A break down about Trump's conviction and Minnesota's legal drama

[00:00:00] Welcome to The Break Down with Brodkorb and Becky, the weekly podcast that breaks down

[00:00:16] politics, policy and current affairs. I'm Becky Scherr. And I'm Michael Brodkorb.

[00:00:21] There is so much news from the past week that we had to do two episodes this week. Today

[00:00:24] you are stuck with just the two of us. We are going to start the show by breaking down

[00:00:28] the Trump conviction from the last week and what it means for the Republican nominee

[00:00:31] and the presidential race. We are then going to bring things back home and spend

[00:00:36] the remainder of the show discussing Minnesota news. Starting with Monday's news that all

[00:00:40] charges against trooper Ryan Laundragan were dropped. We will break down the reason behind

[00:00:44] that and the comments swirling following the announcement. We will then get into the

[00:00:48] recent news in the Feeding Our Future scandal and break down the shocking revelation that

[00:00:52] a juror received $120,000 in cash at her home if she would vote to find the defendants

[00:00:59] on trial not guilty. And we will end with a little foray into sports by breaking down

[00:01:03] the new Justin Jefferson contract and what that means for the Vikings. Thank you for joining

[00:01:08] us and enjoy the show.

[00:01:12] So last week Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts. Jury came back pretty quickly

[00:01:19] and really just no questions in their mind. And so this again all surrounds the Stormy

[00:01:25] Daniels Hush Money case that was being heard in New York. What's your take? Was

[00:01:30] this surprising? Did you expect them to come back and come back so quickly 34 across the

[00:01:34] board?

[00:01:36] I was surprised by the 34. It was a complete and total repudiation of Trump's defense.

[00:01:42] 34 he's now a convicted felon. I had followed the case. I learned some things in following

[00:01:48] the case. I was not following it incredibly closely, but it's a serious issue and

[00:01:53] it's a serious complication. I've listened to a number of legal analysts on the case,

[00:01:59] but I think it's a substantive issue for Trump. He's now a convicted felon 34 felonies.

[00:02:05] I don't know we can talk more about the political ramifications of it, but 34 was surprising

[00:02:11] and it was a very there's no ambiguity 34 convictions to now be a convicted felon is

[00:02:18] a substantive issue. I think it's a messaging problem for Republicans. I think it's

[00:02:23] there's some legal issues that Trump is going to have to deal with. The timing

[00:02:26] of it is also going to be interesting because I think his sentencing hearing is pretty much

[00:02:31] right before the Republican National Convention. It's going to be very interesting to see from

[00:02:36] a sentencing standpoint what he's dealing with the week of the Republican National

[00:02:40] Convention.

[00:02:41] Absolutely agree. Now, this is one of those situations where jail time could be on the

[00:02:47] table. You I think while I made maybe did a year last school, you know a lot more

[00:02:53] about the idiosyncrasies, the specifics of all of sorts of court cases and follow a lot

[00:02:59] of that from your thought what you've heard what you've read what you know. Do you think

[00:03:04] there would be any time behind bars for the former president?

[00:03:08] I think it's possible. I think it's unlikely. I think it's possible, but I think it's

[00:03:12] unlikely. I do think that these are 34 felonies. These are, I think low level

[00:03:19] from what I understand low level felonies. And so I do think there is a probationary.

[00:03:26] I do think that not probation, but I do think that there isn't there's a path here

[00:03:29] or glide path for him to not go to jail. Now, that being said, one of the reasons

[00:03:35] he has been convicted by a jury of his peers. We can get into the whole discussion

[00:03:41] on the appeal process or everything like that. But in the eyes of the court,

[00:03:44] the process is over in terms of he was convicted. And just in my rudimentary

[00:03:49] understanding of courts and what I've seen, contrition, apologizing, accepting

[00:03:54] responsibility factors in a lot into what the judge determines. And I don't think

[00:03:59] that Donald Trump, if he chooses to speak in court in the presence of the judge,

[00:04:04] if that mash, if that gels with what he says outside of the courtroom,

[00:04:08] there's not a lot of contrition in what he's going to say. And that's

[00:04:12] where we get into a little bit of a little bit of the reality that Trump's

[00:04:16] lives in versus what's the real world. He has been convicted. There is an

[00:04:20] appeal, there is an appellate process and independent of that appellate

[00:04:24] process, he still has, there's still opportunities for this judge to give

[00:04:28] him a sentence that includes his being in jail. I have heard very fair

[00:04:33] legal analysis that has said that it would be very reasonable for

[00:04:37] someone who wasn't named Donald Trump to go to jail for what he's done here.

[00:04:43] These are 34 felony convictions based on his record and some of the other

[00:04:47] complex, based on the complexities of this case. I have seen it presented

[00:04:51] both ways. I've seen it presented that he's not going to go to jail.

[00:04:55] But I've also heard some people who are giving fair legal analysis down

[00:05:00] the middle of the plate that it's very reasonable for Trump to go to

[00:05:04] jail and if he doesn't go to jail, that could be an indication of

[00:05:08] there being truly a two-tiered justice system. Which is the whole,

[00:05:13] which is what many Republicans and people in the MAGA world are saying

[00:05:16] is that this was an unjust prosecution. He wasn't guilty of

[00:05:21] anything. And the prospects of him going to jail to them not only

[00:05:25] are just as bad, if not worse than the fact that he was even

[00:05:29] prosecuted to begin with. And so I think that him going to jail is a possibility.

[00:05:35] I think it's unlikely, but I also will say to you, if we want to play the

[00:05:38] game on the two-tiered justice system, I think there is a credible

[00:05:41] argument that could be made that if he was, his name wasn't Donald Trump

[00:05:45] and he wasn't a former president, that he may be doing some jail time for this.

[00:05:50] Interesting take. I definitely think it's one of those situations where

[00:05:53] you're damned if you do damned if you don't. There's going to be

[00:05:55] outrage on both sides regarding this. We, you've talked a little bit about

[00:06:00] the messaging angle. We've already seen Biden come out messaging him as

[00:06:03] a convicted fellow and we know that Republicans are going to have to

[00:06:07] figure out how to dance on this because regardless of you're the biggest

[00:06:11] Trump flag waving Republican or more moderate, your base has thoughts

[00:06:16] on this. And we're also seeing from the flip side of what some of the

[00:06:20] Democrats are saying, some of these never Trumpers middle of the road

[00:06:24] formally Clinton or independent supporting folks saying that they are

[00:06:29] now going to come and support Trump because this is a weaponization of

[00:06:32] the judicial system and the political motivation using in the used in

[00:06:37] this trial in their minds is reason enough that they want to

[00:06:40] turn right and stay away from the Democrats. I don't know that we'll

[00:06:43] know how this plays out until election day. We'll see some polls.

[00:06:47] Previously, we had talked about some polls about this and largely

[00:06:50] Republicans said that they're going to stay with Trump. I did see one

[00:06:53] this week that said one in 10 formerly Trump supporters are now

[00:06:57] thinking of looking elsewhere. Again, that is a make or break it. So

[00:07:02] we'll see what people ultimately decide to do. But I think one thing

[00:07:06] that is important too is people's memory is rather short. And so

[00:07:10] this is incumbent on Republicans to remind voters what Democrats

[00:07:15] and Biden's policies have how they have impacted their lives.

[00:07:18] And hopefully that cuts through more than a convicted felon.

[00:07:23] But it's going to be it's going to be a tough thing to navigate for

[00:07:25] these Republican members or candidates going into 2024 for

[00:07:29] sure.

[00:07:30] From a messaging standpoint, particularly in the presidential

[00:07:33] race, we did a lot of analysis on the presidential race. And we

[00:07:36] talked with a lot of smart people about where we thought the

[00:07:39] race was going. I think I don't want to speak for you. But I

[00:07:43] think we both were hoping that someone would be a substantive

[00:07:47] contrast to Trump and take that messaging mantle from him

[00:07:51] and be more of this would stop being as much of a Trump party.

[00:07:55] What I'm surprised about not surprised, but I just want to

[00:07:58] acknowledge I guess my lack of I'm not as surprised as I am

[00:08:01] anymore, but 34 34 felony convictions. And there was one

[00:08:07] particular message that was sent out by Larry Hogan. Now Larry

[00:08:10] Hogan is the former governor of Maryland. And he is now

[00:08:14] running for the United States Senate. He sent out a message

[00:08:18] after the Trump verdict. And this is what he said he goes

[00:08:20] quote, at this dangerously divided moment in our history, all

[00:08:24] leaders, regardless of party must not pour fuel on the fire with

[00:08:28] more toxic partisanship. We want to say we must reaffirm what

[00:08:33] has made this nation great, the rule of law, a very simple, I

[00:08:37] think balanced and non controversial statement. If

[00:08:41] the dangerously divided moment in our history, all

[00:08:44] leaders, regardless of party, must not pour fuel on the

[00:08:48] fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what

[00:08:52] has made this nation great, the rule of law. He was hammered up

[00:08:57] and down on social media for offering that statement. And

[00:09:01] again, his statement was just, let's respect the rule of law.

[00:09:05] And I do think that there's an inconsistency that Democrats

[00:09:09] have on the rule of law and with Republicans. I mentioned

[00:09:13] before that there's been an argument that's been made

[00:09:16] that the Democrats have messaging quite consistently

[00:09:19] that on Trump, the lawbreaker, Trump, the lawbreaker, Trump,

[00:09:22] the lawbreaker. Then what we had is we had Senator Mitchell, a

[00:09:27] DFL state senator from Woodbury get charged with with a

[00:09:31] felony related to a break in at a home of her stepmother up

[00:09:35] in Northwestern Minnesota. And so I thought that they've

[00:09:39] lost a little bit of that messaging high ground by

[00:09:43] making the claim that felons and people that are

[00:09:46] charged with felonies and people that are going to the

[00:09:48] criminal justice system are not worthy of voting. And

[00:09:51] Republicans were quite forceful in saying that Mitchell

[00:09:55] should not be able to vote. And she shouldn't be able to

[00:09:58] participate in the legislative process because of the

[00:10:01] charges that were convicted. I will say to you that I

[00:10:04] think that it's inconsistent for Republicans to say that

[00:10:07] Mitchell needs to be gone and she shouldn't be the 34th

[00:10:10] vote just when she's been charged with something and

[00:10:14] turned an absolute blind eye to what's going on with Trump.

[00:10:17] And for Larry Hogan, former Governor Hogan now running

[00:10:20] for the Senate to come out and say that what he wants

[00:10:23] people just to reaffirm is that what made this nation

[00:10:26] great, the rule of law. And I think we've lost that.

[00:10:30] I think that partisanship, I think that the

[00:10:34] Republicans believe very strongly that there has

[00:10:36] been a politicization and a weaponization of the

[00:10:40] court process. Their response to that is to also, I

[00:10:45] think, weaponize rhetorically and laying the groundwork

[00:10:49] to do if Trump is reelected. I don't think there's

[00:10:52] I think that the Republicans aren't ruling out what

[00:10:57] they perceive Democrats have done to Donald Trump.

[00:11:01] And that's the distinction here is that I don't

[00:11:03] think I will say this very clearly. I have a very

[00:11:07] consistent point. I believe your point is consistent

[00:11:10] too, but I don't want to speak for you. We did not

[00:11:12] believe that Senator Mitchell should be voting in the

[00:11:15] Minnesota Senate because of what had happened. I

[00:11:18] don't believe that Donald Trump prior to his

[00:11:21] convictions, I think the legal issues that he

[00:11:23] was facing along with a whole host of other issues

[00:11:25] was made called into question his ability to

[00:11:29] serve as president. I believe that is even that

[00:11:32] is 34 times more difficult now that he's a

[00:11:34] convicted felon. What I find interesting is

[00:11:36] I'd love to do a diagram of Zenda a Venn diagram

[00:11:40] of the people who were critical of Nicole Mitchell

[00:11:44] and Senator Mitchell for voting and are now

[00:11:47] seem to not be concerned at all about that fact

[00:11:50] that Donald Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies.

[00:11:52] And I think that just because you've been

[00:11:55] convicted of a crime does not mean you can't

[00:11:58] serve. But the question of the of surrounding

[00:12:01] the convictions and what you've gone through,

[00:12:03] there are people that have been that have served

[00:12:05] as president, served as vice president, served

[00:12:07] in elective office with criminal records. The

[00:12:09] question is what were the records? Did they learn

[00:12:12] from that? And I think that I don't think the

[00:12:16] Democrats nor the Republicans have clean hands

[00:12:19] at all about the weaponization rhetorically

[00:12:24] about the politicization or weaponization of

[00:12:27] the court system. I don't think either side has

[00:12:29] clean hands. The distinction when I find so

[00:12:32] tragic and sad as Larry Hogan coming out and

[00:12:35] saying at this dangerously divided moment in our

[00:12:37] history, all leaders regardless of party must

[00:12:40] not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic

[00:12:44] partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made

[00:12:47] this nation great to the rule of law. And that

[00:12:50] there is just this visceral harsh reaction to

[00:12:53] that relatively, I think patriotic simple

[00:12:57] common sense proposition. And we've lost

[00:13:00] that. And it's just really disappointing.

[00:13:04] I completely agree. I think his statement was

[00:13:06] great. It's surprising, but not surprising like

[00:13:08] you said that he got the backlash that he did.

[00:13:11] And I don't know how we get back there, but

[00:13:14] hopefully at some point we can get back

[00:13:16] there because supporting the rule of law doesn't

[00:13:18] is used to not be controversial at all. One

[00:13:22] thing I do want to play a little bit was I

[00:13:23] had the kit. Do you think that there is an

[00:13:26] argument to be made that the Senator

[00:13:30] Mitchell Trump situations are different

[00:13:32] because Mitchell's happened while she was

[00:13:35] already in office, whereas Trump's happened

[00:13:38] prior to him becoming an office. And that's

[00:13:41] where difference happens. Or do you think

[00:13:44] that that doesn't matter? That you have to

[00:13:48] stand for again and Mitchell's is an alleged

[00:13:50] crime where Trump is now convicted.

[00:13:54] So you're in the scenario that you're

[00:13:55] describing, which is more serious? I'm

[00:13:58] saying that Republicans here in the state,

[00:14:00] I would argue would probably say hers happened

[00:14:02] while she was in office. She's supposed to

[00:14:04] be more upstanding because she is now has

[00:14:07] an election certificate, whereas Trump's

[00:14:09] happened prior to him receiving his election

[00:14:11] certificate. Yes, but he's going to he

[00:14:14] but he's the front runner for the nominee.

[00:14:16] Right. And nomination he's likely

[00:14:18] going to be the question that I would

[00:14:19] say is but the crime happened not while

[00:14:22] he was actually serving as president.

[00:14:24] Sure, sure. And I would and I get that

[00:14:26] point. I would say to you, I think there

[00:14:28] are some crimes that if you commit, they

[00:14:31] are completely disqualifying to serving in

[00:14:33] office regardless of what your level of

[00:14:35] contrition is. And I don't want to

[00:14:37] articulate all those because but I just

[00:14:38] would say I think they are. I think

[00:14:40] that people can I think that the

[00:14:42] question is the consistency argument

[00:14:43] of my point is that we have a state

[00:14:45] senator who had shoe who we the

[00:14:49] argument was made and I stand by it

[00:14:50] which is that there are 34 she was

[00:14:54] the 34th vote to help pass the DFL's

[00:14:57] legislative agenda and she was

[00:14:59] credibly accused and was facing

[00:15:01] felony charges. I think that the

[00:15:03] Democrats played absolute

[00:15:06] partisanship with that in terms of

[00:15:08] the sense of what do they do? Becky,

[00:15:10] they were the first to punish her in

[00:15:12] terms of removing her committee

[00:15:13] assignments and removing her from

[00:15:14] caucus. Then what they did is they

[00:15:17] took they immediately did that and

[00:15:19] then they had this they had this

[00:15:21] ethics committee process where I

[00:15:23] think state senator Bobby Joe

[00:15:24] championed everything he can to

[00:15:25] prevent their there being a

[00:15:27] thoughtful discussion in the

[00:15:28] context of the ethics committee

[00:15:30] process on what was actually done

[00:15:32] and I think the behavior of

[00:15:34] senator Mitchell and her attorney

[00:15:36] in the context of a legislative

[00:15:37] process was simply horrific. Then

[00:15:40] what happened is the Democrats did

[00:15:41] use her 34th vote to pass some of

[00:15:44] their agenda and then after

[00:15:45] session was over with what did

[00:15:47] they do with the chair of the

[00:15:48] DFL and the governor both called

[00:15:51] on her to resign. The material

[00:15:53] facts of senator Mitchell's case

[00:15:55] did not change between when

[00:15:58] when before the session during

[00:16:00] the session and after there's no

[00:16:02] new information that's come out.

[00:16:03] The only reason why they were

[00:16:05] speaking out with such clear

[00:16:07] forceful language after the

[00:16:08] legislative session was because

[00:16:11] her vote was no longer needed and

[00:16:13] so it was safe for them to speak

[00:16:14] out in this particular and so

[00:16:17] nothing materially changed. And so

[00:16:19] in some instances they're taking

[00:16:20] in the same position that the

[00:16:21] Republicans have said, which is

[00:16:22] that she needs to resign that she

[00:16:23] shouldn't be a part of the process.

[00:16:26] The problem I think for

[00:16:27] Republicans now is how do you

[00:16:28] make the case that senator

[00:16:30] Mitchell can't serve in the

[00:16:33] Senate if she's convicted

[00:16:36] of let's just right now she's

[00:16:38] been charged. OK. If she

[00:16:41] decides to stay in office and

[00:16:43] gets convicted Republicans are

[00:16:45] about to nominate someone who

[00:16:46] was convicted of 34 counts of

[00:16:49] 34 felony counts.

[00:16:51] And so how do Republicans

[00:16:53] credibly go out and message

[00:16:54] and say that Senator Mitchell's

[00:16:56] conduct is unbecoming of

[00:16:58] being a senator while a state

[00:17:01] senator, while someone who is

[00:17:03] been nominated and may be

[00:17:04] elected by a major political

[00:17:06] party has 34 felony convictions

[00:17:09] on them. And it's still

[00:17:10] through the appellate process.

[00:17:12] I think that is not a

[00:17:13] consistent statement and it's

[00:17:14] mind boggling to me.

[00:17:16] And if we're getting down to

[00:17:17] that's what this felony is

[00:17:18] versus that felony and one

[00:17:20] most politicization one was

[00:17:21] not. I just have to say to you

[00:17:23] that's just a very slippery

[00:17:24] slope. And I think we're on a

[00:17:26] consistent point because I think

[00:17:28] we have called out and again

[00:17:29] please disagree with me if you

[00:17:30] think I'm wrong. But we've

[00:17:31] called out saying from a

[00:17:33] partisan from just from a

[00:17:35] just from a process standpoint

[00:17:36] we thought that Mitchell should

[00:17:37] step down that what she's

[00:17:39] done here warranted her

[00:17:40] stepping down now others can

[00:17:42] disagree. But now we have a

[00:17:44] situation of where we have a

[00:17:47] the Republican nominee for

[00:17:48] president has been convicted of

[00:17:50] 34 felonies and sure he

[00:17:52] hasn't appellate process but

[00:17:55] him appealing doesn't remove

[00:17:57] the facts of what they are.

[00:17:58] He has been found guilty by a

[00:18:00] court of law 34 felony

[00:18:02] counts. And I think that from

[00:18:04] a messaging standpoint I think

[00:18:06] the Republicans are in a very

[00:18:07] slippery slope much more

[00:18:09] very slippery slope because

[00:18:11] I think that and I don't

[00:18:14] I'm not trying to say the

[00:18:15] Democrats don't have an issue

[00:18:16] either because they do.

[00:18:17] But 34 is different than what

[00:18:19] and that's the and that's the

[00:18:20] issue here is and I think that

[00:18:22] there should be various

[00:18:23] standards throughout the

[00:18:24] process. But I think this is

[00:18:26] going to be a message. I'll

[00:18:27] also say it's inconsistent.

[00:18:29] I think because Republicans

[00:18:30] at least when I came up into

[00:18:31] the party process Republicans

[00:18:33] were more law and order. They

[00:18:34] generally supported law

[00:18:36] enforcement and they supported

[00:18:37] the rule of law. I have a

[00:18:38] real boggle it really

[00:18:40] stretches my mind because

[00:18:42] what you what's also been

[00:18:43] happening with Republicans as

[00:18:44] they've been parroting defund

[00:18:46] remove some of the FBI

[00:18:47] funding dismantle the

[00:18:48] Department of Justice do all

[00:18:50] these types of stuff. And the

[00:18:52] rhetoric is a shade bit

[00:18:54] different because everyone

[00:18:55] knows that about the defund

[00:18:57] the police movement inside

[00:18:59] the Democratic Party and the

[00:19:00] aftermath of the murder of

[00:19:01] George Floyd now but there

[00:19:03] are also Republicans who you

[00:19:04] basically just flip one of the

[00:19:06] flags between a Biden

[00:19:07] supporter and a Trump

[00:19:08] supporter sweep the change

[00:19:09] the uniform. And it's basically

[00:19:11] the same message that we

[00:19:12] have overly aggressive

[00:19:15] whether it's a police force or

[00:19:17] whether it's a legal system and

[00:19:18] both of them need to in some

[00:19:20] ways be defunded and clawed

[00:19:22] back. And I think that's a very

[00:19:24] inconsistent message for

[00:19:26] Republicans who have generally

[00:19:27] been on the side of law of

[00:19:29] police and law and order. I

[00:19:31] think if you are a Republican

[00:19:33] and this is I think the most

[00:19:34] puzzling Republican I think

[00:19:36] to be is someone who is a

[00:19:37] Trump supporter who thinks

[00:19:39] January 6 wasn't an issue who

[00:19:42] thinks that he is that he's

[00:19:44] done nothing wrong that all

[00:19:46] these convictions were

[00:19:47] problematic and that you

[00:19:48] still try to claim that you

[00:19:49] back the blue and you back

[00:19:50] law enforcement. I don't know

[00:19:51] how you can credibly make that

[00:19:53] point. I just don't know how

[00:19:54] you can credibly do that.

[00:19:57] I don't disagree. It's going

[00:19:59] to be I am not envious of

[00:20:00] folks who are working on

[00:20:01] messaging and prepping

[00:20:04] candidates and elected this

[00:20:06] cycle because it is

[00:20:08] everything you say can have

[00:20:10] the opportunity to be twisted

[00:20:12] just all of the ways you have

[00:20:14] pointed out and I think it is

[00:20:15] really going to be walking on

[00:20:17] eggshells to not do something

[00:20:20] or say something that gets

[00:20:23] your side more in trouble or

[00:20:25] can get yourself more as

[00:20:27] something that is able to be

[00:20:28] splashed on a mailer and

[00:20:30] used against you this cycle

[00:20:32] because of saying something

[00:20:33] that could be taken at if

[00:20:35] we're looking at Republican

[00:20:36] candidates, something that

[00:20:37] somebody could say is now

[00:20:40] not supporting President

[00:20:41] Trump or vice versa.

[00:20:43] And so I think it's going to be

[00:20:45] a really tightrope for them to

[00:20:47] walk and not envious of that

[00:20:49] at all. But I do want to talk

[00:20:50] a little bit about what we

[00:20:51] have seen since the

[00:20:52] conviction and it's been

[00:20:55] quite quite the support

[00:20:57] financially for the Trump

[00:20:58] campaign in the RNC. They

[00:21:00] raised $70 million in the

[00:21:01] 48 hours after the

[00:21:02] convention conviction.

[00:21:05] They have since put out

[00:21:06] some information saying that

[00:21:07] 30% of those contributors

[00:21:09] were new donors. This is

[00:21:11] nearly double the previous

[00:21:12] single day fundraising hall on

[00:21:13] Winred, which is the fundraising

[00:21:15] platform that Republicans

[00:21:17] use and the platform

[00:21:19] actually Winred actually

[00:21:19] crashed briefly in the 24

[00:21:21] hours after the conviction

[00:21:22] because it was so overloaded

[00:21:23] with support and donations.

[00:21:26] Not shocking to me.

[00:21:28] I assume not shocking to you

[00:21:29] either.

[00:21:30] It's this is Trump's party.

[00:21:32] Make no mistake about it that

[00:21:34] this is Trump's party.

[00:21:34] If you are a non-Trump

[00:21:36] Republican, it's not your

[00:21:37] party anymore. And it's

[00:21:38] part of the reason I

[00:21:39] describe myself as politically

[00:21:40] homeless because in the grand

[00:21:41] scheme of things and there's a

[00:21:42] great there's a great op-ed

[00:21:44] that I'm going to I'm going to

[00:21:45] send around in the notes to

[00:21:46] this story, but fill a bump with

[00:21:48] the Washington Post wrote this

[00:21:49] fantastic kind of a column

[00:21:51] about how non-Trumpers are

[00:21:53] reminded that the party

[00:21:54] isn't really theirs.

[00:21:55] And this is the exact type

[00:21:57] of situation. I completely

[00:21:58] understand the amount of

[00:22:00] money that was raised. That

[00:22:02] is massive.

[00:22:03] There is a visceral reaction

[00:22:04] that people are having to

[00:22:05] this. And that is

[00:22:08] Trump is the head of the

[00:22:10] party. And so

[00:22:12] from a strategy standpoint,

[00:22:14] I understand and this is what

[00:22:16] I get puzzled by because those

[00:22:17] numbers are overwhelming just

[00:22:18] from a partisan standpoint,

[00:22:19] just from a raw number

[00:22:20] standpoint from a red versus

[00:22:22] blue that's discussed as

[00:22:24] whole legal mass that Trump

[00:22:25] has gone through this

[00:22:26] conviction just through the

[00:22:27] reds versus the blues.

[00:22:29] The reds did very well after

[00:22:31] Trump was convicted.

[00:22:32] They've raised a bunch of

[00:22:33] money. You've articulated it

[00:22:35] very well and 30 percent of

[00:22:37] them are new donors.

[00:22:39] The WinRed platform

[00:22:40] crashed. That is a

[00:22:42] significant amount of money.

[00:22:44] And I learned in the early

[00:22:45] days of politics very

[00:22:47] early on in one of my first

[00:22:48] jobs that fundraising is

[00:22:50] one of the best indicators

[00:22:52] of where the public is on

[00:22:54] stuff and where people are

[00:22:55] small donors and large

[00:22:56] donors. And I guarantee you

[00:22:58] the 70 million that the

[00:22:59] party that the Trump campaign

[00:23:01] and the RNC raised was there

[00:23:03] were some advertised big

[00:23:04] dollar munchments.

[00:23:06] But a lot of these are

[00:23:06] probably very small donors who

[00:23:08] feel that this system isn't

[00:23:10] fair and that 34 convictions

[00:23:12] and what he was charged with

[00:23:14] here are is excessive and

[00:23:16] they have decided to be a

[00:23:18] donor to the Trump campaign.

[00:23:19] I don't see from a legal

[00:23:20] standpoint.

[00:23:23] And I don't believe first of

[00:23:24] all let me just also say I

[00:23:25] don't believe that this is

[00:23:26] some orchestrated conspiracy

[00:23:28] by the Biden administration.

[00:23:30] I know that Republicans want

[00:23:31] to say that this is the

[00:23:31] body he was prosecuted by

[00:23:32] the Biden administration that

[00:23:34] DOJ is behind this.

[00:23:35] People Republicans have to pick

[00:23:36] a link. Either Joe Biden is

[00:23:38] Sleepy Joe who doesn't know

[00:23:40] what's going on or he's this

[00:23:41] mastermind who's orchestrating

[00:23:43] all this stuff behind the

[00:23:44] scenes. So pick a side.

[00:23:46] I do not believe that all of

[00:23:48] this has been orchestrated

[00:23:49] because the reason why I don't

[00:23:51] think it's been orchestrated

[00:23:52] all behind the scenes is

[00:23:54] because I think that

[00:23:57] this what we are seeing is

[00:23:59] once again that the normal

[00:24:01] rules of politics do not

[00:24:02] apply to Donald Trump.

[00:24:04] Thirty four felony convictions

[00:24:07] would be decimating

[00:24:09] to most people in politics.

[00:24:11] But first he is as I've said

[00:24:13] before he is the new Teflon

[00:24:15] president.

[00:24:16] He is what Reagan was when I

[00:24:18] was growing up just the Teflon

[00:24:19] president about stuff not

[00:24:21] sticking to him and him being

[00:24:22] able to navigate through.

[00:24:23] Reagan wasn't faced with any

[00:24:26] of these types of legal

[00:24:27] challenges.

[00:24:28] Those were just rhetorical

[00:24:29] disagreements where things

[00:24:30] they were not finding a way

[00:24:32] in which things to stick to

[00:24:33] Donald Trump is absolutely the

[00:24:34] new Teflon president.

[00:24:35] And so in a normal

[00:24:37] circumstance Becky a candidate

[00:24:39] facing thirty four convictions

[00:24:41] would be an end of the race.

[00:24:42] But look at the fundraising

[00:24:43] numbers and I don't think

[00:24:45] I think that this the normal

[00:24:47] rules of politics don't apply

[00:24:48] and I think prognosticating

[00:24:50] on it is difficult observing

[00:24:52] and I think is so important

[00:24:53] and the amount of money the

[00:24:55] RNC raised boy he's got

[00:24:57] to there's some other legal

[00:24:58] challenges that he's facing

[00:24:59] this year.

[00:25:00] And I understand from the

[00:25:02] perspective of listening to

[00:25:03] lawyers that some are more

[00:25:04] serious than others.

[00:25:05] Boy oh boy thirty four felony

[00:25:07] convictions and this has not

[00:25:09] been much of a blip on the

[00:25:11] radar string.

[00:25:13] In terms of hitting and

[00:25:14] remember phrase that in terms

[00:25:15] of hurting Trump.

[00:25:16] It hasn't hurt him much yet.

[00:25:19] It's as you mentioned it

[00:25:20] would eviscerate any other

[00:25:22] candidate and largely

[00:25:24] any other person right if

[00:25:26] this was a CEO or

[00:25:28] teacher or doctor that

[00:25:30] was convicted.

[00:25:31] No one else gets to keep their

[00:25:32] job let alone get another four

[00:25:34] years of that.

[00:25:35] So it is your right Teflon

[00:25:37] president.

[00:25:37] It's wild to watch

[00:25:40] and we there's still other

[00:25:41] cases out there.

[00:25:43] We're going to see and hear

[00:25:44] more like you mentioned it is

[00:25:46] sentencing is right before the

[00:25:47] RNC.

[00:25:47] So I'm sure we'll talk about

[00:25:49] it again in mid July when

[00:25:50] that is one last comment I

[00:25:52] want to make on this is

[00:25:53] something that is a smart

[00:25:54] move by the Trump campaign.

[00:25:56] But I had something I hadn't

[00:25:58] even thought of or heard

[00:25:59] before.

[00:25:59] Apparently one of the Trump

[00:26:01] co-campaign managers has

[00:26:03] they've been telling down ballot

[00:26:05] Republicans to not fund raise

[00:26:06] off the conviction because

[00:26:08] basically the money is theirs.

[00:26:10] There is a quote that says any

[00:26:11] Republican elected official

[00:26:12] candidate or party committee

[00:26:14] siphoning money from President

[00:26:15] Trump's donors are no better

[00:26:17] than Judge Merchant's daughter.

[00:26:19] We're keeping a list we'll be

[00:26:20] checking it twice and we are

[00:26:21] not in the spirit of

[00:26:23] Christmas.

[00:26:25] They want all that money for

[00:26:26] themselves don't they.

[00:26:30] That is a tough comment.

[00:26:32] That is a very tough comment.

[00:26:33] And while yes and I

[00:26:36] when I had heard about this

[00:26:37] initially I thought that the

[00:26:39] Trump campaign was upset

[00:26:41] because people were mentioning

[00:26:43] the case.

[00:26:44] And so if that would make

[00:26:46] sense that.

[00:26:47] And so when someone explained

[00:26:48] to me they said no they

[00:26:50] want all the money for they

[00:26:52] want all the money for their

[00:26:53] kitty.

[00:26:53] That is a situation where I

[00:26:56] was a little bit like I was

[00:26:57] a that's really interesting.

[00:26:59] That's really interesting that

[00:27:00] they want all that money because

[00:27:02] that's a hell of a way in which

[00:27:03] to hell of a way in which to

[00:27:04] frame things up because it's not

[00:27:06] as if they're sent as if they're

[00:27:08] upset that someone's they just

[00:27:09] want all that themselves

[00:27:10] because they know it's just a

[00:27:12] mobilization financial goldmine

[00:27:15] for their campaign.

[00:27:16] They don't want anyone else

[00:27:16] taking it.

[00:27:18] Absolutely they want all of it

[00:27:20] for themselves and that's

[00:27:22] certainly clear it is.

[00:27:23] Yeah I got to say it is a

[00:27:25] smart move for their side.

[00:27:26] They know that this is going

[00:27:27] to be a cash cow.

[00:27:28] They're keeping it for

[00:27:29] themselves and we certainly

[00:27:31] know that President Trump holds

[00:27:32] and his team holds grudges.

[00:27:33] I hope and bet that many people

[00:27:36] do not cross that line.

[00:27:39] Now we are moving back here to

[00:27:41] Minnesota.

[00:27:42] We are going to talk about the

[00:27:44] recent announcement on Sunday

[00:27:46] evening Hennepin County

[00:27:47] attorney Mary Moriarty announced

[00:27:48] that charges against Trooper

[00:27:50] Ryan Laundrykin would be

[00:27:52] dropped.

[00:27:53] This again is following we

[00:27:54] previously discussed this case

[00:27:55] a little bit more in depth

[00:27:57] but this is about the

[00:27:59] incident where there was a

[00:28:00] death of an individual and

[00:28:02] Ryan Laundrykin was charged

[00:28:03] with murder in this case.

[00:28:05] We notably talked about the

[00:28:07] situation where she caught a

[00:28:09] little fire for dismissing

[00:28:11] the use of force expert that

[00:28:13] the office had hired who

[00:28:14] found that Laundrykin's

[00:28:15] actions were not unreasonable

[00:28:17] given the facts of the case.

[00:28:18] Again this dismissal comes

[00:28:20] after basically some what

[00:28:22] they're claiming maybe new

[00:28:23] information, new evidence and

[00:28:25] prosecutors determined they

[00:28:27] could no longer prove beyond

[00:28:28] a reasonable doubt that Mr.

[00:28:30] Laundrykin's actions were not

[00:28:32] an un were not an authorized

[00:28:34] use of force by a peace officer

[00:28:36] so they decided to drop the

[00:28:37] case.

[00:28:37] We'll chat a little bit more

[00:28:39] about the what has happened

[00:28:40] since this announcement but

[00:28:42] are you surprised that she

[00:28:44] finally saw the writing on

[00:28:45] the wall or is it just

[00:28:47] she that's got to be it right.

[00:28:48] She saw that there was really

[00:28:49] no case to bring forward.

[00:28:51] She didn't have the support.

[00:28:52] This case was likely going to

[00:28:53] be taken away from her and

[00:28:55] that's why she had to step

[00:28:56] down or drop this drop the

[00:28:57] charge is correct.

[00:28:59] We have discussed this case at

[00:29:01] length and there's been a number

[00:29:03] of legal issues that have been

[00:29:04] raised about how this case was

[00:29:06] brought forth and whether

[00:29:08] there was enough to charge

[00:29:10] Trooper Laundrykin.

[00:29:11] I am not surprised that she

[00:29:13] dropped the case because

[00:29:15] that's where I think that this

[00:29:16] was trending.

[00:29:16] I think that the analysis

[00:29:18] that we've had about this

[00:29:19] case what's been out there in

[00:29:20] the public has been pretty

[00:29:22] convincing and I think

[00:29:24] the trepidation that the

[00:29:25] governor has had and others

[00:29:27] have had on the of her same

[00:29:29] political party but how her

[00:29:30] approach has been to this case.

[00:29:32] What I am surprised by is the

[00:29:34] manner in which she dropped it

[00:29:36] and what her messaging has

[00:29:38] been both on Sunday

[00:29:41] and yesterday about this case.

[00:29:43] Her messaging has been really

[00:29:45] raw about why this

[00:29:48] case was dropped and how she

[00:29:49] messaged it and there should

[00:29:51] be no confusion anymore with

[00:29:53] anyone as to who Mary Moriarty

[00:29:54] is and what she stands for

[00:29:56] and what she believes. She and

[00:29:57] we've discussed this before that

[00:29:59] she's campaigning.

[00:30:00] She's governing the same way

[00:30:02] that she campaigned.

[00:30:03] I don't think there's an

[00:30:04] inconsistency in how she

[00:30:05] campaign versus how she's

[00:30:06] governing.

[00:30:07] I think that this race was

[00:30:09] not on the attention of a lot

[00:30:10] of people and this is why

[00:30:12] paying attention to a down

[00:30:14] ballot race is so

[00:30:14] significantly important because

[00:30:17] I think she's out of step

[00:30:18] with the mainstream.

[00:30:19] She's out of step where

[00:30:21] Hennepin County wants to be

[00:30:22] and I think that she's

[00:30:23] running into some issues

[00:30:25] inside her own party

[00:30:27] and with other and how she's

[00:30:29] processing this case.

[00:30:30] And it's I'm not surprised

[00:30:32] that she dropped the charges.

[00:30:34] I am surprised at how she's

[00:30:35] messaging on this and why

[00:30:37] she's dropping the charges

[00:30:39] and how she's discussing it

[00:30:40] because who she is fired up.

[00:30:44] Certainly is there has been

[00:30:46] a lot of pressure on this

[00:30:47] case to take this to take

[00:30:49] it away from her.

[00:30:50] Governor Wallace has now said

[00:30:51] that he was planning to remove

[00:30:53] more already from the prosecution

[00:30:55] of this case.

[00:30:57] And I really want to hear your

[00:30:58] take on this because we just

[00:31:00] went through a little bit of our

[00:31:02] tangent about the Senator

[00:31:03] Mitchell and the political

[00:31:05] ramifications and all

[00:31:07] of the different dancing around

[00:31:09] of things that chair Martin

[00:31:11] and Governor Wallace saying, oh,

[00:31:12] now she should step down.

[00:31:14] Now after she dropped the case

[00:31:16] they said, oh yeah, but I was

[00:31:17] going to take it away from her

[00:31:18] anyways.

[00:31:19] A little politically expedient

[00:31:21] correct.

[00:31:22] Yes. Do you think I view it as

[00:31:24] I view it I view it as

[00:31:26] that those conversations were

[00:31:27] going on behind the scenes.

[00:31:28] And so she dropped the case

[00:31:30] because it was going to get

[00:31:31] taken away from her.

[00:31:32] And be embarrassing.

[00:31:33] Yes, do you see it that way?

[00:31:34] Because I do.

[00:31:37] Yes, I do.

[00:31:38] I just think him now commenting

[00:31:40] on that too is just a little

[00:31:42] too cute by half, right?

[00:31:43] It's of course you were.

[00:31:44] Nice try.

[00:31:45] Like why weren't you out

[00:31:47] there saying this?

[00:31:48] Why weren't you doing this?

[00:31:49] There has been time.

[00:31:50] The writing has been on the wall.

[00:31:52] All of her antics surrounding

[00:31:53] this case have been completely

[00:31:55] inappropriate.

[00:31:56] And it's just he wants to get

[00:31:58] that feather in his cap and be

[00:32:00] able to have this little mark

[00:32:02] on his report card for the year.

[00:32:04] But you still didn't do it.

[00:32:07] Yes.

[00:32:08] And I always think that

[00:32:09] there's always time to do the

[00:32:11] right thing.

[00:32:12] And from the beginning,

[00:32:13] this case there

[00:32:16] there have been issues

[00:32:18] between the Attorney General's

[00:32:19] office, the Governor's office

[00:32:21] and the Hennepin County Attorney

[00:32:22] with Mary Moriarty.

[00:32:23] This isn't the first dust up

[00:32:24] that they've had.

[00:32:25] This one, I think, became

[00:32:28] much more of a

[00:32:30] of a public issue

[00:32:32] in terms of just how it was

[00:32:33] framed from the beginning.

[00:32:35] And it is very surprising

[00:32:37] to me because I do think that

[00:32:38] there was an opportunity for the

[00:32:39] governor's office to step in

[00:32:41] much before this.

[00:32:42] I also will say to you.

[00:32:45] I do believe that she dropped

[00:32:47] it because it was going to get

[00:32:48] taken away from her.

[00:32:49] And it seems to me that

[00:32:51] she if she it was

[00:32:53] because I can't have it, no one

[00:32:54] else is going to have it.

[00:32:55] And so she dropped it in such a

[00:32:57] way and she messaged on it

[00:32:59] in such a way that I think

[00:33:02] is really divisive.

[00:33:04] And again, she went

[00:33:06] through the process.

[00:33:07] She was the DFL endorsed

[00:33:08] candidate for Hennepin County

[00:33:10] Attorney.

[00:33:11] She was duly elected.

[00:33:13] She is campaigning.

[00:33:14] She is governing, I believe,

[00:33:16] the same way that she

[00:33:17] campaigned.

[00:33:18] And I do believe that there's

[00:33:19] not. I don't think there's a

[00:33:20] we have mentioned this race for

[00:33:22] about truth and advertising.

[00:33:23] I think she's governing the

[00:33:24] exact way that she wanted that

[00:33:25] she planned to govern and

[00:33:27] be as and handle these cases

[00:33:29] as county attorney.

[00:33:31] I think that there is

[00:33:33] a lot of buyers remorse that

[00:33:34] I think people have.

[00:33:35] And I think that there are

[00:33:37] people are going to pay

[00:33:38] attention much more to these

[00:33:39] county attorney races because

[00:33:41] I think that again, unless

[00:33:43] you disagree with me, I think

[00:33:44] she's governing exactly how she

[00:33:45] said she was going to.

[00:33:46] Right?

[00:33:47] Absolutely.

[00:33:48] And I think you mentioned it

[00:33:50] is exactly why people need to

[00:33:51] pay attention to down ballot.

[00:33:53] If a person tells

[00:33:55] you who they are, listen,

[00:33:56] right? And I don't think

[00:33:58] because I do think largely

[00:34:00] we do see a more radical

[00:34:02] candidate on the campaign trail

[00:34:04] than we often get in office.

[00:34:05] We see it tamped down a

[00:34:07] little bit and then she

[00:34:08] certainly hasn't done that.

[00:34:09] And she's been guns blazing

[00:34:11] since since Sunday.

[00:34:12] So her office did say

[00:34:14] these the rumors about the

[00:34:15] case being taken away from

[00:34:16] or not why she made the ultimate

[00:34:18] decision to dismiss the case.

[00:34:20] I think that we agree that it

[00:34:23] largely played into that.

[00:34:24] But you mentioned a little bit

[00:34:26] about some of the inflammatory

[00:34:28] language in her messaging

[00:34:29] since this announcement has been

[00:34:30] made. And I

[00:34:33] didn't see this one coming.

[00:34:35] But Mori already said that

[00:34:37] Governor Walz has never contacted

[00:34:38] her during any of this

[00:34:39] prosecution of this case.

[00:34:41] And he's she said that

[00:34:43] she thinks that he was

[00:34:45] going to take it away from her.

[00:34:47] I think it's because I'm a queer

[00:34:48] woman in this role, she told the

[00:34:50] Starchabune.

[00:34:51] I think it's because he looks at

[00:34:52] the political winds and which way

[00:34:54] they're blowing. And I think that

[00:34:56] I think that's what he reacts to,

[00:34:58] which is horrible.

[00:34:59] If we want people to trust this

[00:35:00] system, that's not the way to do

[00:35:02] it.

[00:35:03] She's accusing the governor

[00:35:05] of the state of Minnesota of

[00:35:06] sexism, homophobia.

[00:35:09] Those are some harsh

[00:35:10] inflammatory remarks.

[00:35:13] Yes.

[00:35:14] She has literally

[00:35:18] she's just gassed this entire

[00:35:19] situation.

[00:35:20] And that's the point.

[00:35:21] And I think that we can I

[00:35:23] think that there is fair

[00:35:24] criticism that can be leveled on

[00:35:26] the governor and on his

[00:35:27] administration.

[00:35:28] I do not think that Governor

[00:35:30] Walz's administration in

[00:35:32] any way could be labeled

[00:35:34] in a manner in which that

[00:35:35] she's labeling it.

[00:35:37] I don't think that's the issue.

[00:35:39] I know that we don't get to

[00:35:40] sometimes people get to speak

[00:35:42] their truths and I understand that

[00:35:43] they could do the bottom line

[00:35:44] is I think that's just

[00:35:45] preposterous to think that's

[00:35:46] what's going on here.

[00:35:47] And I think that she's

[00:35:49] responding in a way that

[00:35:51] I think is showing why

[00:35:53] I think she's not a good

[00:35:54] prosecutor, but this is not a

[00:35:56] good role for her.

[00:35:57] And I think that I listen

[00:35:59] to Chris Mattel's

[00:36:01] interview. I listened to her

[00:36:02] interview. I listened to the

[00:36:04] governor's perspective on this.

[00:36:05] I think she is out of step

[00:36:07] with where this state is,

[00:36:09] what the public wants in terms

[00:36:11] of public safety, what they

[00:36:12] were, what the response they

[00:36:13] want there to be from their

[00:36:15] elected officials.

[00:36:16] And I think that

[00:36:19] I also will say to you that in

[00:36:20] Becky, please disagree with me.

[00:36:22] I don't think that she's

[00:36:23] operating how she said

[00:36:25] she wasn't going to operate.

[00:36:26] I think she's doing exactly

[00:36:28] what she said she was going to

[00:36:29] do and voters, this should be

[00:36:30] a lesson that you need to pay

[00:36:31] attention because I think that

[00:36:33] she this is how she planned

[00:36:35] on on governing

[00:36:37] or leading that office if she

[00:36:39] was elected.

[00:36:40] I just don't think it's a

[00:36:40] good fit for her.

[00:36:41] I don't think it I don't think

[00:36:43] I don't think in this day and

[00:36:45] age, I think her how

[00:36:47] she wants to lead in that office

[00:36:49] is out of step with where

[00:36:52] Minnesotans are and where the

[00:36:53] residents of Hennepin County are.

[00:36:55] And again, she's the Hennepin

[00:36:56] County attorney, but she's the

[00:36:57] county attorney for the largest

[00:36:59] county in the state.

[00:37:01] And so the lens of how cases

[00:37:03] are prosecuted, that county

[00:37:05] gets a lot of attention.

[00:37:06] And I think her language is

[00:37:08] incendiary.

[00:37:10] And I think that

[00:37:12] I was very taken aback by

[00:37:14] what she said.

[00:37:15] I want to be sensitive because

[00:37:17] I'm a white dude from the suburbs.

[00:37:19] I don't know it from her

[00:37:20] perspective.

[00:37:21] I look at the walls administration

[00:37:24] and I have a very difficult time

[00:37:26] believing that they're

[00:37:28] not an inclusive

[00:37:30] administration.

[00:37:31] I was taken aback by that.

[00:37:33] It's very surprising rhetoric,

[00:37:35] very surprising language.

[00:37:37] If she truly feels that way,

[00:37:39] there needs to be some

[00:37:40] substantive follow up from

[00:37:42] her to validate why

[00:37:45] she feels that way, because

[00:37:47] how it comes across to me and

[00:37:48] please push back if you think I'm

[00:37:49] wrong.

[00:37:50] I don't think that stuff just

[00:37:52] happens in a vacuum.

[00:37:54] And how it looks to me and

[00:37:55] please challenge me if you

[00:37:56] think I'm wrong.

[00:37:57] How it looks to me is she's

[00:37:58] taking this case.

[00:38:00] She's dropping the charges

[00:38:01] because these this case

[00:38:03] was going to be taken away from

[00:38:04] her, which is what the

[00:38:06] governor's office can do.

[00:38:07] She caught when that was

[00:38:08] going to happen because there

[00:38:10] has now been information

[00:38:11] out there that there were phone

[00:38:12] conversations going on.

[00:38:14] And I think that's where this

[00:38:15] was trending.

[00:38:16] She then dropped all the

[00:38:18] charges.

[00:38:19] She then took ownership of

[00:38:21] the case from a messaging

[00:38:23] standpoint and she was the

[00:38:24] one to deliver why the charges

[00:38:26] in this case were being dropped.

[00:38:28] She is throwing every

[00:38:29] conceivable

[00:38:31] reason as to why this case

[00:38:33] is being charged in there.

[00:38:34] And she is using some

[00:38:35] incredibly powerful language

[00:38:38] about how why she feels it

[00:38:39] happened.

[00:38:40] I am not being dismissive in

[00:38:42] any way of what she's saying.

[00:38:44] I just think that just didn't

[00:38:46] happen overnight.

[00:38:47] And if she is feeling

[00:38:50] as she's quoted, that's a

[00:38:51] very substantive criticism

[00:38:53] to lob towards any elected

[00:38:55] official, but particularly the

[00:38:56] governor, she has a

[00:38:57] responsibility to speak up and

[00:38:59] to provide more context

[00:39:01] and information to explain

[00:39:03] that.

[00:39:04] Am I wrong in that because

[00:39:06] you push back?

[00:39:07] Nope, I completely

[00:39:08] double down, not push back.

[00:39:10] I with you don't want to discount

[00:39:12] anybody's feelings or experiences,

[00:39:14] but this is a really big

[00:39:15] allegation to

[00:39:17] to to lob, like you said, at the

[00:39:19] governor. And so if there is

[00:39:20] something, if there are comments

[00:39:22] or emails or text messages or

[00:39:23] conversations that had that made

[00:39:25] her feel that way, then

[00:39:27] maybe that's a conversation that

[00:39:29] that should be had at least

[00:39:30] between the two offices.

[00:39:31] But if you're saying this in

[00:39:32] public, you got to have a little

[00:39:34] bit to back it up here.

[00:39:35] I think that we've talked

[00:39:37] about this right over the last

[00:39:40] eight or nine months, 10 months.

[00:39:41] It was last July.

[00:39:42] So we've been discussing this.

[00:39:43] The public has been looking at

[00:39:45] this. There has been many

[00:39:46] different situations along

[00:39:48] the way, different incidences,

[00:39:49] different fumbling of this

[00:39:51] case to show

[00:39:53] that this the charges were not

[00:39:55] right to be dropped, that their

[00:39:56] use of force was

[00:39:58] reasonable to the experts

[00:40:00] from the training manuals, all

[00:40:01] of these different things and

[00:40:03] that she was taking a political

[00:40:04] stance in her actions here.

[00:40:06] So it's not like this just

[00:40:08] like you said, it didn't happen

[00:40:09] in a vacuum. It's not like it was

[00:40:10] just stripped from her with no

[00:40:12] reason, with no public

[00:40:14] outcry over the last year.

[00:40:17] It's all been laid out.

[00:40:18] We all understand it.

[00:40:19] So then again, just to have

[00:40:20] this comment, we either need

[00:40:22] a little bit more or you got

[00:40:23] to take that comment back

[00:40:24] because that is just

[00:40:26] really wild and it's

[00:40:28] very clear she's defensive.

[00:40:29] She doesn't actually support

[00:40:30] what she's doing, but she

[00:40:31] knows she had to do it is

[00:40:32] might take final say on

[00:40:34] that situation.

[00:40:35] It's a really harsh comment.

[00:40:36] I think and just and again,

[00:40:38] as we have her quote here,

[00:40:41] I think it's because I'm a

[00:40:42] queer woman in this role.

[00:40:43] Wow. Again,

[00:40:45] I want to strike the balance

[00:40:46] here of I want to make sure

[00:40:48] that and it's something that

[00:40:49] we've talked about a lot, Becky,

[00:40:50] which is we want to make sure

[00:40:51] that we're listening and we're

[00:40:53] having spaces where people can

[00:40:54] talk and have those types of

[00:40:55] discussions simultaneously.

[00:40:57] That is an incredibly

[00:40:59] significant statement for

[00:41:00] the Hennepin County Attorney

[00:41:01] to make the charge of the governor

[00:41:03] that the reason why

[00:41:05] she's being that she's being

[00:41:07] treated the way she is in this

[00:41:09] role by the governor is

[00:41:10] because she's a queer woman.

[00:41:13] That is just a very strong

[00:41:14] statement to make.

[00:41:16] And if she believes that

[00:41:17] supporting evidence to

[00:41:19] why she believes that

[00:41:21] needs to be discussed in the

[00:41:22] public, because that is a

[00:41:23] substantive charge to

[00:41:25] lob at the governor of this

[00:41:26] state or to lob at any

[00:41:28] public official.

[00:41:29] She is in essence saying

[00:41:31] that the governor of this state

[00:41:33] is engaging in bigotry towards

[00:41:34] her and he's treating her

[00:41:37] different. And I just have

[00:41:39] a very difficult time

[00:41:41] from my lens and from my viewpoint

[00:41:43] of a white straight guy from the

[00:41:44] suburbs and how I view the

[00:41:45] Walls administration, the

[00:41:47] Walls, the Leningen

[00:41:47] administration and the entire

[00:41:49] DFL party to think that

[00:41:51] they're that type

[00:41:53] of perspective is actually

[00:41:55] how she feels because in the

[00:41:57] context that's bringing up and

[00:41:58] why it's being brought up is

[00:41:59] is being brought in just at a

[00:42:00] time and when she's losing a

[00:42:01] case. And I have

[00:42:04] a feeling my hunch

[00:42:07] and the reason why I think

[00:42:08] that the reason why I think

[00:42:09] she needs to expand on that

[00:42:10] more is because we need

[00:42:13] to remove the context of this

[00:42:14] case and let's get into some

[00:42:16] incidents. Let's talk a little

[00:42:17] bit about that relationship

[00:42:19] because if you truly feel that

[00:42:20] the governor of the state is

[00:42:21] acting that way, it shouldn't

[00:42:22] just come up as a

[00:42:24] messaging point when you drop

[00:42:26] the charges in a significant

[00:42:27] case. I have a difficult

[00:42:29] time believing it and the

[00:42:30] reason why I'm not saying that

[00:42:32] Mary Marier doesn't feel that

[00:42:34] way. But I think by asking for

[00:42:36] specifics and framing that out

[00:42:38] more and discussing it more,

[00:42:40] I think we'll bring to light

[00:42:42] whether this is what's

[00:42:43] actually going on here. I want

[00:42:45] there to be good respectful

[00:42:47] relationships, working

[00:42:48] relationships and partnerships.

[00:42:50] There does need to be a good

[00:42:51] partnership between the

[00:42:51] governor's office and the

[00:42:52] Hennepin County Attorney's

[00:42:53] office. And if she feels that

[00:42:55] way, that issue needs to be

[00:42:56] resolved. It shouldn't be

[00:42:57] litigated in the context of a

[00:42:59] criminal case where we have a

[00:43:02] person that was shot, that was

[00:43:03] killed and we have a state

[00:43:05] trooper. That's not the arena

[00:43:07] where that should be dealt

[00:43:07] with because we have

[00:43:11] discussed this case very

[00:43:12] responsibly. There is still

[00:43:13] someone that died and there's

[00:43:15] a law enforcement officer that

[00:43:16] took a life. And that is a

[00:43:18] very serious issue. And that

[00:43:20] issue needs to be discussed as

[00:43:22] to why that happened because

[00:43:24] I've watched the video. I've

[00:43:26] seen the case that's been

[00:43:28] presented through the lens of

[00:43:29] the public. I've listened to

[00:43:31] you discuss it, I've listened

[00:43:32] to our guests discuss it. And

[00:43:34] I believe the case was not

[00:43:35] properly charged. Simultaneously

[00:43:38] there is someone that is dead

[00:43:41] and we should be talking about

[00:43:42] that but not in the lens of

[00:43:44] criminal charges. But she's

[00:43:45] just very much complicated

[00:43:47] this issue in a way in which

[00:43:49] I think shows her inability

[00:43:53] to fit well in this role. Am

[00:43:55] I going to get in trouble for

[00:43:56] describing it that way?

[00:43:57] Not at all. I think that's very

[00:43:59] well said. I think it is

[00:44:02] troubling and questionable of

[00:44:03] how this came out. And I'm

[00:44:05] sure we will hear a little bit

[00:44:06] more of it for the record.

[00:44:07] Walls denied the bias played

[00:44:10] into his comments. He was in

[00:44:11] an interview and said,

[00:44:13] that's false. Next question.

[00:44:15] So if there is anything more

[00:44:16] to it, we might hear more.

[00:44:18] But I'm on your side.

[00:44:20] I don't doubt that Mary

[00:44:22] Moriarty has as a queer

[00:44:24] woman probably dealt with

[00:44:25] really sexist, bigoted,

[00:44:28] homophobic comments and

[00:44:30] actions and statements

[00:44:31] against her. I do not doubt

[00:44:32] that. I think everybody

[00:44:34] probably in the LGBTQ community

[00:44:36] can relate to having that.

[00:44:38] I again, straight white woman

[00:44:40] have different

[00:44:41] different experiences in life.

[00:44:43] So I don't want to like you

[00:44:44] said downplay that. But I

[00:44:46] think we've made it clear

[00:44:48] that this is a hard place

[00:44:49] to have that comment made

[00:44:51] without any evidence, without

[00:44:52] anything to back it up.

[00:44:53] When we also should be just

[00:44:55] focusing on the case at hand,

[00:44:56] which you just laid out very

[00:44:58] well. We'll bring it back up

[00:44:59] if there's more to be said and

[00:45:00] more comes from it. But I do

[00:45:02] want to keep us moving and

[00:45:03] into another court case.

[00:45:08] Manson chaos and drama in

[00:45:10] Minnesota court cases this

[00:45:12] week. Like our listeners

[00:45:13] probably are well aware of

[00:45:14] feeding our future scandal

[00:45:15] that has been talked about

[00:45:17] in the news for the better

[00:45:19] part of the last year or

[00:45:21] two here. This week

[00:45:22] there was Monday was supposed

[00:45:24] to be the closing remarks.

[00:45:25] It was the closing remarks in

[00:45:27] this case against seven

[00:45:29] defendants. They're accused of

[00:45:30] fraudulently getting 49 million

[00:45:32] in federal funds intended to

[00:45:34] feed children by vastly inflating

[00:45:35] the number of meals given away at

[00:45:37] 50 locations across the state.

[00:45:39] Prosecutors say they use money

[00:45:40] to buy luxury cars, houses,

[00:45:42] jewelry, some properties, very

[00:45:44] little food. More than five

[00:45:45] dozen other defendants have

[00:45:47] been either charged or

[00:45:48] pleaded guilty or awaiting

[00:45:49] trials. There's all sorts of

[00:45:50] other things going on. But

[00:45:52] what we're going to talk about

[00:45:53] in this case specifically

[00:45:55] yesterday, a Monday morning

[00:45:56] it was announced that over the

[00:45:57] weekend I think on Sunday

[00:45:59] a bag of cash was dropped off at

[00:46:01] one of the jurors homes to her

[00:46:03] father-in-law who was received

[00:46:04] it. There was a promise of

[00:46:06] more if the juror voted to

[00:46:08] voted to acquit. It should be

[00:46:10] noted that this juror who

[00:46:12] this individual was handing a

[00:46:14] bag of cash essentially to

[00:46:16] was the only person of color

[00:46:17] on the jury. She is an Asian

[00:46:19] American. She's 23 years old

[00:46:21] also the youngest on the jury

[00:46:23] as we're told. And there

[00:46:24] was a hundred and twenty-three

[00:46:26] thousand dollars in that gift

[00:46:27] that another juror immediately

[00:46:30] when she got home and was told

[00:46:32] about this or given it

[00:46:33] whatever from her father-in-law

[00:46:34] immediately called 911 called

[00:46:36] the police to report it.

[00:46:37] Wow, have you ever heard of

[00:46:39] anything like this? This is

[00:46:40] like mobs, right? This is

[00:46:43] the back room dealings of

[00:46:46] the mobsters and the mafia

[00:46:47] of paying off jurors

[00:46:49] $123,000 with promises of

[00:46:51] more. What?

[00:46:53] It's it's amazing.

[00:46:55] And you're exactly right.

[00:46:56] I could not believe this.

[00:46:57] I was offline a little bit on

[00:46:58] Monday and when I was is

[00:47:00] catching back up on the news,

[00:47:01] I'm like, am I reading this

[00:47:02] correctly? And this is just

[00:47:03] astounding. The amount of

[00:47:05] money in cash, everything

[00:47:07] you laid out about this is

[00:47:08] just amazing. And it's spot

[00:47:09] on. It's absolutely something

[00:47:11] you would read in a crime

[00:47:13] novel. It's absolutely something

[00:47:14] you would read in crime

[00:47:16] stories that it sounds

[00:47:17] absolutely like a mob type

[00:47:19] in a situation. I will note

[00:47:20] out. I will note out on

[00:47:22] something. I don't remember

[00:47:22] who said it, but someone

[00:47:24] Oh, it was Max with the

[00:47:25] reformer who put out a little

[00:47:27] tweet and said he was

[00:47:29] crossing his fingers at the

[00:47:30] person had a ring doorbell

[00:47:31] camera so they can see this

[00:47:32] type of stuff. I have to say

[00:47:33] to you something and just

[00:47:35] think they think they said

[00:47:36] that she did.

[00:47:37] So on a non criminal front

[00:47:39] this. Did you ever play

[00:47:41] Ding Dong Ditch when you were

[00:47:41] kid? Oh yeah.

[00:47:43] So yes, I played a lot of

[00:47:44] Ding Dong Ditch when I was

[00:47:45] a kid. And I think one of

[00:47:47] the challenges these days

[00:47:49] that kids aren't able to

[00:47:50] experience is ring doorbell

[00:47:53] have just ruined the concept

[00:47:54] of Ding Dong Ditch. I think

[00:47:56] Ding Dong Ditch was fantastic.

[00:47:57] I loved playing it.

[00:47:59] I did it quite extensively,

[00:48:01] got in a lot of trouble doing

[00:48:02] but it totally diminishes.

[00:48:04] I think ring doorbells are

[00:48:05] fantastic and the video

[00:48:07] camera doorbell but it ruins

[00:48:08] that type of stuff. And so

[00:48:09] this is astounding because

[00:48:10] it was just left on the

[00:48:11] front door. It was just

[00:48:12] left out there. And if she

[00:48:14] has a ring camera, this

[00:48:16] is this is unbelievable.

[00:48:17] In the cash, the just the

[00:48:18] cash, the amount of money.

[00:48:20] By the way, can we just

[00:48:21] pause for a second and just

[00:48:23] say kudos to the juror for

[00:48:24] speaking up and doing that?

[00:48:26] What a if you want to have

[00:48:29] faith in the jury process,

[00:48:31] kudos to this juror who has

[00:48:33] an absolute target on their

[00:48:35] back now. Not only does this

[00:48:36] just was this juror targeted

[00:48:38] in terms of the money, but

[00:48:39] I've watched enough mob movies

[00:48:41] to know and you can offer

[00:48:43] this as the legal analyst.

[00:48:44] When you turn down them,

[00:48:45] when you turn down someone's

[00:48:47] bribe, I don't think that

[00:48:49] generally ends well, right?

[00:48:51] That doesn't usually end well.

[00:48:52] And so not only the bravery

[00:48:55] of this person for reporting

[00:48:57] it and doing what she did,

[00:48:59] she has got a very serious.

[00:49:01] I hope that she's I want to be

[00:49:03] careful with my language.

[00:49:04] I hope that she's receiving

[00:49:06] the proper protection,

[00:49:07] surveillance, and then she's

[00:49:08] being monitored because

[00:49:10] this is an incredibly brave

[00:49:11] thing that she did in terms

[00:49:12] of speaking up.

[00:49:14] And what a ridiculous

[00:49:16] situation that we live in

[00:49:18] with this feeding our futures

[00:49:19] and what's gone on here.

[00:49:20] Someone needs to write.

[00:49:22] This needs to be like a Netflix

[00:49:23] series or sometimes because this

[00:49:25] is something I've never seen

[00:49:26] before. This amount of cash.

[00:49:28] And then again, just the juror

[00:49:29] speaking up.

[00:49:30] What would you have done?

[00:49:33] Would like to think I would

[00:49:34] have done the same thing.

[00:49:35] But how as you mentioned,

[00:49:36] how terrifying.

[00:49:38] There's no question you would

[00:49:39] have done the right thing.

[00:49:41] You would have you would

[00:49:42] there's no question you would

[00:49:44] have done the right thing.

[00:49:44] I'm surprised you don't have

[00:49:47] I have done the right thing.

[00:49:48] There's no question.

[00:49:49] I have to.

[00:49:51] Not only the bravery, but like

[00:49:53] when does anybody just have

[00:49:55] one hundred and twenty three

[00:49:56] thousand dollars in front

[00:49:57] of them? I think it's just

[00:49:59] wild and with the promise of

[00:50:00] more. And so

[00:50:02] as this all came out, they had

[00:50:04] to gather up the jurors

[00:50:06] and take them in one by one,

[00:50:07] ask them if anybody has

[00:50:08] contacted them.

[00:50:09] They are not aware why the

[00:50:10] juror who is now dismissed

[00:50:12] from the case.

[00:50:13] They're not aware of what

[00:50:14] happened there.

[00:50:15] But they essentially are now

[00:50:17] sequestered phones removed.

[00:50:19] They're not able to talk to

[00:50:20] anybody about this.

[00:50:20] They showed up at the courthouse

[00:50:23] with the clothes on their back

[00:50:24] and maybe whatever if a bag, a

[00:50:26] personal item, they didn't pack

[00:50:28] clothes. They don't have a toothbrush.

[00:50:29] They had to call their families.

[00:50:30] These are employees who are

[00:50:33] obviously off for the time of

[00:50:34] their jury trial.

[00:50:36] Their parents, they've got

[00:50:37] obligations outside of this

[00:50:39] and for their lives to now be

[00:50:41] sequestered and hunkered down.

[00:50:42] And obviously probably a little

[00:50:44] bit of fearfulness that comes

[00:50:46] from that because they don't know

[00:50:47] all that's going on.

[00:50:48] But they were just asked if

[00:50:49] anybody has contacted them or

[00:50:50] their family has to allow them

[00:50:53] to have alarm bells going off

[00:50:55] in there and had a little bit

[00:50:56] of what that might mean.

[00:50:58] And I just I can only imagine

[00:51:01] this to be that juror.

[00:51:03] They know where you live.

[00:51:04] It's not only like they know

[00:51:05] your name and they contacted

[00:51:06] you, but they showed up at

[00:51:07] your house.

[00:51:09] That's going to be horrifying

[00:51:10] and so that violating.

[00:51:13] Yes. And the brazeness of it

[00:51:15] is just astounding to me.

[00:51:16] The brazeness dropping it off.

[00:51:18] Again, not you want to draw too

[00:51:20] much on the ding dong ditch

[00:51:21] example, but it's you can't just

[00:51:24] drive down someone's street

[00:51:25] anymore and just do things under

[00:51:26] the cover of darkness.

[00:51:27] And I don't think it was done

[00:51:28] under the cover of darkness, just

[00:51:30] the aggressiveness and just

[00:51:31] the that we live in the type

[00:51:33] of state where one hundred and

[00:51:34] twenty thousand dollars

[00:51:36] in cash is just dropped off

[00:51:37] in a gift bag at someone's

[00:51:39] door. Just imagine the type

[00:51:40] of operation. The other thing

[00:51:41] I want to go into in just for

[00:51:42] a second.

[00:51:43] By the way, just for first

[00:51:44] of all, let me just be clear.

[00:51:45] There's no question you would

[00:51:46] have dropped it off.

[00:51:47] Absolutely done the right thing.

[00:51:49] They wouldn't you wouldn't even

[00:51:50] has you probably would have

[00:51:51] counted it to make sure that

[00:51:52] and you would probably would

[00:51:53] have made sure that no one got

[00:51:55] anywhere near that money.

[00:51:56] OK, you would have done

[00:51:57] everything right.

[00:51:58] The question I have is if you

[00:51:59] were been a member of a jury.

[00:52:01] No, I got called up one time

[00:52:02] and I had a call in for

[00:52:04] showed up the first day at

[00:52:05] a call in the next four days

[00:52:07] in the morning to see if my

[00:52:08] group got called and I never

[00:52:10] did.

[00:52:11] I've not been a member of a

[00:52:12] jury. My wife was a member

[00:52:14] of a jury and interestingly

[00:52:15] enough, she was a member of

[00:52:16] jury and they questioned her

[00:52:18] about me when she was before

[00:52:19] she was on the jury.

[00:52:20] I was interesting.

[00:52:21] What I would say to you is I

[00:52:22] don't think they would want you

[00:52:23] or I don't get accepted.

[00:52:26] But let me just be clear.

[00:52:26] You I think you would take it

[00:52:28] very seriously and you would

[00:52:29] be a great juror.

[00:52:30] I would love to.

[00:52:31] You would do a great job.

[00:52:32] I think you would take it so

[00:52:34] seriously.

[00:52:35] By the way, if you haven't

[00:52:36] watched that TV series about

[00:52:37] the jury on Amazon.

[00:52:39] Law and order.

[00:52:40] No.

[00:52:41] Oh no.

[00:52:42] Yes.

[00:52:43] That's absolutely.

[00:52:44] Oh my God.

[00:52:45] One of the best shows ever.

[00:52:46] It is so good.

[00:52:47] It is absolutely so good.

[00:52:48] But let me just say something.

[00:52:49] As I understand the jury

[00:52:50] process from the criminal

[00:52:52] trials that I've observed, is

[00:52:54] that sometimes the jurors' names

[00:52:56] are known.

[00:52:57] And so the question is I'm

[00:52:59] trying to figure out someone

[00:53:01] must have because the jury

[00:53:02] was not sequestered and

[00:53:05] getting the jurors' names,

[00:53:07] someone must have been in the

[00:53:08] courtroom observing this

[00:53:09] because the names I

[00:53:12] having covered some criminal

[00:53:13] trials, the jury process,

[00:53:15] there is a discussion on the

[00:53:17] jurors' names and you get to

[00:53:19] you get an idea as to who they

[00:53:20] are. Sometimes they're not known

[00:53:21] but the prosecutors, there's a

[00:53:24] I think it's called Vordyre.

[00:53:25] Is that the process of

[00:53:26] selecting a juror?

[00:53:27] And so

[00:53:29] some there was one of the

[00:53:30] guests, the point I'm saying

[00:53:31] it took an inter it was a lot

[00:53:33] of steps that needed to be

[00:53:34] taken to find A,

[00:53:35] the juror that you wanted to

[00:53:37] target B, get their contact

[00:53:40] information and then deliver

[00:53:41] information.

[00:53:42] That was a multi step process

[00:53:45] and it's really surprising

[00:53:46] that all of that

[00:53:47] undeveloped in that

[00:53:50] courtroom that was going that

[00:53:51] there were people there

[00:53:51] observing it and it really

[00:53:53] brings up a mob underworld

[00:53:55] approach to going on to this

[00:53:57] case. And it's really, really

[00:53:58] shocking.

[00:53:59] I guess it's really not that

[00:54:00] shocking because of what the

[00:54:01] underlying case is.

[00:54:02] But the fact that someone has

[00:54:03] that amount of money and as you

[00:54:05] articulated more could come

[00:54:07] if they did this.

[00:54:08] It's just shocking.

[00:54:09] It's absolutely shocking.

[00:54:10] As you brought up so there

[00:54:12] was a lot of developments

[00:54:14] in this case and how it's being

[00:54:16] conducted yesterday

[00:54:18] or a Monday evening.

[00:54:19] But as you mentioned, only the

[00:54:20] defendants, the defense and the

[00:54:22] prosecutors know the jury's name

[00:54:24] as this came out, the

[00:54:26] defendants still had their

[00:54:27] cell phones. One did start

[00:54:28] texting immediately.

[00:54:29] The judge froze their cell

[00:54:31] phones. They immediately

[00:54:31] confiscated them.

[00:54:33] They have since gotten us

[00:54:34] there was a search warrant

[00:54:35] issued for the defendants'

[00:54:36] phones where they are now

[00:54:37] going through and seeing if

[00:54:39] there is any evidence,

[00:54:40] text messages, communications,

[00:54:42] that would tie any of the

[00:54:44] defendants to this situation

[00:54:45] because it does. Obviously, it

[00:54:46] would appear that there's some

[00:54:48] benefit to the defendants,

[00:54:50] whether it was they are known

[00:54:51] or not is the real question

[00:54:53] here. So their phones have now

[00:54:54] been confiscated.

[00:54:56] They also did. The judge did

[00:54:58] decide to now detain the

[00:55:00] defendants. They were

[00:55:00] previously released on bond or

[00:55:02] bail and able to show

[00:55:05] up to court after

[00:55:07] sleeping in their own homes.

[00:55:08] They are now being detained

[00:55:09] until this issue is settled.

[00:55:13] Which is a huge move as well.

[00:55:15] Yes, I would not do well in

[00:55:17] this. I wouldn't do well and

[00:55:19] I wouldn't be a good. I wouldn't

[00:55:20] do good in jail because you

[00:55:21] don't have the internet in your

[00:55:22] jail cell. I wouldn't be good

[00:55:24] in a situation where they take

[00:55:25] away your cell phone.

[00:55:27] Yeah, I wouldn't perform

[00:55:28] although I can not have my

[00:55:30] cell phone on and I can

[00:55:31] certainly drift off.

[00:55:33] But that's like my security

[00:55:34] blanket. I have it in my

[00:55:35] cell phone.

[00:55:36] I think for all of us,

[00:55:37] right? You go home. I see

[00:55:39] all of these funny tiktoks

[00:55:41] these days. If you go from

[00:55:42] your day sitting at your medium

[00:55:43] screen while you're playing on

[00:55:44] your small screen to go sitting

[00:55:46] in front of the large screen

[00:55:47] while you're scrolling on your

[00:55:48] small screen.

[00:55:49] To have all of that taken away

[00:55:50] these people know what you get

[00:55:51] done with court for the day.

[00:55:53] You go back to your either

[00:55:54] some of jail cell but the

[00:55:55] jurors go back to their hotel

[00:55:57] room, no computer, no

[00:55:59] phone. It's a different world

[00:56:01] and but what a serious

[00:56:03] and as you said, brazen

[00:56:04] situation that this was

[00:56:06] dropped off ring cameras.

[00:56:07] They know it was a woman in

[00:56:09] a long black dress who was

[00:56:10] driving a Mazda.

[00:56:12] I would argue that they probably

[00:56:14] have a pretty good idea of who

[00:56:15] this individual is that dropped

[00:56:16] it off and are doing some work

[00:56:18] there. I miss that.

[00:56:20] They know they have an idea as

[00:56:21] to who it was. I haven't seen

[00:56:23] that but if they know that it

[00:56:24] has been 24 hours.

[00:56:25] You know, I'm sorry they have

[00:56:26] a description of the woman is

[00:56:28] yes as wearing a long black

[00:56:30] dress and driving a Mazda is

[00:56:31] what I've read.

[00:56:33] My neighbors drive a couple

[00:56:34] of masses. I should drive

[00:56:35] a Mazda.

[00:56:37] Really?

[00:56:38] Yes I do.

[00:56:39] You would be the last person

[00:56:41] that I would think that would

[00:56:43] be part of a mob effort to

[00:56:44] influence the jury.

[00:56:45] I do want to give a shout out

[00:56:46] you mentioned Max and the

[00:56:47] Reformer. Dina Winter on

[00:56:49] Twitter has an incredible

[00:56:51] thread detailing all of this

[00:56:53] that I would like to give a

[00:56:54] little shout out to.

[00:56:55] She is Dina D E

[00:56:57] and a Fay Winter on

[00:56:59] Twitter. It just really goes

[00:57:00] into all of the different

[00:57:02] specifics that have been

[00:57:03] released so far on this.

[00:57:04] She was following along as

[00:57:06] they were deciding whether

[00:57:07] to detain or not and sequester

[00:57:09] or not and FBI being

[00:57:11] involved in getting these phones

[00:57:12] unlocked. And it's been

[00:57:14] watching with bated breath

[00:57:15] because it is a movie in

[00:57:17] writing. This has already been

[00:57:18] a crazy wild case with so

[00:57:20] many millions of dollars

[00:57:22] being misused that we're

[00:57:23] supposed to be going to

[00:57:24] feeding children in Minnesota

[00:57:25] and across the country.

[00:57:26] And there's a lot of money

[00:57:27] at stake. There's a lot of

[00:57:28] individuals who were in have

[00:57:30] been implicated or are yet

[00:57:32] to be implicated in this

[00:57:33] massive multi-million

[00:57:34] dollar scheme.

[00:57:36] A lot of people have a lot

[00:57:37] to lose. And so it's again,

[00:57:40] it's surprising but not

[00:57:41] surprising. I just I've never

[00:57:42] heard of something like this,

[00:57:43] especially so close to it that

[00:57:45] it's here and we've been

[00:57:46] watching this and it's

[00:57:47] pretty bonkers closing

[00:57:48] statements. The attorneys did

[00:57:50] go on with closing statements

[00:57:51] yesterday. There is a lot more

[00:57:53] to come from what will hear

[00:57:54] here. And whether they find

[00:57:57] who was connected to this,

[00:57:58] how it happened and who has

[00:58:01] hundreds of thousands of

[00:58:02] dollars of cash laying

[00:58:03] around.

[00:58:04] This is this story is going

[00:58:05] to keep going.

[00:58:06] Yeah.

[00:58:07] Story is going to keep going

[00:58:08] and it makes me it makes me this

[00:58:09] Ron Rosenbaum who passed away a

[00:58:10] number of years ago. But this

[00:58:12] his holding court is legal

[00:58:13] takes. Man, he'd be going crazy

[00:58:15] about this right now.

[00:58:16] We'll obviously update as we

[00:58:18] know more, which could be

[00:58:19] via next week's episode.

[00:58:20] So stay tuned on that.

[00:58:22] But speaking of millions,

[00:58:24] watch this transition here.

[00:58:25] That's fantastic.

[00:58:27] Justin Jefferson just

[00:58:29] got a contract extended.

[00:58:31] You're the sports ball guy.

[00:58:32] Tell us about it.

[00:58:34] I'm the sports ball guy.

[00:58:35] Yes. I'm very excited about

[00:58:36] it. I was ecstatic about it.

[00:58:38] I'm very curious how that news

[00:58:41] the reaction in your household

[00:58:42] to that news as our listeners

[00:58:43] know you run a

[00:58:45] you are a pro packers household.

[00:58:47] And so very nice of you to

[00:58:49] allow this to be on the as a

[00:58:51] person who does a lot of the

[00:58:52] partnership and planning the

[00:58:54] shows. It's very nice of you

[00:58:55] to accommodate a little pro

[00:58:57] Vikings. I'm excited about it.

[00:58:58] It would have been devastating

[00:59:00] if he lost.

[00:59:01] We lost him. He's here.

[00:59:02] I like the JJ and the JJ.

[00:59:04] I think it's our this is

[00:59:06] just fantastic news.

[00:59:07] It's well deserving.

[00:59:08] He's a tremendous asset.

[00:59:09] I can't believe I couldn't imagine

[00:59:11] what would have happened if you

[00:59:12] would have lost.

[00:59:13] But I am just really curious

[00:59:15] just other reactions in your

[00:59:17] household about this.

[00:59:18] I know you speak for yourself,

[00:59:19] but I just want our listeners to

[00:59:21] know that you're pro packer

[00:59:22] household. I have to believe

[00:59:24] that there was some

[00:59:25] frustrations maybe by some

[00:59:26] members of your house.

[00:59:27] I would say frustrations and

[00:59:30] that were not your son.

[00:59:31] Let's be clear. Not your son.

[00:59:33] No, the frustrations of the

[00:59:34] husband were shown to

[00:59:36] me by my question

[00:59:38] being dismissed when he when I

[00:59:39] got home from work.

[00:59:40] I said, how about the JJ

[00:59:42] contract?

[00:59:43] And he looked at me and walked

[00:59:44] into the other room.

[00:59:46] We're doing finger dancing.

[00:59:48] Oh, yeah, that's great.

[00:59:49] Got to pay 140

[00:59:51] million for your contract

[00:59:52] extension. 89 million

[00:59:54] guaranteed.

[00:59:55] He is the highest paid

[00:59:56] non quarterback in the league.

[00:59:59] I think it's I think it's

[01:00:00] absolutely fantastic that we

[01:00:01] have him. I'm excited.

[01:00:03] I think it's going to be

[01:00:03] interesting to see what the

[01:00:04] Vikings do this year.

[01:00:06] I'm not I don't know how they're

[01:00:07] going to do this year, how

[01:00:08] they're going to be.

[01:00:09] What's going to happen with them?

[01:00:10] We'll see. But I'm very excited

[01:00:12] that JJ is a part of this

[01:00:14] franchise going forward

[01:00:15] deserve.

[01:00:16] I'm interested in the other JJ

[01:00:17] throwing him some passes.

[01:00:19] It's just it's great.

[01:00:20] It's good news. And I think

[01:00:21] it's going to be real.

[01:00:23] The real fight for me is going

[01:00:24] to be what does this mean for

[01:00:25] the Packers?

[01:00:26] I had very similar conversations

[01:00:28] with my wife. My wife is a

[01:00:29] Packers fan.

[01:00:30] And of course your husband is

[01:00:31] a Packers fan. So a little

[01:00:33] bit of mixed households in

[01:00:34] response to this.

[01:00:35] But I but again, I'm excited

[01:00:37] for it and I appreciate you

[01:00:39] allowing this to be discussed

[01:00:40] as we continue to go through.

[01:00:41] This is going to be interesting

[01:00:43] for you because of football.

[01:00:44] We decide to still do the

[01:00:45] breakdown football.

[01:00:47] JJ might be part of that

[01:00:48] equation in some way.

[01:00:50] Go. I like it.

[01:00:51] I was just going to say it's

[01:00:52] plus it's a nice to end the

[01:00:53] show. It's pretty depressing

[01:00:54] episode so far.

[01:00:56] The show is going to get a

[01:00:57] lot better for you because

[01:00:58] and you're not aware of

[01:00:59] this unbeknownst to our

[01:01:00] listeners there's been some

[01:01:01] tactical issues that we've

[01:01:02] been having on the breakdown

[01:01:03] with Brock and Rebecca over

[01:01:03] the last week or so that have

[01:01:05] largely been assigned to Becky.

[01:01:06] But halfway during the show,

[01:01:08] your esteemed co-host figured

[01:01:10] out it was on his end.

[01:01:11] And I want to apologize to

[01:01:13] Becky for any

[01:01:15] in any situation that was

[01:01:16] made towards me. It was

[01:01:17] completely on my end.

[01:01:18] No way.

[01:01:19] Yes. So here's the deal.

[01:01:21] I just got a new monitor

[01:01:22] and some set up stuff.

[01:01:23] And I had you notice

[01:01:25] how we're not having any

[01:01:26] issues anymore?

[01:01:28] I figured it out.

[01:01:29] And I absolutely

[01:01:30] could not being the type

[01:01:32] of person I am.

[01:01:33] There's no way I could have

[01:01:34] not said that on air.

[01:01:36] I want to extend a sincere

[01:01:37] apology to you

[01:01:39] for any implication that it was

[01:01:40] your internet or something else.

[01:01:42] We know almost there was no

[01:01:43] finger pointing, but I just

[01:01:45] wanted to accept complete

[01:01:46] ownership that I figured it

[01:01:47] out in this episode.

[01:01:49] And that's why we haven't had

[01:01:50] any glitches remaining.

[01:01:51] It was completely and utterly

[01:01:52] my fault.

[01:01:54] I will accept full

[01:01:54] responsibility and I want to

[01:01:56] apologize unconditionally

[01:01:58] to your household for

[01:02:00] any questions about your

[01:02:01] internet. Your internet is

[01:02:02] perfect. It's running

[01:02:03] smoothly.

[01:02:04] It was all a user error on this

[01:02:05] end, which is very kind of you.

[01:02:07] And I'm sure the great people

[01:02:09] at Xfinity are glad that you

[01:02:11] also shared so I did not give

[01:02:13] them an earful about my new

[01:02:14] router that I just installed.

[01:02:16] So thank you for that.

[01:02:18] Reactions great.

[01:02:19] Your reaction was great.

[01:02:20] You were not you were not

[01:02:21] surprised by that.

[01:02:22] Yes. Yeah. No, it's totally

[01:02:23] on mine. I totally figured out.

[01:02:25] I feel like such a horse

[01:02:26] is that I'm so sorry.

[01:02:27] But I totally figured out.

[01:02:28] So we're great races.

[01:02:29] Ready to go.

[01:02:31] Bringing in another episode here

[01:02:32] in the next couple of days.

[01:02:33] All right. Thank you, Becky.

[01:02:34] Thank you.

[01:02:37] We want to thank you for

[01:02:38] listening to the breakdown with

[01:02:39] Broadcom and Becky before we

[01:02:41] go show some love for your

[01:02:42] favorite podcast by leaving us

[01:02:44] review on Apple podcasts or

[01:02:46] on the platform where you

[01:02:47] listen. You can leave a review

[01:02:48] or give us a shout out on our

[01:02:50] website or across all social

[01:02:52] media platforms at

[01:02:53] BB Breakpod.

[01:02:55] The breakdown with Broadcom

[01:02:56] and Becky will return next

[01:02:57] week. Thank you again for

[01:02:58] listening.