And the Welcome back to the show everybody joined again by Tim Parlatory Esquire who is going to give us his expert legal opinion on the recent Trump verdict.

Brother, thank you so much for joining us, really appreciate it.

Of course.

But let's, we'll jump right in.

So, uh, and you said you might have some differing opinions

from what we've been hearing.

And I welcome that because not being a a lawyer not being a legal scholar.

I'm just a you know it right now the internet is is just as full of legal experts

as it was full of infectious disease experts a few years ago.

So I and I'm not an expert so let's start at the beginning. So lots of talk about the actual charges.

Were they legitimate charges? Were they not legitimate charges? Were they resurrecting misdemeanors that had already reached the statute of limitations?

So if you can summarize, what were the charges and was, did they go about it the right way? What's your opinion on that?

Sure. The charges here it's a false falsified business records which is an

ordinarily misdemeanor but it elevates up to a felony if you can show that the business records were falsified for some specific purpose, like to conceal another crime or to further another crime to commit fraud, something like that.

And so that's what they tried to allege here.

It is something that they do charge things like that.

They don't charge them ordinarily as a standalone.

It's usually kind of a lesser offense of where they'll charge the actual fraud and then they'll charge the

falsification of business records as part of that fraud. But just simply having

falsification of business records on its own is a very weird thing in this case and then to have it where

they're not really identifying you know what the target offense is that they were doing that

gets you know that that get very weird.

...