1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:03,200
Speaker 1: Five years ago, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. Were

2
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:06,479
Speaker 1: in danger of being indicted. That's according to a fascinating

3
00:00:06,480 --> 00:00:09,240
Speaker 1: new article published in a joint effort by Pro Publica,

4
00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:12,360
Speaker 1: w n y C and The New Yorker. According to

5
00:00:12,400 --> 00:00:15,240
Speaker 1: the story, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office was building a

6
00:00:15,280 --> 00:00:19,239
Speaker 1: case against the two for misleading prospective buyers of units

7
00:00:19,280 --> 00:00:23,160
Speaker 1: in the new Trump Soho Hotel and Kindo development. Then

8
00:00:23,239 --> 00:00:27,440
Speaker 1: something unusual happened. Donald Trump Seniors personal attorney Mark Cassawitz

9
00:00:27,480 --> 00:00:30,520
Speaker 1: got involved. He was a campaign contributor to District Attorney

10
00:00:30,600 --> 00:00:34,840
Speaker 1: Sirates Fans Jr. And Cassawitz went directly to Vance. Three

11
00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:37,720
Speaker 1: months later, the story says, Vance told his prosecutors to

12
00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:40,360
Speaker 1: drop the case with us to talk more about the story.

13
00:00:40,440 --> 00:00:43,400
Speaker 1: Is one of the journalists behind it, Justin Elliott's reporter

14
00:00:43,760 --> 00:00:46,920
Speaker 1: for Pro Publica and Shawn O'Shea. He's a partner at

15
00:00:46,960 --> 00:00:49,080
Speaker 1: boy schill Or Flexner and the former chief of the

16
00:00:49,120 --> 00:00:52,000
Speaker 1: Business and Securities Fraud Section in the U. S. Attorney's

17
00:00:52,040 --> 00:00:55,280
Speaker 1: Office for the Eastern District of New York. Thanks to

18
00:00:55,360 --> 00:00:57,920
Speaker 1: both of you for joining us, Um Justin, before we

19
00:00:57,960 --> 00:01:01,520
Speaker 1: get into the Cassawitz Vance interaction. Tell us more about

20
00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:05,839
Speaker 1: the allegations. What was it that Ivanka and Donald Trump

21
00:01:05,959 --> 00:01:10,440
Speaker 1: Junior might have been indicted for sure? So this case

22
00:01:10,520 --> 00:01:14,319
Speaker 1: centered on a Trump building, the Trump Soho, which is

23
00:01:14,360 --> 00:01:20,600
Speaker 1: a hybrid hotel condo tower UM in downtown Manhattan. Uh

24
00:01:20,680 --> 00:01:24,319
Speaker 1: and um that the Trumps uh were had an equity

25
00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:27,080
Speaker 1: stake in this building and also a licensing deal obviously

26
00:01:27,360 --> 00:01:30,800
Speaker 1: had their name UM. But the building Uh they started

27
00:01:30,800 --> 00:01:33,880
Speaker 1: selling units UM back in two thousand seven rights the

28
00:01:33,959 --> 00:01:39,040
Speaker 1: financial crisis was hitting. And these were also not normal apartments.

29
00:01:39,120 --> 00:01:41,880
Speaker 1: They were this sort of strange hybrid where if you

30
00:01:41,959 --> 00:01:44,600
Speaker 1: bought a unit, you actually only had the right to

31
00:01:44,680 --> 00:01:47,240
Speaker 1: stay in at a hundred and twenty nights a year. Uh.

32
00:01:47,360 --> 00:01:49,279
Speaker 1: So they were having a lot of trouble selling these

33
00:01:49,440 --> 00:01:53,640
Speaker 1: and um Avanca and also Donald Jr. Made a series

34
00:01:53,680 --> 00:01:56,560
Speaker 1: of public statements about how well they were selling, uh,

35
00:01:56,680 --> 00:02:01,160
Speaker 1: saying that they sold fifty percent sixty UM. Turned out

36
00:02:01,560 --> 00:02:05,640
Speaker 1: those statements were false. Uh you know the building by

37
00:02:06,520 --> 00:02:11,480
Speaker 1: had only SOLDI and UM. Several buyers actually filed a

38
00:02:11,520 --> 00:02:15,440
Speaker 1: separate civil suit over these these inflated statements about how

39
00:02:15,480 --> 00:02:19,639
Speaker 1: well the building was selling, essentially arguing that uh, you know,

40
00:02:20,280 --> 00:02:23,440
Speaker 1: these statements had led them to believe that what they

41
00:02:23,440 --> 00:02:26,480
Speaker 1: were buying was more valuable than it actually was. UM.

42
00:02:26,600 --> 00:02:31,000
Speaker 1: And after they sued UH, the district attorney UH started

43
00:02:31,000 --> 00:02:33,520
Speaker 1: looking into the same issue, and then the charge would

44
00:02:33,520 --> 00:02:36,360
Speaker 1: have been fraud. And before we move over to Sean,

45
00:02:36,440 --> 00:02:38,160
Speaker 1: just tell us briefly if you can what you can

46
00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:40,800
Speaker 1: about the sourcing for the article. You talked to a

47
00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:43,120
Speaker 1: lot of people, and there are some emails involved. Tell us,

48
00:02:43,120 --> 00:02:46,160
Speaker 1: tell us what you based the story on. Sure, So

49
00:02:46,639 --> 00:02:49,480
Speaker 1: we talked to over twenty people with knowledge of the case.

50
00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:53,680
Speaker 1: We use public public records, campaign finance records, UM and UH.

51
00:02:53,880 --> 00:02:56,280
Speaker 1: Some of some of the people we grant an enemity,

52
00:02:56,400 --> 00:02:59,519
Speaker 1: but UM we also quote people on the record, including

53
00:03:00,320 --> 00:03:03,040
Speaker 1: an attorney who is actually on the defense team on

54
00:03:03,080 --> 00:03:07,400
Speaker 1: the Trump side, Paul Grant. UH. So UM UH you know,

55
00:03:07,440 --> 00:03:09,959
Speaker 1: we spent a couple of months on this, and and

56
00:03:10,040 --> 00:03:12,520
Speaker 1: we also interviewed Say Vans and UH and reached out

57
00:03:12,520 --> 00:03:16,840
Speaker 1: to Mark Casuits and and UM vance Uh didn't dispute

58
00:03:16,840 --> 00:03:18,799
Speaker 1: any of the any of the facts in the story.

59
00:03:19,320 --> 00:03:22,600
Speaker 1: He did UM say that he doesn't believe he did

60
00:03:22,639 --> 00:03:24,840
Speaker 1: anything wrong here and he made the right call and

61
00:03:24,919 --> 00:03:28,760
Speaker 1: deciding not to indict. We'll talk more about Cyrus Fans Jr.

62
00:03:28,760 --> 00:03:31,480
Speaker 1: In a moment. Sean Um tell us from your perspective

63
00:03:31,480 --> 00:03:35,120
Speaker 1: as a former prosecutor and and a private attorney a

64
00:03:35,200 --> 00:03:38,040
Speaker 1: case like this, how easy or difficult would it have

65
00:03:38,200 --> 00:03:41,080
Speaker 1: been for for prosecutors to to prove something like this?

66
00:03:41,240 --> 00:03:43,560
Speaker 1: And maybe to refine the question a little bit, what's

67
00:03:43,600 --> 00:03:45,960
Speaker 1: the difference in the case like this between uh, mere

68
00:03:46,040 --> 00:03:50,520
Speaker 1: puffery and actual fraud committed by by somebody. Well, I

69
00:03:50,520 --> 00:03:53,720
Speaker 1: think the question is whether the statements about rate of

70
00:03:53,760 --> 00:03:58,160
Speaker 1: sale are material to a buying decision. And you know,

71
00:03:58,360 --> 00:04:01,320
Speaker 1: prosecutors and I know when I was heading up the

72
00:04:01,360 --> 00:04:05,760
Speaker 1: fraud unit the attorney's office, they're very skeptical generally of

73
00:04:06,400 --> 00:04:09,119
Speaker 1: cases taking on cases where there's already a civil case

74
00:04:09,160 --> 00:04:13,839
Speaker 1: pending um. And this case would have been even if

75
00:04:15,040 --> 00:04:17,280
Speaker 1: even if the fact I mean, it seems like the

76
00:04:17,520 --> 00:04:20,520
Speaker 1: rate of sale alone would not be something that would

77
00:04:20,520 --> 00:04:23,880
Speaker 1: impress me as a prosecutor. Uh, in a fraud case,

78
00:04:24,320 --> 00:04:28,000
Speaker 1: it would lend itself more on the on the end

79
00:04:28,040 --> 00:04:30,440
Speaker 1: of puffery. But I don't I have to say, I

80
00:04:30,440 --> 00:04:32,440
Speaker 1: don't know all the facts of the case. So, but

81
00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:34,839
Speaker 1: just that fact alone would not be very impressive to

82
00:04:34,839 --> 00:04:37,479
Speaker 1: me as as a prosecutor. So one thing the story

83
00:04:37,560 --> 00:04:41,280
Speaker 1: says is that there was a civil settlements with the

84
00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:47,360
Speaker 1: perspective buyers in which they agreed not to cooperate with

85
00:04:48,000 --> 00:04:52,000
Speaker 1: criminal prosecutors unless they were subpoena. Is that we only

86
00:04:52,000 --> 00:04:53,680
Speaker 1: have about thirty seconds here, But I'm wondering, is that

87
00:04:53,720 --> 00:04:55,360
Speaker 1: the sort of thing that that if you were in

88
00:04:55,400 --> 00:04:58,520
Speaker 1: the prosecutor's office, would make you considerably less likely to

89
00:04:58,760 --> 00:05:02,960
Speaker 1: press the case? Not necessarily, but I was a federal prosecutor.

90
00:05:02,960 --> 00:05:05,560
Speaker 1: I think in the in the state it might, but

91
00:05:05,720 --> 00:05:09,080
Speaker 1: not on a federal side. We're talking about the news

92
00:05:09,160 --> 00:05:12,480
Speaker 1: story published by Pro Publica, w NSC and The New

93
00:05:12,520 --> 00:05:15,440
Speaker 1: Yorker that says that Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Junior

94
00:05:15,800 --> 00:05:18,880
Speaker 1: five years ago were in danger of being indicted. That

95
00:05:19,000 --> 00:05:22,480
Speaker 1: was until there was a meeting between Donald Trump seniors

96
00:05:22,800 --> 00:05:26,960
Speaker 1: personal lawyer Mark Cassowitz and New York District Attorney Cyrus

97
00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:30,480
Speaker 1: Vans Jr. Our guests are Justin Elliott, reporter a Pro Publica,

98
00:05:30,520 --> 00:05:32,320
Speaker 1: who is one of the reporters who broke the story,

99
00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:34,760
Speaker 1: and Shawn O'shay, who is the former chief of the

100
00:05:34,760 --> 00:05:37,320
Speaker 1: Business and Securities Fraud Section in the U s Attorney's

101
00:05:37,360 --> 00:05:40,840
Speaker 1: office in the Eastern District of New York. Uh, justin

102
00:05:41,240 --> 00:05:45,640
Speaker 1: tell us about this meeting between Mark Cassowitz and Cyrus

103
00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:52,080
Speaker 1: Vans Junior and what about it struck you as unusual? Sure,

104
00:05:52,160 --> 00:05:54,880
Speaker 1: so this investigation by the Manhattan d A had had

105
00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:58,080
Speaker 1: started in two dozen tens. You mentioned earlier that the

106
00:05:58,160 --> 00:06:04,000
Speaker 1: Trump side had um hired defense team of prominent, prominent attorneys,

107
00:06:04,400 --> 00:06:07,080
Speaker 1: uh not not including Mark Casuits. And and they've been

108
00:06:07,800 --> 00:06:10,599
Speaker 1: trying to convince prosecution in the d a's office, uh

109
00:06:10,720 --> 00:06:14,279
Speaker 1: not not to seek an indictment in this case. Uh,

110
00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:20,440
Speaker 1: the main defense attorney's arguments uh hadn't been working. And UM,

111
00:06:20,600 --> 00:06:25,039
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Senior was frustrated with the progress of of

112
00:06:25,040 --> 00:06:29,040
Speaker 1: of the defense UM. And so Mark Casuitz was called in.

113
00:06:29,279 --> 00:06:33,239
Speaker 1: People Uh you know probably remember Casuits coming a national

114
00:06:33,240 --> 00:06:36,400
Speaker 1: prominence this year when he, uh for a while anyways,

115
00:06:36,440 --> 00:06:42,080
Speaker 1: was serving as President Trump's outside council on the Russia investigation. UM.

116
00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:45,320
Speaker 1: But he he's represented Trump in a number of matters

117
00:06:45,360 --> 00:06:48,080
Speaker 1: going back to the early two thousands. UM. But he's

118
00:06:48,120 --> 00:06:51,080
Speaker 1: primarily a civil litigator. He doesn't do a lot of

119
00:06:51,080 --> 00:06:54,320
Speaker 1: criminal cases, so this was unusual for him. UM. So

120
00:06:54,720 --> 00:06:58,520
Speaker 1: Caswits comes in requests and gets a meeting with Vance,

121
00:06:58,960 --> 00:07:02,240
Speaker 1: um and and Vances. But he knew because as you mentioned,

122
00:07:02,680 --> 00:07:05,920
Speaker 1: UH he had. Casuits had given Vance a denoce donation

123
00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:09,560
Speaker 1: of dollars earlier that year, which made him one of

124
00:07:09,640 --> 00:07:15,560
Speaker 1: Vance's biggest single donors. UM. Vance returned that donation just

125
00:07:15,600 --> 00:07:19,360
Speaker 1: before the meeting. The office apparently has a policy to

126
00:07:19,480 --> 00:07:23,840
Speaker 1: return donations when um, somebody becomes involved in a case. Uh,

127
00:07:24,040 --> 00:07:27,440
Speaker 1: they have the meeting. UM. A few months later, Vance

128
00:07:28,000 --> 00:07:31,160
Speaker 1: makes the call to to not pursue the case. UM

129
00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:35,240
Speaker 1: and then uh a month after the case is dropped,

130
00:07:35,280 --> 00:07:39,360
Speaker 1: Casuits then reaches out to Vance's campaign and says, I

131
00:07:39,400 --> 00:07:42,480
Speaker 1: want to host a fundraiser for you. UM, So that

132
00:07:42,560 --> 00:07:46,440
Speaker 1: happens a few months later. Casuits then gives h over

133
00:07:46,560 --> 00:07:50,559
Speaker 1: thirty dollars and a bunch of his other partners also

134
00:07:50,640 --> 00:07:53,680
Speaker 1: donate to Vans um and Uh. He then holds another

135
00:07:53,720 --> 00:07:57,240
Speaker 1: fundraiser and and that money was not returned until we

136
00:07:57,320 --> 00:07:59,800
Speaker 1: started reporting the story and went to the d a's office,

137
00:07:59,840 --> 00:08:03,800
Speaker 1: and UH they told us that now four years, four

138
00:08:03,840 --> 00:08:06,840
Speaker 1: or five years later, they're gonna be returning the subsequent donations.

139
00:08:06,880 --> 00:08:08,920
Speaker 1: So you know, I think This is striking to us,

140
00:08:08,960 --> 00:08:13,240
Speaker 1: just the pattern of donation and return and then donation again. Uh,

141
00:08:13,560 --> 00:08:17,320
Speaker 1: in the middle of this, of this potential prosecution, Uh,

142
00:08:17,520 --> 00:08:20,000
Speaker 1: seemed striking, And in fact it was striking even to

143
00:08:20,120 --> 00:08:24,800
Speaker 1: the other attorneys on Trump's defense team. One of them, well,

144
00:08:24,880 --> 00:08:27,000
Speaker 1: let me, well, let me ask Sean with how striking

145
00:08:27,040 --> 00:08:29,400
Speaker 1: he found it. Sean, from your standpoint, of course, you

146
00:08:29,400 --> 00:08:32,600
Speaker 1: were in a different system, the federal system. Um, how

147
00:08:32,679 --> 00:08:36,559
Speaker 1: unusual is this sort of a meeting. It's not unusual

148
00:08:36,600 --> 00:08:38,679
Speaker 1: at all, either on the federal side of the state side.

149
00:08:38,679 --> 00:08:41,640
Speaker 1: It sounds like this is a difference in tactics. I

150
00:08:41,640 --> 00:08:44,400
Speaker 1: wouldn't be surprised if Gary nft Allis and Paul Grant,

151
00:08:44,440 --> 00:08:46,520
Speaker 1: who by the way, are very prominent attorneys on their

152
00:08:46,520 --> 00:08:50,880
Speaker 1: own right, also didn't give to the Sivance campaign. I

153
00:08:50,960 --> 00:08:54,320
Speaker 1: think it's pretty common for firms, particularly large firms around

154
00:08:54,360 --> 00:08:57,520
Speaker 1: the city to support particularly Saivance. He's very well regarded,

155
00:08:57,600 --> 00:09:02,560
Speaker 1: very prominent in his own right, very ethnically, Uh, you know,

156
00:09:02,679 --> 00:09:07,000
Speaker 1: stands in high repute um on all levels. It sounds

157
00:09:07,000 --> 00:09:10,400
Speaker 1: like it's just a difference in in in strategy that

158
00:09:11,400 --> 00:09:16,640
Speaker 1: Paul and Gary decided not to go to the top

159
00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:22,000
Speaker 1: and UM and Marc Haswitch did. Um. But the fact

160
00:09:22,080 --> 00:09:28,120
Speaker 1: of donations, Um, that's not unusual. Um, it's it's a

161
00:09:28,120 --> 00:09:30,800
Speaker 1: little unusual and and maybe borne out of his high

162
00:09:30,800 --> 00:09:35,559
Speaker 1: sense of ethical propriety that Civance would return these, because

163
00:09:35,559 --> 00:09:37,960
Speaker 1: I don't think that's required under the law or statute.

164
00:09:38,360 --> 00:09:41,760
Speaker 1: So this strikes me as just a difference in tactic

165
00:09:42,320 --> 00:09:47,199
Speaker 1: more than an ethical failing on anybody's part. Justin tell

166
00:09:47,280 --> 00:09:50,240
Speaker 1: us what Paul grand told told you guys, he's one

167
00:09:50,280 --> 00:09:53,959
Speaker 1: of the attorneys who was involved in the case represented. Uh, Actually,

168
00:09:53,960 --> 00:09:55,640
Speaker 1: why don't you tell us who you're represented and what

169
00:09:55,679 --> 00:09:59,560
Speaker 1: he told you about these uh this meeting? Sure, so

170
00:09:59,720 --> 00:10:02,920
Speaker 1: he actually technically represented one of one of the high

171
00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:06,040
Speaker 1: level brokers, but on the Trump side, part of the

172
00:10:06,520 --> 00:10:12,000
Speaker 1: defense team representing the the the sellers of this building. UM.

173
00:10:12,080 --> 00:10:14,760
Speaker 1: And he told us, Uh, look well, first of all, Um,

174
00:10:14,880 --> 00:10:17,520
Speaker 1: Shawn's right, it was a different of tactics. Uh, a

175
00:10:17,559 --> 00:10:22,680
Speaker 1: difference in tactics. They they um, the lead members of

176
00:10:22,679 --> 00:10:25,360
Speaker 1: the defense team had been um having a series of

177
00:10:25,360 --> 00:10:28,439
Speaker 1: meetings with the sort of stat lower level prosecutors who

178
00:10:28,480 --> 00:10:31,160
Speaker 1: were pursuing this case. UM. And they and they hadn't

179
00:10:31,200 --> 00:10:34,160
Speaker 1: they hadn't gone up to the level of vance yet. Um.

180
00:10:34,240 --> 00:10:37,160
Speaker 1: But Grant told us that, look he saw it. Grand

181
00:10:37,200 --> 00:10:39,880
Speaker 1: thought that that dropping this case was the right call

182
00:10:40,040 --> 00:10:42,680
Speaker 1: because he didn't believe this this rose to the level

183
00:10:42,720 --> 00:10:44,880
Speaker 1: of a crime. But he also told us, and I'm

184
00:10:45,120 --> 00:10:47,199
Speaker 1: quoting him there, that the manner in which it was

185
00:10:47,240 --> 00:10:51,120
Speaker 1: accomplished is curious. Uh. He said that if you were

186
00:10:51,280 --> 00:10:53,720
Speaker 1: if you and I were district attorney and you knew

187
00:10:53,760 --> 00:10:56,360
Speaker 1: that a subject of investigation was represented by two or

188
00:10:56,400 --> 00:10:58,920
Speaker 1: three well thought of lawyers in town, and all of

189
00:10:59,000 --> 00:11:01,320
Speaker 1: a sudden somebody who was a contributor to your campaign

190
00:11:01,320 --> 00:11:03,880
Speaker 1: showed up on your doorstep and the regular lawyers are

191
00:11:03,880 --> 00:11:05,840
Speaker 1: nowhere to be seen, you'd think about how you'd want

192
00:11:05,880 --> 00:11:08,040
Speaker 1: to proceed. I mean that was again it forbade him

193
00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:10,959
Speaker 1: quote from him. So uh. You know, as I said,

194
00:11:11,360 --> 00:11:15,760
Speaker 1: even other members of the defense team, which it really was,

195
00:11:15,760 --> 00:11:18,840
Speaker 1: was not a part of outside of this this one meeting.

196
00:11:19,200 --> 00:11:22,800
Speaker 1: UM thought this was was unusual. Sean, I'm gonna do

197
00:11:22,800 --> 00:11:24,800
Speaker 1: something unfair and give you about ten seconds for for

198
00:11:24,840 --> 00:11:27,560
Speaker 1: a new question, which is well, I'll say I'll say this, No,

199
00:11:27,559 --> 00:11:30,080
Speaker 1: no lawyer likes to be replaced when you're dealing with

200
00:11:30,120 --> 00:11:33,959
Speaker 1: prominent targets of an investigation. Uh, it's not uncommon that

201
00:11:33,960 --> 00:11:38,640
Speaker 1: that the client seeks alternative views. Paul Graham decided not

202
00:11:38,679 --> 00:11:41,560
Speaker 1: to go to the top mark haswits did? It? Sounds

203
00:11:41,559 --> 00:11:43,800
Speaker 1: to me like a difference in tactic and not an

204
00:11:43,800 --> 00:11:46,439
Speaker 1: ethical failing on anybody's part. Here, we're gonna have to

205
00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:48,160
Speaker 1: leave it there. I want to thank our guest, Shawn

206
00:11:48,160 --> 00:11:51,520
Speaker 1: O'Shea of Boyschill Or Flexter, and Justin Elliott of pro

207
00:11:51,600 --> 00:11:52,080
Speaker 1: Publica