THE TRUTH BEHIND THE CHRISLEY TRIAL feat. Alex Little (Todd & Julie's Lawyer)
01:06:14 Share

At Leidos, a brilliant mind is smart, but a brilliant team is smarter. A ship that finds enemy subs is smart, but an autonomous fleet, that's smarter. Defending against cyber attacks? Smart. Stopping attacks before they start? Smarter. And using AI tools is smart, but integrating trusted mission AI into your technology is smarter. We're not just making technology solutions and national security and health. We're making smart, smarter. Leidos.

Every sandwich has bread. Every burger has a bun. But these warm, golden, smooth steamed buns? These are special. Reserved for the very best. The Filet-O-Fish. And you. You can have them too. For a limited time, the classic Filet-O-Fish you love is joining your McDonald's favorites on the 2 for $3.99 menu. Limited time only. Price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer. Single item at regular price. Ba-da-ba-ba-ba.

Alex Little. So you've been on before. I have. Yes. But we kind of touched on very specific things. And there's a lot of questions on the whole case in general. Just how we got to where we're at, when it started, why they didn't plead guilty, why they didn't just accept a deal and move on. Sure. So go ahead and give a brief synopsis. Of all of those things? Well, just kind of like a, you know...

- So I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the case. There's a lot of misconceptions about how it got to where it was. There's a lot of misconceptions even about sort of what actually happened. And I think probably the most,

difficult thing to figure out when you hear a case like this, you hear bank fraud, you hear tax evasion, like what do they actually do? And here it's really, I think much different than people expect. People expect, Hey, I went in there. I tried to steal a bank's money. I did all these tricky things. That's not what this case is. This is a case that arose out of 07, 08 for all the folks who remember you were like what, 12 back then you were, you were a baby. I was a baby. It was a long time ago. And the real estate market was collapsing even more than it is now.

And folks like your parents who were working in real estate, they had capital lines, they had capital to buy, they had capital to sell, rehab stuff. And they worked with banks across the board to keep these capital lines open. And so imagine, you know, everybody, I think most you think about mortgages, right? You buy your house, you get your mortgage to lump sum payment, and then you pay that off over 20 or 30 years.

That's not at all the sort of types of loans that you deal with in the real estate industry if you're a professional. The companies at issue that your parents ran, were part of, had these capital lines. And so basically you could ask the bank up to a certain amount, "I need this money out, I'll pay it back." But it's on a sort of rolling basis. It's kind of like a glorified credit card with a lot bigger numbers and a lot lower interest rates. And during the financial crisis of '07-'08,

The credit lines had to be renewed and the banks stopped renewing them or they were much more strict about renewing them. Back in the day, you literally would just sort of say, hey, I want, let's keep this open for another year or they would just do it automatically. As long as you were good on making your payments, they would probably just go ahead and renew it. Oh, they would not, not probably, they absolutely would. Mm-hmm.

And so here, you know, as people's capital values fell, as they had a hard time selling properties, it wasn't unique to your parents at all. It was difficult to maintain those lines. And so people would either close those lines or many places would declare bankruptcy because you realize we're not going to make it through the next year of payment. Let's not, you know, we can try or just restructuring, but ultimately it's going to end up in bankruptcy. And that's what happened here. None of that is unusual. Right.

And none of that is criminal, except now 10 years later, when the government or many years later, when the government started to look back, they said, well, gosh, some of the paperwork that your company filed around those renewals had information that was inaccurate about the state of your finances. And so it's, you know, think about those applications you fill out. Like when you get a credit card says, how much do you make? What is your income? You know, is your income $100,000? Is it $80,000? Is it $200,000? And you're just flipping through and you're putting that number in.

That's the sort of information that a bank gets even for loans of 10 and 15 million dollars. But even that, for the common person, that's considered fraud. When you fill out a credit card application, you say, "Oh, I make 500,000." Even though you may only make 250,000. Right. Or if you make 150,000 and you put 175,000, you know, if they can prove you did that, you know, purposefully, that's fraud.

And the difficulty is like, what if your wife or your best friend or someone is filling that out for you? Maybe they don't know. Maybe they purposely want to open an account in your name, right? Oh, I'm going to open this up for Savannah because I'm her evil personal assistant. I opened a credit card account and I put down that her income is X and it's actually half of X. And then I use that credit card to go spend money on myself. That's basically what Mark Braddock did in this case. So this case,

when it comes down to what was tried and what the government alleged was that Mark Braddock was the president of the real estate company at issue and In act when he was asked for these numbers for different types of assets and income for the Chris Lee's and for the company He put incorrect numbers and there was no allegation that your dad did There was certainly no allegation that your mom did because there was no allegation she really did anything evolved in these allegations and

And even bankers that came to testify on the government's behalf. I didn't talk to Julie at all. I don't know who she is. The banker said, I talked to Mark Braddock. One or two of them said, I talked to your father a few times, but all the paperwork, all that came from Mark Braddock. I want to say they said he was the big picture guy. Yeah. He would say, okay, what are we doing here generally? Which is not surprising when you're running a big multifaceted real estate business. And so people hear that and they think, well, that can't be true. Like that can't be what this case is really about. These folks are in jail for 12 years or nine years. Like that's crazy. Yeah.

That is what it's about. At its core, it is whether these banks in '07-'08, when everything was falling apart, got some emails that misstated the amount of assets. And so how many, what exactly were they charged with?

multiple bank counts, so six different bank counts. So it's six different banks. The allegation was that Mark Braddock had provided incorrect numbers. And it's not the banks that are pressing charges. No, it's the government. The government can choose their victim could say, I don't care. I don't want to be involved. It's the government who has the power to do it. And that's what they've done here. So six different banks.

And then they made an allegation that that was part of some big conspiracy. Now, literally what that means is that just you agreed to commit the crime. In almost every crime, you could have a conspiracy to commit the crime. So if you go rob a bank and you jump in a car with somebody else, you've now conspired to rob a bank at the same time. So that's sort of an add-on charge they like to do because it confuses juries and it's generally easier to prove. And then they charged a whole series of tax counts. The tax counts have no...

nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged bank fraud or the allegation that they were putting incorrect values on these applications. The bank fraud, I mean, the tax evasion, they call it is, you know, I think we will likely get overturned on appeal because it's just bonkers. It goes against 50 years of how the entertainment industry structures its business transactions.

And so as you're there were the government was trying to say that they were trying to hide money They were trying to hide money in this loan out company in order to evade taxes on their behalf Which is not true not not true in the least every dollar that went into that company was accounted for on tax filings but it was clear that the you know the prosecutor on the case the agent on the case was

you know, likely the judge on the case, none of them had the first idea of how loan out companies work. I mean, they're complicated. It's, you know, entertainment industries. When you, when you, when you get, watch a movie at the theater, there are 14 different companies names that come up on that

That's not just because they want to have lots of companies. That's because the structure of business in Hollywood is really complicated. You've got production companies, you've got personal loan out companies, you've got companies that just finance films. It's true in film, it's true in TV, it's true in music.

But if you don't know that world, you're going to have a very hard time understanding it. Nothing that your parents did happened without lawyers, happened without network approval. And so the money they're talking about being hidden was literally the payments for the show that your parents were on. The thing is, is not only did we report it, but also production company that paid us reports it. 100%. So there is no way to possibly...

It is an asinine argument. And they were able to make it and they somehow stood up there with a straight face and said, that's tax evasion. It's bonkers. So... So the...

That's where kind of the backstory behind it all but it started in 2012 really was when the investigation started, correct? Well part of it started in 2012 I don't want to say it all did because you know, they weren't very interested nothing happened in 2012 Your parents weren't charged back then kind of the government looked at it threw up their hands and said alright, whatever We don't believe this is there's anything here and then it just sat for years. Mm-hmm, which is a great example of you know, a

There are statute of limitations that... Fresh Step knows you'd do anything for your cat. From getting them food that's nicer than yours to letting them take a midday nap on your keyboard. So why settle for basic litter? Switch to Fresh Step.

Fresh Step cat litter locks in liquid and odor on contact, giving you up to 15 days of odor control. Learn more at freshstep.com. Step it up to Fresh Step with superior odor control versus leading value clumping litter. Fresh Step is a registered trademark of the Clorox Pet Products Company. Febreze is used under license from the Procter & Gamble Company or its affiliates.

Every sandwich has bread. Every burger has a bun. But these warm, golden, smooth steamed buns? These are special. Reserved for the very best. The Filet-O-Fish. And you. You can have them too. For a limited time, the classic Filet-O-Fish you love is joining your McDonald's favorites on the two-for-$3.99 menu. Limited time only. Price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer. Single item at regular price. Ba-da-ba-ba-ba.

can be up to 10 years in some cases, and if it involves a bank. And somebody down the road decided, "Oh, hey, let's go back in time and look at this stuff and find a crime." And that's what they did. And why do you think that is?

I think when you are a celebrity, particularly when you are a celebrity who is outspoken, particularly like your father, you become a target, right? People want to bring you down. People want to, you know, make a name for themselves by bringing you down. And so, you know, you often see cases, particularly in federal court, where prosecutors go after, you know, reality TV stars or politicians for a type of crime that maybe a dozen or two dozen or a hundred people have done in that same area.

But those folks aren't being targeted. It's the folks who are more prominent. I think it's human nature. I mean, you know, is it part of some grand conspiracy to bring people down? No, it's just whoever's doing it thinks it's helpful or useful or it gets more attention. Mm hmm.

And so at trial, so we get to, well, 2019 was whenever August, I think it was August 13th, 2019 is when they were formally indicted. Yeah. And so a lot happened between the 07, 08 and 2019. And I think one of the questions was why would they be charged at all? Right. And, and I think, you know, many folks had looked or had not looked.

Had a reason to bring any charges And so you have to ask the question why bring charges then right? Yes I think one of the things that I think the viewers don't understand is how does this work like who is the government and I think you've spoken really eloquently about the idea that until you or your family are confronted with the criminal justice system

you have the ability and the freedom to be completely naive about how it works. - Exactly. - And I think if anybody who's watching this were to go down to their local courthouse and watch how sort of criminal justice happens, they would be appalled

And until like you go into a general sessions court where there's maybe 10 attorneys, there's maybe 100 people who were there. The judge takes up the case for 20 seconds. I'm not exaggerating, maybe 30 seconds. And that person is put back in jail or put in jail for some period of time or they plead guilty in a minute and a half.

It's, you know, at that stage, it's very much just this washing machine cycle of put somebody in, spit them out, put somebody in, spit them out. At the federal system, it's slower and more deliberate, but it's no more arbitrary. You have, you know, the federal government is not some monolithic sort of figure. It's a group of people.

And they work in offices with office furniture and they, you know, have break rooms and they are as, you know, skilled or unskilled as you'll find in any other, you know, workplace. I think imagine the way I talk to people about this is go to your workplace if you work in an office and imagine the most like terrible coworker you have, whether they're just spiteful or mean or whether they're just dumb. Everybody has these coworkers. You've got great coworkers too. Right.

But like imagine the ones who are just like worthless and know that even in the Department of Justice, even among the people who are making decisions about who to throw in jail, try to throw in jail. There is a similar percentage of that type of person.

And those people are going to make decisions that are going to profoundly affect people's lives. And there should be, and hopefully in good systems, there's supervisors and people who up the chain sort of watch over and make better decisions. History would tell you that there's plenty of times that those systems fail and things don't work out the way they should. There's plenty of wrongful convictions. It doesn't happen just by accident. It happens because a system is set up to prosecute, to assume guilt, and to sort of

promote the people who get success really at all costs. Because what conviction rates, 98% at trial, something like that. It's well for folks who are indicted eventually who get, who go get judgment or convicted. It's very, very high. It's well above 95. Mm-hmm.

And it's not necessarily because 98% of people are guilty. Or if it is, it's how many federal crimes did you commit today? I'm gonna guess three. I mean, it's a Thursday. If it's Saturday, I might've guessed six. But that's three.

The reality is there's a lot of things you can get charged with and if these people, whoever they are, decide that you're a target, they can do that. And so a lot of things happen between that time frame. The Georgia Department, and that's what people don't realize, is there was two different cases. Yes. Georgia Department of Revenue and then the federal case.

Right. And they kind of became, they kind of morphed into one, but you had, you know, a system where the Georgia department of revenue was upset because they thought your parents should be paying certain taxes in Georgia that they weren't. They had moved to Tennessee. They had different business dealings. You know, when you make a good deal of money, you hire accountants, you hire lawyers and you figure out how to pay less taxes. That's standard. Like Elon Musk pays zero taxes a year. Like I know that Amazon did for years with their billions of dollars profits, but

paid like zero taxes. And you do that because you have lawyers and accountants who structure that. And I think when your father was started talking about how his business was working and the money they're making, it really ticked off the Georgia Department of Revenue. Yeah. And so they, you know,

focused on him and your family in a way that was really not normal, certainly not normal in looking at what they were doing. And it led to a couple like a raid on the warehouse without a warrant. I mean, a series of just misconduct that the court has found by the Georgia Department of Revenue that immediately led the Georgia Department of Revenue to hand over evidence, which was all obtained in violation of the Constitution. Illegally. Illegally. Illegal evidence to the government.

- And is that allowed?

It's not supposed to be allowed. But I think what you're learning and your parents are learning in really the toughest way is the law. Like we have here's a notebook. It's full of paper. It could have it could have laws written in them. Those papers and the law can't do anything. That paper can't get up and put me in jail. It can't free me from a false conviction. The Constitution, you know, unless Nicolas Cage has found something on the back of it, like it has no power by itself to help you.

The law is just a system of people and a system of organizations that do things. And if those people in those organizations fail, no matter how perfect the law is, they fail. I mean, for folks of faith, you may think the scripture is, you know, literally God written and it is infallible, but the people who are around it fail every day. The law is no different. And so...

To answer that question, why wouldn't the state of Georgia be allowed to work with the feds? Why wouldn't they or why shouldn't they? Why aren't they allowed to? Or is there a gray line? They could have worked with the feds if they had done things legally. They didn't. I mean, they basically went and threw the Fourth Amendment out the window. And so through their investigation, what they did was taint all of this evidence and then try to hand it over to the feds to be like, oh, no big deal. It's not our problem anymore. Right.

And the feds somehow thought that was okay. And because at that point in time, you'd obviously through all these depositions, all these interviews that have been done, we, I mean, we have thousands of hours of recordings that state that there was a vendetta there. These people just wanted to see the Chrisley's fall. So let's take a step back. Cause I don't know people like we're so deep into it may not know what that is, but what's crazy about this case is the,

There was a group within the Georgia Department of Revenue who were interested in focusing on your family and trying to find wrongdoing. And at the time they were doing things which a court later determined were illegal. There was another investigation totally unrelated of wrongdoing in that agency.

And because of that investigation, there were people in that agency who were wearing recording devices and recording conversations in the office. And only because that happened, just by happenstance, do we know some of the crazy things that these officials were saying about your parents and about sort of the case. And this is before anybody was charged. This is when they were sort of just fishing for, can we find something to prosecute them for? Yeah. And at one point, I know on a recording, they state that

wiping government devices clean of anything that has to do with the Chrisley case. Well, that was crazy. The craziest thing that I remember from that piece of the case was someone talking about a dartboard with your father's face on it that they were throwing. I mean, if people like you want to get a sense of how crazy this case is, there were literally people before there were any charges who had taken a picture of Todd Chrisley, put it on a dartboard and were throwing darts at it. Like it's

If you think that is how like criminal justice is supposed to work in America, like go to North Korea, you'll be much happier, much happier there. It's not how it's supposed to be. It's not. And what's so crazy now is how quiet all of that is. When all of these people get fired, get let go, they completely restructure the Department of Revenue. And.

Well, like it's just quiet because they hide it. Well, I mean, yeah, governments are not really good at taking accountability for their own misconduct. And like as systems, they don't, they're not rewarded for being like, oh yeah, whoopsie, like let's mea culpa.

And like at the end of the day everybody can just point a finger like oh look they're in jail They they did something wrong you can just focus on the fact that they're in jail But the hard part is is these people are pointing all these fingers especially the government officials who are committing crimes themselves Which make it harder and that's what people don't realize there's like how messy this whole thing has become Because what 90% of their so-called evidence was obtained illegally. Yeah, so in the in the federal case, it's

One of the things we talk a lot about in the appeal is most, if not all, of the evidence came from illegal evidence. And you can't do that. You can't take sort of stuff you're not supposed to have or get through illegal means and then use it at trial. And they did all that. And they also, I mean, we have very clear affidavits to the effect that they were talking and coaching witnesses in ways that were really improper. And so that's... And what do you mean by that? Yeah, so one of the issues, I think, is...

you had a case that if you're a prosecutor looking at it there's a lot of holes um and particularly on the tax the allegations of tax evasion it you know there were holes because there wasn't a clear theory of evasion wasn't like your your parents were stuffing money in their mattress and like not telling anybody or taking gold bars and putting in the caveman islands or had like offshore accounts yeah and so they needed to make it look like they were just really greedy and really just not not negligent but like purposefully evasive

And so they had a witness testify that your parents hadn't paid any taxes for some period of years where they had. And I mean, it's just sort of as basic a thing as that. Like if you tell the jury, oh, these folks still haven't paid their taxes, even after getting indicted, it makes them look like they're just crass and completely, you know, incapable of like remorse. Oh gosh, we're not even paying, you can charge us with a crime, we're still not going to pay our taxes. Exactly. And that wasn't true. Exactly.

At one point, wasn't there a large lump sum of money just sitting at an account, basically the IRS that was never credited to Tom and Dad's account? Yeah, 100%. So imagine that you go buy a car, you owe some sum of money and you pay your car off and you send it there and...

You know, you owe nothing on that car. And then that car dealership gets up and goes to a court and says, oh, hey, Savannah still owes me, you know, 50K for a car. That is exactly what the federal government did here. I mean, the money was paid. There was no debt left, but they went into court and had to swear under oath that there were these outstanding debts for taxes. And after trial, what we found out that

what she said was not true and she knew it wasn't true or? - It certainly was not true. And if you look at her computer logs to when she accessed information, there's no chance she did not know that money was sitting there. The witness in particular, who was an IRS agent. - Which is even more alarming 'cause. - Oh look, everything about it is alarming. Like I don't wanna make judgements about which is more or less like it's all terrible. - That's okay. So now. - And well, here's the interesting part. Nobody at the government has actually said this didn't happen.

So like we make these allegations because we have very strong evidence to support that, that a witness went up, lied about whether your parents had paid taxes, which they had paid over a certain period of years. And the government said it being like, no, no, no, that didn't happen. Or like, well, let me tell you, we had this conversation, but it was actually a little different or no, she never knew any of that.

They don't say any of that. They don't. How do they respond? They say it doesn't matter. They say, oh, none of that's important. It's just irrelevant. Didn't they at one point, did they use the terms harmless error? Well, they do argue that it's harmless error, but they also just sort of say it's not relevant. And, you know, oh, just it's like, don't look over here. Don't worry about that. I mean, if it weren't true, they would come out and say, of course, that's bogus. It's not true. Here's 10 sworn affidavits that it's not true. And they've never done that.

Wow. And so also they use the tax fraud case to build their bank fraud case, correct? 100% because they say, oh, look how greedy they are and they're not paying these taxes. So clearly they can't be trustworthy. So it's reasonable to believe that they were in cahoots with Mark Braddock when he was not telling the truth about this.

the amounts of assets over on these balance sheets. And so because remember, all they had is this guy who's already admitted to lying to stealing millions of dollars who's saying that there's no real corroborative evidence of that. It's essentially based on Mark Braddock alone. And so to make the jury believe that they're also bad folks, they just try to paint them as greedy and terrible people. And with Mark Braddock,

signed full immunity with the government. So it doesn't matter what he said, what crimes he committed, what he admitted to, he's never going to be prosecuted. I think this is a really important point for anybody who cares about this case to think about.

So Mark Braddock is the person who actually did the action to commit the crime. So imagine a bank robbery. He would be akin to the person walking in, giving the teller the note, taking the money out of the bank. And they allege essentially that your dad and mom are like the people in the car helping with the getaway. Okay. So in this sort of scenario, because Mark Braddock's the one interacting with the bank, he's giving them the information that the government says is not true and is purposefully deceitful. Instead of charging him with a crime,

Trying to give him even if you try to give him a reduced sentence or some cut they said for him. We're not it's okay We're gonna let you walk We're not gonna punish you in any way as long as you will tell people under oath that you know To use the bank robber example Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley were in the car with you Yeah, that does not happen for the amounts of money that we're talking about here I mean you don't see cases involving tens of millions of dollars where they let somebody just walk it is

And again, it's just the judgment call of whoever that prosecutor was who, for some reason, thought it was so important to get a conviction against Todd and Julie Chrisley that this admitted guy who committed fraud, who admitted committing fraud and lined his pockets five million bucks, didn't spend a day on probation, didn't spend a day on jail, has had zero punitive consequences for what he's done. And that, yeah. Yeah.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪

Enough to head over to McDonald's. Enough to make you really wish this commercial were scratch and sniff. And if you're a sausage person, now get two satisfyingly savory sausage McGriddles, sausage biscuits, or sausage burritos for just $3.33. Or mix and match. Price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer or combo meal. Single item at regular price.

This episode of Unlocked is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. To all my podcast listeners, whether you love true crime or comedies, celebrity interviews, news, or even motivational speakers, you call the shots on what's in your podcast queue, right?

And guess what? Now you can call the shots on your auto insurance too. Enter the name your price tool from Progressive. The name your price tool puts you in charge of your auto insurance by working just the way it sounds. You tell Progressive how much you want to pay for car insurance and they'll show you a variety of coverages that fit within your budget, giving you options. Now that's something you'll want to press play on. It's easy to start a quote and you'll be able to choose the best option for you fast.

It's just one of the many ways you can save with Progressive Insurance. Quote today, progressive.com to try the name your price tool for yourself and join the over 28 million drivers who trust Progressive. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates, price and coverage match limited by state law. This episode of Unlocked is brought to you by BetterHelp. You guys know I've spoken about BetterHelp time and time and time again. And that's because I am a firm...

believer in their product. I mean, BetterHelp is absolutely amazing and it's all online and designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. All you do is just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and you can switch therapist at any time for no additional charge. I don't know about you, but 2024 has started off with quite a bang and

And for me, being a single parent, single income household, trying to deal with finances, kids, my own personal mental health, it's all been a huge challenge. I am not going to lie. And that is where therapy and better help has come into play because I have started to realize that if I am not my best self possible, then how in the heck am I going to be able to operate? So that's where I turn to better help. Let's face it, you've got Valentine's coming around the corner. And if

If you don't have someone, that's okay. You can become your own soulmate, whether you're looking for one or not. You can visit betterhelp.com slash Savannah today to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp, H-E-L-P dot com slash Savannah. As a defense lawyer, that blows my mind because like, how could you believe somebody who

who is, you know, they sentenced your dad to 12 years. 12 years. And if Mark Braddock thought he was going to jail for 12 years, he'd be willing to say, I suspect just about anything. And so how do you get a jury to believe a guy, again, with no like corroboration, no like recording, no like real hard evidence to back up what he's saying, to be trustworthy enough? Well, you have to make up other things such as the tax fraud. Yeah.

And so when, obviously, you said Mark Braddock gave them all this evidence, they also obtained evidence illegally. I remember you came on board, obviously, for... After the trial. After the trial. And so you were at the sentencing hearing. I was. When they were going through everything. And the FBI agent was on the stand and you had asked about the evidence. Well, mom in particular, because you had said...

in order to, I guess, sentence on conspiracy, you have to have a date to when the crime was actually committed. You have to have some information about what crime in particular you were trying to sentence her for. And so again, imagine the bank robbery example of, you know, gang drove around four different banks

and they robbed a lot of them and you charge one of the people with just a conspiracy to rob banks, you would need to know like, okay, well, which banks did they steal from and how much money did they steal to be able to figure out what sort of sentence is appropriate. Because if I stole $5 million today and then you helped me steal $5 million tomorrow, you're only responsible for the $5 million that you stole, correct? Assuming you actually stole it, which is not the case here. Yes, no. But assuming you actually stole it, yeah, that'd be right. I mean, for the way they would sentence you, they would consider that you stole $5 million from a bank, not $10 million or $100 million. Mm-hmm.

And that never happened here either. And it didn't happen because with your mom, there was really no evidence whatsoever that she knew anything about what was going to the banks. Any of it. Bankers testified they didn't know. They said they had no interaction with her. She didn't email anything. And so that's one of the more egregious things. Again, people are like, this can't be true, Alex. It sounds so crazy. Yeah.

It happens all the time where an overzealous prosecutor, the government decides, well, let's go indict the wife too. Why do they do it? Well, one is leverage because they don't want to go to trial. They don't want to risk their successful case by going to trial and losing. And so they will say, well, Hey, husband, and it's often the husband, not the wife, but that doesn't, you know, that's obviously not always the case. And that's the wife who's the bad actor. Um,

Like Elizabeth Holmes, who's going to jail for less time than her father, even though her crime is massively bigger in terms of monetary value. But they'll say, all right, husband, if you don't plead guilty, we're going to charge your wife and she's going to suffer this consequence. Or husband, if you don't take this plea, the circumstances for your wife are going to get even, even worse. Mm-hmm.

And it's legal. They can do that. I think it's terribly problematic because it sets all sorts of bad precedent. There's plenty of people who are innocent who are willing to sort of sacrifice themselves so that their spouse doesn't go to jail. And it just sets up a terrible sort of incentive structure for

And here, like in many cases, you know, there's very little evidence that the spouse is involved. Certainly not culpable in the same way. Your mom should not be in jail. Even if you believe everything the government said, for her to go to jail for the amount of time that she did is just, it's bonkers. It is totally inconsistent with, I think, a reasonable sentence.

Sense of justice. Mm-hmm And so when the FBI agent was on the stand you had asked what steps they took to get all of the evidence Authenticated to where it is what you say it is and nothing more right and they were like none none And so again, this is bizarre because we're talking about this credit line So credit lines you have to you know, you have a whole big packet of information you give to the bank They open a credit line your sign your life over anyone knows that when you sign anything

And there's a lot. And then the renewals, though, are pretty minor. It's just like a piece of paper here. Can you sign this? Can you docusign that? For, I think, all but one of these loans, maybe even all of them, they didn't have any of the underlying loan documentation. So at trial, they never submitted the original loan documents. Yeah. And so again, like, okay, well, what does that matter? How does it prove they didn't do this? Well, it sort of shows you what a haphazard, like slap together sort of case this was. They would never bring this sort of case if it was not documented.

Todd Chrisley if it was not a celebrity if it's not someone they could have a press conference about exactly because I remember sitting there and What they showed for the loan amounts was an Excel spreadsheet They created themselves with

A bank name and the number they allege was. Yeah, that an FBI agent had written down on his computer. And so is that information correct? Maybe. Is it not correct? We don't really know. The bank has some records. They don't have any of the underlying records. And so I think it's just more of like an example of this is not, this is not top quality work, right? These folks are not like, you know, finding Al Capone. And, yeah.

you know, in getting him for tax, it's a much more sort of slap together. Let's see what we can do. And everything about what we've experienced in the evidence and how the trial has gone and the way the government has responded has shown that there are some major problems with what they're doing.

I've missed my, I've had a question and then I just, then I lost it. Well, I can't imagine. There's just so many pieces of this. And I think, you know, when you read some of the comments, like, gosh, they're guilty. They should go to jail. They're terrible people. Why? Why do people think that? No, my question came to me because you were talking about a plea deal, how the government will say, if you plead guilty, we'll let her go or you'll get less time. One of the biggest questions is, well, clearly they're guilty. Why didn't they just plead guilty?

- Well, so they're not guilty is the first problem. Plenty of people who aren't guilty still plead guilty because the pressures are enormous. - People don't realize how much the government does pressure you. - The coercion is terrible. - Well, dad was, what, they asked for life in sentencing. - Yeah, it was like 20 some odd years. It was terrible. And the coercion the government can have is massive. And so people who would want to fight or they just can't afford to fight, attorneys are really expensive.

Yeah, really? Yes. Really? They can be. And now there are some very good public defenders out there. There's some very good public defender's offices. They're often massively understaffed and overwhelmed and cannot devote enough time to the cases. And so when you can't afford a lawyer who can devote the time, the government can. Government has unlimited resources. They can keep adding prosecutors they want. They want to bring in four new agents. They can. It costs them zero more dollars to do that because all those folks are getting paid for by taxpayers.

For the individual defendant, if you want to actually put forward a full-throated defense, it's going to be expensive. Most folks don't want to put their family through that and are willing to throw up their hands. Even if you're innocent or you have a really good argument as to why what you did was legal. White-collar crime, which is what this is called, is very different. If you go out there and you shoot somebody in cold blood, there's not a question about what you did was legal. Almost every murder case is...

Was this a murder? So it wasn't self-defense. And then who did it? There's no question about whether it's wrong or right to commit the crime. In white collar cases, whether it's healthcare fraud or bank fraud, somebody may think, well, I thought what I did was okay, or I thought I could do this, or I certainly wasn't intending to steal from the bank when I did Y. And so you have this extra layer of like, does the person even think they're committing a crime?

And so here, like your mom's a great example. At no point was there ever any evidence that anything she did was, hey, I think I'm committing a crime here or I'm not allowed to be doing this.

And it's an extra layer that people don't think about. They think, oh, you're charged with this. You must have done it. Just because the government says that something is improper or illegal doesn't mean that it is. And here we have that problem stacked on top with the things they say your parents did. The evidence just doesn't support because they didn't do it.

And what the trial lasted three and a half weeks. Yeah. Oh, well more because there was a break in the middle there, but yeah, it's like over a month. It was over a month trial and you have all these jurors who that's another topic is how important, how important is being a juror? It's absolutely critically important. You are the only, you're the last line of defense between the,

the power of the federal government or the state government, depending on what jury you're on, and that defendant who is sitting there accused, and the government wants to just throw them into, as we talked about before, really terrible prisons. And so with the jury that we were given,

Obviously, we found out after the fact a lot of things that had happened or their feelings or... Yeah. You know, I wasn't there to watch day by day and see the jurors' reactions. It's hard for me to sort of say what's like. I think the fact that they were misled by the government in different ways, that people got up, stand, testify, the fact that they were given evidence which was tainted and illegal, you

You know, I can't say that they did, that they were just totally wrong because everything about the process was so messed up. It's hard to say whether they, you know, did something completely wrong. I can tell you if you're in a trial, you know, we had this idea in America of, you know, presumption of innocence. That's what we say on paper. It does not exist. I mean, the moment that somebody is charged with a crime,

Everybody, just check out Instagram or Facebook or, you know, they're guilty. Well, that was even a question during, while they were deliberating was, is the indictment... Evidence. Evidence. Yeah, no, it's not. Or is the indictment admission of guilt? It's none of the above. No, not at all. This is just what's being alleged against...

by the government. Yeah. And if they can't back it up, I mean, it's sort of like when you say, hey, you know, you've got to stop beating your wife. Well, was there any evidence that person beat their wife or vice versa, whatever it is like that's, you know, and

It is, I think, a true statement that a juror, when they sit down for the first time, comes with those same biases. They think, well, I'm here because this person did something. And, you know, that's the sort of distance between the way we like to imagine our system works, presumption of innocence, and how it actually works, which is, I think they probably did something. And I'm going to let the government tell me what it is. And so at trial, obviously, the government had

dozens of witnesses. We had witnesses, but mom and dad didn't testify. -Right. -So one of a question that I see is, well, if they were innocent, then why didn't they testify? It is generally terrible

for a defendant, no matter how innocent they are to take the stand. And I think one of the reasons for that is when you're on this, you don't get to just like tell your story, right? And people like me get paid a lot of money to contort

You know what you say to ask questions in such a manner that even if the actual answer is pretty innocuous I've made it sound so terrible that the jury is at least gonna get the impression that there's something wrong there and there's lots of dangers also that they'll talk about blast you about really irrelevant stuff and

that will make you look bad. And so I think here, for example, the government was really obsessed with this idea that your father was greedy and like was wearing, you know, expensive clothes. If he had taken a stand, I have no doubt again, it wasn't there to help make the decision for him not to testify.

The government would have probably asked about every piece of clothing in his closet. How much is that jacket? That's a $5,000 Gucci jacket, isn't it? Yeah. Yes. And ask those things in a way to make it look like there was something wrong. I mean, particularly white collar cases, the government always wants to make it look like there is a problem with making and having money. And so, and some people, you know, will be swayed by that.

For sure. Because, gosh, oh, that's a level of wealth that's just obscene. I can't believe that. It has nothing to do with whether or not you committed a crime to get that wealth. And here what was so crazy is that there was no allegation that the money and the transactions back in 07 or 08 had anything to do with your parents' level of wealth because that was all from TV. Exactly.

It had nothing to do with each other. It's one thing if you had sort of a cashier at a grocery store who all of a sudden is driving around a Ferrari and is accused to rob a bank. Well, okay, it's a legitimate question. Like, oh, you drive a Ferrari. Where'd you get that kind of money?

Here, it was just there was no upside for them to say anything, particularly when you have to make the decision. You have to look at the evidence and be like, well, they have no evidence that I've done anything. And the law is really clear. Like, it's not your job to defend yourself. It's the government's job to defend.

persuade the jury that you're guilty. And I think one of the things that we often talk about when I have that conversation with a client about whether or not you testify is there's a real power to saying that I didn't even need to get up and testify because their case was so weak. You didn't need to hear from me. You don't even get there. Yeah. So like, what was your mom going to say? No, I didn't know about any of this. There was no evidence she did like, okay. So them not testifying, that's a normal thing. And I would say in 95% of my cases, um,

I would always know matter circumstances recommend that a defendant not testify in fact I think there's more of a case when there is a gray area and it looks like the defendant has done something that he recognizes is wrong that he needs to then explain that if There's no real evidence that your defendant has done something truly wrong. There's nothing for them to explain okay, and then

Jumping forward to sentencing, a big question is, well, why did they not serve their sentences separately? Like, why did Todd not go and then Julie or Julie and vice versa? I think we asked for that. We did. Yeah, we did. The judge just said no. I mean, it's this is not a system that is built to care about families. I mean, I think the, you know, the level of incarceration in the United States, we just presume throw you in jail. And that's just the last we think of it.

There are certainly collateral consequences for families and communities and our system just doesn't care Like there's literally nothing in the sentencing guidelines or the sentencing statute that says you should worry at all about sort of innocent third parties like Chloe or like Grayson I mean, yeah, the courts just they just don't care because they're minor children Which I think and like we said this is the point of why is your mother charged at all? Exactly. Yeah, why at all? and then

Because some prosecutor woke up and thought, I'd rather convict two Chrisleys than one. And I will never forget that day going into sentencing. Because obviously nothing had gone our way. Right. You had said, told us all, we were standing downstairs and you were like, all right, this is probably what's going to happen. They're going to be taken today. You're not going to hear from them for a few days. They're going to be transported through the system until they get to where they're supposed to be.

And that's what we went in thinking was going to happen. Yeah. And then we get up there and I say it was like you have to find the little wins in the situation. The judge gave them a date to which they were to report. Yep. And that frankly, that's what should have happened. I think we are preparing you for the worst case scenario because if they're being sentenced for crimes that happened 10 years ago.

why can't you wait 30 days for them to serve that jail sentence? It's not as if the like dangerous felons that you need to keep off the street. So it's one of those sort of small indignities when they just take people out of the courtroom directly to jail. They didn't do that here. Thank goodness. But it happens often. All the time. Yeah. All the time. And for no good reason. No, for no good reason. And there's so much you hear stories of the FBI going in and raiding someone's home over a PPP loan or full jacket. Yeah.

You know, ski mask, the whole thing. It's wild. I mean, I heard a story of a, it was literally a PPP loan. FBI goes in, rates the house. Probably bust the door down. Yeah, bust the door down. The wife just had a baby, had no clothes on. They wouldn't even let her like get dressed. And it's just wild to see how the government...

Acts and situation but again like it's not the government there is a group of people there and there wasn't one person with a reasonable sort of head on their shoulders who said Do we need to do it this way? Mm-hmm

Is that does that make sense? Yeah. And then after sentencing, obviously, they were given their report date, which they had to go and report. And then you had filed an emergency motion for them to stay out while the appeal was being argued. So explain that. So there are certain circumstances where even if you've been convicted and sentenced, there is a legal question that we have the right to take up to the next level.

There are more judges the next level. They are generally more learned and they get us sort of evaluate the work of the district court, the court that held the trial. And so

Obviously, if the person's in jail, they're suffering a consequence. And even if their conviction is invalid and should be overturned, if they go to jail, they're obviously suffering that consequence, even with the heir. And so what you can ask for is you can ask the appellate court to pause everything until they've decided and they've ruled. We filed that motion. The district court judge sat on it, didn't rule on it for like, I don't know, 30 days, 45 days. I don't think she held a hearing for two months, which is not how it's supposed to happen. Yeah.

Yeah. And then finally denied it, I think, like the day before, the week before your parents were supposed to report. So, again, just like the small indignities in the system, it doesn't have to happen that way. It shouldn't have happened that way, but that's how it did. Okay. And then the end of July is when the appeal was filed. That's right. So there's a period...

You know, the case is over. The court has to collect all the records. The lawyers, the appellate lawyers like me come in and sort of do our thing, look at the case, see what the best arguments are. And we have to file a written sort of summary of all our arguments for the appeals court, which is the next level up.

Ah, the sizzle of McDonald's sausage. It's enough to make you crave your favorite breakfast.

Enough to head over to McDonald's. Enough to make you really wish this commercial were scratch and sniff. And if you're a sausage person, now get two satisfyingly savory sausage McGriddles, sausage biscuits, or sausage burritos for just $3.33. Or mix and match. Price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer or combo meal. Single item at regular price.

Support for today's episode comes from Jenny Kane. And honestly, it is perfect timing because it's the whole what? New year, new me saying. I think we say that every year. But this year, I am really looking to Jenny Kane to help me find the perfect timing to

perfect everyday wardrobe for me to wear while podcasting, showing homes, whatever it may be that I'm doing. Jenny Kane is a California brand through and through, and their staples make getting dressed easier than it's ever been before. Think minimalist and effortless, but totally refined. From luxurious cashmere sweaters and iconic accessories to

elevated versions of all your everyday basics. Not to mention they have the most incredible home essentials too. I have gone into the Nashville store and I am absolutely obsessed. Their stores just bring me so much comfort and ease. My favorite item from them would be the mohair boyfriend cardigan. I love a good cardigan to throw on with jeans, dress it up, dress it down, whatever it

may be. So Jenny Kane can help you redefine your look and revamp your closet. All you have to do is go to JennyKane.com. Our listeners get 15% off your first order when you use code UNLOCKED at checkout. That's 15% off your first order at J-E-N-N-O-N-O-K-E-N-Y-O-N-O-N-O-K-E-N-Y-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-N-O-

I-K-A-Y-N-E dot com with the promo code unlocked. Again, that's Jenny Kane dot com promo code unlocked for 15% off. Let getting dressed be one less thing to worry about.

And what are our arguments on appeal? There's lots. And when you speak of an appeal, an appeal is not an opportunity for you to come in and submit new evidence. No, you can't submit new evidence. You have to focus on what happened at trial, what happened right after trial. So these are errors that occurred within the court. That's right. Within the record. So everything that was said in court is on a transcript. It's all written down. Every piece of evidence is part of like the big case file. And we have to take all that and explain to the appeals court what went wrong. Okay.

And I'd say here, there was a number of things. You probably raised 10 different issues. But the biggest one was the issue with the IRS revenue officer providing false testimony.

And even though we had strong evidence that she had provided false testimony about your parents that she had said they had, you know, had outstanding tax obligations. They hadn't paid. They hadn't paid their taxes for certain periods of time when they had. And she left the impression these are sort of basically tax dodgers. And we had evidence that she did that in concert with the prosecutors who knew that that testimony was false. The judge.

Didn't want to hear it. She didn't have a hearing about it. She didn't ask the prosecutors for an explanation. She just said, it doesn't matter. I don't want to know. I mean, she basically, I mean, she ripped the lawyers a new one for even alleging that. How dare we allege that these folks committed misconduct, but yet I'm not going to hold a hearing and force them to say it didn't happen, which they've never done.

um i mean you know they've the affidavit that they filed for the revenue officer who was the one we said knew everything and testified falsely doesn't say anything about what she knew

It doesn't allege when she found out about these payments. It doesn't describe any of her conversations with prosecutors. It's like everything that we raised is just completely absent from what she told the court because, you know, for whatever reason, they thought that that was not something they wanted to say under oath. So our biggest issue on appeal is that we need to have a hearing on this question to determine what she actually knew, when she actually knew it, the conversation she had with prosecutors, and if they, as we allege,

purposefully conspired, using that conspiracy word, to put false testimony before the jury to make your parents look bad. Because if they did that, these convictions should go away. People should get disciplined. One of them's already left the US Attorney's Office under circumstances we don't know. So one of the prosecutors, a guy named Tommy Krep, who was one of the folks who did the trial. Wasn't he the main prosecutor on the case? The lead prosecutor. And he was the one that, one of the two that we alleged in these filings was

had had conversations with the witness in a manner which was improper. He's no longer there. He's no longer at the office. And, you know, we still have had no explanation for what conversations he actually had. By law, it's...

If we request an answer as to why he's not there, do they have to give it to us or no? I mean, again, are they allowed to do what they did in the first place? No. But this goes back to the question, like the law is not a real thing. It's a series of like aspirations in paper and it's only as good as the system. So the people who are upholding it, the people within that office, I mean. So now that he's not, now that he's no longer on the case, he's left the U.S. Attorney's Office. Yeah. What happens next?

on the appellate level. Since he's no longer the prosecutor, who is going to argue that? No different. You know, this next man up, like the NFL, they'll just, you know, get their substitute and he'll be the Zach Wilson of the U.S. Attorney's Office team and will show up and somebody else will argue. Now, if they rule that there needs to be a hearing on this conduct, will he have to show up for that? We will certainly subpoena him to be there to be able to ask some questions. Whether or not the judge will let that, I don't know. But that's the expectation, sure. Yeah.

So with the appeal that that's obviously our main argument, but you said there are multiple other arguments to go along with it. Yeah. So we talked about the tax evasion, which is sort of one of the things that get headlines that Chris Lee's evaded taxes. Um,

Our argument there is that what the government showed is not tax evasion at all. It's the very legal use of a loan out company where you set up a company to collect revenue from the production companies and then to pay salaries out to members of that loan out company. And that the government has never really explained what money was hidden or how and who owned that money.

because the answer to that question would make very, very clear that nothing was ever hidden. And even in their briefs, they still refuse to sort of answer that. - They tiptoe around it. - They won't give a direct answer. Like, so our kind of main brief was, "Hey court, they've never said how the money was hidden and how Todd Chrisley owned this money, how it was his money that was hidden." And it clearly wasn't, here's all the evidence, it wasn't. And their response was, "Oh."

It's like totally the Mr. Oz thing. Like, don't look at the wizard behind the curtain, right? Which is wild. It's wild. It's totally wild. And I think, again, a different office with different prosecutors might have taken a different approach and said, yeah, we got that wrong. These folks were not willing to admit that. And with the bank fraud, it was also brought up the intended loss versus actual loss, which a lot of people wouldn't.

won't necessarily understand because I didn't understand it until we actually looked into it. Even before you get there, I mean, I think that the judge never made a determination of your mother's role in the crime, which the case law is very clear that she has to make that determination. Because you had asked that and she said that she wasn't going to answer that. That's right. I mean, at the Sudenton hearing, we explicitly said, you know, judge,

We believe that you have to make under the case law determination to be able to sentence her of what she did or what role she played or when she was in the conspiracy or how much she was responsible for the conspiracy.

And none of that the judge did. And so in that part of the appeal, we'll ask the appeals court to go back and make her do that. Okay. If the case still existed by that point. Yeah. Because what are the outcomes that could happen? We argue in March, correct? Yeah. So the oral argument was just set, which means I'll have to stand before these three appellate judges. The government will have a lawyer there to argue anything.

And we'll argue for 30 or 45 minutes about the case. And is this an open court? Open court in public. There'll be a live stream audio of it. Okay. So people will be able to hear it. Yeah. Probably not real time. They usually do it the next day. Some of them are real time. It depends on which of the courts. And I don't remember what the 11th circuit does, but it will be recorded. The actual audio portion. You could also, if you're in Atlanta, you can come and sit in the courtroom, just like any other proceeding. Yeah.

And we'll argue about all these issues that we'll raise. The judges will then go back in chambers and get together with each other, decide on what their decision is. They won't tell us. And they'll start to write an opinion, laying out their decision. And sometime, whether it's a month later or six months later or sometimes a year later, they'll actually issue that opinion. I mean, it is not – the wheels of justice move very, very slowly. So just because we have an –

argument in March doesn't mean, I mean, we could hear something a month later. We could hear something a year later. You just don't know. Yeah, that's right. And you'll just get an email one day and then it'll be the case. And okay. That's. It's wild. Well, yeah. Cause I'm like, I got these two kids here. Like can we speed it up? I would hope, but that's where we are. And then you look at their sentences, 12 years and seven years. Yep.

for let's just say, which they did not, but for someone that actually committed these crimes, are those fair sentences? - So, you know, I think the question, it's really easy to your parents to be like, oh, that can't be fair, right? And so it's hard to be, to have perspective on what's fair and what's not fair. I think the question you have to ask before that is like, what's the point

of putting people in jail. Why do we do it? Generally, when we think about putting people in jail, it's like, we wanna take these dangerous people and remove them from the community so they don't hurt other people. That is like, I think everybody universally would agree that's important.

And so you can have some debates about who's dangerous, who's not dangerous, right? Your parents who allegedly committed a crime in 07, 08 and not really since are not people who need to be taken out of the community to protect the community, even to protect those, you know, banks who can't protect themselves. So why else do we do it? Well, we just do it to punish. It's like literally like paddling a child, right?

Right. So we as a government want to paddle you by taking away your freedom, putting you in a really miserable place for what you've done. And we do that one because, you know, we just want to, you know, eye for an eye or because we want to stop other people from doing it because they see, gosh, if I see Todd Christie went to jail for 12 years, I'm not going to commit this crime. There's really no evidence to show this idea of deterrence. Punishing someone to stop somebody else from doing something is actually effective. Right.

But that's sort of the theory of why we have this and so when it comes to white-collar crime The idea is well gosh if people steal big amounts of money or have crimes involving big amounts of money We want to put them in jail for a long time. So other people don't do that as well And it just it's it's not based on any real science. It's not based on any real Sense that it actually is effective, right?

You know, the guy, Sam, SBF, you know, he did what a billion dollar, billion dollar conspiracy. There have been literally thousands of people who have been convicted of fraud and sent to jail for five, 10, 20 years before he did that. Do you think that stopped him? No, it's not as if we've somehow reduced the crime rate because they're putting people jail on massive amounts of time.

So, you know, I think the only reasonable way to look at it is we just want to force people to suffer. It's like you did this bad thing. We want you to suffer. And if any judge in the country can stand and sit next to me in a conversation and debate the idea that they think they are actually effectively helping stop white collar crime by putting somebody in jail for 12 years as opposed to six years, I'll debate them all day because there is zero evidence to support it. And.

With mom and dad being in prison now, obviously you and I've had the conversations of things that I've posted or said about the conditions and how our justice system works. And people have there's I mean, the majority of it has been very supportive, but there have also been people that are like, you just need to keep your mouth shut. You're making it harder on them.

well i think that's probably correct practically i mean like i think it does make it harder on them because the system is you know they're not they don't expect you to sort of speak out or talk back you're just supposed to sort of take it right um and you know nobody in a penal institution whether it's the bop or a state prison wants people to really know what happens behind those doors um you know we think about sort of like big

large-scale scandals the Catholic Church molestation scandal the way that people with mental health were treated in the earlier part of last century or you know the 20th century the thing that they share is a lot of secrecy and abuse happening within an institution that really is insular right well

That is literally what a prison is, right? You can't get in and out. It's incredibly locked down, both practically and also like effectively. People don't want to speak out against them. And so tons of abuse is happening because of the system, right? And nobody wants there to be a real close examination of that.

And I think, you know, so they're not used to people starting to poke and prod and say, wait a minute, is that really fair and reasonable? I mean, we are by far the most productive, the most egalitarian, you know, the best country in so many ways.

But the way that we treat our prisoners is on par with really some of the worst dictatorships in the world. Without a doubt. I just said that amongst all the NATO countries, we have the highest recidivism rate. Oh, high recidivism rate, but also just like the quality of our prisons is just terrible. Oh, you look at other ones and it's, it's still, I mean, it's a prison, but they also have proper education. Yeah. They have, they're not educated.

These people have actual jobs there. But it goes back to the idea of like, what are we putting people there for? Are we just there to punish them? Are we there to actually effectively change society? Right. I mean, if somebody commits a crime, clearly something has gone wrong in their life that we need to get them on a different track. If we want that person to be a productive member of society.

The reality is in the American system, we do not want them to be, nor do we allow them to be productive members of society because we don't let them get jobs when they get out. They're super, you know, discrimination is totally okay against folks with records. And we give them nothing during their time in jail to help them change. In fact, we make their lives miserable for the most part. And, you know, it's like that quote about, you know, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Right.

our criminal justice system when it comes to prisons and is insane. Nobody talks about it and politicians don't care because it doesn't, you know, it's not something that voters seem to care about or like. I think what's fascinating about the Donald Trump cases, wherever you feel about him as a, whether you despise him, whether you love him is

It's going to be and it's already been a ton of coverage around these ideas about criminal justice, around how does the FBI operate? How does our court system operate? How do prosecutors operate? And people who had never seen those things before, like, wait a minute, that doesn't seem right. Is that and, you know, imagine if you're upset about how Donald Trump has been treated. Well, I can promise you he's been treated better than 99.9 percent of everybody else.

If you're like, hey, he's getting his fair deal, but he is, and I think other people should too, again, look around at everybody else who's not being treated that way. Both sides politically should be able to look at this and start to actually look at the justice system and go, that just doesn't seem right. That doesn't seem right. Yeah, it doesn't seem right. I love that viewpoint because regardless, and my thing is, is if someone did what you say that they did as the government, right?

why do you have to make it so messy? Like, why can't you just build this strong case for anyone? Like you look at our case. If they did what you said they did, why'd you have to get so messy with it? Yeah. There was a case here in Nashville. That's where we're filming this. Um,

Horrible violent crime where a very very wealthy man in Texas was accused of basically paying someone to kill a woman up here in Nashville Those people did kill her and her boyfriend and this very rich man who was not the trigger person He paid someone to do the murders as was the allegation and he was convicted a couple weeks ago here of that of that conspiracy to murder and The murder for hire. What was he what he get?

- Time-wise. - He'll get life. I mean, it's a murder. He'll get effectively life. But he had very good counsel who were very, very reputable counsel, came up from Texas, some local lawyers, like some of the best lawyers in the world. And he was up against prosecutors in the US Attorney's Office who were very, very good.

And I think for the most part, they, from what I heard and saw the docket, like, you know, they gave over exculpatory evidence. They were, you know, did the right things in terms of following the rules. Like there are prosecutors who in important cases can do this right and do do it right. And you should do it right. It is always those reach cases that are, oh, we,

It's not really clear, but we think they're bad and we're the judges. And that's where it comes down to just the people in the system are individuals. They make mistakes. They have the same frailties as anybody else. We'll be back for part two of this episode in just a few days. But don't forget to like, subscribe and just follow our story and spread awareness. The more people see this, the more it helps us.

Hey, everyone. You might remember me from Teen Mom 2, but my 15 minutes is almost up. So I'm back with another podcast. I'm your barely famous host, Kale Lowry, and I'm catching up with people from my past, putting my exes on the hot seat, and chatting with TikTokers, influencers, and other reality stars. Get weird with me every Friday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast One, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Dive into crime on Pluto TV. Unravel the mysteries on shows like CSI and Criminal Minds, or follow the clues in Blue Bloods and NCIS. With thousands of free crime movies and TV shows, Pluto TV is the true home of crime. Download the Pluto TV app and start streaming now on live channels and on demand. ♪ You better run for your life ♪ Pluto TV, stream now, pay never.

We all want to see our loved ones living their best lives, but it's hard when they're struggling with drugs and alcohol. For nearly 70 years, Karen has made it possible for so many to imagine a life beyond addiction. We combine advanced neuroscience with life-changing care. Visit CARON.org. Karen, where the science of treatment meets the heart of care. Now in network with most insurances. That's CARON.org.

Every sandwich has bread. Every burger has a bun. But these warm, golden, smooth steamed buns? These are special. Reserved for the very best. The Filet-O-Fish. And you. You can have them too. For a limited time, the classic Filet-O-Fish you love is joining your McDonald's favorites on the 2 for $3.99 menu. Limited time only. Price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer. Single item at regular price. Ba-da-ba-ba-ba.

Here in America, work is in trouble. We've offshored our manufacturing, sent away good jobs, and lost so much ability to make things. American Giant is pushing back against that tide. They make high-quality clothing for a summer wardrobe you'll love, all made right here in the USA. Support America's workers and get 20% off your first order at American-Giant.com with code STAPLE20. That's 20% off your first order at American-Giant.com, code STAPLE20.