1 00:00:01,720 --> 00:00:05,080 Speaker 1: Welcome to Crash Course, a podcast about business, political, and 2 00:00:05,120 --> 00:00:08,080 Speaker 1: social disruption and what we can learn from it. I'm 3 00:00:08,080 --> 00:00:13,360 Speaker 1: Tim O'Brien. Today's Crash Course. Trump versus his first big 4 00:00:13,400 --> 00:00:16,919 Speaker 1: fraud verdict. Donald Trump's civil fraud trial in New York 5 00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:20,760 Speaker 1: is drawing to a close. Testimony recently ended, and sometime 6 00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:23,400 Speaker 1: in early twenty twenty four, a state judge will rule 7 00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:26,400 Speaker 1: on the case. It's within the judge's power to impose 8 00:00:26,440 --> 00:00:28,240 Speaker 1: a fine of as much as two hundred and fifty 9 00:00:28,240 --> 00:00:31,720 Speaker 1: million dollars on Trump and permanently ban him and his 10 00:00:31,840 --> 00:00:35,479 Speaker 1: company from ever doing business in New York again, the 11 00:00:35,560 --> 00:00:38,720 Speaker 1: state where Trump grew rich, may send him into financial exile. 12 00:00:39,680 --> 00:00:43,040 Speaker 1: State prosecutors alleged that Trump arbitrarily inflated the value of 13 00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:46,840 Speaker 1: his assets to secure bank loans and deceive insurers, while 14 00:00:46,920 --> 00:00:50,240 Speaker 1: deflating the value of those same assets whenever he wanted 15 00:00:50,280 --> 00:00:53,760 Speaker 1: to lower his tax bill. Trump, his two eldest sons, 16 00:00:54,040 --> 00:00:57,080 Speaker 1: and their lawyers all say they never misled anyone and 17 00:00:57,160 --> 00:01:01,400 Speaker 1: nobody suffered any financial damages. They say, no harm, no foul. 18 00:01:02,240 --> 00:01:04,440 Speaker 1: The New York case is one of several lodged against 19 00:01:04,480 --> 00:01:07,640 Speaker 1: the former president. He also faces criminal fraud charges in 20 00:01:07,680 --> 00:01:11,400 Speaker 1: New York state election fraud chargers in Georgia, and two 21 00:01:11,440 --> 00:01:14,520 Speaker 1: federal cases involving the January sixth insurrection at the US 22 00:01:14,600 --> 00:01:19,240 Speaker 1: Capital and the misappropriation of classified documents. All of this 23 00:01:19,360 --> 00:01:21,280 Speaker 1: is landing while Trump appears to be well on his 24 00:01:21,319 --> 00:01:24,600 Speaker 1: way to securing the Republican nomination for the presidency next year. 25 00:01:25,240 --> 00:01:28,480 Speaker 1: It's serious, it's a mess, and the rule of law 26 00:01:28,520 --> 00:01:32,160 Speaker 1: is being severely tested. So I am jazz to discuss 27 00:01:32,200 --> 00:01:35,399 Speaker 1: all of this with Andrew Wiseman. Andrew, a professor at 28 00:01:35,480 --> 00:01:38,760 Speaker 1: NYU Law School, spent many years as a federal prosecutor 29 00:01:38,800 --> 00:01:42,160 Speaker 1: and investigator. He tackled organized crime cases with the US 30 00:01:42,200 --> 00:01:45,959 Speaker 1: Attorney's Office and fraud cases at the Department of Justice. 31 00:01:46,040 --> 00:01:48,960 Speaker 1: President George W. Bush appointed him as the FBI's lead 32 00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:53,520 Speaker 1: investigator in the infamous Enron case. Special Counsel Robert Muller 33 00:01:53,600 --> 00:01:56,800 Speaker 1: recruited him to be the lead prosecutor in his probe 34 00:01:56,800 --> 00:01:59,840 Speaker 1: of Team Trump's intersection with Russia before and during the 35 00:01:59,880 --> 00:02:04,240 Speaker 1: twenty sixteen presidential election. And Andrew, the author of Where 36 00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:08,680 Speaker 1: Law Ends, knows a lot. Welcome to Crash course, Andrew. 37 00:02:08,840 --> 00:02:09,880 Speaker 2: So great to be here. 38 00:02:10,400 --> 00:02:14,079 Speaker 1: You know you had this reputation as a pit bull prosecutor. 39 00:02:14,120 --> 00:02:17,320 Speaker 1: That's what they said during the Enron prosecution. And I'm 40 00:02:17,360 --> 00:02:19,799 Speaker 1: sure that Trump team were freaked out when Robert Muller 41 00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:22,200 Speaker 1: recruited you to join in his effort. And I've always 42 00:02:22,200 --> 00:02:24,919 Speaker 1: found you to be an absolute sweetie, you know, easy 43 00:02:24,960 --> 00:02:30,000 Speaker 1: to talk with, articulate, judicious. I would never call you 44 00:02:30,080 --> 00:02:32,600 Speaker 1: a pit bull. But I actually haven't ever been prosecuted 45 00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:36,280 Speaker 1: by you either, so. 46 00:02:36,320 --> 00:02:37,680 Speaker 2: I haven't had that pleasure yet. 47 00:02:37,880 --> 00:02:40,160 Speaker 1: I haven't had that pleasure yet. Would you describe yourself 48 00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:40,800 Speaker 1: as a pitbull? 49 00:02:41,320 --> 00:02:44,360 Speaker 2: A friend of mine on the Mueller's Special Council team said, 50 00:02:44,400 --> 00:02:47,800 Speaker 2: you know what the secret is, You're really squishy. So 51 00:02:48,440 --> 00:02:52,560 Speaker 2: I think some of that has probably deserved. When I 52 00:02:52,600 --> 00:02:54,799 Speaker 2: started at as a young prosecutor and I was doing 53 00:02:54,960 --> 00:02:58,360 Speaker 2: organized crime work here in New York, I think, like 54 00:02:58,400 --> 00:03:01,520 Speaker 2: a lot of young prosecutors, probably a bit over the 55 00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:05,680 Speaker 2: top and impurious, So I think that that may have helped. 56 00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:09,200 Speaker 2: But I think it then just becomes in some ways, 57 00:03:09,320 --> 00:03:14,079 Speaker 2: it's kind of a useful thing for defendants to fear you, 58 00:03:14,200 --> 00:03:16,119 Speaker 2: because you know, you're trying to get people to cooperate, 59 00:03:16,160 --> 00:03:18,480 Speaker 2: and if they think that you're really tenacious and you're 60 00:03:18,480 --> 00:03:21,960 Speaker 2: going to find everything out. That's not a bad thing 61 00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:25,680 Speaker 2: for defendants and their counsel to think. I do think 62 00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:28,320 Speaker 2: it's a bit undeserved, but you know what it is 63 00:03:28,360 --> 00:03:31,280 Speaker 2: what it is, and people make their own judgments as 64 00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:32,280 Speaker 2: to what they'd like to think. 65 00:03:32,760 --> 00:03:34,880 Speaker 1: I mean, that's very much the way I think about it. 66 00:03:34,920 --> 00:03:36,920 Speaker 1: When I think about you. You know, we're not friends, 67 00:03:36,960 --> 00:03:40,560 Speaker 1: we're acquaintances. We've done some TV together, we recently chatted 68 00:03:40,600 --> 00:03:42,280 Speaker 1: over a couple of glasses of wine at a party 69 00:03:42,320 --> 00:03:45,880 Speaker 1: of Manhattan. But interacting with you in these situations and 70 00:03:45,880 --> 00:03:48,120 Speaker 1: then watching your professional life, I do see these sort 71 00:03:48,120 --> 00:03:53,240 Speaker 1: of dualities. You're a very normal, judicious man personally, and 72 00:03:53,360 --> 00:03:56,279 Speaker 1: you take your role very seriously, and you were prosecuting 73 00:03:56,280 --> 00:03:59,400 Speaker 1: people like John Gotti, I would mention, and the Enron 74 00:03:59,480 --> 00:04:03,400 Speaker 1: folks boy scouts as we all know, but in a 75 00:04:03,440 --> 00:04:05,720 Speaker 1: broader way. Tell me how you think about the role 76 00:04:05,800 --> 00:04:09,880 Speaker 1: of prosecutors in our society, Like, what is their fundamental 77 00:04:10,000 --> 00:04:13,280 Speaker 1: role in terms of ensuring that the rule of law 78 00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:15,000 Speaker 1: is a viable and stable thing. 79 00:04:15,800 --> 00:04:20,839 Speaker 2: Well, I think that prosecutors have enormous amount of power 80 00:04:21,360 --> 00:04:24,479 Speaker 2: and they also have a lot of discretion where there's 81 00:04:24,520 --> 00:04:29,440 Speaker 2: spec to who gets charged and who doesn't. So there's 82 00:04:29,480 --> 00:04:33,359 Speaker 2: an ineffable quality that I think you look for when 83 00:04:33,400 --> 00:04:37,000 Speaker 2: you're hiring people to be a prosecutor, which is maturity 84 00:04:37,160 --> 00:04:40,839 Speaker 2: and judgment. But exactly what that means in any particular 85 00:04:40,920 --> 00:04:44,800 Speaker 2: case can vary, and it's also hard to articulate that. 86 00:04:44,960 --> 00:04:50,520 Speaker 2: But I think it's really important to understand how weighty 87 00:04:51,400 --> 00:04:56,080 Speaker 2: that power is and the dual function of a prosecutor, 88 00:04:56,160 --> 00:04:59,719 Speaker 2: which is to do justice, and that means it doesn't 89 00:04:59,720 --> 00:05:04,040 Speaker 2: mean just winning the case. It is adherence to the 90 00:05:04,120 --> 00:05:06,960 Speaker 2: rule of law, even if it's not going to help 91 00:05:07,040 --> 00:05:09,640 Speaker 2: you win. I won't say there's nothing worse, but it 92 00:05:09,680 --> 00:05:13,279 Speaker 2: is incredibly upsetting to people who've been in the department 93 00:05:13,839 --> 00:05:19,120 Speaker 2: when you see prosecutors who are not scrupulously adhering to 94 00:05:20,040 --> 00:05:22,760 Speaker 2: that dual role of what it means to be a prosecutor. 95 00:05:23,160 --> 00:05:25,480 Speaker 1: So let's spend a minute and talk about the Muller 96 00:05:25,520 --> 00:05:29,160 Speaker 1: probe and the Attendant Muller Report, which you wrote about 97 00:05:29,240 --> 00:05:31,960 Speaker 1: in your book How Law Ends. I read your book 98 00:05:32,000 --> 00:05:34,880 Speaker 1: and I found it to be poignant in a way 99 00:05:35,040 --> 00:05:37,960 Speaker 1: in that you were surrounded by great people. Robert Muller 100 00:05:38,080 --> 00:05:42,960 Speaker 1: an admirable and legendary prosecutor and investigator himself, taking on 101 00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:47,719 Speaker 1: a seminal political and national security issue involving Donald Trump's 102 00:05:47,720 --> 00:05:50,040 Speaker 1: intersection with Russians, whether they helped them in the election 103 00:05:50,200 --> 00:05:53,640 Speaker 1: or did other things to thwart Hillary Clinton. And you 104 00:05:53,760 --> 00:05:56,479 Speaker 1: got a lot of results out of that. Paul Mannifort 105 00:05:56,480 --> 00:05:59,720 Speaker 1: and Michael Flynn were indicted, thirty four individuals and three companies, 106 00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:02,840 Speaker 1: char you got eight guilty. Please. At the end of 107 00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:05,400 Speaker 1: the day, Muller decided not to charge Donald Trump with 108 00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:08,160 Speaker 1: obstruction of justice, which is one thing I wanted to 109 00:06:08,200 --> 00:06:10,240 Speaker 1: talk with you a little bit about. He also chose 110 00:06:10,279 --> 00:06:12,960 Speaker 1: not to follow the money trail, which always perplexed me. 111 00:06:13,640 --> 00:06:17,000 Speaker 1: And then you know, William Barr, donald Trump's attorney general, 112 00:06:17,000 --> 00:06:19,560 Speaker 1: in a four page statement, got to redefine a four 113 00:06:19,640 --> 00:06:22,839 Speaker 1: hundred and forty eight page report in the popular imagination. 114 00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:25,760 Speaker 1: I think you refer to the report in your book 115 00:06:25,800 --> 00:06:29,159 Speaker 1: as mealy mouth, if I'm quoting you correctly, and that 116 00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:32,520 Speaker 1: Muller might have been overly confident himself in Barr's own 117 00:06:32,560 --> 00:06:34,400 Speaker 1: respect for the rule of law or how he was 118 00:06:34,440 --> 00:06:37,520 Speaker 1: operating as a political player. So that's a lot of 119 00:06:37,640 --> 00:06:41,240 Speaker 1: preamble from me to kind of ask you about how 120 00:06:41,279 --> 00:06:44,159 Speaker 1: you think about that experience, you know, in the Muller probe. 121 00:06:45,080 --> 00:06:48,160 Speaker 2: Well, that was a lot of different aspects. So let 122 00:06:48,160 --> 00:06:49,960 Speaker 2: me just go back over a couple things in that 123 00:06:50,040 --> 00:06:52,320 Speaker 2: I'll go back to the big picture of your question. 124 00:06:52,680 --> 00:06:57,400 Speaker 2: I think that I did in my book describe certain 125 00:06:57,480 --> 00:07:02,479 Speaker 2: conclusions in the book as mealy mouth. Particularly the conclusions 126 00:07:02,520 --> 00:07:07,839 Speaker 2: of Volume two of the Mellow Report was about the obstruction, 127 00:07:08,200 --> 00:07:11,520 Speaker 2: and you know, it had famously the line about if 128 00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:14,440 Speaker 2: we could conclude that he did it, we would not 129 00:07:14,600 --> 00:07:17,360 Speaker 2: say this. It would have like three double negatives, and 130 00:07:17,400 --> 00:07:21,600 Speaker 2: it was just very hard to follow, and I always thought, 131 00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:25,800 Speaker 2: who are we kidding? Volume one said essentially that the 132 00:07:25,880 --> 00:07:29,760 Speaker 2: proof didn't rise to the level of being able to 133 00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:34,680 Speaker 2: say that there was actual coordination as opposed to a 134 00:07:34,720 --> 00:07:37,560 Speaker 2: lot of people on both sides who wanted to coordinate, 135 00:07:37,720 --> 00:07:41,040 Speaker 2: and there was active assistance from Russia, but we didn't 136 00:07:41,080 --> 00:07:44,840 Speaker 2: see enough evidence of actual coordination. 137 00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:47,840 Speaker 1: To prove it criminal conspiracy. There was certainly cooperation, but 138 00:07:47,920 --> 00:07:49,040 Speaker 1: not enough evidence to say it. 139 00:07:50,400 --> 00:07:52,240 Speaker 2: We're doing that in volume one, who's going to really 140 00:07:52,280 --> 00:07:54,720 Speaker 2: be fooled? In volume two, where we're not saying that 141 00:07:54,840 --> 00:07:57,520 Speaker 2: it's like so obvious that we're saying there is it 142 00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:00,480 Speaker 2: turns out it turns out I was wrong. It's like 143 00:08:00,560 --> 00:08:04,080 Speaker 2: that kind of double negatives had people going, Gee, what 144 00:08:04,120 --> 00:08:06,560 Speaker 2: are they saying? So I thought that was merely matt 145 00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:08,040 Speaker 2: that I thought we should have just said it. The 146 00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:11,120 Speaker 2: other thing that's really important to note is we could 147 00:08:11,120 --> 00:08:16,160 Speaker 2: not charge the then president of the United States with 148 00:08:16,240 --> 00:08:21,200 Speaker 2: a crime because the DOJ policy was that a sitting 149 00:08:21,240 --> 00:08:24,160 Speaker 2: president could not be charged by the Department of Justice. 150 00:08:24,520 --> 00:08:28,280 Speaker 2: There were two Office of Legal Counsel opinions on that, 151 00:08:28,400 --> 00:08:30,560 Speaker 2: and even though we're in the Special Council's Office, the 152 00:08:30,600 --> 00:08:33,800 Speaker 2: Special Council is part of the Department of Justice. We 153 00:08:34,000 --> 00:08:37,880 Speaker 2: had to adhere to Department of Justice rules, so we 154 00:08:38,000 --> 00:08:41,160 Speaker 2: did not have that authority. So, you know, one of 155 00:08:41,200 --> 00:08:43,920 Speaker 2: the things that I talked about in my book is 156 00:08:43,960 --> 00:08:47,840 Speaker 2: that I thought of being really great if, like Rob Rosenstein, 157 00:08:47,840 --> 00:08:51,040 Speaker 2: when he appointed us, had made it clear to people 158 00:08:51,920 --> 00:08:54,600 Speaker 2: what our purview was and what we could and could 159 00:08:54,640 --> 00:08:57,520 Speaker 2: not do. You know, we were all very aware that 160 00:08:57,559 --> 00:09:00,719 Speaker 2: people in the public were thinking, oh, day, now there 161 00:09:00,720 --> 00:09:03,160 Speaker 2: could be an indictment of the sitting president, and we 162 00:09:03,160 --> 00:09:05,480 Speaker 2: were like, that's not even remotely on the table. We 163 00:09:05,559 --> 00:09:09,840 Speaker 2: cannot do that, we would have rightly been fired. I'm 164 00:09:09,840 --> 00:09:12,880 Speaker 2: not saying that the policy is necessarily a good one. 165 00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:16,880 Speaker 2: I'm not even sure that the law requires that a 166 00:09:16,960 --> 00:09:20,760 Speaker 2: sitting president cannot be charged. I have a whole theory 167 00:09:20,800 --> 00:09:23,880 Speaker 2: as to why I actually think a sitting president could 168 00:09:23,960 --> 00:09:27,040 Speaker 2: be charged by the federal government. I think the States 169 00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:29,880 Speaker 2: raised a very separate issue, but we didn't have that 170 00:09:29,960 --> 00:09:33,840 Speaker 2: luxury because we just couldn't make up DOJ policy. We 171 00:09:33,880 --> 00:09:35,400 Speaker 2: had to adhere to it or be fired. 172 00:09:35,960 --> 00:09:38,640 Speaker 1: Also, remember it was in the context of Trump having 173 00:09:38,800 --> 00:09:42,319 Speaker 1: fired Jim Comey as the head of the FBI after 174 00:09:42,360 --> 00:09:44,200 Speaker 1: he was probing some of these issues himself. 175 00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:47,160 Speaker 2: Yeah, well that, and you know, it was just a 176 00:09:47,320 --> 00:09:51,880 Speaker 2: very hard investigation to do. I remember feeling very much 177 00:09:51,920 --> 00:09:53,840 Speaker 2: the same feeling I had when I worked on the 178 00:09:54,040 --> 00:09:58,160 Speaker 2: Enron Task Force, which is, you feel an enormous amount 179 00:09:58,160 --> 00:10:03,680 Speaker 2: of pressure that's coming from within you to be thorough, 180 00:10:04,160 --> 00:10:07,520 Speaker 2: not make any mistakes, and to work as hard and 181 00:10:07,559 --> 00:10:12,360 Speaker 2: as fast as you can because the time clock that 182 00:10:12,400 --> 00:10:15,120 Speaker 2: you feel the pressure of that is that you feel 183 00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:19,600 Speaker 2: like the public deserves an answer, the political system deserves 184 00:10:19,600 --> 00:10:23,400 Speaker 2: an answer, as fast as humanly possible. So that it 185 00:10:23,600 --> 00:10:28,280 Speaker 2: was a very intense twenty two months, and a lot. 186 00:10:28,160 --> 00:10:30,720 Speaker 1: Of the dynamics you encountered during that probe are the 187 00:10:30,760 --> 00:10:34,480 Speaker 1: ones that still exist around all of the current Trump prosecutions. 188 00:10:34,880 --> 00:10:38,280 Speaker 1: He's an unusual person to prosecute or investigate because he 189 00:10:38,920 --> 00:10:45,120 Speaker 1: inveighs willy nilly against law enforcement officials, judges. He's threatening. Often, 190 00:10:45,200 --> 00:10:47,960 Speaker 1: he calls up his troops. You know that Trump's supporters 191 00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:50,360 Speaker 1: across the country to get on his side in these matters. 192 00:10:50,720 --> 00:10:54,640 Speaker 1: So you've lived already through what other prosecutors and investigators 193 00:10:54,679 --> 00:10:57,640 Speaker 1: are dealing with right now. I want to come back 194 00:10:57,679 --> 00:10:59,960 Speaker 1: to one thing. On the Russia part of the probe. 195 00:11:00,160 --> 00:11:03,480 Speaker 1: Was always curious to me that money as a reason 196 00:11:03,480 --> 00:11:06,880 Speaker 1: for Trump's intersection with Russians beyond just his own interest 197 00:11:06,960 --> 00:11:11,320 Speaker 1: in a political victory or defeating Hillary Clinton. But he, obviously, 198 00:11:11,400 --> 00:11:13,800 Speaker 1: you know, came into the twenty sixteen race with a 199 00:11:13,800 --> 00:11:17,160 Speaker 1: long history of voracious deal making, and if you put 200 00:11:17,240 --> 00:11:19,760 Speaker 1: a bag of cash on Donald Trump's desk, he would 201 00:11:19,760 --> 00:11:22,520 Speaker 1: bark and bark and bark again. It seemed to me 202 00:11:22,679 --> 00:11:27,160 Speaker 1: like a good and useful evidentiary path for Mahler's team 203 00:11:27,520 --> 00:11:28,360 Speaker 1: to go down. 204 00:11:28,880 --> 00:11:31,480 Speaker 2: You are, there many things that I totally agreed with 205 00:11:31,559 --> 00:11:35,320 Speaker 2: what my boss, Director Miller, was doing and the calls 206 00:11:35,320 --> 00:11:38,560 Speaker 2: he made. It Obviously it's his decisions. It wasn't mine 207 00:11:38,640 --> 00:11:41,440 Speaker 2: or anyone else who reporting to him. But there's somewhere 208 00:11:41,440 --> 00:11:46,080 Speaker 2: I disagreed. This is one where I understood initially why 209 00:11:46,120 --> 00:11:52,760 Speaker 2: we did not investigate the financial aspect of the case initially, 210 00:11:53,200 --> 00:11:56,240 Speaker 2: but disagreed why we didn't come back to it. And 211 00:11:56,320 --> 00:11:58,079 Speaker 2: the reason I say that I wrote about this in 212 00:11:58,280 --> 00:12:01,400 Speaker 2: the book, which is if you were remember early on 213 00:12:02,040 --> 00:12:04,760 Speaker 2: we were just sort of up and running. In June 214 00:12:04,800 --> 00:12:08,840 Speaker 2: of twenty seventeen, Donald Trump had said that sort of 215 00:12:08,920 --> 00:12:11,960 Speaker 2: essentially a kids relationship with Deutsche Bank, the financial stuff 216 00:12:12,040 --> 00:12:14,959 Speaker 2: was sort of off limits in a red line, And 217 00:12:15,559 --> 00:12:19,400 Speaker 2: when we were just starting out, I could see saying, look, well, 218 00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:22,120 Speaker 2: there's so much else to do. Let's get a toe hold, 219 00:12:22,240 --> 00:12:25,560 Speaker 2: let's get our feet wet and see where these cases 220 00:12:25,600 --> 00:12:29,200 Speaker 2: are going, and then be able to figure out how 221 00:12:29,280 --> 00:12:33,480 Speaker 2: the financial piece could play into any particular part of 222 00:12:33,520 --> 00:12:36,800 Speaker 2: the investigation. I was doing sort of manifort and all 223 00:12:36,800 --> 00:12:42,360 Speaker 2: things manifort related, and so my remit did allow for 224 00:12:42,559 --> 00:12:46,840 Speaker 2: a financial investigation with respect to them. Remember, we had 225 00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:51,280 Speaker 2: to follow Rod Rosstein's parameters with respect to what we 226 00:12:51,400 --> 00:12:53,599 Speaker 2: could look at. It was not like being in the 227 00:12:53,679 --> 00:12:56,640 Speaker 2: US Attorney's office, where it's like any federal crime. So 228 00:12:56,800 --> 00:13:00,720 Speaker 2: I had that luxury. But my colleague Gene Ree, who 229 00:13:00,760 --> 00:13:03,559 Speaker 2: headed up Team r which was Team Russia, I was 230 00:13:03,640 --> 00:13:06,520 Speaker 2: Team M which is we were not very creative. M 231 00:13:06,640 --> 00:13:11,360 Speaker 2: was Manafort, So she didn't have that sort of broad remit. 232 00:13:11,960 --> 00:13:14,200 Speaker 2: And I think what the thought was in the beginning, 233 00:13:14,480 --> 00:13:17,679 Speaker 2: like why cross a line that we didn't necessarily need 234 00:13:17,679 --> 00:13:19,959 Speaker 2: to cross at that point we didn't even understand at 235 00:13:19,960 --> 00:13:23,640 Speaker 2: the moment we now learned that Don McGahn had been 236 00:13:23,679 --> 00:13:27,320 Speaker 2: approached by the President to fire US, and you know, 237 00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:30,200 Speaker 2: there was just a few weeks into the investigation. So 238 00:13:31,040 --> 00:13:34,120 Speaker 2: I think that that is a more justifiable time period 239 00:13:34,240 --> 00:13:37,080 Speaker 2: to have said there's no reason to do it now. 240 00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:41,920 Speaker 2: My issue is I thought that, for instance, as Michael 241 00:13:42,000 --> 00:13:46,600 Speaker 2: Cohen came in and talked about the Moscow project, that 242 00:13:46,800 --> 00:13:52,120 Speaker 2: gave some more impetus for doing a financial investigation. 243 00:13:52,559 --> 00:13:55,240 Speaker 1: Then, just for our listener's sake, the Moscow project was 244 00:13:55,280 --> 00:13:58,800 Speaker 1: a real estate project in Moscow to build a Trump 245 00:13:58,880 --> 00:14:04,520 Speaker 1: tower in Moscow. Trump was actively trying to make real 246 00:14:05,080 --> 00:14:07,240 Speaker 1: both during the campaign and then the run up to 247 00:14:07,280 --> 00:14:10,439 Speaker 1: the campaign, it wasn't a past issue, and it obviously 248 00:14:10,679 --> 00:14:14,000 Speaker 1: you don't build anything in Moscow unless Vladimir Putin wants 249 00:14:14,000 --> 00:14:16,040 Speaker 1: to let you build something in Moscow. And that always 250 00:14:16,040 --> 00:14:18,600 Speaker 1: seemed to me like a very clear evidence of a 251 00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:21,320 Speaker 1: presidential candidate who could get played by a foreign power. 252 00:14:21,520 --> 00:14:25,080 Speaker 2: Yeah, and remember, people think of the Michael Cohen case 253 00:14:25,080 --> 00:14:27,600 Speaker 2: as one that was solely prosecuted by the Southern District 254 00:14:27,640 --> 00:14:30,240 Speaker 2: of New York, and in fact that isn't the case. 255 00:14:30,920 --> 00:14:35,640 Speaker 2: We were looking at Michael Cohen saw the Moscow piece 256 00:14:35,680 --> 00:14:39,600 Speaker 2: of it, we retained that because it was within our remit. 257 00:14:40,200 --> 00:14:44,320 Speaker 2: But when we saw that there were personal crimes and 258 00:14:44,360 --> 00:14:48,680 Speaker 2: sort of other crimes unrelated to our remit, those we 259 00:14:48,760 --> 00:14:51,600 Speaker 2: spun out to the Southern District of New York. And 260 00:14:51,600 --> 00:14:55,280 Speaker 2: obviously there was coordination of that, and he ultimately pleaded 261 00:14:55,280 --> 00:14:59,240 Speaker 2: guilty to both sets of charges. So that's why you 262 00:14:59,240 --> 00:15:02,000 Speaker 2: sort of have the different pieces, And that's a very 263 00:15:02,040 --> 00:15:06,840 Speaker 2: good way of understanding that we had limited jurisdiction because 264 00:15:06,960 --> 00:15:10,280 Speaker 2: we had to stay within what Rod Rosenstein said was 265 00:15:10,800 --> 00:15:13,880 Speaker 2: something we were allowed to investigate. If we had just 266 00:15:13,920 --> 00:15:16,400 Speaker 2: been in the US Attorney's office, we would have done everything. 267 00:15:16,800 --> 00:15:18,800 Speaker 1: So, in other words, none of this was arbitrary. The 268 00:15:18,800 --> 00:15:23,160 Speaker 1: reason the money trail wasn't pursued was because the remit 269 00:15:23,320 --> 00:15:25,240 Speaker 1: had reasonable and narrow boundaries. 270 00:15:25,400 --> 00:15:27,680 Speaker 2: That's true. But I do want to say I do 271 00:15:27,840 --> 00:15:32,960 Speaker 2: think that as our case progressed, there were grounds that 272 00:15:33,000 --> 00:15:35,680 Speaker 2: we could have used to do more. And so that 273 00:15:35,800 --> 00:15:37,680 Speaker 2: is an area where I do think that we could 274 00:15:37,720 --> 00:15:41,160 Speaker 2: have revisited it and could have made the arguments about 275 00:15:41,320 --> 00:15:44,840 Speaker 2: doing more on the financial front as our case got 276 00:15:44,880 --> 00:15:49,560 Speaker 2: deeper and we had more factual predication for that type 277 00:15:49,560 --> 00:15:52,440 Speaker 2: of investigation. So I don't think I can blame the 278 00:15:52,560 --> 00:15:56,720 Speaker 2: limited remit entirely for why we didn't do the financial 279 00:15:56,760 --> 00:15:59,480 Speaker 2: piece as broadly as you would if you were in 280 00:15:59,520 --> 00:16:00,760 Speaker 2: these turn office. 281 00:16:01,040 --> 00:16:03,560 Speaker 1: Since we've talked about the money trail, this brings us 282 00:16:03,640 --> 00:16:06,160 Speaker 1: to Leticia James's case, which is all about the money. 283 00:16:06,440 --> 00:16:08,320 Speaker 1: I want to before we get into that, take a 284 00:16:08,400 --> 00:16:10,520 Speaker 1: quick break so we can hear from one of our sponsors, 285 00:16:10,760 --> 00:16:12,560 Speaker 1: and then we get back. I want to dive into 286 00:16:12,600 --> 00:16:20,440 Speaker 1: that case with you. I'm back with Andrew Weissman, and 287 00:16:20,480 --> 00:16:24,520 Speaker 1: we're discussing the New York Attorney General's prosecution of Donald Trump. 288 00:16:25,280 --> 00:16:29,120 Speaker 1: So Letitia James, the New York State Attorney General, begins 289 00:16:29,120 --> 00:16:32,680 Speaker 1: investigating Donald Trump in twenty nineteen for financial fraud, as 290 00:16:32,680 --> 00:16:35,000 Speaker 1: I noted in the top of the show, and in 291 00:16:35,080 --> 00:16:39,280 Speaker 1: twenty twenty two she sues him, his company, his three 292 00:16:39,320 --> 00:16:43,480 Speaker 1: eldest children, and two officers of the company, his CFO 293 00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:47,640 Speaker 1: and his chief operating officer for financial fraud. Their defense 294 00:16:47,720 --> 00:16:52,560 Speaker 1: really is Trump always exaggerates, no one was harmed, fake issue. 295 00:16:52,720 --> 00:16:56,240 Speaker 1: This is a political prosecution. That's essentially what their defense 296 00:16:56,320 --> 00:16:57,040 Speaker 1: is boiled down to. 297 00:16:57,360 --> 00:16:59,320 Speaker 2: I'm going to complicate that, and you can tell me 298 00:16:59,360 --> 00:17:03,880 Speaker 2: what I'm missing. So I think that the parts of 299 00:17:03,920 --> 00:17:08,600 Speaker 2: the case that seem very strong from the outside. I 300 00:17:08,640 --> 00:17:14,560 Speaker 2: think that the information about Trump Tower and his apartment 301 00:17:14,680 --> 00:17:17,520 Speaker 2: and the fact that it was valued at three times 302 00:17:17,960 --> 00:17:21,560 Speaker 2: the square footage seems like a rock crusher. I don't 303 00:17:21,600 --> 00:17:24,240 Speaker 2: know how you get around that. And it's not just 304 00:17:24,359 --> 00:17:28,080 Speaker 2: that because somebody who would do that, you have to ask, well, 305 00:17:28,080 --> 00:17:30,080 Speaker 2: if they're going to do that, and it's so blatant, 306 00:17:30,119 --> 00:17:32,440 Speaker 2: do you really think that's the only time that they're 307 00:17:32,440 --> 00:17:34,480 Speaker 2: willing to do it. And if you don't have the 308 00:17:34,560 --> 00:17:37,879 Speaker 2: marl fiber to be saying, that's not what I'm going 309 00:17:37,960 --> 00:17:40,600 Speaker 2: to engage in why would you just draw the line 310 00:17:40,600 --> 00:17:43,320 Speaker 2: there when the other things are sort of harder to catch. 311 00:17:43,840 --> 00:17:48,919 Speaker 2: I also think the valuation at mar Lago seems pretty 312 00:17:50,080 --> 00:17:53,520 Speaker 2: not quite as but pretty open and shut, and that 313 00:17:53,840 --> 00:17:57,679 Speaker 2: is that he valued it taking away all sorts of 314 00:17:58,000 --> 00:18:02,920 Speaker 2: restrictions that he'd agreed to on that property. And a 315 00:18:03,000 --> 00:18:06,920 Speaker 2: similar thing happened in other real estates eleven Springs. 316 00:18:06,920 --> 00:18:08,360 Speaker 1: They stayed up exactly where. 317 00:18:08,200 --> 00:18:10,800 Speaker 2: He would, for instance, say well, I'm assuming that this 318 00:18:11,000 --> 00:18:13,280 Speaker 2: was not rent regulated, and you know I live in 319 00:18:13,280 --> 00:18:15,679 Speaker 2: New York City. The idea that I'm going to value 320 00:18:15,720 --> 00:18:19,560 Speaker 2: something is if there weren't rent control departments in the building. 321 00:18:19,760 --> 00:18:21,800 Speaker 2: Just to give you an example, I mean, it's obviously 322 00:18:21,880 --> 00:18:25,040 Speaker 2: there's a really big difference in terms of valuation if 323 00:18:25,080 --> 00:18:28,240 Speaker 2: you have tenants who are rent controlled versus free market. 324 00:18:29,000 --> 00:18:32,080 Speaker 2: So I know that Trump's team put on a defense 325 00:18:32,200 --> 00:18:36,040 Speaker 2: expert to say that that's legit to do that. That 326 00:18:36,359 --> 00:18:39,560 Speaker 2: just seemed really strained to me as accurate. 327 00:18:39,720 --> 00:18:41,440 Speaker 1: Well, but I think I'm sorry to jump in here, 328 00:18:41,440 --> 00:18:42,800 Speaker 1: but I think the thing that we got to get 329 00:18:42,800 --> 00:18:45,800 Speaker 1: clear about is what was he doing with these valuations? 330 00:18:45,800 --> 00:18:47,800 Speaker 1: So you know, we can all say it's bonkers that 331 00:18:47,880 --> 00:18:51,240 Speaker 1: Donald Trump valued this triplex at the top of Trump 332 00:18:51,280 --> 00:18:53,840 Speaker 1: Tower that looks like it was designed by like Louis 333 00:18:53,880 --> 00:18:56,760 Speaker 1: the fourteenth on a drug trip and put on his 334 00:18:56,800 --> 00:18:58,840 Speaker 1: own papers, and what he was saying to the press 335 00:18:58,840 --> 00:19:01,080 Speaker 1: and everyone that yes, this is three times what it 336 00:19:01,119 --> 00:19:03,440 Speaker 1: really should be, and my jet is worth ten times 337 00:19:03,840 --> 00:19:06,480 Speaker 1: and it has golden toilets, and you know, I've got 338 00:19:06,480 --> 00:19:09,639 Speaker 1: these towers everywhere they're ten x what everyone else is 339 00:19:09,640 --> 00:19:12,879 Speaker 1: building is worth. But if he's actually not using that 340 00:19:13,040 --> 00:19:18,119 Speaker 1: exaggeration to either secure loans he shouldn't get and banks 341 00:19:18,119 --> 00:19:21,440 Speaker 1: are duped in the process, or you know the converse, 342 00:19:21,480 --> 00:19:23,440 Speaker 1: which under the top of the shows that he overly 343 00:19:23,520 --> 00:19:26,560 Speaker 1: deflated the values of those some of those same assets 344 00:19:26,960 --> 00:19:30,119 Speaker 1: when it lowers his tax bill, that there's actually a 345 00:19:30,240 --> 00:19:33,800 Speaker 1: consequence of his inflation or deflation, that the act of 346 00:19:33,840 --> 00:19:37,520 Speaker 1: inflating is just so what Donald Trump has spent sixty 347 00:19:37,560 --> 00:19:39,959 Speaker 1: of his seventy seven years doing this kind of stuff. 348 00:19:40,080 --> 00:19:42,560 Speaker 2: Oh yeah, there's a motive for all of that. The 349 00:19:42,600 --> 00:19:45,480 Speaker 2: motive is money. I mean, the motive is either as 350 00:19:45,520 --> 00:19:47,960 Speaker 2: you said, to pay less than taxes or to get 351 00:19:48,119 --> 00:19:49,000 Speaker 2: greater loans. 352 00:19:49,200 --> 00:19:51,320 Speaker 1: But isn't that the thing, though, Isn't that where the 353 00:19:51,359 --> 00:19:54,879 Speaker 1: bar here is for the prosecutors is to show it 354 00:19:54,960 --> 00:19:58,080 Speaker 1: isn't the simple act of him treating valuations like a 355 00:19:58,160 --> 00:20:00,960 Speaker 1: yo yo, It's that he used yo yo to hurt 356 00:20:00,960 --> 00:20:03,040 Speaker 1: someone and to defraud someone. 357 00:20:03,320 --> 00:20:05,840 Speaker 2: Yes, but that's sort of a legal piece, which is 358 00:20:06,119 --> 00:20:08,600 Speaker 2: so there's already been one cause of action which the 359 00:20:08,680 --> 00:20:13,440 Speaker 2: judge found before the trial started, found liability. And that's 360 00:20:13,480 --> 00:20:17,960 Speaker 2: because that first cause of action doesn't require mens rea, 361 00:20:18,160 --> 00:20:22,960 Speaker 2: doesn't require intent to defraud, nor did it require materiality 362 00:20:23,040 --> 00:20:26,800 Speaker 2: or reliance. So it's a very broad cause of action 363 00:20:27,480 --> 00:20:29,440 Speaker 2: under the law. I mean that is New York law. 364 00:20:29,640 --> 00:20:32,399 Speaker 2: I think the judge got that right. The other causes 365 00:20:32,440 --> 00:20:38,120 Speaker 2: of action that were on trial do require materiality and intent, 366 00:20:38,920 --> 00:20:40,560 Speaker 2: and so a lot of the things that we've been 367 00:20:40,600 --> 00:20:44,600 Speaker 2: talking about could go to Donald Trump's intent that he 368 00:20:44,720 --> 00:20:47,480 Speaker 2: wasn't intending to defraud because there was an expert who 369 00:20:47,480 --> 00:20:50,560 Speaker 2: said you could do this, et cetera. And also, remember 370 00:20:50,600 --> 00:20:53,080 Speaker 2: the standard here is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 371 00:20:53,119 --> 00:20:56,040 Speaker 2: It's just a preponderance, which is fifty percent and a 372 00:20:56,119 --> 00:21:00,840 Speaker 2: hair anything over fifty percent, this state has establish it's 373 00:21:00,840 --> 00:21:03,320 Speaker 2: a case. And this is where I think that they 374 00:21:03,359 --> 00:21:05,880 Speaker 2: are parts of the case where I think they seem 375 00:21:05,960 --> 00:21:11,200 Speaker 2: stronger than others. And I'm curious as to what you thought, Tim, 376 00:21:11,240 --> 00:21:14,439 Speaker 2: because they did have people from Deutsche Bank, one of 377 00:21:14,440 --> 00:21:19,360 Speaker 2: the main lenders, saying essentially, hey, we did our own work, 378 00:21:19,800 --> 00:21:22,880 Speaker 2: we wanted to do work with him, we did our 379 00:21:22,920 --> 00:21:28,440 Speaker 2: own valuations, so essentially like we weren't really relying on 380 00:21:28,640 --> 00:21:32,800 Speaker 2: what he wrote down. Now, reliance is not actually an 381 00:21:32,840 --> 00:21:36,560 Speaker 2: element of the causes of action, meaning that the state 382 00:21:36,600 --> 00:21:39,479 Speaker 2: doesn't have to prove that Deutsche Bank relied. They just 383 00:21:39,560 --> 00:21:43,400 Speaker 2: have to show that there was an intent to deceive 384 00:21:43,600 --> 00:21:47,199 Speaker 2: Deutsche Bank, and that the kind of information that was 385 00:21:47,600 --> 00:21:50,600 Speaker 2: being put forward would be material. In other words, it's 386 00:21:50,600 --> 00:21:54,240 Speaker 2: not like what's your favorite color, it's something that would 387 00:21:54,320 --> 00:21:56,639 Speaker 2: be relevant, and I think all of this is the 388 00:21:56,720 --> 00:21:58,720 Speaker 2: kind of thing that would be relevant. In my argument, 389 00:21:58,760 --> 00:22:01,480 Speaker 2: it would be if this isn't material, then why even 390 00:22:01,520 --> 00:22:04,359 Speaker 2: have the application? If it really doesn't matter what you 391 00:22:04,400 --> 00:22:06,360 Speaker 2: write down and you can make up the numbers, why 392 00:22:06,400 --> 00:22:09,080 Speaker 2: even have the application? And I think if you were 393 00:22:09,119 --> 00:22:11,600 Speaker 2: to ask the general counsel of Deutsche Bank, they would 394 00:22:11,640 --> 00:22:14,040 Speaker 2: have to say, well, of course we want truthful information 395 00:22:14,160 --> 00:22:17,200 Speaker 2: and we do care what people write down it would 396 00:22:17,200 --> 00:22:20,399 Speaker 2: be pretty unusual for a bank. For the general counsel, 397 00:22:20,480 --> 00:22:23,120 Speaker 2: the chief compliance officers say, we don't really care whether 398 00:22:23,200 --> 00:22:26,240 Speaker 2: or we're giving to customers who are just defrauding people 399 00:22:26,320 --> 00:22:29,480 Speaker 2: all the time. That obviously has to be material. I 400 00:22:29,560 --> 00:22:33,600 Speaker 2: just don't know how good a job this state did 401 00:22:33,880 --> 00:22:39,199 Speaker 2: in the cross examination and the rebutting of that defense testimony. 402 00:22:39,600 --> 00:22:41,520 Speaker 1: Well, I think they did a really weak job, and 403 00:22:41,560 --> 00:22:42,879 Speaker 1: I think they could have come I mean, there's so 404 00:22:42,960 --> 00:22:45,400 Speaker 1: many elements of this case, you know, to bring our 405 00:22:45,440 --> 00:22:47,800 Speaker 1: listeners back in on some of the directives around it. 406 00:22:47,920 --> 00:22:50,399 Speaker 1: You know, New York State prosecutors have a lot of 407 00:22:50,400 --> 00:22:53,080 Speaker 1: freedom to go after financial fraud in an unusual way. 408 00:22:53,119 --> 00:22:57,040 Speaker 1: There's the Martin Act, which essentially allows prosecutors to pursue 409 00:22:57,080 --> 00:22:59,840 Speaker 1: financial crimes without even having They don't have to prove 410 00:22:59,840 --> 00:23:02,280 Speaker 1: in as they don't need to in any civil case. 411 00:23:02,320 --> 00:23:05,399 Speaker 1: But the Martinat redefines that boundary as well, and they 412 00:23:05,400 --> 00:23:08,959 Speaker 1: don't even have to show that someone was damaged necessarily. 413 00:23:09,040 --> 00:23:12,400 Speaker 1: They just have to show that someone tried to pull 414 00:23:12,440 --> 00:23:15,560 Speaker 1: off a fraud. And those are the tools that Letitia 415 00:23:15,640 --> 00:23:18,719 Speaker 1: James was brought to baron Trump. Trump has spent decades 416 00:23:18,920 --> 00:23:21,280 Speaker 1: inflating the value of his wealth. He does it because 417 00:23:21,280 --> 00:23:23,439 Speaker 1: he's insecure, he does it because it keeps him in 418 00:23:23,440 --> 00:23:24,719 Speaker 1: the news, and he does it because it helps him 419 00:23:24,720 --> 00:23:27,560 Speaker 1: get loans. He sued me for three pages of a 420 00:23:27,560 --> 00:23:30,520 Speaker 1: biography I wrote about him, in which he said I 421 00:23:30,680 --> 00:23:33,560 Speaker 1: essentially defamed him because I said he was worth about 422 00:23:33,600 --> 00:23:36,080 Speaker 1: thirty times less than he said he was worth. And 423 00:23:36,320 --> 00:23:38,520 Speaker 1: during the course of that litigation, we got evidence from 424 00:23:38,520 --> 00:23:41,320 Speaker 1: his banks, including Deutsche Bank, And at a time when 425 00:23:41,320 --> 00:23:44,080 Speaker 1: Donald Trump was saying he was worth six billion dollars 426 00:23:44,080 --> 00:23:46,359 Speaker 1: and my sources were saying he was worth two hundred 427 00:23:46,359 --> 00:23:49,600 Speaker 1: and thirty million, we secured an audit from Deutsche Bank 428 00:23:49,640 --> 00:23:52,359 Speaker 1: in which their own examination of his finances said he 429 00:23:52,440 --> 00:23:54,800 Speaker 1: was worth only seven hundred and eighty million. That was 430 00:23:54,840 --> 00:23:58,800 Speaker 1: great for our case because Trump's own bankers knew that 431 00:23:58,840 --> 00:24:02,640 Speaker 1: he was at that time. I'm wildly inflating the valuable. 432 00:24:02,640 --> 00:24:05,320 Speaker 2: I don't understand, tim, which is I used to be 433 00:24:05,400 --> 00:24:07,800 Speaker 2: head of the fraud section at the Department of Justice. 434 00:24:08,240 --> 00:24:13,440 Speaker 2: And my question to a bank, where there know your customer? 435 00:24:13,720 --> 00:24:14,160 Speaker 1: Rules? 436 00:24:14,400 --> 00:24:18,520 Speaker 2: Money laundering regulations require financial institutions to know their customers 437 00:24:18,880 --> 00:24:20,800 Speaker 2: and to know like where they're getting their money and 438 00:24:20,840 --> 00:24:25,000 Speaker 2: who they're dealing with. What is the chief compliance officer 439 00:24:25,280 --> 00:24:29,199 Speaker 2: at that financial institution say in response to if you 440 00:24:29,320 --> 00:24:33,960 Speaker 2: knew that a customer was committing fraud, and the fraud, 441 00:24:34,040 --> 00:24:37,439 Speaker 2: by the way, is directed at you your institution. 442 00:24:37,119 --> 00:24:39,240 Speaker 1: Why would you approve doing business with that client? 443 00:24:39,480 --> 00:24:41,280 Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, Well, I think. 444 00:24:41,160 --> 00:24:43,639 Speaker 1: It happens all the time. Compliance officers and banks are 445 00:24:43,720 --> 00:24:46,440 Speaker 1: notoriously feckless in a lot of team or they don't 446 00:24:46,480 --> 00:24:49,080 Speaker 1: know right, or they don't know and then they know 447 00:24:49,080 --> 00:24:51,600 Speaker 1: they're lower on the totem poll in an organization. They 448 00:24:51,600 --> 00:24:53,800 Speaker 1: don't really have the authority to kill a deal someone 449 00:24:53,880 --> 00:24:55,960 Speaker 1: higher up than them wants to pursue. You know, in 450 00:24:55,960 --> 00:24:58,520 Speaker 1: the Deutsche Bank case, they went ahead and did a 451 00:24:58,560 --> 00:25:00,600 Speaker 1: deal with Donald Trump, even though he had tried to 452 00:25:00,640 --> 00:25:03,119 Speaker 1: stiff them on loans they'd made to him on a 453 00:25:03,160 --> 00:25:06,199 Speaker 1: Chicago project. The commercial side of the bank wouldn't do 454 00:25:06,240 --> 00:25:08,480 Speaker 1: business with him, They had permanently barred him as a client. 455 00:25:08,840 --> 00:25:11,800 Speaker 1: And Rosemary Vraiblick, who testified in the state Attorney General's 456 00:25:11,840 --> 00:25:14,400 Speaker 1: case here in New York, was with the private bank 457 00:25:14,440 --> 00:25:16,240 Speaker 1: and she decided to go ahead and do business with 458 00:25:16,320 --> 00:25:18,960 Speaker 1: him without getting inside her head, because I can't speak 459 00:25:19,000 --> 00:25:21,199 Speaker 1: for what her own thoughts are, but I think she 460 00:25:21,359 --> 00:25:23,480 Speaker 1: just liked the idea of doing business with the Trumps 461 00:25:23,680 --> 00:25:26,000 Speaker 1: because that led her to the Kushners. She was introduced 462 00:25:26,040 --> 00:25:28,960 Speaker 1: to Donald by Jared Kushner. So there's all of these 463 00:25:29,000 --> 00:25:32,240 Speaker 1: just personal relationships to the average show in Jane don't 464 00:25:32,240 --> 00:25:34,960 Speaker 1: have access to when they walk up to a bank teller, 465 00:25:35,359 --> 00:25:38,040 Speaker 1: and people who are in the news or who are 466 00:25:38,119 --> 00:25:41,040 Speaker 1: celebrities get access to this kind of stuff that others 467 00:25:41,080 --> 00:25:44,119 Speaker 1: don't get, and I think the standards drop. So I 468 00:25:44,160 --> 00:25:47,360 Speaker 1: guess it doesn't feel mysterious to me that they did 469 00:25:47,400 --> 00:25:51,200 Speaker 1: business with him, even if it's reprehensible, which I think 470 00:25:51,520 --> 00:25:55,280 Speaker 1: in some cases professionally it was, and certainly in judicious 471 00:25:55,320 --> 00:25:58,320 Speaker 1: given his track record. He's a serial bankruptcy artist and 472 00:25:58,400 --> 00:26:01,520 Speaker 1: he routinely stiffed banks. I think the issue here is 473 00:26:01,760 --> 00:26:04,679 Speaker 1: was he a criminal in doing that? And you know, 474 00:26:04,760 --> 00:26:07,080 Speaker 1: as a reporter, I didn't have the subpoena power to 475 00:26:07,119 --> 00:26:09,280 Speaker 1: go down that route. I think we kind of stripped 476 00:26:09,320 --> 00:26:11,480 Speaker 1: the bark off of him like an old tree in Quartz. 477 00:26:11,920 --> 00:26:13,600 Speaker 1: But you know, all we had to prove was I 478 00:26:13,640 --> 00:26:16,600 Speaker 1: didn't act with malicious intent that I went about my 479 00:26:16,800 --> 00:26:18,719 Speaker 1: job and I tried to get as much information as 480 00:26:18,720 --> 00:26:21,280 Speaker 1: I could, and I was fortunately confronted with a guy 481 00:26:21,320 --> 00:26:23,800 Speaker 1: who was a bloviator and an exaggerator. And then in 482 00:26:23,840 --> 00:26:26,720 Speaker 1: our deposition, you know, we proved that he had lied 483 00:26:26,760 --> 00:26:29,840 Speaker 1: more than I think two dozen times on valuing different 484 00:26:29,880 --> 00:26:31,600 Speaker 1: assets that he had said were worth more than they were. 485 00:26:31,640 --> 00:26:33,880 Speaker 1: It's exactly what's in the attorney general's case right now, 486 00:26:34,040 --> 00:26:36,679 Speaker 1: the state attorney general's case. But I think they have 487 00:26:36,720 --> 00:26:38,680 Speaker 1: a high bar if they're going to prove he's a criminal. 488 00:26:39,040 --> 00:26:41,280 Speaker 1: You know, the idea of relying on Donald Trump's statements 489 00:26:41,280 --> 00:26:45,359 Speaker 1: of financial condition, which tiss James's office is as demonstrations 490 00:26:45,440 --> 00:26:48,400 Speaker 1: of an attempted to fraud his tricky because he gave 491 00:26:48,440 --> 00:26:51,440 Speaker 1: those things to the press as kind of marquee statements 492 00:26:51,480 --> 00:26:54,840 Speaker 1: of how Richie was, and they were cartoons basically, they 493 00:26:54,840 --> 00:26:57,800 Speaker 1: were like cartoon books, highlights for children. His own accountants 494 00:26:57,800 --> 00:27:00,800 Speaker 1: wouldn't sign off on those documents. Said that, I think 495 00:27:00,880 --> 00:27:03,919 Speaker 1: under New York law, they don't need to prove that 496 00:27:03,960 --> 00:27:06,520 Speaker 1: the banks were harmed. That actually isn't a standard in 497 00:27:06,560 --> 00:27:09,639 Speaker 1: this case. I think Trump has latched onto that because 498 00:27:09,640 --> 00:27:13,359 Speaker 1: he has a reptilian sensibility about what plays in the 499 00:27:13,400 --> 00:27:16,760 Speaker 1: popular imagination, and he can say I'm being prosecuted, but 500 00:27:16,800 --> 00:27:18,359 Speaker 1: no one was hurt. Wise, this is happening to me, 501 00:27:18,520 --> 00:27:21,320 Speaker 1: when the real issue is you've been doing great inflation 502 00:27:21,400 --> 00:27:24,280 Speaker 1: for your entire career, buddy, and someone is holding you 503 00:27:24,320 --> 00:27:27,520 Speaker 1: to account for it, and under New York law, that 504 00:27:27,600 --> 00:27:29,720 Speaker 1: in itself is enough to prosecute you. 505 00:27:30,280 --> 00:27:34,120 Speaker 2: In their main case. That's the state's main case. They 506 00:27:34,119 --> 00:27:39,520 Speaker 2: did have an expert witness who testified about the harm, 507 00:27:39,760 --> 00:27:41,720 Speaker 2: even though you don't have to prove it. It goes 508 00:27:41,800 --> 00:27:46,120 Speaker 2: to the amount of damages because the state is seeking 509 00:27:46,359 --> 00:27:53,680 Speaker 2: essentially disgorgement, which is the amount that Donald Trump unjustly received. 510 00:27:53,840 --> 00:27:56,720 Speaker 2: And the theory is that he either wouldn't have gotten 511 00:27:56,760 --> 00:28:00,760 Speaker 2: the loan or that the rate that was charged be different, 512 00:28:01,040 --> 00:28:03,520 Speaker 2: because I mean, it's kind of common sense, which is 513 00:28:03,560 --> 00:28:05,720 Speaker 2: like if you and I go to a bank. Oh, 514 00:28:05,760 --> 00:28:07,800 Speaker 2: I don't say you, but if I go to a bank, 515 00:28:07,840 --> 00:28:10,840 Speaker 2: they're certainly going to look at my risk profile, and 516 00:28:10,880 --> 00:28:14,880 Speaker 2: the riskier I am, they may decide not to loan 517 00:28:15,000 --> 00:28:18,000 Speaker 2: me the money at all, or to loan at a 518 00:28:18,080 --> 00:28:21,760 Speaker 2: higher rate to account for the risk factors. So they 519 00:28:21,800 --> 00:28:24,600 Speaker 2: had an expert talk about that and sort of assess 520 00:28:24,800 --> 00:28:27,399 Speaker 2: what it would be. And obviously that's why part of 521 00:28:27,440 --> 00:28:30,040 Speaker 2: the battle here is not just on liability, but on 522 00:28:30,680 --> 00:28:33,840 Speaker 2: what would the damages be if the rate would have 523 00:28:33,880 --> 00:28:37,199 Speaker 2: been different. And that's where the defense case, which is 524 00:28:37,240 --> 00:28:39,560 Speaker 2: to say, oh, we were just happy to do business, 525 00:28:40,120 --> 00:28:43,800 Speaker 2: is important, because even if it doesn't defeat liability, it 526 00:28:43,800 --> 00:28:46,880 Speaker 2: could go to damages. I have to say, I think 527 00:28:46,920 --> 00:28:48,640 Speaker 2: one thing, and I don't know how much the state 528 00:28:48,840 --> 00:28:53,560 Speaker 2: made of this, having somebody from the private wealth group testifying. 529 00:28:53,680 --> 00:28:56,040 Speaker 2: I mean, they had their own interests, and I didn't 530 00:28:56,040 --> 00:28:59,760 Speaker 2: assess her credibility on the stand. I didn't see her testify, 531 00:29:00,200 --> 00:29:04,160 Speaker 2: but I would be very interested in private wealth management. 532 00:29:04,560 --> 00:29:08,000 Speaker 2: As happens a lot of times in large institutions, different 533 00:29:08,000 --> 00:29:10,960 Speaker 2: parts of a bank can have very different interests that 534 00:29:11,000 --> 00:29:14,880 Speaker 2: don't necessarily align with what the bank overall wants to see. 535 00:29:15,080 --> 00:29:17,560 Speaker 2: So a bank, for instance, a well run bank, could 536 00:29:17,560 --> 00:29:20,320 Speaker 2: be very concerned about what's happening at the sales level, 537 00:29:20,680 --> 00:29:23,520 Speaker 2: are people saying and doing things that would help them 538 00:29:23,560 --> 00:29:27,000 Speaker 2: get commissions, but that the bank overall does not want 539 00:29:27,000 --> 00:29:29,920 Speaker 2: to see people doing. And so I did have a 540 00:29:30,160 --> 00:29:33,200 Speaker 2: sense that at least, I was curious as to whether 541 00:29:33,400 --> 00:29:36,160 Speaker 2: that was going on with the spect to private wealth management, 542 00:29:36,200 --> 00:29:38,600 Speaker 2: where they would be like, hey, we were kind of 543 00:29:39,240 --> 00:29:42,520 Speaker 2: cheerleading this because this was going to be good for us, 544 00:29:43,000 --> 00:29:46,840 Speaker 2: even if it wasn't necessarily what the bank overall would 545 00:29:46,880 --> 00:29:47,400 Speaker 2: want to do. 546 00:29:47,640 --> 00:29:50,000 Speaker 1: Well. In fact, that's very true about Deutsche Bank. I 547 00:29:50,040 --> 00:29:53,480 Speaker 1: think the private Wealth group was cheerleading to get business 548 00:29:53,560 --> 00:29:56,400 Speaker 1: at all costs from Donald Trump, even though another major 549 00:29:56,440 --> 00:29:58,120 Speaker 1: part of the bank that he's not somebody will do 550 00:29:58,160 --> 00:30:01,160 Speaker 1: business with again ever, and then gave the business him 551 00:30:01,200 --> 00:30:04,960 Speaker 1: on very favorable terms. But now oral arguments have ended, 552 00:30:05,520 --> 00:30:08,120 Speaker 1: testimony has ended, the judge in the case is going 553 00:30:08,200 --> 00:30:10,440 Speaker 1: to rule sometime next month, and I think the issue 554 00:30:10,520 --> 00:30:12,840 Speaker 1: here is what does he do with all this information. 555 00:30:12,920 --> 00:30:16,040 Speaker 1: He's already pulled the business licenses on Trump and some 556 00:30:16,080 --> 00:30:20,160 Speaker 1: of the related operating entities. He can, I think, impose 557 00:30:20,240 --> 00:30:22,840 Speaker 1: bigger damages potentially than two fifty but I think that 558 00:30:22,880 --> 00:30:25,040 Speaker 1: seems to be a cap two hundred and fifty million. 559 00:30:25,520 --> 00:30:28,480 Speaker 1: How do you think about where this will land come January? 560 00:30:29,200 --> 00:30:31,480 Speaker 2: I just don't know. I mean, this is the one 561 00:30:31,520 --> 00:30:35,360 Speaker 2: thing that we know for sure. There is liability on 562 00:30:35,400 --> 00:30:39,800 Speaker 2: the first cause of action. So in some ways it's 563 00:30:39,840 --> 00:30:43,040 Speaker 2: already a bit of a game over, and it's really 564 00:30:43,120 --> 00:30:45,440 Speaker 2: a question of what are the remedies for that first 565 00:30:45,480 --> 00:30:48,400 Speaker 2: cause of action. Yes, there may or may not be 566 00:30:48,600 --> 00:30:51,400 Speaker 2: liability of damages for the rest, but in some ways 567 00:30:51,400 --> 00:30:55,120 Speaker 2: that may be icing and I don't know how the 568 00:30:55,240 --> 00:30:58,040 Speaker 2: judge will come out on those issues. I don't know 569 00:30:58,400 --> 00:31:02,320 Speaker 2: how he will assess credibility. One thing that is I 570 00:31:02,360 --> 00:31:07,720 Speaker 2: think kind of interesting is the judge is entitled to 571 00:31:07,760 --> 00:31:11,400 Speaker 2: make fact finding based on the credibility of the witnesses. 572 00:31:11,400 --> 00:31:17,800 Speaker 2: And remember that Don Junior, Eric Vanka, and Donald Trump 573 00:31:17,880 --> 00:31:22,280 Speaker 2: himself have all testified. The judges already found Donald Trump 574 00:31:23,120 --> 00:31:27,600 Speaker 2: not believable with respec to a gag order issue, where 575 00:31:27,640 --> 00:31:30,560 Speaker 2: Trump said that he didn't intend to be referring to 576 00:31:31,120 --> 00:31:33,200 Speaker 2: the judges law clerk, and the judge said, I don't 577 00:31:33,240 --> 00:31:35,200 Speaker 2: believe it. By the way, just because he said that 578 00:31:35,200 --> 00:31:37,560 Speaker 2: doesn't mean he's going to find that he's incredible on everything. 579 00:31:38,200 --> 00:31:41,480 Speaker 2: But he's entitled to make those fact findings. And that's 580 00:31:41,720 --> 00:31:45,520 Speaker 2: very very hard for any party to get reversed on appeal. 581 00:31:46,040 --> 00:31:49,720 Speaker 2: So by testifying those people, I won't say it's there 582 00:31:49,760 --> 00:31:53,960 Speaker 2: one shot, but it is very much putting your hands 583 00:31:53,960 --> 00:31:57,120 Speaker 2: in the fate of the fact finder. So it'll be 584 00:31:57,120 --> 00:32:00,040 Speaker 2: interesting to see what Judge and Gorn says about the 585 00:32:00,160 --> 00:32:03,400 Speaker 2: leiaevability of those witnesses in general. 586 00:32:04,200 --> 00:32:06,480 Speaker 1: Andrew, let's take another break and we'll come right back. 587 00:32:11,800 --> 00:32:13,720 Speaker 1: I'm back with Andrew Weisman, and we're discussing the New 588 00:32:13,800 --> 00:32:17,520 Speaker 1: York Attorney General's prosecution of Donald Trump. Andrew, I wanted 589 00:32:17,520 --> 00:32:20,440 Speaker 1: to ask you about, I guess, extra legal issues of 590 00:32:20,480 --> 00:32:23,840 Speaker 1: all of this, because Trump is an unusual defendant and 591 00:32:24,000 --> 00:32:27,440 Speaker 1: you experienced this during the Muller probe, where you have 592 00:32:27,520 --> 00:32:33,120 Speaker 1: an active, serious investigation going on, and he's openly speaking 593 00:32:33,160 --> 00:32:37,240 Speaker 1: about people you're investigating, like Paul Manafort, and he's tweeting 594 00:32:37,280 --> 00:32:39,520 Speaker 1: about whether or not Paul Manafort is going to sort 595 00:32:39,560 --> 00:32:44,080 Speaker 1: of display omerica and not testify against him. He's going 596 00:32:44,080 --> 00:32:46,320 Speaker 1: to the press, He's talking about all aspects of the 597 00:32:46,360 --> 00:32:50,480 Speaker 1: case without any kind of worry about that having consequences, 598 00:32:50,480 --> 00:32:53,120 Speaker 1: and that had all come to play again in this 599 00:32:53,240 --> 00:32:55,480 Speaker 1: case in New York. You know, you mentioned in the 600 00:32:55,520 --> 00:32:57,840 Speaker 1: earlier segment that the judge in the case had to 601 00:32:57,840 --> 00:33:00,520 Speaker 1: put a gag order on him because he was sought 602 00:33:00,520 --> 00:33:03,840 Speaker 1: of bounds, and he promptly violated the terms of the 603 00:33:03,880 --> 00:33:06,680 Speaker 1: gag order. That's also happened in one of the federal cases, 604 00:33:07,040 --> 00:33:09,880 Speaker 1: the January sixth case. I believe we talked in the 605 00:33:09,880 --> 00:33:12,320 Speaker 1: top of the show of this long and illustrious parade 606 00:33:12,360 --> 00:33:15,719 Speaker 1: of people and entities that you've prosecuted, from John Gotti 607 00:33:15,800 --> 00:33:20,400 Speaker 1: to Enron. Where does Donald Trump fit in that spectrum 608 00:33:20,440 --> 00:33:24,240 Speaker 1: for you when you watch him as a defendant, and 609 00:33:24,360 --> 00:33:27,600 Speaker 1: how his political theater affects the rule of law. 610 00:33:28,000 --> 00:33:31,760 Speaker 2: So it's worth noting a couple of things. One, there 611 00:33:31,920 --> 00:33:35,440 Speaker 2: is a recent decision on the gag order from the 612 00:33:35,600 --> 00:33:39,480 Speaker 2: DC Circuit that is, the Court of Appeals in Washington, 613 00:33:39,560 --> 00:33:45,040 Speaker 2: d C. It's the decision that in large part affirms 614 00:33:45,160 --> 00:33:49,880 Speaker 2: Judge Chukins gag order, where the Circuit court said that 615 00:33:50,280 --> 00:33:54,400 Speaker 2: some of the statements made by Donald Trump, the former 616 00:33:54,560 --> 00:33:57,880 Speaker 2: president of the United States, the former leader of the 617 00:33:57,880 --> 00:34:03,240 Speaker 2: free world, posed a significificant and imminent danger with respec 618 00:34:03,360 --> 00:34:07,840 Speaker 2: to the integrity of the judicial process. That is a stunning, 619 00:34:08,400 --> 00:34:14,040 Speaker 2: just a stunning statement to be said about any elected official, 620 00:34:14,239 --> 00:34:17,120 Speaker 2: let alone the leader of the free world. 621 00:34:17,560 --> 00:34:20,240 Speaker 1: So that's in the nation's top law enforcement official. 622 00:34:20,719 --> 00:34:23,759 Speaker 2: Yes, it is worth just going back to that, even 623 00:34:23,800 --> 00:34:27,400 Speaker 2: though we're so inured to the fact that Donald Trump 624 00:34:27,440 --> 00:34:31,560 Speaker 2: does that, in fact he embraces it, and prosecutors, I 625 00:34:31,560 --> 00:34:35,320 Speaker 2: think are aware of that. Whether it's a public corruption 626 00:34:35,480 --> 00:34:38,839 Speaker 2: case or an organized crime case. Frankly, any sort of 627 00:34:39,040 --> 00:34:43,720 Speaker 2: gang or group case where there is a hierarchy where 628 00:34:43,760 --> 00:34:46,799 Speaker 2: power and money or involved. If you're a prosecutor, you 629 00:34:46,880 --> 00:34:51,000 Speaker 2: worry about undue influence on witnesses. 630 00:34:50,600 --> 00:34:53,040 Speaker 1: From the top of the food chain. Yep. But as 631 00:34:53,040 --> 00:34:57,240 Speaker 1: you've noted, Trump is an unusually powerful defendant. Of course, 632 00:34:57,239 --> 00:35:00,880 Speaker 1: what unusual impacts what's happening to the rule of law 633 00:35:01,120 --> 00:35:04,439 Speaker 1: in this country right now? When you have someone who's 634 00:35:04,480 --> 00:35:08,440 Speaker 1: a defendant in multiple cases that are buttressed by substantive 635 00:35:08,640 --> 00:35:12,280 Speaker 1: charges with long trails of evidence behind them, including recordings 636 00:35:12,320 --> 00:35:15,440 Speaker 1: of his own voice in the Georgia case asking people 637 00:35:15,440 --> 00:35:18,239 Speaker 1: to commit voting fraud for him, or cameras at his 638 00:35:18,280 --> 00:35:20,960 Speaker 1: own estate in mar A Lago showing his own employees 639 00:35:21,000 --> 00:35:25,160 Speaker 1: trying to hide classified documents from federal investigators. And yet 640 00:35:25,520 --> 00:35:28,520 Speaker 1: he keeps pushing forward in the political theater, in the 641 00:35:28,560 --> 00:35:32,200 Speaker 1: public theater. What is the ultimate impact of that on 642 00:35:32,400 --> 00:35:34,400 Speaker 1: the judicial process and the rule of law? 643 00:35:34,920 --> 00:35:36,920 Speaker 2: Well, I think there's sort of a small picture in 644 00:35:37,000 --> 00:35:40,239 Speaker 2: big picture the small pictures. I think that the courts 645 00:35:40,760 --> 00:35:45,440 Speaker 2: by and large have done an incredible job at upholding 646 00:35:45,480 --> 00:35:48,799 Speaker 2: the rule of law. I do think that the slowness 647 00:35:48,800 --> 00:35:52,280 Speaker 2: of the judicial process takes its toll in terms of 648 00:35:52,520 --> 00:35:55,360 Speaker 2: being able to have a trial of the form president 649 00:35:55,400 --> 00:35:57,960 Speaker 2: before the election, so that the public has the benefit 650 00:35:58,080 --> 00:36:02,319 Speaker 2: of that information and the conclusion. But I think that 651 00:36:02,360 --> 00:36:04,640 Speaker 2: in spite of all of the attacks, I think that 652 00:36:04,840 --> 00:36:08,200 Speaker 2: the judges are in general doing it a really good job, 653 00:36:08,239 --> 00:36:10,359 Speaker 2: in the same way that the courts did a really 654 00:36:10,360 --> 00:36:15,160 Speaker 2: good job and response to over sixty challenges to the 655 00:36:15,200 --> 00:36:17,920 Speaker 2: results of the election, where all of the ones that 656 00:36:18,160 --> 00:36:21,720 Speaker 2: went to the merits were denied. So I think that 657 00:36:21,760 --> 00:36:25,000 Speaker 2: the courts are going to be under considerable attack in 658 00:36:25,040 --> 00:36:29,080 Speaker 2: the same way that prosecutors and the media are attacked 659 00:36:29,120 --> 00:36:32,120 Speaker 2: by Donald Trump, because that's what he does when there's 660 00:36:32,320 --> 00:36:36,480 Speaker 2: any sort of institution or people within those institutions who 661 00:36:36,520 --> 00:36:40,480 Speaker 2: are standing up to an authoritarian personality. I think that 662 00:36:40,560 --> 00:36:43,560 Speaker 2: the larger picture, though, is whether the public is going 663 00:36:43,600 --> 00:36:46,919 Speaker 2: to give a damn, whether there are enough people who 664 00:36:47,000 --> 00:36:51,080 Speaker 2: view that as a fundamental problem, And I think that 665 00:36:51,239 --> 00:36:53,840 Speaker 2: was the thing that I found very upsetting about his 666 00:36:53,960 --> 00:36:56,319 Speaker 2: being elected the first time. And this has nothing to 667 00:36:56,360 --> 00:37:00,600 Speaker 2: do with policy choices. It's not about whether degrees or 668 00:37:00,640 --> 00:37:04,759 Speaker 2: disagrees with his view on immigration, or who should be 669 00:37:04,840 --> 00:37:08,840 Speaker 2: judges all sorts of policy implications. It's that I was 670 00:37:08,920 --> 00:37:13,520 Speaker 2: just so surprised that people could overlook what I viewed 671 00:37:13,560 --> 00:37:22,439 Speaker 2: as blatant racism, xenophobia, sexism, the denigration of the rule 672 00:37:22,480 --> 00:37:27,200 Speaker 2: of law, that those were so fundamental that I didn't 673 00:37:27,280 --> 00:37:31,720 Speaker 2: understand that those weren't deal breakers for a much larger 674 00:37:31,760 --> 00:37:34,680 Speaker 2: group of the American public. You know, I'm in the 675 00:37:34,760 --> 00:37:37,880 Speaker 2: middle of reading Liz Cheney's book, and as I think 676 00:37:37,960 --> 00:37:40,320 Speaker 2: many people said, you know, Liz Cheney and I politically 677 00:37:40,360 --> 00:37:44,480 Speaker 2: are probably pretty much polar opposites, but this is one 678 00:37:44,520 --> 00:37:50,560 Speaker 2: where there's a fundamental similarity in terms of how those 679 00:37:50,600 --> 00:37:56,040 Speaker 2: differences are decided and played out and the discussions you 680 00:37:56,120 --> 00:38:00,359 Speaker 2: can have on a policy level within the framework of 681 00:38:00,400 --> 00:38:04,000 Speaker 2: a democratic system and a republic that we have. And 682 00:38:04,120 --> 00:38:08,680 Speaker 2: so what's sad is that that baseline is so important. 683 00:38:08,760 --> 00:38:12,120 Speaker 1: And because both of you believe that institutions and the 684 00:38:12,200 --> 00:38:14,759 Speaker 1: rule of law and the processes that's around the matter. 685 00:38:15,239 --> 00:38:19,440 Speaker 1: Even if you disagree philosophically and politically that the bedrock 686 00:38:19,600 --> 00:38:23,080 Speaker 1: of civic engagement and communities are respect for those things. 687 00:38:23,120 --> 00:38:25,400 Speaker 1: And I think that that is the tissue that Donald 688 00:38:25,400 --> 00:38:29,080 Speaker 1: Trump is trying to shred, along with the Constitution and democracy. 689 00:38:29,200 --> 00:38:31,640 Speaker 2: So you know, the title of my book, Where Law Ends, 690 00:38:31,920 --> 00:38:36,800 Speaker 2: comes from a John Locke quote, English philosopher who said, 691 00:38:36,880 --> 00:38:42,120 Speaker 2: where law ends, tyranny begins. And that quote is on 692 00:38:42,760 --> 00:38:47,000 Speaker 2: the Justice Department walls on the outside on the limestone 693 00:38:47,320 --> 00:38:51,240 Speaker 2: over the Department of Justice in Washington, d C. Because 694 00:38:51,280 --> 00:38:55,560 Speaker 2: it's so fundamental to what the Department of Justice is. 695 00:38:55,760 --> 00:38:58,680 Speaker 2: And as Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General of the 696 00:38:58,800 --> 00:39:02,120 Speaker 2: United States, has said that the Department of Justice, unlike 697 00:39:02,200 --> 00:39:04,840 Speaker 2: any other department we have in Caninet level official, is 698 00:39:04,920 --> 00:39:08,600 Speaker 2: founded on an idea, which is the rule of law. 699 00:39:08,960 --> 00:39:12,920 Speaker 2: And to me, that sentiment of where law ends, tyranny 700 00:39:12,960 --> 00:39:18,160 Speaker 2: begins is just so fundamentally appropriate to this time that 701 00:39:18,200 --> 00:39:18,719 Speaker 2: we are in. 702 00:39:19,520 --> 00:39:21,440 Speaker 1: Andrew, I always like to ask guests at the end 703 00:39:21,480 --> 00:39:23,680 Speaker 1: of the show what they've learned, and I wanted to 704 00:39:23,760 --> 00:39:26,759 Speaker 1: ask you, sort of starting with the Mueller probe and 705 00:39:26,800 --> 00:39:30,600 Speaker 1: up into the president, what have you learned about the 706 00:39:30,640 --> 00:39:33,800 Speaker 1: impact of Donald Trump as a president and a former 707 00:39:33,880 --> 00:39:38,120 Speaker 1: president being a defendant, and in the process of being 708 00:39:38,120 --> 00:39:43,279 Speaker 1: a defendant again undermining some fundamental thoughts and respect we 709 00:39:43,360 --> 00:39:44,560 Speaker 1: have for the legal process. 710 00:39:45,120 --> 00:39:51,120 Speaker 2: So when I was a very young man, and I 711 00:39:51,120 --> 00:39:53,759 Speaker 2: think I had not yet gone to law school, and 712 00:39:53,800 --> 00:39:58,440 Speaker 2: I had been an intern at the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, 713 00:39:58,560 --> 00:40:04,799 Speaker 2: who helped found the ACLU, was still alive, and he 714 00:40:05,360 --> 00:40:09,359 Speaker 2: used to say that regardless of what is in the 715 00:40:09,440 --> 00:40:18,120 Speaker 2: Constitution or in congressional statutes, that what's fundamentally important is 716 00:40:18,160 --> 00:40:23,440 Speaker 2: that those values and precepts are in the hearts and 717 00:40:23,640 --> 00:40:27,560 Speaker 2: minds of citizens in the United States. And I remember 718 00:40:27,600 --> 00:40:32,160 Speaker 2: at the time, thinking, what's he talking about, Like, if 719 00:40:32,160 --> 00:40:35,600 Speaker 2: it's in the Constitution, we're done. If Congress has passed 720 00:40:35,640 --> 00:40:39,000 Speaker 2: a lot were done. It didn't resonate with me. And 721 00:40:39,080 --> 00:40:42,880 Speaker 2: I think what I have learned is things that I 722 00:40:42,920 --> 00:40:47,640 Speaker 2: thought were deeply rooted in the United States, and that 723 00:40:47,719 --> 00:40:51,360 Speaker 2: I took as a given and for granted. It's like 724 00:40:51,400 --> 00:40:54,440 Speaker 2: the roots of a willow tree that are very shallow 725 00:40:55,040 --> 00:40:59,200 Speaker 2: and a strong wind can cause it to topple, And 726 00:40:59,640 --> 00:41:04,480 Speaker 2: that what Roger Baldwin was saying is so true that 727 00:41:04,560 --> 00:41:08,600 Speaker 2: they fight and what it means to be or what 728 00:41:08,760 --> 00:41:11,160 Speaker 2: I think it means to be American, is something that 729 00:41:11,600 --> 00:41:16,640 Speaker 2: has to be thought for and upheld and taught in 730 00:41:16,680 --> 00:41:17,560 Speaker 2: every generation. 731 00:41:18,160 --> 00:41:20,040 Speaker 1: Yeah, to stay with your analogy of trees. When you 732 00:41:20,040 --> 00:41:22,160 Speaker 1: were talking about willow trees, I was thinking the happy 733 00:41:22,640 --> 00:41:25,120 Speaker 1: opposite of that are aspens, which are all connected at 734 00:41:25,120 --> 00:41:28,160 Speaker 1: the roots and draw great strength from that fact. And 735 00:41:28,200 --> 00:41:30,239 Speaker 1: as we go into this political year, I think we 736 00:41:30,320 --> 00:41:33,239 Speaker 1: have to think like aspens and not like willows. 737 00:41:33,520 --> 00:41:34,080 Speaker 2: I love it. 738 00:41:35,400 --> 00:41:37,080 Speaker 1: We're also out of time. I could have talked to 739 00:41:37,120 --> 00:41:39,880 Speaker 1: you for another day or two, and I'm glad you 740 00:41:39,920 --> 00:41:42,720 Speaker 1: came on. Thanks for coming on today, Andrew, Oh. 741 00:41:42,320 --> 00:41:44,440 Speaker 2: Thank you so much for inviting me. This was really 742 00:41:44,640 --> 00:41:45,240 Speaker 2: really great. 743 00:41:45,960 --> 00:41:48,560 Speaker 1: Andrew Weisman is a professor at the NYU Law School 744 00:41:48,719 --> 00:41:51,760 Speaker 1: and a veteran prosecutor. You can find him on Twitter 745 00:41:52,239 --> 00:41:57,680 Speaker 1: at a Weisman Underscore. Here at crash Course, we believe 746 00:41:57,680 --> 00:42:02,560 Speaker 1: the collisions can be messy, impressive, challenging, surprising, and always instructive. 747 00:42:03,080 --> 00:42:05,959 Speaker 1: In today's Crash Course, I was reminded that no matter 748 00:42:06,000 --> 00:42:08,160 Speaker 1: how much I go into the weeds on a topic, 749 00:42:08,239 --> 00:42:11,400 Speaker 1: particularly the prosecution of Donald Trump, some of the larger 750 00:42:11,480 --> 00:42:15,120 Speaker 1: truths always have to be recognized, specifically that Donald Trump 751 00:42:15,560 --> 00:42:17,520 Speaker 1: remains a threat to the rule of law and a 752 00:42:17,520 --> 00:42:21,080 Speaker 1: threat to democracy. What did you learn? We'd love to 753 00:42:21,120 --> 00:42:23,720 Speaker 1: hear from you. You can tweet at the Bloomberg Opinion 754 00:42:23,760 --> 00:42:27,400 Speaker 1: handle at Opinion or me at Tim O'Brien using the 755 00:42:27,440 --> 00:42:31,319 Speaker 1: hashtag Bloomberg Crash Course. You can also subscribe to our 756 00:42:31,360 --> 00:42:34,200 Speaker 1: show wherever you're listening right now and leave us a review. 757 00:42:34,440 --> 00:42:37,640 Speaker 1: It helps more people find the show. This episode was 758 00:42:37,680 --> 00:42:41,600 Speaker 1: produced by the indispensable and ever law abiding Anna Masarakis 759 00:42:41,680 --> 00:42:45,480 Speaker 1: and me. Our supervising producer is Magnus Hendrickson, and we 760 00:42:45,520 --> 00:42:49,240 Speaker 1: had editing help from Sage Bauman, Jeff Grocott, Mike Nitze, 761 00:42:49,440 --> 00:42:53,520 Speaker 1: and Christine Vanden Bilart. Blake Maples does our sound engineering, 762 00:42:53,760 --> 00:42:57,319 Speaker 1: and our original theme song was composed by Luis Gara. 763 00:42:57,719 --> 00:43:00,520 Speaker 1: I'm Tim O'Brien. We'll be back next week with another 764 00:43:00,560 --> 00:43:01,160 Speaker 1: Crash Course.