"MAGA Sine Laude" - w/Tristan Snell, Fmr. Assistant AG for New York - Faithful Politics

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Tristan Snell (00:00):
When we hear something from them, and they
announced that they're goingforward with a case, or it's
going to be much further, it'llsuddenly be way further along
than everybody realizes. Now,that doesn't necessarily mean
that we'll be going right totrial. But because there could
be a motion to dismiss thatmotion to dismiss could get
appealed, like things could getvery messy, but um, but it's

(00:23):
going to be a lot further alongthan people realize. At that
point. That's probably thebiggest takeaway for people that
made up it's something that'skind of behind the scenes that
people probably don't know. Hey,welcome people, politics

William Wright (00:44):
listeners and viewers. If you're watching on
our YouTube channel, I am yourpolitical host. We'll right and
unfortunately Josh is not withus this week. He is currently on
duty sitting on a high. He'scurrently in jury duty actually
sitting on a high profile casein Kenosha, Wisconsin, but in
his place. We have back with us.
Karina Lane, the constitutionalProfessor extraordinare and

(01:07):
former prosecutor and joining usthis week to talk about all
kinds of things the answer tolife, the universe and
everything is former AssistantAttorney General for New York
State and current ManagingPartner Mainstreet law Tristan
Snell, so thanks, Jason.

Thanks for having me.

Yeah. Did I say your last name? Right? Snell.
Okay. Good good at pronouncingnames are very important on the
show. It's it's kind of it'skind of what we're known for.
We're known for pronouncingnames correctly. That's a core
competency. Yeah, so um, yeah.
So Tristan, we are glad you'rehere. And we, we want to talk to

(01:51):
you kind of about a whole rangeof things, primarily. Trump and
all things related. It's it'sactually been a minute since
we've had an episode that sortof focused on Trump, which seems
kind of weird. But, you know,this is this is the new post
Trump life we live in. And mostof it's all Biden related. So.
So with regard to Trump, I thinkjust on the on the onset, we we

(02:14):
want to kind of talk to you alittle bit about a recent
article literally, like you justposted on the Smerconish page
about unpacking the civil casethat may destroy the Trump
Organization. So can you can youtalk to us a little bit about
that that article?

Yeah, sure. So, uh, you know, I worked on civil
prosecutions when I was at theNew York ag office. So I'm a
little bit biased. You know, thecivil side, prosecution is often
poorly understood, and I don'tthink ever gets quite enough
love. And that's okay. But itwas just a chance to toot the

(02:56):
horn of the civil case, whicheverybody has forgotten about
everybody. So what happened was,everybody will remember that. It
was big news. Back in thesummer, when the New York ag
office announced that it waselevating its probe into the
Trump Organization and DonaldTrump to a criminal matter. That
happened, I want to say in July,and might have been even in

(03:20):
June, and then it was clear thatthis was really starting to ramp
up. Everybody just assumed thatit was the with the term
elevating that it was like thecivil case was turning into a
criminal case, like it had LevelA, you know, an A level up. It
hadn't, that's actually notwhat's happened. It just meant
that they opened a criminalmatter. They're cooperating in

(03:43):
that criminal matter of theManhattan DA 's office, which is
have a longer standing criminalmatter on it, the civil case has
still been ongoing. And my goalwith the Peace was to was to let
everybody know about that. Andalso to take an opportunity to
do a little bit of a nerdy deepdive into how these civil cases

(04:04):
work at the office, because it'sa unique area of law. New York
has some of these statutes thatno other state has quite the
same law. And with the Martinact, and this other thing that
very few people know aboutcalled Executive law 6312, which
is really the main workhorsestatute for civil prosecutions

(04:26):
by the New York AttorneyGeneral's Office. And the key
there is just to not to go ontoo long about this. But is that
the please do? Okay, great.

Corinna Lain (04:39):
I said I'm gonna nerd out on this. And I
actually, I think our listenerswould be really interested in
seeing the difference betweenthe criminal side and the civil
side. And, you know, thatthere's this presumption that
like, oh, you know, go after himcriminally. And, you know, I
think you make a reallyinteresting argument that

(05:00):
Perhaps, you know, the perhapsboth the easier and more
satisfying judgment is on thecivil side. So please do tell.

So the easier part is really key because one
thing I probably should have putin the piece, but didn't is that
of course, you've got thedifference between what the what
the burden of proof is in acivil case, which is that you
need preponderance of theevidence versus in a in a
criminal matter where you'relooking for beyond a reasonable
doubt. I actually probablyshould, should see if I can

(05:31):
still put that into the piece. Itotally forgot to put that in.
But that's one layer. The otherlayer is that fraud in the
criminal context or fraud in thecivil context, common law
involves intent requires intent,and it requires that the
defrauded party reasonablyrelied upon the

(05:52):
misrepresentations. Those areboth significant hurdles to
making a case, Executive law6312 And the Martin Act, which
is sort of its sibling statute,dispense with those requirements
by statute and say those are notrequired when the AG is bringing

(06:12):
the civil case. So that's reallycritical, because proving intent
is especially tricky. Obviously,that's what a lot of the
criminal case will have to hingeon. And I believe that there's
potentially going to be enoughevidence to pull that off. But
it's certainly a high bar. Andit's meant to be, especially in

(06:33):
the criminal context, whereyou're taking away someone's
liberty, the civil case foryou're really just taking away
someone's money, the bar islower. And what we could see
there is a case that actuallyhappens faster, has a lower bar
to clear by the prosecution. Inthis case, it would be the New

(06:55):
York a G's office, and that itcould result in hundreds of
millions of dollars in backtaxes, restitution, and
penalties being paid by theTrump Organization, possibly
also by Donald Trump,personally, in some instances,
or other members of his familyor organization. And that money

(07:16):
being paid to the state of NewYork, various banks and
insurance companies, possibly,and all of this hinges around
the tax fraud, which we canunpack a bit more. But it could
be the net net out of this couldbe a nine figure, you know, hit
to the Trump's that that couldcome within the next couple of

(07:37):
years, resulting out of all ofthis. And it could be even
faster than that it it dependsthat these court cases when
they're brought by the Agoffice, they can go very
quickly, but they can also endup getting stuck in the mud with
a bunch of other decisions andappeals. We filed the Trump
University case, which was alsofiled in that executive last 63

(07:59):
days prior statute, and we alsoprotect the advantage of that
statutory definition of fraud.
We filed that case in August of2013. It was on the way to going
to trial for possibly a late2016 or early 2017 trial date,
when Donald Trump won theelection in November 2016. At
which point, he settled ratherthan having to go to trial while

(08:23):
he was in the White House. Andbut it but it was taking that
long. In other words, it was itwas it soup to nuts, that case
was gonna take three and a halfyears. That's how long it ended
up taking. So it you know, Idon't know if it'll necessarily
be faster than the criminalcase. But it could be it's
really another path at whichprosecutors can pursue the

(08:46):
wrongdoing that is beingalleged. And for those who
believe that there should becriminal or civil consequences
for some of the things that theTrump's appear to have done. tax
wise, this really could be asignificant, you know, and I, in
my view, really potentiallycatastrophic economic impact
for, for the business and forhis personal finances.

Great. I have so many questions for you, I will
try to restrain myself. But oneis very limited. And that's just
I wondered if you'd mentionedthe corporate charter
implications, the potentialcorporate charter implications
and why even those who arecorporate law geeks and saying,
oh, but there's Delaware. Why,why that might not even work.

(09:35):
You MUST speak to that.

Well, for one thing, most of the corporate
charters you know well, there'sa couple of things is that you
know, a you can you can ofcourse reincorporate in a
different state. You know, theTrumps seem to have decided that
Florida is a good place forthem. You know, the companies
that are currently chartered inNew York could just get

(09:58):
recharged in Florida, but Youstill have to have if you want
to do business in New York, youstill have to and anybody that
runs a small business knowsthis, you have to be registered
as a weird terminology, you'reregistered as a foreign
corporation. So even if you'vegot a Delaware LLC, but you need

(10:20):
to do business in Virginia, youneed to be registered as a
foreign corporation in theCommonwealth of Virginia. And so
the key is that Donald Trumpcould recharter all of these
corporations and LLCs as Floridaentities. But if it's in New
York building, Trump Tower 40,Wall Street, the Seven Springs

(10:43):
Resort, that's some of the taximplications there have been
called into question up inWestchester County, North of the
city. It's not like you can runthe building as a Florida LLC,
without having a authority torun a a foreign corporation in
the state of New York, you can'tit's not going to be possible,

(11:05):
how are you going to collectrent from your tenants in Trump
Tower, if it doesn't haveauthority to operate in the
state of New York. So, you know,other businesses it is it'll be
a different story, you know, hewants to run, you know, this new
social media thing, this truth,social thing, if he wants to run
that completely outside of NewYork, but even that, if it's

(11:27):
going to have New York users,you have to have a New York, you
have to New York authority. Anycompany if he wants to hit any
New York consumers at all, he'sgoing to have to have authority
to operate in the state of NewYork. So there could be some
businesses of his that don'thave any connection. I mean, I
guess some of the propertiesoutside New York. So like

the satisfy, um, but but the implications of the
laws that you were talkingabout, right, this is the Martin
Act and the and the other act,are that they, they could
actually take away the corporatecharter to do business, you
know, chartered in New York aspart of the civil penalty, is
that right?

That is correct.
That isn't a statute yet. It's adeath penalty for a business.
And the fact that that, thatthat is there, I mean, they
already did that in a differentcontext, they took away the
Trump's right to run afoundation, or any kind of
charity in the state of NewYork, whether it's chartered
here or just operating here,they do not have the privilege
to do that anymore. And that'sreally the key is that running a

(12:30):
business is not a right, it's aprivilege, and running a
charity, same thing. So youknow, they can take that away.
Same as they could take the sameas they take away a driver's
license from someone who'srepeat DUI offender. If you're a
repeat fraud fan offender, youshould have your right to run a
business in that state takenaway. Because you just can't

(12:51):
seem to run anything withoutactually defrauding people. You
know, that's the implicationhere. That's, that's where the
facts look like they might beleading.

Yeah. Now now, for someone that's not like, in
the legal profession, like youboth are, you know, there's a
there's a famous quote from theoffice by Michael Scott that
says, explain this to me, like afifth grader. So like, what are
all the things happening behindthe scenes that is, you know,

(13:24):
that the normal public isn'tprivy to and is sort of, you
know, making things seem likethey're going much slower than,
than they really are? BecauseBecause I mean, I'll as as the
liberal like, my, my co host,who's who's on jury duty and
Kenosha, he's the Republican ofthe group, and I'm the the

(13:44):
liberal and Karina is, but Idon't want to give away your
thing in case your students arewatching or listening. But like,
so. So she's of one particularpolitical persuasion, you know,
but like, like those on theleft, want to see justice, they
want to see, they understandkind of the impact that Trump

(14:07):
had. They're just like, how dopeople get away with this stuff?
You know? So like, what what aresome of the things happening
behind the scenes that we mean,we may not know for?

Sure. So I think that one thing is that with,
I'll say what the civil case isthat this is not like a normal
private civil lawsuit where acomplaint is filed, before the
evidence is collected in what'stermed as discovery. This is

(14:37):
more like a prosecution, or morelike, it's kind of a weird
procedural thing, the way theseag cases are brought, you end up
bringing it as a specialproceeding in New York law, and
that special proceeding isexpedited and you end up
effectively coming in with allof your evidence all at once, so

(14:58):
it's kind of like a file make acomplaint with a motion for
summary judgment all in one fellswoop. And you've done your
investigate, you're done yourdiscovery as in as
investigation. So when the AG isdoing its fact finding, it
doesn't need to file a case andthen do a bunch of document
requests. Instead, it has broadinvestigatory subpoena

(15:21):
authority. So all of that heavylifting and on and as anybody
who knows, litigation or followsit knows, it's the discovery
phase that often takes thelongest. Well, that's already
been going on. I think that'sreally the key thing for people
to know, how

do you go through discovery at all? Like no, not
when

you're doing a special proceeding under 6312.
If you if you once you find thespecial proceeding, there are
some limited discovery rights.
But it's, but generallyspeaking, you've already done
all of that discovery work.
That's the part that's beentaking so darn long. And of
course, it also involved in thecase of the of the Manhattan TAS

(16:01):
office that required two tripsto the Supreme Court to to
actually get the documents fromTrump's accounting firm. And
that was the Trump versus Vancecase. But anyhow, all of that
work is being done now. Sothey're preparing from what I've
heard, you know, this, thiscivil prosecution, when it hits,

(16:24):
we're going to there's going tobe a lot of facts that are going
to be part of that, you know, anindictment is also very bare
bones, we have the indictment inthe in the in the in the Trump
Organization, Alan weiselberger,the the tax payments wing of
this case. And that's really Ithink, just as I've said, sort
of an appetizer for what'scoming in that in that Manhattan

(16:46):
DA matter. And it was I thinkwhat a 15 page indictment was
not particularly long, sometimesyou see very complex
organizational indictments canbe much longer than that. But
indictments plead just enoughfacts to move the case forward.
It's not like they're thensaying like, Okay, now here's
exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C,that waits for trial, is one of

(17:08):
these special proceedings thatthe AG is is working on
bringing, you literally doactually put in all of your
evidence and put everything in,it comes in all at once. So when
we did the Trump Universitycase, we filed it with a
banker's box worth of exhibits.
So you do all all in, everythingcomes in at once. So so much of

(17:29):
the heavy lifting in thismatter, may look and they look
like that, that what happened tothe Ag like we don't know what's
going on. But no, they're doingall the work. Now all the part
that everybody would be upset isdelaying everything later is now
just upset and delaying anddelaying everything now, and
making everybody upset. But itthat that that work is just

(17:51):
being front load. When we hearsomething from them, and they
announced that they're goingforward with a case where it's
going to be much further, it'llsuddenly be way further along
than everybody realizes. Now,that doesn't necessarily mean
that we'll be going right totrial. But because there could
be a motion to dismiss, thatmotion to dismiss could get

(18:11):
appealed. Like things can getvery messy. But, um, but it's
gonna be a lot further alongthan people realize. At that
point. That's that's probablythe biggest takeaway for people
that may not it's somethingthat's kind of behind the scenes
that people probably don't know,

I appreciate this so much, because I hear people
who have been optimistic that nolonger are, you know, they're
like, Oh, he's slippery, healways gets away. Yeah, except,
of course, in your case, thebiggest hit against the Trump
Organization was your so youknow, congratulations on that.
But, but, so, so two follow upquestions. First, you know, I

(18:52):
know now you're not on theinside of this, but, you know,
what would you say is arealistic expectation? Of
course, not trying to, you know,tie you down or pin you down
that way. But are we talkingabout like, two years? Are we
talking about four years? Are wetalking about six months or a
year or like you we just have noidea, the next decade? And then

(19:14):
the second question is, howoptimistic are you that there
will be accountability either onthe civil or criminal side out
of New York? So

I'll take the second part first, which is to
say I am cautiously optimisticthat this is definitely a sort
of, you know, long arc bendingtoward justice kind of
situation. I do believe thatwe're, that we're, I think
things are going to get there.
But I think it's going to take awhile. So that's what I that's

(19:46):
what I always tell people isthat you can't expect this stuff
to happen overnight. If Ifeeling a little bit punchy on a
given day I then know that ifyou do want it to happen
overnight, that's calledautocracy we don't work for
that's what the other side iswanting to do. In my view, like,

(20:08):
we don't want to become Russia,where you actually do just
arrest somebody in charge ofeverything and then throw them
in prison in Siberia. You know,we actually want to have the
process play out, I wish it weregoing faster, you know, due
process doesn't need to be thisslow. But that's a different
story that I won't get intoright now about how I think we

(20:30):
criminally under invest in ourlaw enforcement, and judiciary
resources, but that's adifferent tale for another time,
I think that we're going to seeaccountability on these matters.
But I do think that it couldtake, it could take, it's going
to be at least another year. AndI think it could be a more like,
you know, it couldn't be morelike 234 years, from beginning

(20:54):
to end. For when we firststarted the Trump University
investigation to actuallygetting the final judgment being
approved by the court, and moneystarting to be dispersed to the
victims of that scam was aboutsix years. Now, there were some
things in there that don'tnecessarily need to happen in

(21:15):
every case, it could havehappened in a shorter period of
time. You know, and that's thecivil case, the criminal cases,
I actually do think willprobably end up moving faster.
In the end, because there's aspeedy trial requirement for
criminal cases. So courts favorcriminal the criminal docket

(21:35):
over the civil docket, I thinkthat there's going to be
significant other, there's gonnabe a significant argument for
expediting emergency hearingsand emergency consideration of
some of these questions that aregoing to arise with regard to
whether it's the January 6Committee in the House, or the

(21:56):
New York criminal case, or theGeorgia criminal case, or if
there ends up being a federalcriminal case, that those
matters, two could take years,there could be appeals, etc,
etc. I also think, though, thatone thing I always like to point
out, is that there is somethingelse out there that isn't civil

(22:17):
or criminal, it'sconstitutional. And it is the
14th Amendment, section three,the disqualification clause,
whereby those who have sworn anoath to protect the Constitution
can be banned from any federalor state, civil or Military
Office of any kind if theyparticipated in or gaming or
comfort to an interaction. Andthat does not require that they

(22:40):
were convicted of insurrection,or any other related federal
crimes under federal law. Itsimply requires a majority of
the house. So you know, a lot ofpeople have been talking about
this, but it bears mentioning inthis context, that we could end
up with a situation in whichthere are convictions, there are
appeals. But it is notcompletely done. The process of

(23:06):
the criminal process has notcompletely played out. But does
that mean that Donald Trump isstill able to run for office
again, I think then there is aThird Avenue here, which is
constitutional. Whereby thatreally should be called into
question about whether or not heshould actually have the
privilege of being able to runfor office again. And then that

(23:28):
also goes for anybody else,whether in the house, or
staffers or anybody who swearsthat oath. You know, once they
swore that oath to defend theConstitution, and then they turn
around and support aninsurrection, they fall under
the disqualification clause,which was passed in the wake of
the Civil War. So I that'sanother thing to look at, if

(23:50):
we're looking at accountability.

I think I think this is great, because we have a
lawyer, that's that's won a caseagainst Trump. And we have a
constitutional professor. Yeah.
Not me. That's Karina. And it acurious, maybe you guys can sort
of like, you know, pair up andanswer this question is like,
like, how, what's the mechanismto sort of like, you know, I

(24:17):
don't know, apply the 14th.
Amendment to Trump. If, if, ifat all? Or would that just be
sort of like a? I don't know,like, would that be just a
byproduct of whatever the JanJanuary six commission comes up
with? Like, is there a mechanismand has it ever been applied?

(24:38):
Oh, I'll go with you first,Karina, what do you think?

So, you know, I mean, that particular provision
was, you know, looking, lookingin the wake of the Civil War.
And so I'm like, I think that itwas supplied. I just don't
remember. To be honest. Ihaven't like looked at that
particular thing. The question Iwas going to ask was actually
going back to to Tristan, andit's, and it's, um, yes, it's a

(25:03):
constitutional remedy. But it'salso a political remedy. That's
true. It takes the politicalprocess. I mean, that is the
problem with it. Right. Iactually think Nancy Pelosi,
Pelosi is I think she's awonderfully strategic thinker. I

(25:24):
surely she's been thinking aboutthis. And surely if she actually
would need to do that before?
midterms, I would, I wouldthink, but she's probably, you
know, putting in the balance, doyou? Do you do that? And what
does that do to this delicate?
You know, balance that'shappening right now? I don't

(25:46):
know. Do you? Do you havethoughts on that?

I mean, I think that that's really, it is a very
tricky thing. That is that is,of course, the weakness and
pursuing that avenue is thatunless you can, in fact, even if
you can get some bipartisansupport for those measures, you
actually get Republicans to voteon banning certain people from
office, it will still beperceived as being a partisan

(26:12):
effort. So it's not ideal. Butfrankly, I however, I would say
the the flip side of that iseven the more objective less
political, you know, civil andcriminal processes, you're still
going to be perceived aspolitical, it'll all be
perceived as political. Ifanything happens here in New
York, the first thing thateverybody's going to emphasize

(26:35):
on the other side of this isgoing to be that it was a
democratic ag and a Democraticda, that we're the ones pursuing
this, even though in reality,it's civil prosecutors or
criminal prosecutors, careerprosecutors, and we're following
the case where it goes and thatthen you had a judge or jury,
you know, rendering thejudgment. So what I do know of

(26:59):
the of the of thedisqualification clause, is I
know that it was applied afterthe Civil War. There was also
pre the disqualification clause,the house just voted to, to dis
court to actually disqualify anumber of its own members in the

(27:20):
wake of secession, and thenthere were, I believe, a number
of additional ones, a number ofadditional bands that happened
after the 14th Amendment waspassed, which I want to say was
an 1867. So if they did do it,and I'm pretty sure that it was
by a majority of the House, theprovision in the Constitution is

(27:42):
silent about the mechanismthrough which you do this.
However, the standardconstitutional interpretation
has been that we're theConstitution is silent on that,
but then it means it's amajority vote only by explicit
provision, should it be anythingmore than that. The
disqualification clause thensays that it takes a two thirds

(28:03):
majority to lift the ban onsomeone. So it is possible that
you could get, you know, 52votes and and by the way, it
there it would appear maybe thatit would need to be both houses
that would actually vote onthis, not just the house. So I
think I've just said the housebefore it will probably need to

(28:24):
be the House and the Senate. ButI'm not an expert on that. I
yet, have been planning ontrying to read up on it. But I
You know, I've done some readingon it so far. But there's
certainly some folks out therethat I'm sure are experts on the
disqualification clause,probably in the context to be
experts on those Reconstructionamendments.

Yeah, and just so you know, that that would not be
make that not one of them. So,you know, it really does strike
me just listening to you. That,you know, when you think of the
framers, and they thought ofchecks and balances, and well,
I, you know, I'm speaking moreto our general readers, and not
so much just in here. But, youknow, I think the framers really

(29:09):
thought that we would havechecks and balances in that
power would counter power, andthat the power would be
executive versus legislativeversus judicial. I just, you
know, they knew, of course,about factions, they wrote about
factions, but I think it nevercrossed their minds, that the

(29:31):
fault lines would not be acrossthe branches or between the
branches, but rather acrossparties. And so like that in my
mind is just this huge problemis that you know, yes, right in
the wake of January 6, you atleast had some members of the

(29:51):
House and Senate decrying thinglike, Oh, this is ridiculous,
like we've we've gone too far.
Finally, he's gone too far. Thered line. Oh, thanks for that
one. Yeah, even those now arelike, everybody backtracked.
They're all back. Right. Exceptfor a few. And, um, and so, you
know, just listening to you. AndI wonder, this is why actually I

(30:14):
asked about the optimism isbecause I feel like at some
point, the poison is just likeit's everywhere. Yeah, it is.
It's, it's just, it's like, Ifeel like the part of this is it
takes so long, because as soonas you start investigating one

(30:35):
thing, you're like, oh, gosh,and it's in this and it's in
that and it's just, you know,it's just the tentacles reach so
far. And I guess I justwondered, did you have that
sense, when you were running theinvestigation of the Trump
Organization and TrumpUniversity that it's like, oh,
my gosh, where does this end?

(30:56):
It's not discrete? Or are youmore optimistic even knowing
that,

um, you know, at that point with that case, you
know, we we had a pretty limitedmandate to be pursuing the
people who had been defrauded byTrump University. We did sue the
Trump and we investigated andsued the Trump Organization as
part of that matter, becausethey were, effectively the

(31:22):
parent company of TrumpUniversity, Trump University had
gone under, before our case evenstarted. And so there was no
money left to get at in thatentity anymore. So we read sued
successfully, the TrumpOrganization and Donald Trump
personally, because we wanted tofind someone who would be
liable. And that would actuallypay, we actually did get a

(31:45):
really, really good courtdecision before our matter ended
up resolving that held at the bya judge here in New York, that
they that basically holding thatthere, it was looking good that
they were going to be able tohold the Trump Organization
Donald Trump liable. But anyway,we didn't really get into where

(32:08):
the rest of this goes. You know,and that was those were early
days. That was, you know, wewere doing our investigation
starting in 2011 2012. We filedour case in 2013. And we were
really focused on the TrumpUniversity thing. So you know,
the things we're seeing now,where there were, in my view, so

(32:29):
many different angles to howjust if we just take the run up
to January six, all of thedifferent things that were done
during that time to try to stopthe transfer of power from
happening to try to overturn theelection. There were many, many,
many of them, and then you'reending up with these sort of

(32:50):
secondary and tertiarylitigation matters. We're now
we're all sitting here wonderingwhether or not DOJ is actually
going to indict Steve Bannon forcontempt of Congress. And that
issue about Congress's subpoenapower, and its ability for that
to then result in criminalsanctions, is now going to
probably get litigated, becauseeven if they do the indictment,

(33:13):
it's immediately going to end upin court proceedings. And it may
be quite a long time, even ifDOJ steps up as I hope they do.
Because it's it's justridiculous to say that the house
doesn't have the ability to backup a subpoena with with some
kind of compulsion, you know,the term subpoena comes from the
Latin sub Polina, which meansunder penalty, so, if there is

(33:37):
no penalty, it wasn't asubpoena, it was just a
suggestion. You know, you mightwant to show up at the house,
you know, Mr. Bannon, no, it'slike, you need to show up, or
you're actually going to be heldin contempt the same way that
you would if this record settingbut we're gonna have a whole

(33:58):
week we're gonna have a wholelitigation about that. We're
gonna have a whole set oflitigation around whether or not
Trump has executive privilege tostop the production of these
documents that were generated byhis time in the White House. And
so yeah, we end up with allthese other things, then there's
the Georgia matter. The New Yorkstuff is separate, really,
because it has to do with therunning of this private

(34:19):
business. But yet, you know, butyet, there are some places where
some of these things could berelated. Yeah, it's, it's a
very, very, it's a very, verymessy situation. I do have a lot
of like cautious, long viewoptimism, but I believe that it
is going to be a very bumpyride. I think that we have a lot

(34:41):
of pretty dark days ahead of us.
I also hope that we are going tohave some brighter ones coming
but that's, you know, that's uh,that's where I stand on that.

Yeah, that does.
Does the, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Does the does the enforcement orlack of enforcement of the
subpoena on Steve Bannon giveyou pause in your optimism with
like the new rounds of subpoenasthey issued like to Michael flan
and Kaylee McEnaney. Kin like

I think I think the issue there is I think it's
possible that the committee hassome kind of back channel with
DOJ and knows the DOJ is in factabout to push ban and through
the pipeline to actually indicthim. Or it could be that the
committee is kind of trying toforce this more on DOJ, that DOJ

(35:36):
may need to awaken to therealization I just tweeted about
this, that the DOJ doesn't justhave a Steve Bannon problem that
has a Trump loyalist problem,and that none of these people
are going to voluntarily shopand some of them have. But then,
but if you combine Banyansdefiance with a, I think it's a
separate case, Jeffrey Clark'staking the fifth and basically,

(36:00):
she showed up, but then yourefuse to say anything? I think
it's a different situation. Butif but we don't, we don't, we're
not going to yet know why Clarkdid that. I have a thought that
I'll share. But if you takeBannon and Clark together, it
basically provides a lot of fuelfor these other people to say,
Well, I'm not going to say athing. I'm not even going to

(36:20):
show up. I'm just going to I'mgoing to just ignore it. And and
basically, if if, if basically,there's been one that's been
that's been, you know, queued upfor DOJ, DOJ may be able to take
the position of being like,Well, we really, you know, it's
just this one witness who'sbeing difficult. We're not
really we're just gonna declineto pursue it. But if they've got

(36:40):
10, maybe that's going to forcethe issue. Does it dent my
optimism? I mean, a little, youknow, I'm not exactly wild about
I've been very, very torn. AndI've said this a lot, very torn
on exactly what the heck isgoing on at DOJ. There's a part
of me that feels like thefundamental problem here is that

(37:01):
a successful prosecution, and anon existent prosecution often
look the same from the outside.
Because a successful prosecutionshould be in stealth mode, and
you should not know what'scoming. Whereas a non existent
prosecution would be a nonexistent prosecution. So or to
put it differently is MerrickGarland, literally not doing

(37:21):
anything? Or if he just does hehave a really good poker face?
And I think he might, I thinkthat the whole sort of like,
very sort of, oh, very pleasant,sort of bland exterior, that he
presents with everything, justyou know, he seems very, he's
very judicial, very, you know,very, like, just sort of, you

(37:43):
know, sort of above some of allof this, and he refuses to make
statements on anything. And he'svery calm and measured in how he
does everything you can to heapproaches every press
conference, like he's gettingnominated for his judgeship.

(38:03):
frustrates people because Iwanted AEG to come in there.
That's garland. Yeah, it may bethat it's actually kind of a
sneaky genius. That is actuallyjust rope a doping everybody
into thinking that like, I'm notreally gonna do anything. Yeah,
I think that's for theprosecutors to basically just

(38:27):
managing the folder, but I don'tknow.

I will tell you this. I hope you're right. Um, I
really hope you're right. I dothink that the, you know,
subpoena issue with Bannon, Imean, that's, that's going to
have huge precedential effectsthat will go on for decades, you

(38:50):
know, I also

will never be able to do another problem.
Exactly.

Right. It'll be over that.

The, it has been some of the more important
proceedings that have everoccurred in Washington sprung
out of congressionalinvestigations, including
Watergate, you know, that, butalso, you know, and things that

(39:18):
are not exactly now viewed asbeing particularly wonderful
moments in our history, like,you know, the, the original
McCarthy, not our currentiteration, but the Joe McCarthy,
but the the army McCarthyhearings. You know, that was
obviously that was it was areally pivotal moment in
American history ended up reallyfinally, by the way, I'll say

(39:38):
one quick thing is that I dobelieve that there is a school
of thought among a lot of sortof Washington, DC Democrats,
that I really believe that a lotof them are sitting there
thinking and it's what I'mworried garland is doing, that
they just think that if theywait long enough, it'll be like
McCarthyism, and it'll just thefever will break and suddenly
everybody will stop listening tothe demagogue and I worry that

(40:00):
that isn't going to happen thistime. And that people are that
it's whether we're too far gone,and that we're that people are
not going to stop listening tothe demagogue? I don't know. But
um,

yeah, you were gonna say something about
Jeffrey Clark, about what makeshim different.

So Jeffrey Clark, why that might be a different
scenario is because as otherfolks Abler than I have have
said, online and elsewhere, thatthe key there is that Clark may
be preserving his testimony sothat he can cooperate as a
witness with the DOJ inspectorgeneral's investigation, which

(40:41):
it is clear now if we read thetea leaves that DOJ IG is it
looks like investigating theJeffrey Clark Jeffrey Rosen
Richard Donahue Trump situation,or as I like to refer to it, the
sort of the DOJ wing of theconspiracy and coup. But it's,

(41:03):
you know, Clark, it's very toughto look at Clark situation and
the evidence at hand and thetestimony that we know occurred
from Rosen and Donahue and notthink that Clark is headed to
prison, if he doesn't find a wayto cooperate. So it was probably
in his interest to preserve hisoptionality by not saying

(41:25):
anything to Congress, becauseotherwise it could create
inconsistent statements thatcould be used to trip him up
later on. You know, if he's thentestifying as a witness in a
criminal case for some other,for some other defendant, the
best thing to do in thatsituation is to say as little as

(41:47):
possible to any other authority,and make sure that you're just
routing all of your facts andtestimony through the folks
you're cooperating with. Wedon't know that he's
cooperating, but what he did bynot testifying preserved his
maximum ability to cooperate.
And so it'll be very interestingto see what happens with Clark,

(42:07):
I think he's a different casethan somebody like Bannon.

Tristan, do you know if he's got a I mean, does
he ever say, does he have a gooddefense attorney? Because I'm
sitting there thinking, Yeah,that's very strategic. A really
good criminal defense attorneywould tell you that, um, right,
or does he have Rudy Giuliani?
Like, does he have some of theTrump lawyers that are not?

I think I want to say some, I want to say that I
read that he has that he did geta new lawyer right before he
went to the house. I think thathis new lawyer might have also
had some role in representingSidney Powell. So that doesn't
necessarily equal, you know,what you're talking about there?
But then again, I don't reallyknow. Yeah, that's, that's

(42:57):
something I actually don't know.
But I got that, from from thefolks I know who I talked to a
good better, you know, that Ithat I end up, you know, we, you
know, tweet back and forth andreply to each other stuff
online. That are that are formercriminal prosecutors. The word
that I heard was that, you know,Clark's move was potentially,
you know, very strategic. Andthat is less about defiance and

(43:20):
more about saving his skin.

Yeah, I can see that. I will say that I'm
listening to all of this. I'mreminded in, in my world, in the
on the con la side of the house.
We've been talking about Trumpas a one man constitutional
wrecking ball. Yes, that is ourlike, that is what we say. And
we've been saying it for years,but it's like, how much damage

(43:44):
can one person do? And you know,it turns out a whole lot. And it
turns out that a lot of ourrules were more norms. Yeah, for
somebody who doesn't care aboutnorms like, well, there you go.
But yeah, one constitutionalwrecking ball.

Yes. And I think that part of it back to your
point earlier about the theConstitution not really being
designed with faction in mind,necessarily, or or what has
turned into parties in mind. Youknow, they, I think that part of
it, kind of from his Oracleperspective, is I think that
they didn't realize what thepresidency would turn into. Or

(44:26):
they didn't kind of factor thatin with the faction problem,
where you would then have thepresident's party be so aligned,
that it would then just sort oflike, completely bring a section
of the legislature with it.
Whereas historically in Yeah, I,my speculation there at any

(44:47):
rate, is that the is that thefounders thought that faction,
from the English context had todo with sort of court versus
Parliament, and that if youdidn't Have a king, your faction
problem would not be as severe.
I don't think they realized thedegree to which the presidency

(45:08):
would become more Imperial. AndI think they definitely, I think
some of them were probablysitting around fearing put it
this way, what we're facing issomething that many of them were
certainly worried about. Andthey did the best they could at
the time. You know, and this is,but what we're facing right now
is exactly what they were afraidof. They were afraid of the,

(45:32):
they were afraid of thefaithless demagogue, that would
be herself. And then would, andthat would, and that would rally
people behind him with a withwith faux populism in but
ultimately be in the name of hisown ambition. And of course,
they were all big, classicalnerds. And thereby they were

(45:55):
thinking of the kattilineconspiracies from the Roman
Republic days. But that's whatthey were looking at. And then
they did get a a small microinstance of what that would look
like. And Aaron Burr burden, youknow, Burr was was was a drop in
the bucket compared to whatwe're facing now. We should be

(46:15):
so lucky is that Aaron Burrback? He was, you know, he only
killed Hamilton, you didn't getit. He didn't manage to actually
overthrow the entire government.
He thought about it. And then hewas like,

apropos. Apropos your point? Did you see the that
the district court's ruling, theopinion specifically said
something to the effect of like,presidents or not kings? Yes.

It's, we kind of need the reminder ourselves.
Once you've got that, you know,put it this way, executive
privilege is not a royalprerogative, those are not the
same thing. And you can't havethis kind of immunity from
accountability or immunity fromjustice that would accrue to a

(47:00):
member of a royal family in youknow, in sort of pre 1800,
England or France or somethinglike that. You can't do that.
It's not the same thing. So itdoesn't just attach to him
forever. You know, yes, he getsSecret Service protection. He
gets a library named after him,but he's got to raise the money
himself. By the way, I don't Ihaven't seen anything about

(47:21):
there being a Donald Trumplibrary. Has anyone ever heard
about him? Library's not reallyon brand for him. So I'm not
sure what's going to happen. Soat any rate, I have not heard
about there being a Donald Trumppresidential library. But at any
rate, yeah, you get a librarynamed after you. You get a

(47:43):
pension. That's about it. Likethere's there's certain things
she had, I think he gets a very,he has a very large travel
allowance, which he hasn'tbothered to use. It's not like
he's running around doing goodfaith visits around the world to
promote world peace and championsome cause. You know, he's not
being Jimmy Carter. He's notbeing he's not he's not he's not

(48:06):
putting that to any use. He'sonly been using it. He probably
has been using his travel budgetjust to go back and forth among
his own properties. Because Ithink

I've got a question for you. This is a
little bit to the side, butsomething that, you know,
thinking about the TrumpUniversity, prosecution, and all
of that, in your work makes methink about and that is, you
know, Donald Trump, when Ilisten to him, I'm like, you're
just not that smart. So how isit you know, I'm, by the way,

(48:36):
today's veterans day, so I'lljust say, you know, Happy
Veterans Day to well, I'm also aveteran. And my Command Sergeant
Major once told me and I askedhim, he's the best leader I
served under, and I said, youknow, what is it? What is the
key to successful leadership?
And he said, surround yourselfwith good people. That was rule
number one. And I wonder, youknow, is it Donald Trump that he

(48:59):
is the mastermind, and maybehe's not that smart, but he has
a great instinct for things, ordoes he just surround himself
with good slash bad people? Like

it's a little bit of both? I think it's a little
bit about I think he's waysavvier. I wouldn't say smart,
I'd say savvier. I think you usethe right. I think his instincts
and his savvy for a certain typeof self promotion are
unfortunately off the charts.
And, and I think he's very goodat gathering publicity to

(49:33):
himself. He always has been,that's his superpower. And I
think he's, I think he'sactually planned a lot more of
this than we realize. Andhowever, I do think that he, you
know, he has had a cadre ofother people around him, and we
see it with who was involvedwith the planning of January 6,

(49:55):
who was at these war rooms thatWe now know existed at the
Willard Hotel and a couple ofnights beforehand. And, you
know, and everybody who youwould expect to be there in this
sort of, like, you know, youknow, rogues den or sort of nest
of villains, they're over at theWillard Hotel, they were all

(50:16):
there, Roger Stone, Alex Jones,who I actually wouldn't have
figured would be there, I thinkI thought he was too busy
Hawking, you know, sugar pillsthat claim to reduce your or
produce testosterone. But then,you know, Giuliani, you know,
John Eastman, who, you know,should have known better, but

(50:41):
didn't, and there are too manyof these people that should that
should have known better. Andwe're too tempted by the
proximity to power, it was anopportunity for them to rise
above whatever station they wereat. You know, somebody who was,
you know, somebody like Rudy sawit as a chance for him to have a

(51:02):
second act in public life, towork with Trump, a lot of other
people. And but the thing is,like, even the people that ended
up not joining the Trump innercircle, it wasn't because they
didn't try, it's because theywere rejected, you know, Chris
Christie was kicked out of theTrump inner circle, Mitt Romney
was kicked out of the Trumpinner circle. So, you know,
these, unfortunately, ambitionis is is a really awful thing

(51:27):
much of the time, and thesefolks that really should have
known better, really, kind ofwere protected by the chance to
be, you know, right there at thefoot of the king. And, and, and
so I, DEA has managed to collectthe sort of rogues gallery of
people who either, you know,were ambitious to rise above

(51:53):
whatever their station waswithin the sort of legal or
political or academic sphere, orin the case of some people like
Giuliani or stone, you know,folks who had kind of washed up
a bit, but then we're going tobe using this to try to get back
into the back to the center ofpower, you know, and, and then

(52:15):
there was some younger ones whoyou who I don't know if, you
know, somebody, like somebodylike a Stephen Miller, would
have always been too fringed tohave made to have been a major
power player in any otherRepublican administration. You
know, say what you will aboutGeorge W. Bush, but he didn't

(52:36):
surround himself with peoplelike Stephen Miller. Or ban and,
you know, these are people whoare Manafort these are people
who had kind of washed out of alot of Republican and
conservative politics were neverreally made it in the first
place, or wouldn't have made itin the first place. You know,
these are folks who have beenseen an opportunity there's, oh,

(53:00):
shoot, I'm about to botch thebed to forget this person's
name, but um, you know, thebook, Twilight of democracy. And
who I'm referring to there, I'mtrying to remember her name. Now
I'm going to blank on. But theauthor of toilet for democracy,

(53:23):
which which was a great bookwritten by a, a longtime
conservative movement fixture,who then was writing about how

these ramappa bonds,

and yes, Applebaum works wonderfully
about this in toilet and trailerdemocracy. But it's all about
how these, these these sort ofalt right movements in various
countries, both here and abroad,have managed to sort of eat
conservatism from within andkill it and sort of divert it.

(53:59):
And she talks about it in moreof the context of Poland, which
she's very familiar with. And Ilived in for many, many years,
that it was sort of the the sortof like, second and third rate,
opportunists showed up, peoplewho would never have made it in
regular party politics managedto flock to this banner of this
of this new person who wascoming in building kind of this

(54:23):
demagogic movement, because itwas an opportunity for them to
actually move up by by by bybasically attaching themselves
to this demagogue whose powerwas rising. And I do believe
that that's part of what happensso you get some of the husband's
and then some of the neverprobably would have been all
sort of joined up with withTrump. And yeah, so he's got

(54:45):
this group of people that werethat were that were advising
him, but I also do believe thatat the end of the day, he really
keeps his own counsel. Hedoesn't actually he's not one of
these people that and sort ofwill do whatever the last person
he talked to told him to do. Ireally think he's somebody that

(55:05):
actually ends up making a lot ofthese decisions himself. I don't
want to call him a mastermind,because I think that gives them
a little bit too much credit.
But I do believe that he istruly the center of all of this
that has happened. I don't thinkthat it's somehow like Steve
Bannon is the mastermind andDonald Trump's just the puppet.
No, no, no, no, no, I don'tbelieve that. I don't believe
it.

You say that about January 6. What about the Trump
Organization? What about? Um,you know, weiselberger? Like,
what about what about that?

Oh, I think it's Trump all the way I think why so
bird is is is simply the righthand. Okay. I've always said
that everything that weinvestigated research heard
about, and everything that I'veseen since then, points to that.
There isn't a single thing thathappened in that organization in
that business without DonaldTrump approving it. And, you

(55:56):
know, he trusted Alan to docertain things without him. And
there are very few people thathe trusted that much to let let
Alan run a lot of the day to daynuts and bolts, but any kind of
larger decisions, especiallyaround costs, anything to do
with marketing, anything to dowith strategy that go go go
decisions about how businesseswere to be run, that ultimately

(56:19):
was was Trump weiselberger wasthe sort of like day to day
operator and sometimes wasdelegated the role of being the
hammer. But I don't believe thatthere is much of anything that
happened there. That didn'thappen with Donald Trump's seal
of approval, not for one second.
And and then and then outside ofhim and weiselberger Almost
nobody ever had any kind of realpower there to do much without

(56:43):
Trump actually being the one todrive it. Ivanka was starting to
become that person. Now, notit's different today. But
today's not really quite what'san issue? It's about the things
that happened in the past. Ithink today increasingly, it
sounds like from all accountsthat Don Jr. is really the one
starting to take over. But it'sstill I think a lot of it is

(57:07):
still Alan, I think Alan'sreally the one who's actually
really keeping the thing afloat.
So, you know, and yeah, that's,that's what I would say there.
But they're very, very, very fewpeople that were at the middle
of that the entire TrumpOrganization executive offices
really was at any given time wasreally only about a dozen

(57:29):
people. Wow, they, you know,that madness, Matthew calamari,
it, you know, ended up beingChief Operating Officer, but you
know, his position before thathad been head of security. But I
think that really, a CIO, andmost organizations would have a
lot more role with actuallyoperating the businesses, I feel
like calimary was probably thereto run, really more operations.

(57:53):
I think his role was really moreoperational and administrative.
weiselberger was really both theCEO and the CFO of Trump org.
And still is, I think, eventhough he's been stripped of
some of his corporate titles,you know, I don't there's
nothing that suggests that heisn't still working there and

(58:15):
actually running a lot of what'sgoing on. But I think it's
increasingly then Don Jr, ratherthan Donald Trump. Whereas prior
to the presidency, the DonaldTrump Donald Jr's role and
Eric's role I, they might havehad knowledge of a lot of these
things. I think they probablyhad knowledge of how they
themselves were compensated. Butwere they actually the ones

(58:37):
running anything? I don't knowabout that, that I think they
were given certain properties torun. But they then might have
had plenty of knowledge abouttaxes and proprieties with
regard to the properties thatthey did, in fact, Ron, so
they're not in the clear, but atthe end of the day, I think that
the central the it was verycentralized, with with Donald
Trump senior, and then AlanWeisberg.

Well, I know you're gonna close this up. I
know, you're gonna say we'reabout out of time. I just have
one little quick question. Andthis is actually for my
corporate law colleague, who's acorporate law nerd, did you
pierce the corporate veil withthe Trump University suit? So we
know that personal liability

if memory serves what we got in that case, was a
I believe what we got was thattheir motion to dismiss Donald
Trump and the Trump Organizationwas denied. Now, that doesn't
mean that we were necessarilygoing to win. But given that we

(59:44):
had already as as I saidearlier, we've done this special
proceeding. And we already hadput all of our evidence in the
failure of their motion todismiss probably gave a pretty
good sign as to where the judgewould have headed with regard to
what would have been a benchtrial, if we had actually, if

(01:00:06):
that actually continued all theway to trial. So we don't so no
jury. So I think that her denialof their motion to dismiss gave
a pretty good clue and thelanguage that she used in her
decision, made it clear that shereally had a pretty strong view
that they were going to beimplicated. We had taken a lot

(01:00:27):
of effort to show that thecorporate veil should be pierced
in that situation. And just tounpack that,

Corinna Lain (01:00:36):
that was just had to do the shout out.

Tristan Snell (01:00:40):
Yeah. Okay, good.
So yeah, just just to be just tounpack that just a smidgen. You
know, the key there is that likeyou had Trump University LLC,
shouldn't it be the only entitythat would have been liable for
Trump University's misdeeds?
Well, you can quote unquote,pierce the corporate veil and go
go after some of the otherholders behind that LLC, namely,

(01:01:03):
Donald Trump was like the 90some percent owner, he uses
Trump. And then he uses TrumpOrganization as effectively kind
of an operating and holdingentity. So we sued both of them
and basically said they areliable, because they were
operating the law, at least inNew York is that if you operate
some other subsidiary company,or company that you own as

(01:01:26):
effectively an alter ego, ofyou, or from the courts, sort of
corporate context, if it'soperated, if you have too much
of a hands on role on thatsubsidiary to the point that it
is kind of a near division ofyour larger empire, then the
courts will treat it as such,they won't treat it as a
separate entity, they'll treatit as just an arm of the parent

(01:01:47):
company. And that's what we werearguing and it looked like we
were on our way to succeeding atgetting that because and this
actually ties back intoweiselberger. So it's a little
bit relevant here, just kind ofthe context of how that
organization is run. Weisenbergmanaged every single penny that
went into and out of Trump,Trump University and all of the

(01:02:11):
other Trump businesses as far aswe could tell, he signed all of
their checks, they didn't do anywires. All payments had to come
from him. All of their bookswere reviewed in person at Trump
Tower by Alan weiselberger.
Quarterly. So the fact thatTrump University had its own
controller, its own sort of miniCFO was somewhat irrelevant.

(01:02:31):
That person reported directly toWeissenberg. And to Jeff
makhani, who is the controllerof Trump Organization, who we
believe is cooperating at leastsomewhat with the Manhattan DA
's office and has testifiedbefore the grand jury. In the
current tax fraud case beforethe man with the Manhattan DA
his office is bringing orappears to be bringing. So we

(01:02:54):
were able and we were able toshow that Donald Trump himself
had signed off on every piece ofmail, every newspaper
advertisement, every magazineadvertisement every radio spot,
and had signed off on andpersonally appeared in the
welcome video that was shown toall prospective customers of

(01:03:16):
Trump University when theyshowed up to kind of the free
preview session and got suckeredinto spending a bunch of money
on a sham school that did notactually teach anybody how to
invest in real estate. So so wewere able to show a lot of
direct involvement by himpersonally, in addition to

(01:03:37):
direct control and involvementby Trump by the Trump
Organization.

William Wright (01:03:44):
Wow, that's, I swear I could probably like
like, listen to you just talkmore about this indefinitely. So
hopefully, we've created anenvironment where you'd want to
come back especially kind of assome of the New York stuff
unfold. We'd love to have you

back. I'm happy to come back. Yeah, there's
there's a lot more coming.
Clearly. I can't make anyguarantees on when I always have
to answer a lot of very upsetand frustrated folks on my
Twitter. I try to do my best Ican't yell at Merrick Garland,
so they yell at me. Or testJames as you respond into their
tweets and that now they'll havealbum Bragg to kick around that.

(01:04:22):
I'm, you know, he, you know,he'll be he'll be seeing his
threads filled with a bunch ofabuse from both sides. Like,
they'll have all of the peopleon the Democratic side saying,
Why is this taking so long andall the people on the Republican
side saying it's a witch hunt,but that's going to be fun for
him. So but, but he'll he's Ibelieve he's going to be up to

(01:04:45):
the job. You know, he's a he's alongtime prosecutor and, and
really a pro. He's a problem. SoI think he's going to be up to
the task, but yeah, there's alot coming there and I'm happy
to Come back and next time I'lleven fix my lighting and sound
and everything as it's gottendarker outside my Yeah, I my

(01:05:05):
light has gone the stupidearlier sunsets now you can

it's true, you know, like, like we spoke with
Harry Dunn two weeks ago andit's it's funny like, like we
talked to him it's kind of laidout but then like by the end of
the interview, it's just likethe light from his monitor.

Yeah, the only thing left. I was trying to
figure out can I reach for someother lighting?

Yeah, you're fine. Well, if if anybody wants
to, you know, argue with you onTwitter. You could reach Tristan
at at Tristan Snell. Sohopefully you'll get some more
followers that way and and yeah,just just thanks again interest
and those those awesome, Ireally appreciate your input.

And thanks for allowing me to join. I hope I
didn't ask too many questions.
But we'll thank you so much forinviting me to join on it was
really fun.

As a lawyer, there's, you know, I'm a lawyer.
I'm a litigator. There's no suchthing as too many questions.

I'm happy to ask

for like five.

Yeah, thank you so much. And we will, we will
get your listeners viewers nexttime. Thanks so much, guys.
Thank you. Take care.

All Episodes

"MAGA Sine Laude" - w/Tristan Snell, Fmr. Assistant AG for New York

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

24/7 News: The Latest

Crime Junkie

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}"MAGA Sine Laude" - w/Tristan Snell, Fmr. Assistant AG for New York