>> ERIC: WE NOW MOVE FROM TODAY'S BIGGEST MINNESOTA STORY TO NATIONAL NEWS THAT IS DOMINATING HEADLINES AND NEWSCASTS.

THE DECISION TO INDICT DONALD TRUMP IN CONNECTION WITH HUSH MONEY PAID TO AN ADULT FILM STAR.

THE STORY REPRESENTS A COLLISION BETWEEN THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL WORLDS.

JOINING US NOW IS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS BOTH REALMS.

DAVID SCHULTZ TEACHES POLITICS AT HAMLINE UNIVERSITY AND IS A PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.

IS THIS A COVER-UP CASE, BASICALLY?

>> IT IS A COVER-UP ASE, IN SOME SENSE.

I DON'T WANT TO QUITE SAY THE CLASSIC SORT F PROBLEM HERE, IT'S NOT THE DEED BUT IT'S THE COVER-UP.

BUT IN SOME SENSE IT'S THE COVER-UP THAT'S AT ISSUE HERE.

BUT WHAT MAKES THIS A VERY COMPLEX CASE IS THAT IT INVOLVES BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.

THE ARGUMENT IS IS THAT TRUMP, THROUGH MICHAEL COHEN, YOU KNOW, HIS ATTORNEY, TRIED TO PAY MONEY TO STORMIE DANIELS SO THAT SHE WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT THEIR ALLEGED AFFAIR DURING THE 2016 RACE.

THE CLAIM IS THAT'S A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS, WAS NOT DISCLOSED.

AND WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IF THAT IS -- IF THAT IS A CRIME, WHAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK IS NOW ARGUING, THIS IS A PRIOR AD ACT WHICH WAS COVERED UP UNDER NEW YORK STATE FRAUD AW.

OKAY.

BASICALLY TRIED TO COVER IT UP.

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THEY MOVED THE FRAUD CASE FROM BEING A MISDEMEANOR TO A FELONY.

THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY COMPLEX CASE.

AND IT'S FRAUGHT WITH ALL TYPES OF -- LIKE FROM A LEGAL THEORY POINT OF VIEW, COMPLEX PROBLEMS.

>> Cathy: WAS THIS, THOUGH, -- IS THIS, THOUGH, MAYBE THE WEAKEST AND THE LEAST IMPORTANT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS FACING THE FORMER PRESIDENT?

>> POSSIBLY YES.

I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU NEVER SORT OF WANT TO SAY THAT PAYING OFF HUSH MONEY TO SOMEBODY ISN'T A SERIOUS ISSUE.

I DON'T WANT TO SORT OF DO THAT.

BUT WHEN WE START TO THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE COMPLEXITIES, SOME OF THE LEGAL PROBLEMS FOR THE OTHER ONES, WE HAVE THE GEORGIA CASE, WHICH IS REGARDING PERHAPS EFFORTS TO TRY TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION THERE.

WE'VE GOT THE JANUARY 6th COMMISSION REPORT.

WE ALSO HAVE THE MARL LARGO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

AND PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT IT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK IS LOOKING AT HIM FOR TAX FRAUD.

IF WE CAN RANK THEM, THOSE ARE ALL FAR SERIOUS.

THE OTHER THING I CAN SAY ABOUT THE CASE IN NEW YORK, MICHAEL COHEN, STORMIE DANIELS, DONALD TRUMP, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT BOY SCOUT BEHAVIOR HERE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE UNDERLYING ACT IS NOT GOOD.

WE'RE LOOKING T HERE.

THE OTHER THING IS, THIS IS NEW YORK CITY POLITICS PLAYING ITSELF OUT ON THE NATIONAL STAGE.

>> Eric: WELL, ON THAT NOTE, THE D.A.

IS ALVIN BRAGG, REPUBLICANS SAY HE'S A PARTISAN, REPUBLICANS SAY THAT HE IS WEAPONIZING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THOSE CLAIMS?

>> WELL, WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT NEXT WEEK, ON TUESDAY, WE BELIEVE, THAT TRUMP'S GOING TO BE ARRAIGNED.

AND THE JUDGE IS INDEPENDENT.

I MEAN, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING ARRAIGNMENTS IS FOR THE JUDGE TO LOOK AT IT AND DECIDE CAN THE CASE GO FORWARD, FOR DONALD TRUMP TO PLEAD, O FORTH.

AGAIN, WE'LL FIND OUT.

AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE AN INVESTIGATION THAT'S CARRIED OVER FROM AT LEAST A OUPLE OF DIFFERENT ROSECUTORS IN NEW YORK, AND IT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF HARD TO SORT OF MAKE THE ARGUMENT, SAY, THERE'S BEEN THIS BIG, LARGE CONSPIRACY AGAINST DONALD TRUMP THAT'S BEEN SORT OF BEEN PUSHED BY SEVERAL PROSECUTORS.

>> Cathy: CAN THE FORMER PRESIDENT STILL RUN EVEN IF HE ENDS UP EING CONVICTED AND IN JAIL, CAN HE STILL RUN?

>> YES, YOU CAN.

FIRST OFF, REMEMBER, FIRST OFF, WE HAVE A PRESUMPTION IN OUR SOCIETY OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

HE CAN, OF COURSE, RUN.

BUT LET'S SAY HE'S CONVICTED.

CAN HE STILL RUN?

THE ANSWER IS YES.

OUR BEST HISTORICAL EXAMPLE IS IN 1912, EUGENE V DEBBS WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SOCIALIST, HE WAS IN A FEDERAL PENT, HE RAN.

AND -- PENITENTIARY, HE RAN.

AND I BELIEVE ALSO, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, NGELA DAVIS, WHO RAN FOR PRESIDENT BACK IN THE LATE '60s, EARLY '70s, SHE MIGHT HAVE ALSO BEEN CONVICTED OF SOME CRIMES.

BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER.

>> Eric: LYNDON LAROUSCHE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE.

SO, YES, BUT THE QUESTION IS, AND THIS TAKES US INTO LALA LAND NOW.

I MEAN THIS, BECAUSE I TALK O MY LAW STUDENTS ABOUT THIS, WHAT IF HE'S CONVICTED, CAN HE STILL SERVE AS PRESIDENT IF HE'S CONVICTED OF A CRIME?

THE INTUITIVELY CORRECT ANSWER IS O.

HOWEVER, THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON THAT.

IT SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT TO E 35.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE A U.S. CITIZEN, NATIVE BORN, BE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR 14 YEARS.

WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THIS.

INTUITIVELY, YOU WOULD SAY NO.

YOU WOULD HOPE, EVEN IF IT'S NOT TRUMP, IT'S ANYBODY WHO'S A PRESIDENT WHO'S CONVICTED OF A FELONY, YOU WOULD HOPE THE PROCESS, IMPEACHMENT WOULD ACTUALLY KICK IN AT THAT POINT.

>> Eric: IF IT GETS TO TRIAL, CAN THEY FIND A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY?

>> THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY DIFFICULT TO DO.

AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME, THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE SAW WITH THE DEREK CHAUVIN TRIAL, THE OTHER ISSUE OF IS THE JOB OF JURIES IS TO ASSESS CREDIBILITY, WHO TO BELIEVE.

A LOT OF THIS IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO, WHO DO WE BELIEVE.

STORMIE DANIELS, MICHAEL COHEN, DONALD TRUMP.

THIS IS GOING TO BE THE TASK FOR THE JURORS, WHO'S TELLING THE TRUTH, WHO'S LYING.

>> Eric: STAY BY YOUR PHONE.