mr. bragg: good afternoon. thank you for joining us here today. earlier this afternoon, donald trump was arraigned on a new york supreme court indictment, returned by a manhattan grand jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. under new york state law, that is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. that is exactly what this case is about. 34 false statements made to cover up other crimes. these are felony crimes in new york state. no matter who you are. we cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct. the defendant repeatedly made false statements on new york business records. he also called on others to make false statements. the defendant claimed that he was paying michael cohen for legal services performed in 2017. this simply was not true. and it was a false statement that the defendant made month after month in 2017. april, may, june and so on throughout the rest of the year. for 9 straig

one question to sum u- for mr bragg. one question to sum up from _ for mr bragg.experience | for mr bragg. one question to l sum up from your experience as a former assistant us attorney, how unusual is what we are seeing tomorrow and what we will witness with this arrangement? will witness with this arraniement? . ., ~' arrangement? listen, new york, frankly it's _ arrangement? listen, new york, frankly it's not _ arrangement? listen, new york, frankly it's not to _ arrangement? listen, new york, frankly it's not to bring _ frankly it's not to bring charges against political figures, celebrity figures, we see it a lot, and you know you know we have used the term unprecedented a lot, and certainly we have not seen this type of case against a former president before, but the individuals involved here, the district attorney �*s office, the people managing the courtroom,, the courthouse they have seen these cases brought against political figures and they know how to handle that picture, everything proceeds accordingly. picture, everything proceeds accordingly-— acco

>> of the issue whether mr. bragg should be called before congress, i have -- i've watched mr. bragg. it's clear that he's not exactly oliver wendell scalia. my guess is he's scared to come before congress. i watched mr. bragg's press conference after he announced his indictment. he was not impressive. i have read his indictment. legal scholars much more qualified than i have have criticized it as being an inferior document. i read it. looked to me like as a legal product, someone knocked over a urine sample. my guess is mr. bragg will not try this lawsuit himself. a good criminal defense attorney based on what i've seen subpar will take his head off. he doesn't want to be naked and alone, not literally but figuratively in front of a congressional committee having to answer tough questions. that's my assessment. >> martha: yeah, just on the legal grounds of whether or not bragg -- whether or not jordan and his committee can compel the manhattan d.a. or someone who used to work for him, mark pomeranz to come down and be subpoenaed about this case, you know, brag is saying that is

mr. bragg's office sued mr. jordan to block him. today the district judge denied the request for preliminary injunction quote, the subpoena was issued in valid legislative purpose in connection with the broad indispensable congressional power to conduct investigation mr. pomeranz must appear, no one is above the law d.a. bragg's office has filed notice he is appealing that decision and it's worth noting all of this is taking place on the very same day that allen weisselberg, the former chief officer at the trump organization was released. he is the kind of witness that if flipped for the prosecution could secure once and for all accountability for donald trump, and that is accountability with a capital "a." joining us now a catherine christian, a former special assistant d.a. in the manhattan d.a. office. thanks for being here. first let's talk about what's happening with the testimony of the subpoena of mark pomeranz. >> well, chairman jordan had a big victory today. it's being appealed. the judge wrote a very biting 25-page decisi

mr. bragg's investigation, chairman jordan is trying to force attorney mark pomerant to testify before congress now, if you remember, pomerant was a manhattan prosecutor who once led the investigation int the fraud of the trump organization, under th previous manhattan d. a. cy vance mr. pomerantz resigned early last year when the new dea alvin bragg, decided not t seek an indictment against trump for that fraud at that time and after, mr. pomerantz resigned, he wrote a book abou that experience, which mr. bragg did not appreciate chairman jordan now wants mark pomerantz to testify on th record and he wants to know two things, one, what were the interna deliberations not to indic trump back when mr. pomerant was running the show because that information could presumably be very useful to a group of people who don't want trump to be indicted, in a broader fraud case and two, mr. jordan wants to find out what the d.a.'s offic did have on donald trump and his potentially fraudulent business dealin

and attack mr. bragg. the facts were well pointed out new york is a safe city and safer than most of the major cities, than mr. jordan's, the chairman's state of ohio. they attacked mr. bragg and said he was supported by george soros. what does that have in common with tennessee? the people they went after were minorities. mr. bragg, the first african-american elected d.a. in the bureau of manhattan, and in tennessee, the two youngest members of the general assembly who happen to be african-american. a minority group by far in tennessee and the tennessee general assembly. they accused mr. bragg of being supported by george soros, which he was. that's a trope for anti-semitism. they go after minority religion, minority d.a., and try to appeal to their base and try to help donald trump. that shameful as well. shame on the judiciary committee of this house. shame on the general assembly of tennessee. do your job, protect your citizens. pass meaningful laws to restrict weapons of war. impose red flag laws so w

old, have been looked at by the federal authorities, the f, b, c, federal prosecutors, and in fact mr. bragg himself. and they were all discarded and bound to be baseless in terms of any violation that would be pursued. so. ready they were never pursued in effect state statute. this is based on has expired, the misdemeanors state prosecutor. so it's a novel theory of bootstrapping this to go back to a suppose a federal felony that already had been dismissed by the f, b, c and federal prosecutors. but what i make a part from that, that is why this is nonsense to begin with is this is part of, i think round 9 or 10 trying to we will get donald trump. there was a call for his impeachment by one of the impeachment managers by the way, before donald trump took office. so this is ben, the democratic play book from the beginning of eliminating donald trump as 1st of all, a president. initially, i to trying to remove him before he was even sworn in, which is, which is silly. and of course, now preventing him being the republican nomination from being elected again, what i make of it is about the dem

he quotes mr. bragg same, that he can't say oh -- for testimony. >> and michael cohen, it's o course a star witness of the d.a.'s office. >> so the judge put thos excerpts in the decision she also said the first 35 pages of the complaint, was public relations tirade, against former president trump so, she put a lot into the decision, the judge, that wa varied critical of the a brag, and the decision to try to prevent mr. pomerantz from testifying in fact she even said, there i a book, and the d.a.'s office, did write a letter to hi publisher, and ask them not to do it, but they never sued they never took any othe action, and the judge wa careful of that. they had an opportunity to prevent book from bein published, which actuall would've probably lost, becaus that would be prior restraint. but they didn't take tha opportunity, according to this decision by the judge. >> it sounds like the fact tha mr. pomerantz went public by the, book was so much of his experience in the d.a.'s office it really complicat

having said all of that, mr. bragg hurdles to overcome if he wants to be successful here. >> one of them is that he's trying to stop the former assistant d.a., mark pomerantz, who resigned once bragg took over, from testifying, but pomerantz has already written a book, within on "meet the press", talked publicly about the case, the details of the case, what he would have done, so isn't it difficult for bragg to argue that his testifying to house judiciary would undermine the evidence that he has assembled against mr. trump? >> precisely right, and i suspect that when we see the committees' legal response, their filing on monday, we're going to see that very argument. additionally, andrea, what alvin bragg is asking for here, and again, is understandable, but difficult to achieve, is that the court rule all future subpoenas that might call for evidence relating to mr. bragg or his current and former assistant district attorneys, if those subpoenas, future subpoenas be ruled invalid as well again, a significant hurdle be

we do want mr. bragg to answer questions.ooking at how we are going to pursue that and take the next step. what i do know is mr. pomerantz, this is someone we want to talk to as well. he has left the d.a.'s office. he has written a book. he is the guy who threw the fit and i think put the pressure on mr. bragg to go through with the ridiculous action that he took today. >> jesse: well, i think biden sent his goon into the d.a.'s office. >> yeah. >> jesse: and that's what lit this fuse. all right, representative comer, are there going to be more than just letters that are strongly worded because a lot of people are little tired of all the letters and subpoenas? >> we are serious about this, something the speaker, kevin mccarthy issued a statement today. i fully expect to see alvin bragg answering questions in front of congress as soon as we can make it happen. >> jesse: good. >> this is unacceptable and we are not going to back down on this. >> jesse: i saw something today that you deposed one of joe biden's little assistants,

it appears that mr. braggtretched -- did a lot of stretching to reach a felony charge to fit a political agenda. and that is going -- that's going to have an impacted across the country because people are going to say hey, donald trump, either you like him or you didn't. but that really looks trumped up and looks political. >> ainsley: donald trump yesterday at mar-a-lago he highlighted, went through the list of all the things they have done with him. he started with democrats spying on his campaign, attacking him with fraudulent investigations russia, russia, russia, ukraine, ukraine, ukraine. impeachment hoax number one, number two, the raid on mar-a-lago, lying to the fisa court. the doj relentlessly pursuing republicans and judicial changes to election laws. you read the list and reminded of everything they are doing to stop this guy from running for president. >> brian: here is eric trump who laid out what exactly it was like from his perspective and his family's perspectives yesterday. and also the cost

but that statute that he cited is a misdemeanor, that mr. bragg cited conspiring to promote a candidate by unlawful means. it's a misdemeanor. so he's using a misdemeanor boot strapping it into a felony by saying the false enters were to obstruct another misdemeanor and the whole indictment reads that way. i was just, i was shocked. >> laura: another fine product of harvard law school, i will say. all right, david, andrew weisman, a good buddy of both of yours, he had a comment about everyone should just calm down about how this couldn't result, perhaps, in a conviction. watch. >> the jury could be charged that if you don't find for the felony, the bump up, that's what's called a lesser included offense is the misdemeanor. so the fact that the misdemeanors are not charged doesn't mean that the jury doesn't get allowed to consider them. >> laura: okay. so, david, the president of the united states could be charged with a bunch of misdemeanors along with unpaid parking tickets. that's weissmann's conclusion here? really. >> what he said is a lot of

for years by federal prosecutors who couple of them even went over this matter for years and by mr. bragg himself. this was resurrected by a political hack albin, brad, who is a politician. he runs for election. you said in the campaign he was running to get donald trump bully. that's the rule of law. we're holding rena persecution when somebody doesn't even have the evidence and they're running on getting someone here . so this is a confirmation of this being exactly what has been from the beginning with the legal theories. you're absolutely right, player, although a lot of leaks have been made even about the indictment is mr. bragg going to prosecute the people that are leaky. that's a felony. i haven't seen any remark in that. any effort in that effort any a remarks regarding any effort to do so. 34 couch. you can take it as a lawyer and i am a lawyer. you can take anything and chocolate up to 34 pieces. you're absolutely right. we don't know there's anything new. what, what is new here? this is never been done in new york. this is unprecedented. the statute as indeed expire. there's a

but what, mr braggs ?h attorneys have done that just companies have done is to say this was in furtherance of fraud and in furtherance of other crimes, and that's what elevates it to a felony. now a low level felony. we have to keep it in context in new york. this is the lowest level felony emotions coming forward. you think a change of venue doesn't even go to trial? well, i think we're going to see motions out now. they scheduled that right. there's four months for mr trump's attorneys to look over the information that they will be given as a matter of right from the d a s office and then to file motions. so will there be a motion to ask the judge to step away a motion to change venue? mr trump has said he'd rather be in staten island where he knows he's got a lot of supporters rather than manhattan , where he doesn't have that many supporters according to the votes, that sort of thing and the more substantive motions will go to the question of whether the new york d a has gone too far in trying to marry

thank goodness after a backlash from police groups and the public, mr. bragg agreed to prosecute some robberies as felonies but left the rest of the memo in place. the president of nypd detectives endowment association said bragg gives criminals a roadmap to freedom from prosecution and control of our streets. bragg's manhattan you can resist arrest, deal drugs, obstruct arrests and even carry a gun to get away with it. guess what happened under this new policy? more crime. in 2022 mr. bragg's first year as district attorney new york city saw a 23% surge in major crimes. felony assaults rose 13%. robberies spiked 26%. burglaries up 23 percent. auto left increased 32%. transit crime surged nearly 30%. imagine that. you leave criminals on the street, you get more crime. patrick lynch, the president of the police association said police officers don't want to be sent out to enforce laws that the district attorneys won't prosecute. there are already too many people who believe they can commit crimes, resist arrest, interfere with police officers and face 0 consequ

first of all, mr. bragg has conceded that he used federal funds.knew this grew out of the federal, the special counsel investigation which is federal statute. and most importantly, it involves a federal election. here we are, as you indicated, we're four months away from the first debate in the primaries for the election to the most important office we have, president of the united states. and so it is ridiculous. i think the american people see it for what it is. i mean, think about it, maria, secretary clinton can croix 30,000 e-mails, joe biden gets to keep quiet his classified document issue, but with president trump they spy on his campaign, they raid his home 91 days before an election, and now they quiet him on a campaign finance violation? -- indict him on a campaign finance violation when he didn't even use campaign funds for the transaction in question. this is ridiculous, the country understands it. and that's why, three different committees, are trying to get information and answers to key questions from district attorney bragg. maria:

even alvin bragg, even though he campaigned on going after mr.when he gets elected, he decides not to bring the case. then two of his assistants resign, pitch a fit, get the left all fired up, and maybe most importantly, president trump announces he's going to run for president, and then suddenly he changes his mind and comes forward with this indictment this past week. so that is, i think the, why we have the questions we do and why we've asked mr. bragg to sit down with us and answer our questions, and we expect that the he will do so. we'll find out. what i think is most important, everything is on the table because the american people deserve answers to why a district attorney is doing what i think kim strassel in the her piece pointed out so clearly, crossing this rubicon, doing something that has never happened in the history of our great country. maria: well, when are you expecting to the speak with alvin bragg? if he does not come to testify in front of the judiciary committee, will you subpoena him? >> everything's on the table, maria. o

and, ultimately, as what mr. bragg had said, ultimately, mr bragg decided that information and the case that mark was presenting him after i left in january of 2022 was not a case he felt comfortable goin forward on at that time. and that is his prerogative as the district attorney, just as it was my prerogative when i was distracted tierney t pursue evidence and further se of an indictment that i felt could be justified >> one of the people you engaged with during your tim was, of course, michael cohen, who was prosecuted in part for his role in this do you think he would be comfortable, at this point putting him in front of a tria jury >> the issue is not whether or not i would be comfortable, th issue is whether the offic today is going to be comfortable and it appears tha they absolutely are. >> as i've said earlier today, obviously, mr. cohen as witness will be attacked cross-examined, on his prior statements and prior guilt plea but that does not mean that mr cohen is not a witness who can't be believed. i tried

i understand mr. braggence at about 3:30 so what a perfect way to give a press conference than to have a company of the indictment that will be distributed to the press. and they will have the facts in the indictment there and it is a good way, typically an indictment, the date when the crime occurred, the elements of the charge a speaking indictment is exactly how you defined it much more detailed about the facts. every count. there may even be a preamble at the beginning of the indictment to outline what is going on. their theory of the case against mr. trump. and i expect that will happen. i have no clue what the 30 counts are but i do expect it will be a speaking indictment and it will be accompanied by a press release and mr. bragg will be having a press conference. >> catherine christian is a foeshl special assistant d.a. in the manhattan d.a. office. and there will be a press conference mid afternoon thank you. >> great being here. thank you. >> more ahead tonight. stay with us actively shields the e

well, mr. bragg also says that mr. trump's actions became a felony when he attempted and this is what they need to prove. remember this, this is important in this case. when mr. trump attempted to hide what he was doing, but it's not just about $1.00 payment, it is 30 for business records. ah, 34 false statements and business records, and we're concealing for let's get to what mr. trump has to say. ah, he's denying any wrong doing and connection with the payment to daniels and has called the investigation they politically motivated, which shut in fact, just after being indicted, the former president invited friends and supporters to his mar lago, a state where he compared the indictment against him. to a litany of previous attacks against him. oh, the only room with ha meeting with me, with a non smoker, investigating russian russian green impeachment open up a wall and peach care with the illegal unconstitutional laid on a b in a state. now i should also mention this because this has now become part of the story as well. it is not customary for a defendant to attack prosecutors or ev

mr. bragg argued the payments were part of a cover-up scheme in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. tonight, mr. trump is back in florida at his mar-a-lago estate, where he is set to deliver remarks in about 15 minutes. we will bring you live coverage right here on c-span. but first, we want to hear from all of you, your reaction to the arraignment of and the charges against the former president. republicans dialing tonight. democrats. all others, dial in or send a text with your first name, city and state. joining us -- join us on twitter with the handle cspan or on facebook.com/cspan. good evening from washington. when the president concludes his remarks this evening we will pick right back up with your phone calls. what comes next in this court case? nbc reports that the next court proceeding will take place on december 4. there has been a proposed trial start date of january 2024 by the prosecution. the defense according to npr would like to flip that to spring of 2024. jonathan n

as one would expect, and he is required to do, mr. braggimited himself and his public statements to what is alleged in the indictment and what is laid out in the statement of facts without going any further about mr. trump, whose name he did not even mention, or about any answers to mr. trump's claims about political motivations. he is playing it straight and narrow, as he often took. we will see what the response is. >> that is an important point you made on that federal difference. we have obviously her the likes of florida governor ron desantis saying he wouldn't cooperate or help in the process of arresting donald trump in florida. has that now reached a new level of significance, those statements? >> not really. i am getting my own opinion, but that was grandstanding. he has a constitutional obligation to produce somebody, had there been an arrest warrant issued by the state of new york. every other state has to recognize it. he could not have actually prevented it, but he wanted to take a position that showed that he was on trump's si

bragg's office. and when he was at the d.o.j. focused on the trip investigation. we like to do those things to that's what we asked some questions of mr. colangelo as well. maria: can you subpoena alvin bragg, we learned that there would be an indictment of trump just a couple of days after your colleague james comer that the bank records of the biden family influence peddling. and now we learned of a whistleblower and obama stenographers at joe biden when he was vice president well aware you all about hunter bedroom on joe biden's business deal that this man was he there and thought happened on air force to an e-mails that hunters rosemont seneca partners thought deals with irish government, they wanted investments in ireland during his father's vice presidency and sure enough, this week, joe biden goes to ireland any takes on hunter on air force one. >> i know chairman comer is looking to the situation and the real focus he suspicious activity and we saw the one with a $3 million given to robinson walker and that was to ship it into the biden family and the fundamental question that we asked what service did they provide? what did t

rising threat to the district attorney, mr trump not only attacked the district attorney attacked mr braggs wife . he has attacked the judge, any . you're also concerned about tainting the jury pool on the other side is that mr trump, of course, has the presumption of innocence. he has his first amendment rights. he's in the middle of a presidential campaign. so the judge has to tread very carefully. my guess is that the judge will, in effect wag his finger and mr trump saying, let's be careful out there and will not impose a gag order right now, but we'll make it clear that if the things that get close to crimes like the photograph of mr trump with a baseball bat, yeah, that's not going to be tolerated. and so that it might be that later on. there'll be a gag order. but right now, i suspect the judge is not going to impose a gag order. so the gag orders only cover they cover more than legal proceedings. i thought that gag order only covered issues related to the case, but it could cover things that are related to the case by extension, such as maybe these threats to alvin bragg and his and

and mr. braggnal terms, you know, first of all, wouldn't be a lawyer for him but if you're a lawyer for him it has to be, you don't know what to do i can say these attorneys th manhattan case have been very, and they're not engaging i that rhetoric. >> glenn, let's talk with th documents case, that we hold trustee, say look, can you imagine here that, trump while he was president, was goin down to florida, saying thes are the boxes that i want, how do you see the strength of tha argument in the legal sense? >> you know, mr. trusty is doing what defense attorneys are hard to do, to defend th client, including in the court of public opinion. and yet, we all saw donald trump recently in an interview given to sean hannity, whe sean hannity tried to throw hi a lifeline and said, i don't imagine near the kind of perso who said, bring me the boxes i'd like to go through the myself and donald trump refused t grab hold of that lifeline instead he said things that contend are incriminating, like, i would do

he's clearly mr bragg based on your comments based on your testimony under oath, making the argument that donald trump didn't care. if melania found out about this, this was all about hiding these affairs from voters. and i can promise you that mr bragg in his qualified team will be providing a significant amount of documentary evidence that will corroborate all of the allegations or the statements that he has in this document. but is that is that not only your testimony before the grand jury, but also your your view that you would say this evening, donald trump. did this ordered this asked these payments, much money payments to be made because he wanted to keep this information from voters, not because he cared about keeping it from jake. i apologize. i apologize. i don't want to get into what my future testimony or what? the testimony that i provided to the grand jury. i stand by the statements of fact that exist in this document. and i assure you that alvin bragg will be able to provide the documentary evidence that he relied upon and he used in the drafting of this counts in the

if mr. braggaying, nothing the former president wasn't so reticent, he is been on social media to rail against the decision. he's called a political persecution. election interference. and his opponents, thugs and radical left monsters. >> the unprecedented indictment of a former president of the united states on a campaign-finance issue is an outrage. >> no one is above the law. not even a former president of the uned states. reporter: in the next few days, donald trump will here to the courthouse. he will have his fingerprints and his photograph taken. he will appear before a judge to enter a plea. until recently the most powerful man in the world will be processed like any ot defendant. the case all centers on the financial accounting for $130,000 paid to this woman to buy her silence before the 2016 general election. stephanie clifford, a.k.a. stormy daniels, an adult film star, says she had sex with donald trump in 2006, something he denies. at mr. trump's florida home, his supporters have be

yes that important and the federal what mr bragg is indicating and d a s office is indicating is thaton can campaign in tribulation contributions, which are federal potential federal violation, so it's unclear whether he's going to proceed on what you've indicated the state campaign violation or the federal and as i indicated before, they can be problematic if they're alleging the federal something that based on your background, you might be able to answer. why would the manhattan d to keep the crux of what is happening. what is he going after here out of the initial indictment? if this is such a such a case that everyone's watching here to concrete, lee put down in the indictment. this is what we're going after trump four. you hit the nail on the head in the sense that that's what defense lawyers as well as prosecution lawyers are saying, and what mr bragg says, is that new york law does not require them to do so that that will be in a sense washed out as the evidence comes out. and so that's one of the reasons why i expect a lot of legal motions and why some may say that there's a w

and mr. bragg did say whenag questioned further about whatben what law was being violated, he mentioned a state law that yourb can't conspire by unlawfuly means to promote o means to promote or harmof a candidate. well, if, first of all, if they're talking about violating federal election law, is i think a later guest is goings to explain. that's ridiculous. there's nono vio violation of fn election campaign law, but that that statute that he that he cited is a misdemeanor that mr. bragg cited, conspiring it promote a candidate by unlawful means. it's a misdemeanor a. st so he's using a misdemeanor, bootstrapping it into a felony. rapping itby saying it was it we the false entries werealse to obstruct another mis misdemeanor. and the whole indictment reads a that way. ndctment readst i was just i wa. >> another fine product of harvard law school, i will say. all right, david . andrew weissman, a good buddy of both of yours. he had a comment about everyonet should just calm down about how this could

we'll see if one is a felony as mr. bragg tries to tie this in to the campaign, trying to seek stormy daniels' silence in exchange for that $130,000. we are outside trump tower waiting for the motorcade to leave, we'll of course bring that to you. you can hear behind me some of the raucous people here in front of trump tower. >> john: eric shawn in midtown manhattan, thank you. >> gillian: hi, bryan, in lower manhattan outside the courthouse. >> we'll stay with the live shot outside of trump tower where eric shawn was reporting on as we await the former president to exit the building and make his way down, about four miles down presumably the f.d.r. to here the courthouse at 100 center street. when he gets here, greeted by a choreographed scene. two dozen new york state court officer lined up outside the court. center street outside the courthouse as well as lafayette street nearby the courthouse had been shut down and over just the last i would say 30 minutes. there was a ton of media here as well as journalists actually wai

but if mr bragg was saying nothing, the former president wasn't so reticent.t: . ..and his opponents: . no—one is above the law, not even a former president of the united states. the case all centres on the financial accounting for $130,000 paid to this woman to buy her silence before the 2016 general election. hi, everyone! stephanie clifford — aka stormy daniels, an adult film star — says she had sex with donald trump in 2006 — something he denies. today, it's donald trump. tomorrow, it's going to be a democrat. the day after that, it could be your brother, your son, your daughter. and we have to be concerned about the rule of law falling because what's happened here is this is a case that would not have been brought against another individual in this country if his name wasn't donald trump. in the next few days, donald trump will come here to the courthouse. he'll have his fingerprints and his photograph taken. he'll then appear before a judge to enter a plea. until recently, the most powerful man in the world will be processed like any other defendant. it'

the statute that mr. bragg, who's a state prosecutor and only has jurisdiction over state law has expired. the statute of limitations has expired. he has a novel theory here that has never been tested. if not, is not pushing the envelope or political agenda. this is absolutely clear, and that's why mr. trump. busy support has searched among republicans, searched in the last 4 or 5 days on raising and numbers, who now dwarfs any potential by triple digits. so the american people of the left has a point of view. there are 2 americas but the half of the american people are more see this as political persecution and the fact speak for themselves a to cheer justice system. do you think is quite clear that you feel that this is helping him politically? it will probably help him clench, do you think the nomination of the republican parking for president? i really do 1st. he was the leading candidate and all the polls before this happened. and every major republican was not an anti trump, or who are very few in the republican party rally behind in all declared candidates for president. and the re

we're we're not in the other thing i'll say is about mr bragg, alvin bragg, who i was lucky enough to actually interview on my own podcast was that like ago three years ago before before he was even, uh, in the position he's in now, your impressions. impression was that this guy's buttoned up i mean, there's absolutely no way having interviewed him for 27 minutes, i checked how long it was in my podcast that there's no way that this guy is going down this road unless she's got something and more than what some people are speculating that has, particularly on the republican side. he's got nothing. it's just, you know, paying off of porn star. something tells me he's got a little bit more. i don't tears and strike me as a guy that's messing around. ignore the fact that the grand jury trump. it's not just alvin bragg saying, yeah, let's do this grand jury indicted him on apparently more than 30 counts brags famously declined to prosecute donald trump for another crime that mark pomerantz has written a book about now, so clearly, he's not acting politically, i will say in full disclosure