Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
It's a pleasure to welcome Hans vonSpakowsky from the Heritage Foundation back to the
program. Hans, good morning,good morning to you. Great to have
you here. I think those ofus who are not attorneys, and that's
most of us, can be forgivenfor being a little bit unsure or confused
about what is exactly going on inthis Trump hush money trial, because we
(00:22):
hear all these legal analysts and expertssaying it's a garbage case, and I
mean, it's pretty obvious that it'spolitical. But what are they exactly trying
to convict him of doing. Theyindicted him on thirty four pounds of falsifying
(00:42):
business records, and the business recordsthat he supposedly falsified were to conceal another
crime. Well, what is thatother crime? They claim that the nuisance
settlement payment that old Trump's lawyers madeto Stormy Daniels one hundred thirty thousand,
(01:03):
And by the way, I callit a nuisance settlement because if she had
a legitimate claim, you and Iboth know she wouldn't have settle for one
hundred thirty thousand dollars. Okay,But what they're saying is is that that
payment was a campaign related expense becauseDonald Trump was trying to suppress politically damaging
(01:26):
information, and because it was acampaign related expense, it should have been
listed as that instead of as alegal expense. But the whole problem with
that is that it wasn't a campaignrelated expense. Now why do I say
that, Well, because Donald Trumpwas in a presidential campaign, state election
(01:51):
laws don't apply to him. There'sa big federal law on federal campaigns that
applies to the raising and spending ofmoney by federal campaigns. And the two
federal agencies passed with enforcing that law. Neither one of them went after him
because neither one of them, neitherthe FBC nor the Department Justice, believed
(02:14):
that this was a campaign related expense. This was a personal expense, It
had nothing to do with the campaign, you know, as an asside Hans.
If this was a hush money payment, and she's been out there blabbing
about it, it seems like eversince does he have a case against her?
(02:36):
Oh? Oh yeah, because therewas a non disclosure agreement. And
look, this prosecutor is trying topaint all of this as if as if
there's something wrong with it. Thesekind of settlement payments. Particularly these kind
of nuisance payments are made all thetime by corporations, by celebrities, and
(02:59):
all all of them always have anon disclosure agreement in it. There is
nothing illegal about any of this.Can the defense attorneys make that it seems
like a very pretty straightforward explanation.Can they make that case to what's probably
a hostile to Donald Trump jury,well convincingly? Well, look, as
(03:25):
you said, all the legal expertssay this is a bogus case, But
that doesn't stop Alvin Bragg from goingforward with this because I think he believes
that Manhattan jury will be so biased, so politically biased against Donald Trump,
that they're going to find him guiltydespite the facts and despite the law.
(03:45):
And remember he's also got an extremelybiased judge on his side. This judge
shouldn't be even being the case.He should have removed himself from the case
when it came out that his dagis a Democratic political consultant who works for
Democratic candidates, including Kamala Harris,who's on the who's going to be opposing
(04:11):
this defendant in the upcoming election.And yet the judge hasn't recused himself.
That tells you a lot about thebias pervading this trial. It's unbelievable.
I've heard a lot of analysts,Hans, and I'm interested in your take
predict that this will be quickly overturned. If he's convicted, it will be
overturned on appeal. What do youthink, Well, I hope so.
(04:33):
But the problem is, I don'ttrust the New York State Court system.
I mean, politics infests and infectsthe entire system, including the judges who
are appointed and elected in the system. And I hope that's the case,
that's what ought to happen, ButI don't trust the New York State Court's
(04:57):
judicial system. Yeah, you area former commission on a federal election commission.
If you if you were on thatcommission and you thought there was an
issue here with Trump and uh andand a campaign cover up, would the
commission have been hesitant to prosecute?No? And in fact, and in
(05:17):
fact, keep in mind that theFBC find the Obama campaign four hundred thousand
dollars for a campaign finance violation.Hillary Clinton just a couple of years ago
had to pay a huge fine.There was like one hundred thousand dollars.
Why for improperly reporting her expenses forthe steel Doosiate. Yeah, that's right,
(05:43):
unbelievable. Hans. Always great tohave your analysis. Appreciate the time,
have a good Hans von Spakowski HeritageFoundation
It's a pleasure to welcome Hans vonSpakowsky from the Heritage Foundation back to the
program. Hans, good morning,good morning to you. Great to have
you here. I think those ofus who are not attorneys, and that's
most of us, can be forgivenfor being a little bit unsure or confused
about what is exactly going on inthis Trump hush money trial, because we
(00:22):
hear all these legal analysts and expertssaying it's a garbage case, and I
mean, it's pretty obvious that it'spolitical. But what are they exactly trying
to convict him of doing. Theyindicted him on thirty four pounds of falsifying
(00:42):
business records, and the business recordsthat he supposedly falsified were to conceal another
crime. Well, what is thatother crime? They claim that the nuisance
settlement payment that old Trump's lawyers madeto Stormy Daniels one hundred thirty thousand,
(01:03):
And by the way, I callit a nuisance settlement because if she had
a legitimate claim, you and Iboth know she wouldn't have settle for one
hundred thirty thousand dollars. Okay,But what they're saying is is that that
payment was a campaign related expense becauseDonald Trump was trying to suppress politically damaging
(01:26):
information, and because it was acampaign related expense, it should have been
listed as that instead of as alegal expense. But the whole problem with
that is that it wasn't a campaignrelated expense. Now why do I say
that, Well, because Donald Trumpwas in a presidential campaign, state election
(01:51):
laws don't apply to him. There'sa big federal law on federal campaigns that
applies to the raising and spending ofmoney by federal campaigns. And the two
federal agencies passed with enforcing that law. Neither one of them went after him
because neither one of them, neitherthe FBC nor the Department Justice, believed
(02:14):
that this was a campaign related expense. This was a personal expense, It
had nothing to do with the campaign, you know, as an asside Hans.
If this was a hush money payment, and she's been out there blabbing
about it, it seems like eversince does he have a case against her?
(02:36):
Oh? Oh yeah, because therewas a non disclosure agreement. And
look, this prosecutor is trying topaint all of this as if as if
there's something wrong with it. Thesekind of settlement payments. Particularly these kind
of nuisance payments are made all thetime by corporations, by celebrities, and
(02:59):
all all of them always have anon disclosure agreement in it. There is
nothing illegal about any of this.Can the defense attorneys make that it seems
like a very pretty straightforward explanation.Can they make that case to what's probably
a hostile to Donald Trump jury,well convincingly? Well, look, as
(03:25):
you said, all the legal expertssay this is a bogus case, But
that doesn't stop Alvin Bragg from goingforward with this because I think he believes
that Manhattan jury will be so biased, so politically biased against Donald Trump,
that they're going to find him guiltydespite the facts and despite the law.
(03:45):
And remember he's also got an extremelybiased judge on his side. This judge
shouldn't be even being the case.He should have removed himself from the case
when it came out that his dagis a Democratic political consultant who works for
Democratic candidates, including Kamala Harris,who's on the who's going to be opposing
(04:11):
this defendant in the upcoming election.And yet the judge hasn't recused himself.
That tells you a lot about thebias pervading this trial. It's unbelievable.
I've heard a lot of analysts,Hans, and I'm interested in your take
predict that this will be quickly overturned. If he's convicted, it will be
overturned on appeal. What do youthink, Well, I hope so.
(04:33):
But the problem is, I don'ttrust the New York State Court system.
I mean, politics infests and infectsthe entire system, including the judges who
are appointed and elected in the system. And I hope that's the case,
that's what ought to happen, ButI don't trust the New York State Court's
(04:57):
judicial system. Yeah, you area former commission on a federal election commission.
If you if you were on thatcommission and you thought there was an
issue here with Trump and uh andand a campaign cover up, would the
commission have been hesitant to prosecute?No? And in fact, and in
(05:17):
fact, keep in mind that theFBC find the Obama campaign four hundred thousand
dollars for a campaign finance violation.Hillary Clinton just a couple of years ago
had to pay a huge fine.There was like one hundred thousand dollars.
Why for improperly reporting her expenses forthe steel Doosiate. Yeah, that's right,
(05:43):
unbelievable. Hans. Always great tohave your analysis. Appreciate the time,
have a good Hans von Spakowski HeritageFoundation
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
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.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.