. And you know, I
use an expert who's a former IR. S guy, and then that's
another's who that's who used was aformer guy. So maybe maybe you're a
guy's mind. I don't know.We'll talk about so like you recently sat
down with your parents current lawyer AlexLittle, who's very passionate. Obviously,
(08:50):
this is a rather biased interview becauseit's like your parents and their lawyer.
But but it was great. Ilistened to it on Unlocked your podcast,
and Matt's going to play a littleclip of you know, my favorite part.
I don't know if Jim's seen itor not, but it's very on
point. You know, we hadthis idea in America of you know,
(09:11):
presumption of innocence. That's what wesay on paper. It does not exist.
I mean, the moment that somebodyis charged with a crime, everybody
just check out Instagram or Facebook oryou know, they're guilty. Presumption of
innocence. So in twenty nineteen theyare charged both in a multiple count indictment
(09:33):
and then later it comes a supersedingindictment. You know, everything from conspiracy
to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, filing,
fraudulent tax returns, and obstruction ofjustice. Then in twenty twenty two
they go to trial and we're foundguilty. You see, they're targeted for
their celebrity and they didn't do thiscrime. There was no crime. There
(09:56):
were no documents to support some ofthe charges, and so they definitely shouldn't
do the time. And now thatthey're doing the time, it's this whole
other issue that comes in, whichis the conditions. So the conduct that
the government alleges you said goes backto twenty seven and eight, right,
yes, okay, according to theindictment, and it involves a loan out
(10:18):
company, which you discussed with us. We have a lot of questions,
right, so I'm going to turnit over to Jim. I asked him
to take a deep dive into thepre sentenced report for your parents that the
probation prepared. So we have somequestions about sort of what the recommendations were
for your parents. Yeah, so, Savanna, you mentioned loss amount and
(10:43):
I'm sure you were educated in thecitizen guidelines and loss amount is a big
driver. And as you know,I looked at the precise report and thanks
for sharing that with us. Butyou know, the Probation office set the
loss amount of over sixty five milliondollars, almost sixty five to one hundred
million. And by the time theyadded all the enhancements, I mean,
(11:03):
your dad's guideline range with life Imean and life means life. I didn't
look at your mother's, but I'msure it was a you know, very
very high up there, and yourdad got enhancements for you know, being
organizer, leader, et cetera.But but then the government comes in and
says, okay, well, wellwe'll go with their objections and and so
(11:24):
we want to be conservative. Andyou know, so were your dad's looking
at twenty years and he ultimately getsI think, uh, twelve twelve years.
Yeah, and that was recently reduced. So you know, I mean,
what was that like going through Andyou know, you're I mean,
you're looking at your dad thinking he'sgoing to prison for the rest of his
(11:45):
life. I mean, that's ascary proposition for sure. Yeah, it's
it's scary because you're also in aplace to where you're looking at it and
you see cases to where lives aretaken or there's abuse that has occurred and
they don't even get this time.And unfortunately, we have a government to
where money means more than life.And I saw prosecutors who said, you
(12:07):
know, they were asking for lifein prison. And also when it comes
to the loss amount the loss.Just to clarify the loss I was speaking
about at the very beginning of theinterview, the sixty five million was just
our career loss damages. When someonecame in and evaluated what we lost career
wise. Now with the government.The government was stating there was a thirty
(12:28):
six million dollar loss and then theydropped it down to sixteen million. Sixteen
seventeen million is what they say theloss amount is. Our argument from the
very beginning was show us the loandocuments. Show us the loan documents,
so you can show us where yougot this loss amount, because it's not
correct. And wait a minute,though, the loan documents that you're talking
(12:50):
about, I understand pertain to thebank fraud charges. That's right. The
tax charge the tax laws was sevenhundred thousand dollars and that tax office is
bogus. There was no tax lawsand that any any paid those taxes.
I mean, you know, that'swhat that jumped out at me, Savannah.
(13:11):
I mean, you know, fora while we've heard Hunter Biden paid
his taxes, so why is hebeing prosecuted? And you know, I'm
sure you feel strongly about that.I mean, that's oh I do.
I do. Because our case wasin Fulton County, Georgia, the most
democratic county in the state, andthe prosecutor stated, ladies and gentlemen,
what we have here are the Trumpsof the South and My argument to that
(13:33):
is, I've written a letter toCongressman, I've spoken to a ton of
people, and I've said, ifyour argument and your case is that strong,
why did you feel the need toinvoke the name of Donald Trump in
order to incite anger? That wasthe only reason that name was used.
And were you the Trumps of theSouth? You know what? According to
(13:58):
prosecutors, I guess we were.But people's people's opinions and beliefs are different.
I mean when it comes to forme and my family, obviously,
the federal government knows what you votefor well before they take you to trial.
And it just for me. It'sthe whole tax thing was complete.
The state of Georgia just paid usa million dollars. So how is one,
(14:20):
like Alex says, how is onearm of the government going to fight
to imprison you while another arm ofthe government is paying you a million dollars.
Oh, we're going to get tothat. The Revenue Department all that
down down this interview. But okay, so, so part of your argument
is also politics and political disposition tojudge and all that, which I want
(14:45):
to ask you about. But youhave been very clear about your mom getting
sucked into this vortex of criminal accusationssimply because she was married to Todd and
that they really had nothing on yourmom. So tell me number one,
(15:07):
what was the evidence against your mom? Who were the government's witnesses just in
general against both of them at thetrial? And then third part, I
know it's a compound question why yourparents didn't testify. Our blisteners always want
to know. So when it comesto my mother, there was not one
ounce of evidence. There just wasn'twhen it came to obviously, everyone's going
(15:31):
to have their opinions on the taxfraud. The government they started off a
four week trial with the tax fraudcase in order to create this image of
these entitled, rich, selfish peoplewho don't pay the government and they're above
the law. And because they're notpaying their taxes, guests, who has
to suffer you the jurors, you'reworking in paying but these rich people are.
(15:52):
So they created this whole narrative aroundthe tax case in order to assassinate
their character to then their bank fraudcase and for the loan documents. You
know, my mom seven counts ofbank fraud. But the government's own witnesses
who they brought in. Who werethese bankers who were vice presidents presidents of
(16:12):
these banks? Our lawyers asked,have you ever met miss Chrisly? The
only time we ever met her waswhen we came to their house for a
Christmas party. She never gave usa document. She never they had never
met her in a banking setting,and her name wasn't original bank club.
(16:33):
She never signed a document that therewas not a single loan that was in
her name. And so my theoryon that is, as you all know,
our Department of Justice or injustice asI like to call it, they
love to go after spouses because theyfeel like we go after them, you'll
plead and that's why the FBI hasa ninety eight percent conviction rate. Well
(16:57):
did you plead up? The ideais right when you have spouse's other family
members. I mean, that's that'sa common strategy they do that. So
that and there was a point intime to where my mom, you know,
to where my dad said, Ithis could you get scared? You
know, when the government's coming afteryou and they're saying, oh, life
(17:21):
in prison, all these things,and my dad the thoughts of my mom
going to prison, My dad waslike I didn't do this, but like
you're I cannot have you sitting inprison. I just can't do it.
And I will never forget my momlooking at him and saying, we know
what we've done, and we knowwhat we haven't done. So we're going
in this together and we're coming outof it together. Wow. Maybe you
(17:42):
know this just to be just tobe clear on the timing, just playing
Devil's at you here. This prosecutionis stems from a time when President Trump
was in office. So it wasPresident Trump's deed that Department of Injustice that
you're talking about. Yeah, Butat the same time, let's look at
(18:06):
just the state in general, andthere's only so much a president can do.
That's why on this appeal, Trumpdid a great job at stacking a
stacking the court, and so onthis the Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court, there
are a lot of Trump appointed judges. So for that, I hope they
look at these remarks of Trump's ofthe South and kind of the government overreached
(18:26):
the Fourth Amendment violations. I hopethey look at it and take it seriously.
And at the same time, youknow, it's for me, it's
it's tough now I think President Trumphis case is in Fulton County. Ours
was in Fulton County, and nowhe knows firsthand kind of how dirty and
corrupt they really are. What whydidn't your parent look at We know why
(18:49):
people testify don't testify, you know, we know all about that. But
just for our listeners, well,if they didn't do it, if they're
so, why didn't they testify?Because of how the government. You know,
the government can easily take and twistand turn and even though you may
(19:10):
not have done it, unless thereis alex our attorney said it, beast.
He's like, when I have clients, unless there is a if you've
killed someone, unless there's a videoof a gun in your hand and you
shooting it, you do not testify. He's like, because the government can
take and turn and twist things howeverthey want to twist it. True.
(19:33):
You want to circle back to yourquestion from a few minutes ago, Well,
I forgot what that was, Matt. I will tell you, Matt,
though I did read in some ofthe papers that that Savannah's parents were
getting twenty thousand dollars an episode oftheir podcast, and I'm mad. I
got to ask you, we're missinga lot of money here. But you
know, we're counting on Savannah tospread the word. Maybe we're gonna get
(19:56):
those numbers out, all right.I love that Jim's focus. Listen,
Jim, can you buy a newhouse? Matt. Every time, every
time there's a guess on uh,there's always some some added perk to Jem,
Like you know, like if it'slike you know, I don't know
(20:18):
a forensic expert or whatever, hegets a little bit of tidbit of information
you can use in his next trial. You know, in your case,
he wants to know the podcast canmake more. Hey, it's great.
I love it. I made greatmoney, so I will take it for
you. The you know, Imean, your parents' case had a lot
of stink on it just by thefact that they pled, they went through
(20:41):
bankruptcy and discharged twenty million dollars adebt, right, I mean that's and
so you know, you pray thatin front of a jury, and you
know jurors don't like that. Butbut I want to read from the government
sentisy memorandum and it's sort of howthey portrayed your parents, and I want
to get your reaction. And thisis the government submitting to the court,
(21:02):
it said Todd and Julie Christley arecareer swindlers who have made a living by
jumping from one fraud scheme to another, lining to banks, stiffing vendors,
and evading taxes at every corner.The empire was built upon the backs of
defrauded community banks that collapse while ToddChrisley used a stolen money to fly to
Los Angeles for biweekly haircuts and theirfraud. As their fraud imploded, the
(21:26):
Christlies managed to shirt responsibility by abusingthe bankruptcy system and writing off twenty million
dollars. Undeterred, they started areality TV show where they flaunted their wealth
and lifestyle to the American public.As they began making money from the show,
they hit it and refused to payfederal income taxes that their viewers pay
every year. Even while making millionsof dollars, they insisted on defrauding everyone
(21:48):
that encountered in the smallest ways imaginable, the bp OL spill fund out of
money intended to help afflicted homeowners.A California homeowner out of rent money,
even the network the air the showfor extra airline tickets and believing themselves to
be untouchable. Todd and Julie triedto obstruct the grand jury investigating their crons
and put their family members and friendsto lie for them at trial. That's
(22:11):
pretty hard stuff. What do yousay? And first off, when it
comes to evading the taxes. Nowon appeal, we have Betty Carter,
who was the IRS agent at trial. She our current CPAs went to her
and said, Hey, if myclients are owing money, then I need
to know exactly what they owe becauseI need to get it taken care of.
(22:33):
And her exact words were, whatI said on the stand actually wasn't
true. They don't owe anything becauseper his calculations, they were owed returns.
And as you know, on thesetax cases, you can see every
time they log into the system,you can see how many times they've viewed
the our tax returns, what keysthey clicked, what pages they went to.
(22:57):
She accessed them over to twelve thousandtimes. Oh, well, you've
accessed him over twelve thousand times.How do you not know the exact dollar
bounce cents of what's owed? Andwe are now privy to internal communications that
shows that she knew at the timeof trial when she testified that there was
(23:18):
no money owed, and the prosecutorsknew that as well, which is why
we have alleged, you know,Brady violations their misconduct. And so when
it comes to the tax thing,that's fogus. When it comes to hiding
money, that everything went through acorporation, the corporation filed taxes, and
(23:38):
that the whole thing that that's justwild to me. And what the government
fails to mention is my dad's formerbusiness partner who my dad went to the
police. The guy's name is MarkBraddock. My dad went to the police
because this guy had stolen millions ofdollars from the company. So my dad's
(23:59):
the one who started with law enforcement, and the government ended up giving him
full immunity, not just a littledeal, full immunity. And this guy
got on the stand and said,I committed these crimes. I forged their
names to documents, I gave thesebanks these loan documents. I was in
(24:19):
their emails. I was doing allthese things. And so that's what the
government forgets. And also one ofmy favorite moments that I will never forget
is when Alex at sentencing, Alex, that FBI agent was on the stands
(24:40):
going through all their documents, andAlex said, I just want to because
this is when Alex came on board, and he said, I just have
a question. What steps did youtake to authenticate this evidence that it is
what you say that it is?And that FBI agent goes, what are
you talking about? He said,what steps did you take? He was
like, if you have quantico withyour fingertips, what steps did you take
(25:03):
to verify that these emails are exactlywhat you say they are. They came
from where you say they came from. They didn't do one thing to authenticate
the evidence, and all of theirevidence came from my dad's former business partner,
who they gave full immunity hundreds ofthousands of surprising because usually they may
you plead to something to be ableto preserve a credibility so that someone like
(25:26):
Alex doesn't eviscerate, you know,the guy when he testify. So I'm
kind of I mean, giving hima non prosecution if he in fact had
exposure is not you know, isnot common. But when it comes to
swindling banks out of money and thewhole bankruptcy, they went through almost a
(25:48):
two year bankruptcy bankruptcy court, therewas never one allegation made of bankruptcy fraud
anything of that nature. And thenthe government's own witnesses from the banks,
one of the presidents of the bankgot on the stand and he said during
eight when the world was on fire, he said, everyone was throwing their
loans back at us. They werebasically saying good luck. And his exact
(26:11):
words were, during that time,mister chrisly came to us and said,
hey, what can I do tomake you as whole as possible. Let's
figure this out. Let's work together. Let's do it. Because you're in
the real estate world, so obviouslythere's investments, all these things. He
said, let's do a short saleon this property, that property, Let's
try to get you as much moneyas possible. That's not someone who's trying
(26:33):
to defraud banks, right. Andone thing that I didn't notice, there
was no referral out of bankruptcy courtby the US trustee to prosecute your mom
or dad. I mean that's so, I mean that there's no bankruptcy fraud
that was charged, which you knowand a lot Yeah, not in your
(26:55):
dad's mom's case for sure. No, And they started investigating this and twenty
twelve. So if your case isthat strong, it took you seven years
to issue a formal indictment. Sevenyears. And that's where my thing is.
I've said from the very beginning,I'm not just a daughter who loves
(27:15):
her parents. At the end ofthe day, if they did what you
say they did, and you canprove it without a shadow of a doubt,
they need to serve their time andlearn their lesson and move on.
But I know wholeheartedly if you're ifyou've got such a clean case, there
shouldn't be Fourth Amendment violations, Thereshouldn't be government misconduct, there shouldn't be
(27:36):
prosecutors who have lied. And nowthe main prosecutor is no longer at the
US Attorney's office, and we don'tget an answer as to why he's not
there. He didn't show up atsentencing for the biggest case of his career.
He might have an answer, bigfirm no, No, he didn't.
He's apparently at the FDIC right now, which doesn't make much sense.
(27:56):
Okay, So let I will sayjust the fact that your parents got seven
years and twelve years when the guidelineswere so damn huh. I know that's
a lot of time, but thatin the case to me that the judge
has some serious questions about the case. And so because I don't think you
can get just twelve years for yourdad without departing on a variance or something.
(28:19):
I don't know what the guidelines actuallywork through objections. But but you
know, well it's the whole thingwhen it comes to our judge at trial.
I will hold on because I havethe actual statistics right here. It's
obviously on appeal, as you know, it has to do within the records.
(28:41):
Something within the records is wrong ourjudge. Out of fifty six appeals,
she's been reversed eleven times. Shewas reversed six times in twenty twenty
alone, and remanded back to herseventeen times. And well, that right
there. The biggest thing was whenwe alleged the prosecutor's misconduct, we asked
(29:06):
for there to be an evidentiary hearing. Anything we asked for, she denied.
She wanted to get the trial overwith. She sent a juror home
on the as she read them theirrights to go into the deliberation room.
She read them their rights, theywent, they were going to the deliberation
room, and she left one jurbehind and sent the juror home. So
(29:27):
there were Yeah, there was justa lot of things that happened and a
lot of motions that she did notgrant that. We just wanted to prove
our case. We wanted to havethe opportunity to show the evidence that we
had, and she would not allowit. And she also wouldn't allow us
to talk about the state case either, which is where things got messy,
(29:48):
because if it wasn't for the statecase, the federal case would not have
existed. So a couple of things. First of all, you come with
stats and receipts, which I appreciate, but definitely one of the first guests
to bring statistics with them. Sowait till you hear is some other stuff
she's got. But you know,Jim was reading all that horrible stuff.
(30:11):
It really paints her parents and likethe worst I ever. But at sensing,
you know, we also make argumentsfor our clients about mitigating factors.
So even though they're these horrible,corrupt people, look at with the life
that they've lived, you know,not just the fact that they don't have
a record, but also maybe maybethat a drinking problem maybe they had,
you know, and the fact thatthey're really good parents to you know,
(30:33):
I don't know six kids, sobut I don't think nothing really popped out
at me in terms of mitigation.Was there any look you can't get I
mean, you can't make stuff upobviously, but well, no, when
we were there, we obviously they'retwo minor children, sixteen and ten at
the time, and Chloe she ismy oldest brother's biological daughter, my parent
(31:00):
to Patter since she was a baby, and she's been legally adopted by them,
and she struggles a lot with justmental health and things of that nature.
And we asked at sentencing to speakabout those things, but we also
asked for the courtroom to be closedbecause it's a minor child. You're discussing
mental health issues. And the judge'sexact words were, this is a very
(31:25):
public case and the public deserves tohear it. So no, I'm not
doing that. So because of that, we did not discuss any of those
issues. There were letters from therapistsdiscussing very in depth traumatic things, and
Chloe suffers from separation anxiety, sheabandonment issues, all these different things,
(31:45):
and now she was about to experienceat times too. So we asked for
what, you know, staggered youknow, sentencing, all these things,
and the judge looked back at myro of family and said, you know
what, where's her biological mother?And that was no place for this judge
(32:06):
to bring that in, and weobviously were just we were just taken back
by it. And she said,well, you know what, there's a
whole row of people back there thatI bet would be happy to take care
of these kids. I'm denying that. Well, it's interesting because staggered sentencing,
which comes up with couples. Italso came up in the VORs City
(32:27):
Blues case, yep, another casewhere people were saying it was celebrity,
you know, white privilege, allthat stuff, and a lot of the
couples were asking for staggered sentences ifthere's no law that says they need to
get it, but it's usually upto the discretion of the judge and if
there's a good reason for it,they do that. So I was a
(32:49):
little surprised, and you know,just for people that don't know out there.
One of the reasons I admire Savannahis that she is running a business.
It's not just media and going out. They're advocating for her parents,
but she's also adopted her siblings.So Chloe, the girl that was adopted
by her parents is now you know, adopted by Savannah. And then and
(33:12):
then your brother you've also adopted.He's seventeen, right, Yes, he
just turned seventeen. Yeah. Soand you have a boyfriend, which if
he's like my boyfriend, that's yourthird child. Hey, he's got three
kids, so there's a lot amongstus. So the other part to this
is you keep mentioning the Georgia Departmentof Revenue. What did that have to
(33:37):
do with the federal case. Sothe Georgia Department of Revenue, there was
an agent there by the name ofJosh White, and he took a very
unusual interest in the case. Thereas a judge who has said that in
their rulings that there was a veryunusual interest that was taken in this case.
(33:58):
And he was just he did alot of the com cases in Georgia,
and there was just a weird interestthat he took on my family in
their case, and he started investigatingit for tax fraud and he went around
to family members a bunch of thathe knew there were strings ties with he
(34:20):
was giving them taxpayer information, whichis against the law he cannot do,
and he started building a case.And then he decided one day he's going
to seize a warehouse that had myparents' belongings in it. And he went
in with a search warrant that wasnever signed off on by a judge,
waved it up in the air andsaid told the owner of the warehouse he
(34:42):
was going to arrest her. Shedid not give him access, and therefore
she gave an access. And that'swhere apparently ninety percent of their evidence came
from. The magistrate judge. Wehad filed emotion to suppress everything that came
from there. The magistrate judge ruledthat none of the none of the fruits
(35:04):
derived from the warehouse or you know, elsewhere was allowed in a trial.
It's all thrown out. But thenwe get to trial and the trial judge
allowed all that so called evidence tocome in. And so that's where it
gets messy. Because the state wasworking with the Feds, and there was
also two women at the Georgia Departmentof Revenue. There was an unrelated case.
(35:30):
They had been wearing wires for abouta year and they reached out to
our lawyers and said, we thinkyou want to see this information, Like
we feel so bad about about what'sgoing to occur here. You have to
hear this. We have hundreds ofhours of audio of them talking about wiping
(35:51):
government devices clean of anything that hasto do with the Chrisly case, about
how they know what they're about todo is breaking the ball, but you
know they're going to do it anyway. You have the I mean, you
have very high up because of us. It wiped the whole Georgia Department of
Revenue clean, it special investigations everyone. There was about forty people that got
(36:15):
fired because of us because of thethings that we uncovered. And they had
a dartboard with my dad's face onit, and before he was ever indicted,
and they used a dartboard with hisface on it, and then come
to find out there are photos ofJosh Waits. He took photos of my
(36:35):
dad sitting in a chair from theshow, and he would go and mimic
that photo on that furniture that hesees or laying on a bed, mimic
that. It was a very weirdobsession with our family in general. You
could use the lawsuit against them,right, so for a million dollars.
So what was the claim in thelawsuit. The claim in the lawsuit was
(36:59):
the government and the conduct and youknow, giving taxpayer information. He was
working with WSBTV, and he wouldnotify them, not only on our case,
but other cases. He would notifythem when he was about to make
a bust, whether it was forthese koem machines or a big tax case.
When he's seizing stuff. He wantedto be the big guy on camera,
(37:22):
going in showing a badge, seizingeveryone's items, and he would notify
the press of this before he woulddo that. And that was one of
the things we alleged. We allegedjust the throwing the dartboard, you know,
just so the Fourth Amendment violations,all of those things. We all
(37:43):
of those things we alleged. Solet's let's let's close today's conversation with what
the appeal because you're arguing in March, what is the appeal about? What
are the headlines on appeal? There'sthe Fourth Amendment? What else prostitutoral in
Wisconda, Yes, Fourth Amendments.The misconduct you got the r S agent
(38:06):
lying on the stand. You alsojust have insufficient evidence. I mean especially
that's more so on my mom,just because how does someone go to prison
on seven accounts of bank fraud whentheir name wasn't on a single bank loan.
But the governments they said she benefitedfrom the loans. That was their
argument, right, Jim. Shouldn'tthese issues have been brought up in pretro
(38:28):
emotions? I mean, sure,I suspect they were seven six million dollars
in turning fees. I don't.I mean, the good lawyers involved us,
I could tell I know, you'vegot a good law firm doing the
appeal now for sure. And youknow, And so I'm I can't say
what happened or didn't happen, Butyou know, I'm curious about that million
(38:50):
dollar settlement. Did the federal thefederal government swoop in and take it and
apply it to fourth material Orgza.Yeah, so it's funny. They they
were notified of this settlement back inOctober and they obviously we have not spoken
about the settlement because due to justwe weren't allowed to. But then the
(39:13):
moment it hit the pressed, therewas nothing we could do about it.
So therefore it was public knowledge thegovernment was notified of it back in October.
They choose to do They chose todo nothing about it. I never
touched any of the money. Obviously, there's hefty legal fees that had built
up from the Georgia case, fromthe federal case appeal, so all of
(39:34):
that went to lawyers and now thegovernment, you know, they're going to
try to call it back, whichI had Art Leap who was our forfeiture
attorney and he helped create forfeiture lawsfor the government, and he's like,
I've never seen this happen. He'slike in all my times. They the
government even tried to take my commissionfor selling my parents' house. I'm a
(39:55):
licensed real estate agent. It's athree percent commission. I I have sold
sixteen million dollars worth of real estatelast year, so this is not a
for sale by owner. The governmenttried to take my three percent commission.
A great So the government, they'retrying to take anything they can get their
hands on. So at this point, if they want that million dollars,
(40:15):
they're going to have to fight lawyersto get it. R wow. I
mean, I did see the garnishmentthat the latest filing, which had to
do with garnishing on that restitution order. Anyway, We're going to rest,
right, Jim, and we willbe back next week with more continued conversation
(40:37):
with Savannah Chrisley. Yes, andbefore we do, I want to just
give a quick plug to Savannahs podcastUnlocked. Right, you can subscribe by
assuming on all podcast platforms. Yes, they're all right, and same thing
with the presumption. We're also onall the podcast platforms on YouTube at the
presumption. And yes, we willbe back next week to continue this conversation.
(40:58):
So Sarah and Jim, why don'tyou guys go ahead and rest and
we'll be back. Yep, werest, rest h
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.