April 4, 2023 • 31 mins
The Entertainment Brothers this time take on the Gwyneth Paltrow Ski Accident Trial. The Goop founder and retired doctor Terry Sanderson are fighting in court due to a 2016 ski accident in Deer Valley, Utah. They also talk about the latest with the upcoming trial of Alec Baldwin after the accidental shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins while on the set of the movie "Rust". Next they discuss what the trials of Donald Trump will look like. And to wrap it up they chat about Leonardo DiCaprio taking the stand as the first blockbuster witness in the star-studded trial of former Fugees member Pras Michel. Michel is accused of participating in a global campaign-finance conspiracy funded by Jho Low, a Malaysian businessman who allegedly stole billions of dollars from a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Good morning, entered him and brother, Oh, brother, where art thou?
You know? We have a confessionto make, or at least I
do. We may not have manylisteners, or not as many as we
might want, but we have verydevoted ones we do, including my friend
Ted Okay, who wanted to pointout to me that when we use the
phrase, or I use the phrasethe wheels of justice in a prior episode,
(00:24):
he wanted he wanted to note thatthe wheels of justice don't roll,
they grind, and I was somewhatembarrassed by that mistake that we made.
He also had took issue with yourquote about when the laws on your side.
He wanted to refresh your memory whenthe laws on your side, pound
the law, when the facts areon your side, pound the facts.
When neither is on your side,pound the table. It's the use of
(00:47):
the verb pound. I think Itake exception with that. When the laws
on your side, you argue it, but I think it's the pounding part.
The pounding part comes as the thirdpart because you're desperate, you don't
have anything to argue, so youpound. I think it was the illiterative
use of the word pound, meaningwhat well you pound? The law.
You pounded the facts and then youpounded the table. No, I'm not
(01:11):
getting it. The point is that, yeah, he's a careful listener,
you know what true and won thathe'd probably be horrified by the metaphor I'm
about to use about the wheels ofjustice slaloming down the hill. They are
slaloming. I mean, come onright over the back of retired optometrist Terry
Sanderson. Yeah. We're talking,of course about the Gwyneth Paltrow Ski accident
(01:34):
trial that just concluded in Utah.Yeah, Paltrow was victorious. The lawsuit
brought against her by set uptometrist misterSanderson failed. He had been wanting three
hundred thousand dollars for what he claimedwas a variety of injuries, including four
broken ribs, mental issues, emotionalissues that he led, in fact to
the end of as a relationship withhis girlfriend. It was quite a sad
(01:56):
story, but the jury wasn't buyingit. No, this we can't help
it. Contrast with the other bigtrial that we covered year ago, which
was the Johnny Depp amber Heard trial. There is something about both cases,
particularly this one, I think thatis so little about the law as opposed
to celebrity, and we will getthere in a moment. But first,
ladies and gentlemen from Times Square.We are the Entertainment Brothers. And now
(02:35):
the Entertainment Brothers. Here's Larry Hackettand Thomas Valentino. Welcome back. We're
talking ski accidents and Gwyneth Paltrow.This has been an interesting case. I
was out of town and watching itand covering it, listening to it rather,
and was fascinated by the degree ofcoverage that was given to it.
Obviously, the key reason for thatwas that it was on television. You
(02:57):
could see it, and you know, the idea of tape of a celebrity
on trial is gripping, right.There's something about a courtroom and about the
promise, the potential promise of acelebrity being brought down to the same level
as others, particularly when it comesto someone like Gwyneth Paltrow, is interesting.
Um. Anyway, we'll get tothat in a minute. Any any
(03:20):
thoughts about the legal case here andwhat this was about this one? Let
me ask you, let me giveyou, let me give you a prompt,
ye, should this even have cometo trial? Is there something about
the idea that all of this manpowerand time and money was spent over over
what the jury decided. It seemsto me within hours or two was complete.
(03:42):
Bs. Well, I always lookat the money, right that.
In other words, she doesn't haveto pay anything to him, just the
doctor, but she has legal feesthat pay well beyond Okay, right,
but I'm sure right, how Ever, if I'm her, I don't want
to have that kind of profile inthe courtroom. Okay. She did complain
(04:06):
at one point about the camera beingon her face too long. That was
actually an objection, So that's obviouslyat that point it was getting to her
right where she was concerned about that. Well, look, here's the difference
between the Johnny Depp case. Inthis case, right, Johnny Depp wanted
to be in court, right,he wanted to be heard. He brought
(04:28):
the case he did. In thiscase, she indeed had countersued when Sanderson
sued her, but she didn't wantto be there. No, But she
also didn't want to knuckle under andpay any kind of damages. So in
that the motivation was similar to depRight, Depp believed that he was in
the right. Paltrow believed she wasin the right. And despite probably people
around them saying, do you reallywant to go to court, they both
said yes, yeah. Obviously whatwas at stake in this case and the
(04:50):
Paltrow case was not at all asgrave as what was in the case of
Depp and heard right, their allegationsof obviously domestic abuse and his reputation as
being, you know, someone whoabuses women. I mean it was the
stakes were way way, way higherthan they were in this In this case,
it became more of this meditation onGwyneth Paltrow, who was one of
(05:10):
those stars that has been the subjectof this kind of treatment for the past
twenty five years since she won anOscar for Shakespeare in Love. She is
someone who people and I say mostlywomen, right, are kind of obsessed
with, yeah, right, becauseshe's someone who seems perfect on the outside
and which of course can be bothalluring and maddening to people. And she's
(05:34):
someone who has triggered these kinds ofemotional responses over time. I'll tell you
a quick little story. I hadput her on the cover of People magazine
as the most beautiful woman in theWorld, woe of the one of the
annual features that we did, right, and we had talked about doing it,
and she was willing to do itand cooperate, and there were people
(05:55):
who wanted to do it, andthere are people who didn't want to do
it because she's so polarizing. Anyway, we did it, and the initially
reaction was not good. It wasjust at the start of kind of social
media, and we were getting bombardedwith just hate emails about how we could
have done this, and certain executivesat the company I wrote at were really
quailing and though we had made aterrible, terrible mistake and how could we
(06:15):
have done this and why didn't welisten and we all knew that she was
polarizing and this is a terrible error. Anyway, it's sold unbelievably well,
right, and in that story isthe microcosm of Gwyneth Paltrow. There are
people who hate her and there arepeople who love her. You know,
Goop, her home healthcare and wellnesscompany, would not be the success that
it is if everyone really didn't likeher. They love to hate on her,
(06:39):
right, but they don't hate her, and they might secretly admire her.
And you can harbor, you know, both of those thoughts and pull
those feelings and they can be reconciledin the same person. Anyway. She
has that strange quality of being someonewho is fascinating and polarizing, and that's
what this trial was about, becauseit was an opportunity to see her cast
in a role little yeah someone whoyou know, is she too big for
(07:02):
justice? What's going to happen?And there were all these stories about her
clothing and these idiotic pieces like thatin places like you know, the Washington
Post, in the New York Times. Mainstream media who you and I both
know really don't know how to covercelebrity, so they cover it with like
what is she wearing? And whatis she trying to say? Yeah,
anyway, I'm with you. Thelegal case was pretty straightforward. It sounded
(07:23):
like what was interesting about is thatthe versions of what happened between both camps
were so different. Yeah. Shebasically said he kind of skied in behind
her. They're on a bunny slope, which if you ski, you know
you're you really can't get that muchspeed up even if you were coming bombing
down the hill. By the timeyou get to the bottom slopes, you
can't really be going that fast yea, And that he kind of like skied
in between She was having a lessonwith her son and an instructor, and
(07:46):
he sort of skied between her legs, and she thought maybe someone who's trying
to like me, know, sexually, m a lester. She actually went
that far. Yeah, she did. In her defense, that's correct,
and almost saying that he did,and that he was grunting and right was
waiting for the next step. Right. Wow, He claiming totally opposite,
that she was uphill and she camebarreling into him, right, and that
(08:07):
he broke four ribs right as youbreak it. He did, and as
you will know, Yeah, Ibroke four ribs about a year and a
half ago. Yeah, you gotto fall pretty damn hard to break four
ribs. Yeah, even if you'rea man in your early seventies. Right.
The idea that Gwinnipaltro somehow triggered himbreaking four ribs, I don't know.
I just can't. I'm trying towork out the law setting in the
physics of this, and I don'treally see it. I think though,
(08:30):
I'm not sure if there was evidenceto prove that the ribs are broken or
not. You can't really prove that. Well, it's not. It's not
like, oh you can't, butyeah, okay, because they're not,
because they're not broken. Now.Yeah, but he apparently skied downhill.
Yeah, let me tell you something, friend, Yeah, when I broke
my four, but I wasn't skiinganywhere. I couldn't get off the floor.
Yeah okay. So again that wasnot germane and that really wasn't what
(08:50):
was brought here, but it waswhether or not she had caused it.
And I just wonder how did thisget this far because neither one would settle.
That's why neither one would set all. You don't know who was influencing
who. I have a friend whowas saying that it had a lot to
do with insurance and that insurance companiesmight have said, you know, go
out there and fight it and we'llback you up or whatever. But this
(09:15):
case from get made no sense tome none. The first thing that doesn't
make any sense to me at allare the numbers. Okay, if you're
telling me you have brain damage andyou're suing for three hundred thousand dollars,
(09:35):
that's hard to believe. I mean, if that's me, I'm suing for
thirty million. I've been permanently damaged. Okay. Then her counter claim was
to go at him for a millionokay, based on whatever whatever whatever he
did to her, assuming you believedit. And right from there, the
(09:56):
numbers don't make sense. They don'tmake sense. And then so now we're
moving forward, and I don't knowthat I've ever seen um, you know,
in terms of okay, this isabout justice and being in court,
but just in terms of I'm notso sure that the witnesses were believable,
(10:18):
either one of them, Like Iwas trying to pick one over the other
and I couldn't. And then alsothe attorneys were there were times when they
were sort of objecting and not objecting, and the whole thing to me does
not make sense. And again,you know, when I was looking,
(10:39):
especially when the doctor was testifying,it didn't seem like he had any brain
damage, right, right, Whatdo you think was the most damaging thing
to his case? You know,I think the video they played a video
showing you know that he did basicallywhat she said he did, right,
I don't think that helped his caseat all. The other thing is okay,
(11:01):
there, I've never ever in mylife seeing two more unrelatable unsympathetic witnesses.
There was just nothing in there.I was looking for authenticity in either
one of them. I was lookingfor believability in either one of them.
You mean Sanderson and Paltrow. Yes, yeah, And I didn't see it
(11:24):
at neither point. And I actually, and I'm not sure why, just
because the timing, I was ableto actually watch the testimony of both.
Right, we have this other trialthat's coming up, a criminal case,
(11:52):
the rust case, right, whichis also taking place in the American West.
Right, and it pits at leaston the surface, celebrities against ostensibly,
you know, different kinds of communities. Now, in the case of
New Mexico, we've talked about howthe prosecutors there have really tried to make
an issue about you know Baldwin's quoteunquote, you know, big city lawyer
(12:13):
trying to build a lot of hours, you know, from his client,
and really trying to make it akind of like us against them, you
know, people with traditional values versusthese big city slickers who come in and
make movies and don't follow the rules. I think there may have been a
hint of that attempted in this case, and it failed miserably and I can't
help but think that Paltrow's attorneys knewthat. Let me take for an example,
(12:33):
retired optometrist versus Hollywood movie star,right. I mean, there's your
kind of contrast right there. Sothere's an attempt to sort of make him
be somewhat different, and that sheran into him and didn't you know,
stay and take care for him andcheck on him, and that he has
been denied now all kinds of pleasuresbecause of this injury. I thought it
was very telling that as part ofthe attempt by Paltrow's attorneys to tear down
(12:56):
his case, they showed photo afterphoto after photo of his europe In trips
which were to very kind of ordinary, you know, of a lot of
peat places to Italy and things likethat. He'd been to the Netherlands three
times. He traveled quite a bit. But it showed I think they were
trying to show that this guy isperhaps more upper class or a middle upper
middle class than you may care tobelieve. And the idea of casting this
(13:18):
as a class issue, which Ithink the moment you get Quinn of the
Palutuana's story, it becomes potentially becomesthat failed miserablie Let's also remember that both
of them were skiing at one ofthe most exclusive resorts in the United States.
I have been, you have beento Deer Valley. I've been in
your valley. It's it's in Sundance. Yeah, it's in Park City,
which where Sundance is. Yeah.It's an exclusive place. Absolutely. It
(13:39):
doesn't mean that people who ski thereare all of a certain economic class.
Yeah, But I think any attemptto sort of painter as being a above
the law celebrity failed and was boundto fail up, probably most importantly based
on the facts. I mean,just from the beginning, right, You're
like, well, it's a hesaid, she said kind of thing,
(14:00):
and there's no real substantive evidence eitherway. I mean, there's there's not
a gun, right, there's notreally even a smoking gun. There's just
two people giving different versions of whathappened. Going back also, which this
was a case about privilege in onesense, right, You're everything about it
(14:20):
was you know, he had adoctor, he had a celebrity. They're
at a fabulous, famous ski resort, but you know it was of a
certain socioeconomic class. Sure, Andso I think that part of it,
I know, at least online andwhat a lot of people were saying was
that, you know, they werekind of here's what I was seeing,
(14:41):
Okay, on Twitter in certain placespeople were hating on both of them.
Right, that's right, That's whatwas really funny. And I kept trying
to you know, I have myown opinion and then which I've I've expressed
here, right, Like, Idon't know, I don't know. After
everything was done, I'm like,I threw my hands up, I have
no idea. Okay, what arethe joys of doing the show with you?
(15:03):
Is that you're an attorney and Ican ask you what would you have
done if you were representing him?Right? What would you have done differently
than they did? Well? Wouldyou? First of all? Would you
would this have gone to court?No? No, no, I wouldn't
go there. Really, I wouldn'tgo there. He's this is my point.
Okay, he's suing her for nothing, Like I don't get it.
(15:24):
Like, if you're going to suego for the thirty million, okay,
Um, and you're claiming that youhave brain damage. Here's the struggle that
I had. Okay, you're askingme, is that he's up there claiming
he has brain damage. But he'sso coherent and articulate, and like I'm
waiting for him to write me ascript, which is not to say he
(15:45):
doesn't have the brain damage and emotionalissues and even some physical ones, but
they're so not apparent, correct.I don't want to lighten what what might
actually be the case. There acertain testament court would support that right,
But he's not being wheeled into thecourthouse courtroom like you know Weinstein correct.
Correct. But in addition, againin the same way to me, she's
just absolutely unrelatable. He was absolutelyunrelatable. So I've never seen a case
(16:11):
where both people were equally unrelatable.Depth v. Hurt we saw, you
know, there was one way orthe other. A lot of people were
going for Johnny Depp right in thiscase, it seemed to me like both
of them were the same and theywere neutralizing each other. And then when
I took it a step further andwent to their counsel and their attorneys,
(16:33):
they didn't seem like the dream teamof law, either one of them or
as groups. Well, there wasthe issues when she was being when Paltrow
was being cross examined by his attorney, where the woman was kind of like
almost trying to like become her power, right, asking how tall? Yeah,
and he's strange, okay, okay, really he's kind of almost celebrity
stalking. Okay, okay. Imean, look that people don't understand who
(16:57):
were not around it every day,how big a factor that can be.
And as much as you may be, you know, you're an attorney.
Every day you're out there slugging,and all of a sudden you're in front
of her and your soul gets revealed. Right, as much as you're supposed
to be objective and you're supposed tobe fighting on behalf of your client,
(17:18):
if you've never seen a star ever, you get star struck. So let's
talk about that in relationship. Let'sup around him. Let's talk about that
in relation to upcoming cases in particularor Rush right. Much has been made
about the new Mexico officials there,and much has been made clearly about somehow
(17:38):
painting Alec Baldwin as the bad guy, right, and and his willingness to
talk has, at least in theearly stages, you know, bitten back
at him, right, it wasmixed up. It was statements that seemed
to be contradictory that he gave tothe police and to the press that in
many ways led to the charges againsthim. Correct, we all know what
his history is about being a hotheadand someone who flies off the handle.
(18:00):
One would imagine that that is partof the prosecutor's strategy in New Mexico to
get him on the stand and tohave him, you know, say something
that's intemperate at best and at worstincriminating. How do you as an attorney,
and I go, every celebrity isdifferent, in every case is different.
But are there things that you shoulddo or avoid if you are an
(18:21):
attorney when you cross examine someone whois known to the people who might be
watching this trial. Well, Idon't think you want to appear if you're
representing one party or the other.You don't want to appear like you're being
friendly and not going after the personand doing your job. And that came
across to me. Do you also, at the same time not want to
(18:44):
appear to be overly hostile and attacking? You never ever ever want to appear
to be attacking or overly hostile.Really, the great ones, the great
ones. Every attorney right has aconversational way of putting it out there,
But also like holding you to thefire. Okay. When we looked at
(19:06):
the Murdoch case, one of thethings that we haven't talked about it that
concerned me was that the prosecutor Ithought at a certain point was being too
hot, right, okay, yeah, but that didn't turn out to okay.
So I think that when you're gettinginto the higher levels of trial law
(19:27):
and litigation, that's the greatest skill, right there is to cross examine,
okay, and make it conversational enoughwhere you're trying to trip the person up,
appear to be firm, but nothostile and antagonizing. Okay. So
in the same way, you're tryingto get your witness to be relatable you
(19:51):
as the attorney, you don't wantto appear too smart. You don't want
to appear unrelatable. You want toappear authentic. And when I I saw
this cross examination, I'm like,um, wow, she is star struck.
It flipped me out. Actually,it flipped me out. So this
is gonna sound like I was waitingfor her to say, can I have
(20:11):
your autograph? But it sounded thatway, and that's the way, and
that's the way it played in thefight. That's like whoa Right, that's
my attorney. And it may havebeen a way to sort of ingratiate herself
and give you know, Paltrow afalse sense of comfort, but it backfire.
It was too much. I agreewith you, it was too much.
So this is gonna sound like cherrypicking of different trials. But you
know, we have the Depth Heardcase from last summer. We have the
(20:33):
Kevin Spacey Anthony rap case from thefall. Yeah, we do, and
we now have this case. Inall of these cases, the bigger name
the celebrity there. Obviously, inthe Depth Heard case there was two celebrities
and in the rap Spacey case therewere two. Right, the bigger name
one correct. Good point? Isthere anything to learn from that? I
mean, again, every case isdifferent, and you know, but we
(20:56):
have three cases and we have akind of pattern arguably developing for anything to
learn from that, being that celebritiesare always going to get the celebrity thumb
is always going to be on thescale. Well, the percentages say that
you're bringing out three cases, right, So if you're coming to me and
you're going to sue a celebrity,I'm going to have second and third thoughts
(21:19):
unless I know I have evidence thatcan bring them down, right, Okay,
And we've seen that happen with otherpeople, right, But yeah,
you really have to do take adifferent posture and consider that if people are
star struck, the world is starstruck. The world, the universe is
star struck. Okay. And whenit's not just that people are star struck
(21:42):
with their soul, that's a distractionto everyone, the fact that the universe
is star struck, it's a distractionnot in your favor, right, Okay,
I'm going to ask this quickly andescape past it, because it's almost
it's inescapable that we can't bring thisup. But and we don't want to
minimize what is a very very seriouscase to something about entertainment. However,
(22:07):
the Paltrow News was eclipsed in thein recent days by the indictment of Donald
Trump. Right, do you thinkthat that very same philosophy that you just
elucidated about being starstruck will apply?And how will it apply? And should
Donald Trump come to in a trial, well, he likely will, okay,
And but if and when he does, then you have someone who not
(22:30):
only this is someone probably you know, the third most famous person in the
world, like, I'm not sure. I know, So you're you're he's
on another level yeah, of celebrity. Yeah, because he's a president,
right, he's a political star,and he's and he's a celebrity all in
one. Right, So yeah,so everything aside. I mean that that's
(22:52):
powerful, Right, that's powerful,and we're likely going to see some form
of a circus. Right, there'sgonna be people impressed, but then there's
gonna be supporters out. So it'sthis is really could be the biggest trial
we've ever seen. In fact,it's so big it's kind of scary.
I know, you agree with him? Yeah, Moving on to other trials,
(23:27):
we have his fascinating case involving formerFuji Praz Michelle Yes, and a
guy named Jolo. Jolo is interesting. He was a figure in a huge
financial scandal involving the Malaysian Sovereign Fund, which was a massive, massive pile
(23:48):
of money that was run by theMalaysian government. He somehow, as I
recall, may have been related ormay have been friends with someone in the
Malaysian government. Anyway, he hadaccess to ends, if not hundreds of
millions of dollars and he used alot of it to invest in entertainment in
the United States, including the fundingof the movie The Wolf of Wall Street,
and he basically, it's alleged,looted this sovereign fund and spent all
(24:14):
kinds of money on all kinds ofentertainment projects and other things that he wasn't
really supposed to be doing anyway.Among the tens of millions of dollars,
it is alleged were eighty eight milliondollars that went to Pras Michelle to act
as an agent on this guy's behalfto try to influence government to stop investigations
into the spending of this Malaysian sovereignfund. That's about as simple as I
(24:38):
can make. There's all kinds ofcomplicated twists and turns, all kind of
figures involved in this. But theFEDS have brought felony charges against Pras Michelle
that he wasn't registered as a foreignagent, among other charges, and the
trial just commenced in Washington. It'svery complicated, but we care about it
because it is involving a formerly prominentrap figure. He was in the nineties.
(25:04):
He you're the biggest ape and youknow he's being depicted by the government
as being a kind of washed uprapper who was looking to take some kind
of money. This guy made eightyeight million dollars, it is alleged from
this Malaysian guy. That's a prettygood payday for, you know, a
former rap star. Yeah, whatdo you make it? Yes? I
always wonder first thing, you know, is how did these people ever get
(25:25):
to meet each other and take theirrelationship to the level where the right right?
Okay, fascinated by that, Butyeah, it's just gonna depend.
I mean, you know, isthis gonna settle? It could potentially settle,
right, But if everything is asbeing said, then I think that
(25:48):
you know, he has he hasa lot to be worried about because mainly
because when I read this, here'swhat popped out at me. What are
they gonna come at him with?They're coming at him with the fact that
he's not registered, which is somethingto you're a fuji, I know,
And this is kind of esoteric.I remember there are people involved in the
(26:10):
Trump campaign. There have been somecharters brought against former Trump transition team members.
Michael Flynn, I believe, wasaccused of being a foreign agent and
not representing that when he represented Turkey. I think anyway. Yeah, this
is a kind of kind of highlevel dog whistle federal charge that involves people
operating on a level that ordinary peoplejust don't understand, which is why I
think it's possible that this thing couldall come apart for the Feds. This
(26:36):
is incredibly complicated. Yeah, andordinary people being who are being asked to
make decisions on this, and ina lot of these cases, these people
either their cases, they don't getconvicted, or they get overturned because it's
a very subtle notion about being aboutlobbying. And of course in Washington,
everybody's a lobbyist if you're not ingovernment, come on, everybody. So
(26:59):
I don't know, you know,I saw these opening statements from the federal
attorney who basically said the defendant neededmoney and was willing to do anything to
get it, including being an agentof the Chinese government. And we know,
but the word Chinese is you know, never voting down there. Yeah,
it's going to say a lot moreto convict them than saying the guy
was desperate for cash and got money. I mean, I just don't know.
I agree. I think this iswelcome to Hollywood. We're gonna be
(27:21):
wait, wait, wait, waitto the point of and I agree with
you, And like I said,when I first read this, I'm like,
Okay, he doesn't have a license. That's that's really so far from
what I can see what they're comingafter him, right, But I'm with
you, and I think the moreinteresting story is how does a guy,
Malaysian guy, friends of million dollarssay I need help with the government.
(27:42):
Let me go higher prose as Absolutely, absolutely, Washington is full of like
you know, former you know,grandees like the late Clark Clifford and people
like that correct who know that LannieDavis, Correct, who know their way
around town. But then, okay, let's take it a step further.
(28:03):
How you end up Rose Michelle.At least we could have hired Lauren Hill.
That would have been okay, thatwould have been the bomb, right,
bring her out, Okay, tothe extent that any of this is
gonna go to the place that hefinanced the film in Hollywood and they're they're
triumph in any way, just bringthat in from left field or right field
(28:29):
or whatever. That's gonna fail becausea lot of films that are financed in
hollywould have questionable origins or investors orbackers. People may not know this,
but a lot of films that arefinanced in Hollywood, there may be a
studio name that you see, butthen there's ten other quote unquote investors,
(28:51):
and they come from all walks oflife in all places. So to the
extent he did that with Wolf ofWall Street, take that one and throw
it out. That one's going nowhere. And you know, supposedly leadercapris on
are witness list to talk about that, Well, let's talk about a star.
I mean, if Leo testifies,I'm in on that, and then
I guess. But I just thinkthis is an incredibly complicated kise And that's
(29:11):
the other thing. Okay, sothis is really like on a higher level,
was there an actual crime? Imean, what you know? And
so you have to then think thatthe concepts and what they're trying to prove
are so complicated that good luck.Well, here's an indication of the kind
of trials and the kind of casesthat get hurt in these federal courts in
Washington. Pros Michelle, according toPolitico, is the highest profile defendant from
(29:34):
outside the political world to go ontrial in federal court in Washington since Major
League baseball picture Roger Clemens. Isaw that stood trial on perjury chard Is
eleven years ago. So basically,this is a court that is designed for
lobbyists and politicians and business agents andother people involved in government, and they
(29:55):
operate well, certainly not in secrecy, but in these very kind of special
eised cases so as to be seenwhether or not he is famous as Roger
Clements. I mean, I don'tI see. This is like a zero
sum game in this sense. No, Rogers Clements was fair if you didn't
tell me who he was when yousent this to me. You had to
tell me, right, because Ididn't know who he was. You don't
(30:17):
know your fugies. I know myFuji's. I'm not like mister Fujie.
I mean I know who they are. I mean I know Lauren, right,
but I don't really know the restof the It's been a long time,
and it has been along and againto compare to this case that they
refer back to pall as they referto this story. You know, Roger
Clements was charged with perjury. Okay, ordinary people can understand absolutely, you
(30:40):
lied under road exactly. Yeah,so we'll see what happened down Yeah,
but very very interesting cases, bothsmall and totally but that's what we do.
Yeah, exactly, tell your friends, tell your neighbors about entertainment.
Brothers. Next week we'll be backwith more kind of stories. Maybe not
full in the courtroom, but thecourtroom okay, we'll take him as a
theater of the law. It isus. Thanks everybody, We'll see you
(31:00):
next week, next time. Bye, thank you.
Good morning, entered him and brother, Oh, brother, where art thou?
You know? We have a confessionto make, or at least I
do. We may not have manylisteners, or not as many as we
might want, but we have verydevoted ones we do, including my friend
Ted Okay, who wanted to pointout to me that when we use the
phrase, or I use the phrasethe wheels of justice in a prior episode,
(00:24):
he wanted he wanted to note thatthe wheels of justice don't roll,
they grind, and I was somewhatembarrassed by that mistake that we made.
He also had took issue with yourquote about when the laws on your side.
He wanted to refresh your memory whenthe laws on your side, pound
the law, when the facts areon your side, pound the facts.
When neither is on your side,pound the table. It's the use of
(00:47):
the verb pound. I think Itake exception with that. When the laws
on your side, you argue it, but I think it's the pounding part.
The pounding part comes as the thirdpart because you're desperate, you don't
have anything to argue, so youpound. I think it was the illiterative
use of the word pound, meaningwhat well you pound? The law.
You pounded the facts and then youpounded the table. No, I'm not
(01:11):
getting it. The point is that, yeah, he's a careful listener,
you know what true and won thathe'd probably be horrified by the metaphor I'm
about to use about the wheels ofjustice slaloming down the hill. They are
slaloming. I mean, come onright over the back of retired optometrist Terry
Sanderson. Yeah. We're talking,of course about the Gwyneth Paltrow Ski accident
(01:34):
trial that just concluded in Utah.Yeah, Paltrow was victorious. The lawsuit
brought against her by set uptometrist misterSanderson failed. He had been wanting three
hundred thousand dollars for what he claimedwas a variety of injuries, including four
broken ribs, mental issues, emotionalissues that he led, in fact to
the end of as a relationship withhis girlfriend. It was quite a sad
(01:56):
story, but the jury wasn't buyingit. No, this we can't help
it. Contrast with the other bigtrial that we covered year ago, which
was the Johnny Depp amber Heard trial. There is something about both cases,
particularly this one, I think thatis so little about the law as opposed
to celebrity, and we will getthere in a moment. But first,
ladies and gentlemen from Times Square.We are the Entertainment Brothers. And now
(02:35):
the Entertainment Brothers. Here's Larry Hackettand Thomas Valentino. Welcome back. We're
talking ski accidents and Gwyneth Paltrow.This has been an interesting case. I
was out of town and watching itand covering it, listening to it rather,
and was fascinated by the degree ofcoverage that was given to it.
Obviously, the key reason for thatwas that it was on television. You
(02:57):
could see it, and you know, the idea of tape of a celebrity
on trial is gripping, right.There's something about a courtroom and about the
promise, the potential promise of acelebrity being brought down to the same level
as others, particularly when it comesto someone like Gwyneth Paltrow, is interesting.
Um. Anyway, we'll get tothat in a minute. Any any
(03:20):
thoughts about the legal case here andwhat this was about this one? Let
me ask you, let me giveyou, let me give you a prompt,
ye, should this even have cometo trial? Is there something about
the idea that all of this manpowerand time and money was spent over over
what the jury decided. It seemsto me within hours or two was complete.
(03:42):
Bs. Well, I always lookat the money, right that.
In other words, she doesn't haveto pay anything to him, just the
doctor, but she has legal feesthat pay well beyond Okay, right,
but I'm sure right, how Ever, if I'm her, I don't want
to have that kind of profile inthe courtroom. Okay. She did complain
(04:06):
at one point about the camera beingon her face too long. That was
actually an objection, So that's obviouslyat that point it was getting to her
right where she was concerned about that. Well, look, here's the difference
between the Johnny Depp case. Inthis case, right, Johnny Depp wanted
to be in court, right,he wanted to be heard. He brought
(04:28):
the case he did. In thiscase, she indeed had countersued when Sanderson
sued her, but she didn't wantto be there. No, But she
also didn't want to knuckle under andpay any kind of damages. So in
that the motivation was similar to depRight, Depp believed that he was in
the right. Paltrow believed she wasin the right. And despite probably people
around them saying, do you reallywant to go to court, they both
said yes, yeah. Obviously whatwas at stake in this case and the
(04:50):
Paltrow case was not at all asgrave as what was in the case of
Depp and heard right, their allegationsof obviously domestic abuse and his reputation as
being, you know, someone whoabuses women. I mean it was the
stakes were way way, way higherthan they were in this In this case,
it became more of this meditation onGwyneth Paltrow, who was one of
(05:10):
those stars that has been the subjectof this kind of treatment for the past
twenty five years since she won anOscar for Shakespeare in Love. She is
someone who people and I say mostlywomen, right, are kind of obsessed
with, yeah, right, becauseshe's someone who seems perfect on the outside
and which of course can be bothalluring and maddening to people. And she's
(05:34):
someone who has triggered these kinds ofemotional responses over time. I'll tell you
a quick little story. I hadput her on the cover of People magazine
as the most beautiful woman in theWorld, woe of the one of the
annual features that we did, right, and we had talked about doing it,
and she was willing to do itand cooperate, and there were people
(05:55):
who wanted to do it, andthere are people who didn't want to do
it because she's so polarizing. Anyway, we did it, and the initially
reaction was not good. It wasjust at the start of kind of social
media, and we were getting bombardedwith just hate emails about how we could
have done this, and certain executivesat the company I wrote at were really
quailing and though we had made aterrible, terrible mistake and how could we
(06:15):
have done this and why didn't welisten and we all knew that she was
polarizing and this is a terrible error. Anyway, it's sold unbelievably well,
right, and in that story isthe microcosm of Gwyneth Paltrow. There are
people who hate her and there arepeople who love her. You know,
Goop, her home healthcare and wellnesscompany, would not be the success that
it is if everyone really didn't likeher. They love to hate on her,
(06:39):
right, but they don't hate her, and they might secretly admire her.
And you can harbor, you know, both of those thoughts and pull
those feelings and they can be reconciledin the same person. Anyway. She
has that strange quality of being someonewho is fascinating and polarizing, and that's
what this trial was about, becauseit was an opportunity to see her cast
in a role little yeah someone whoyou know, is she too big for
(07:02):
justice? What's going to happen?And there were all these stories about her
clothing and these idiotic pieces like thatin places like you know, the Washington
Post, in the New York Times. Mainstream media who you and I both
know really don't know how to covercelebrity, so they cover it with like
what is she wearing? And whatis she trying to say? Yeah,
anyway, I'm with you. Thelegal case was pretty straightforward. It sounded
(07:23):
like what was interesting about is thatthe versions of what happened between both camps
were so different. Yeah. Shebasically said he kind of skied in behind
her. They're on a bunny slope, which if you ski, you know
you're you really can't get that muchspeed up even if you were coming bombing
down the hill. By the timeyou get to the bottom slopes, you
can't really be going that fast yea, And that he kind of like skied
in between She was having a lessonwith her son and an instructor, and
(07:46):
he sort of skied between her legs, and she thought maybe someone who's trying
to like me, know, sexually, m a lester. She actually went
that far. Yeah, she did. In her defense, that's correct,
and almost saying that he did,and that he was grunting and right was
waiting for the next step. Right. Wow, He claiming totally opposite,
that she was uphill and she camebarreling into him, right, and that
(08:07):
he broke four ribs right as youbreak it. He did, and as
you will know, Yeah, Ibroke four ribs about a year and a
half ago. Yeah, you gotto fall pretty damn hard to break four
ribs. Yeah, even if you'rea man in your early seventies. Right.
The idea that Gwinnipaltro somehow triggered himbreaking four ribs, I don't know.
I just can't. I'm trying towork out the law setting in the
physics of this, and I don'treally see it. I think though,
(08:30):
I'm not sure if there was evidenceto prove that the ribs are broken or
not. You can't really prove that. Well, it's not. It's not
like, oh you can't, butyeah, okay, because they're not,
because they're not broken. Now.Yeah, but he apparently skied downhill.
Yeah, let me tell you something, friend, Yeah, when I broke
my four, but I wasn't skiinganywhere. I couldn't get off the floor.
Yeah okay. So again that wasnot germane and that really wasn't what
(08:50):
was brought here, but it waswhether or not she had caused it.
And I just wonder how did thisget this far because neither one would settle.
That's why neither one would set all. You don't know who was influencing
who. I have a friend whowas saying that it had a lot to
do with insurance and that insurance companiesmight have said, you know, go
out there and fight it and we'llback you up or whatever. But this
(09:15):
case from get made no sense tome none. The first thing that doesn't
make any sense to me at allare the numbers. Okay, if you're
telling me you have brain damage andyou're suing for three hundred thousand dollars,
(09:35):
that's hard to believe. I mean, if that's me, I'm suing for
thirty million. I've been permanently damaged. Okay. Then her counter claim was
to go at him for a millionokay, based on whatever whatever whatever he
did to her, assuming you believedit. And right from there, the
(09:56):
numbers don't make sense. They don'tmake sense. And then so now we're
moving forward, and I don't knowthat I've ever seen um, you know,
in terms of okay, this isabout justice and being in court,
but just in terms of I'm notso sure that the witnesses were believable,
(10:18):
either one of them, Like Iwas trying to pick one over the other
and I couldn't. And then alsothe attorneys were there were times when they
were sort of objecting and not objecting, and the whole thing to me does
not make sense. And again,you know, when I was looking,
(10:39):
especially when the doctor was testifying,it didn't seem like he had any brain
damage, right, right, Whatdo you think was the most damaging thing
to his case? You know,I think the video they played a video
showing you know that he did basicallywhat she said he did, right,
I don't think that helped his caseat all. The other thing is okay,
(11:01):
there, I've never ever in mylife seeing two more unrelatable unsympathetic witnesses.
There was just nothing in there.I was looking for authenticity in either
one of them. I was lookingfor believability in either one of them.
You mean Sanderson and Paltrow. Yes, yeah, And I didn't see it
(11:24):
at neither point. And I actually, and I'm not sure why, just
because the timing, I was ableto actually watch the testimony of both.
Right, we have this other trialthat's coming up, a criminal case,
(11:52):
the rust case, right, whichis also taking place in the American West.
Right, and it pits at leaston the surface, celebrities against ostensibly,
you know, different kinds of communities. Now, in the case of
New Mexico, we've talked about howthe prosecutors there have really tried to make
an issue about you know Baldwin's quoteunquote, you know, big city lawyer
(12:13):
trying to build a lot of hours, you know, from his client,
and really trying to make it akind of like us against them, you
know, people with traditional values versusthese big city slickers who come in and
make movies and don't follow the rules. I think there may have been a
hint of that attempted in this case, and it failed miserably and I can't
help but think that Paltrow's attorneys knewthat. Let me take for an example,
(12:33):
retired optometrist versus Hollywood movie star,right. I mean, there's your
kind of contrast right there. Sothere's an attempt to sort of make him
be somewhat different, and that sheran into him and didn't you know,
stay and take care for him andcheck on him, and that he has
been denied now all kinds of pleasuresbecause of this injury. I thought it
was very telling that as part ofthe attempt by Paltrow's attorneys to tear down
(12:56):
his case, they showed photo afterphoto after photo of his europe In trips
which were to very kind of ordinary, you know, of a lot of
peat places to Italy and things likethat. He'd been to the Netherlands three
times. He traveled quite a bit. But it showed I think they were
trying to show that this guy isperhaps more upper class or a middle upper
middle class than you may care tobelieve. And the idea of casting this
(13:18):
as a class issue, which Ithink the moment you get Quinn of the
Palutuana's story, it becomes potentially becomesthat failed miserablie Let's also remember that both
of them were skiing at one ofthe most exclusive resorts in the United States.
I have been, you have beento Deer Valley. I've been in
your valley. It's it's in Sundance. Yeah, it's in Park City,
which where Sundance is. Yeah.It's an exclusive place. Absolutely. It
(13:39):
doesn't mean that people who ski thereare all of a certain economic class.
Yeah, But I think any attemptto sort of painter as being a above
the law celebrity failed and was boundto fail up, probably most importantly based
on the facts. I mean,just from the beginning, right, You're
like, well, it's a hesaid, she said kind of thing,
(14:00):
and there's no real substantive evidence eitherway. I mean, there's there's not
a gun, right, there's notreally even a smoking gun. There's just
two people giving different versions of whathappened. Going back also, which this
was a case about privilege in onesense, right, You're everything about it
(14:20):
was you know, he had adoctor, he had a celebrity. They're
at a fabulous, famous ski resort, but you know it was of a
certain socioeconomic class. Sure, Andso I think that part of it,
I know, at least online andwhat a lot of people were saying was
that, you know, they werekind of here's what I was seeing,
(14:41):
Okay, on Twitter in certain placespeople were hating on both of them.
Right, that's right, That's whatwas really funny. And I kept trying
to you know, I have myown opinion and then which I've I've expressed
here, right, Like, Idon't know, I don't know. After
everything was done, I'm like,I threw my hands up, I have
no idea. Okay, what arethe joys of doing the show with you?
(15:03):
Is that you're an attorney and Ican ask you what would you have
done if you were representing him?Right? What would you have done differently
than they did? Well? Wouldyou? First of all? Would you
would this have gone to court?No? No, no, I wouldn't
go there. Really, I wouldn'tgo there. He's this is my point.
Okay, he's suing her for nothing, Like I don't get it.
(15:24):
Like, if you're going to suego for the thirty million, okay,
Um, and you're claiming that youhave brain damage. Here's the struggle that
I had. Okay, you're askingme, is that he's up there claiming
he has brain damage. But he'sso coherent and articulate, and like I'm
waiting for him to write me ascript, which is not to say he
(15:45):
doesn't have the brain damage and emotionalissues and even some physical ones, but
they're so not apparent, correct.I don't want to lighten what what might
actually be the case. There acertain testament court would support that right,
But he's not being wheeled into thecourthouse courtroom like you know Weinstein correct.
Correct. But in addition, againin the same way to me, she's
just absolutely unrelatable. He was absolutelyunrelatable. So I've never seen a case
(16:11):
where both people were equally unrelatable.Depth v. Hurt we saw, you
know, there was one way orthe other. A lot of people were
going for Johnny Depp right in thiscase, it seemed to me like both
of them were the same and theywere neutralizing each other. And then when
I took it a step further andwent to their counsel and their attorneys,
(16:33):
they didn't seem like the dream teamof law, either one of them or
as groups. Well, there wasthe issues when she was being when Paltrow
was being cross examined by his attorney, where the woman was kind of like
almost trying to like become her power, right, asking how tall? Yeah,
and he's strange, okay, okay, really he's kind of almost celebrity
stalking. Okay, okay. Imean, look that people don't understand who
(16:57):
were not around it every day,how big a factor that can be.
And as much as you may be, you know, you're an attorney.
Every day you're out there slugging,and all of a sudden you're in front
of her and your soul gets revealed. Right, as much as you're supposed
to be objective and you're supposed tobe fighting on behalf of your client,
(17:18):
if you've never seen a star ever, you get star struck. So let's
talk about that in relationship. Let'sup around him. Let's talk about that
in relation to upcoming cases in particularor Rush right. Much has been made
about the new Mexico officials there,and much has been made clearly about somehow
(17:38):
painting Alec Baldwin as the bad guy, right, and and his willingness to
talk has, at least in theearly stages, you know, bitten back
at him, right, it wasmixed up. It was statements that seemed
to be contradictory that he gave tothe police and to the press that in
many ways led to the charges againsthim. Correct, we all know what
his history is about being a hotheadand someone who flies off the handle.
(18:00):
One would imagine that that is partof the prosecutor's strategy in New Mexico to
get him on the stand and tohave him, you know, say something
that's intemperate at best and at worstincriminating. How do you as an attorney,
and I go, every celebrity isdifferent, in every case is different.
But are there things that you shoulddo or avoid if you are an
(18:21):
attorney when you cross examine someone whois known to the people who might be
watching this trial. Well, Idon't think you want to appear if you're
representing one party or the other.You don't want to appear like you're being
friendly and not going after the personand doing your job. And that came
across to me. Do you also, at the same time not want to
(18:44):
appear to be overly hostile and attacking? You never ever ever want to appear
to be attacking or overly hostile.Really, the great ones, the great
ones. Every attorney right has aconversational way of putting it out there,
But also like holding you to thefire. Okay. When we looked at
(19:06):
the Murdoch case, one of thethings that we haven't talked about it that
concerned me was that the prosecutor Ithought at a certain point was being too
hot, right, okay, yeah, but that didn't turn out to okay.
So I think that when you're gettinginto the higher levels of trial law
(19:27):
and litigation, that's the greatest skill, right there is to cross examine,
okay, and make it conversational enoughwhere you're trying to trip the person up,
appear to be firm, but nothostile and antagonizing. Okay. So
in the same way, you're tryingto get your witness to be relatable you
(19:51):
as the attorney, you don't wantto appear too smart. You don't want
to appear unrelatable. You want toappear authentic. And when I I saw
this cross examination, I'm like,um, wow, she is star struck.
It flipped me out. Actually,it flipped me out. So this
is gonna sound like I was waitingfor her to say, can I have
(20:11):
your autograph? But it sounded thatway, and that's the way, and
that's the way it played in thefight. That's like whoa Right, that's
my attorney. And it may havebeen a way to sort of ingratiate herself
and give you know, Paltrow afalse sense of comfort, but it backfire.
It was too much. I agreewith you, it was too much.
So this is gonna sound like cherrypicking of different trials. But you
know, we have the Depth Heardcase from last summer. We have the
(20:33):
Kevin Spacey Anthony rap case from thefall. Yeah, we do, and
we now have this case. Inall of these cases, the bigger name
the celebrity there. Obviously, inthe Depth Heard case there was two celebrities
and in the rap Spacey case therewere two. Right, the bigger name
one correct. Good point? Isthere anything to learn from that? I
mean, again, every case isdifferent, and you know, but we
(20:56):
have three cases and we have akind of pattern arguably developing for anything to
learn from that, being that celebritiesare always going to get the celebrity thumb
is always going to be on thescale. Well, the percentages say that
you're bringing out three cases, right, So if you're coming to me and
you're going to sue a celebrity,I'm going to have second and third thoughts
(21:19):
unless I know I have evidence thatcan bring them down, right, Okay,
And we've seen that happen with otherpeople, right, But yeah,
you really have to do take adifferent posture and consider that if people are
star struck, the world is starstruck. The world, the universe is
star struck. Okay. And whenit's not just that people are star struck
(21:42):
with their soul, that's a distractionto everyone, the fact that the universe
is star struck, it's a distractionnot in your favor, right, Okay,
I'm going to ask this quickly andescape past it, because it's almost
it's inescapable that we can't bring thisup. But and we don't want to
minimize what is a very very seriouscase to something about entertainment. However,
(22:07):
the Paltrow News was eclipsed in thein recent days by the indictment of Donald
Trump. Right, do you thinkthat that very same philosophy that you just
elucidated about being starstruck will apply?And how will it apply? And should
Donald Trump come to in a trial, well, he likely will, okay,
And but if and when he does, then you have someone who not
(22:30):
only this is someone probably you know, the third most famous person in the
world, like, I'm not sure. I know, So you're you're he's
on another level yeah, of celebrity. Yeah, because he's a president,
right, he's a political star,and he's and he's a celebrity all in
one. Right, So yeah,so everything aside. I mean that that's
(22:52):
powerful, Right, that's powerful,and we're likely going to see some form
of a circus. Right, there'sgonna be people impressed, but then there's
gonna be supporters out. So it'sthis is really could be the biggest trial
we've ever seen. In fact,it's so big it's kind of scary.
I know, you agree with him? Yeah, Moving on to other trials,
(23:27):
we have his fascinating case involving formerFuji Praz Michelle Yes, and a
guy named Jolo. Jolo is interesting. He was a figure in a huge
financial scandal involving the Malaysian Sovereign Fund, which was a massive, massive pile
(23:48):
of money that was run by theMalaysian government. He somehow, as I
recall, may have been related ormay have been friends with someone in the
Malaysian government. Anyway, he hadaccess to ends, if not hundreds of
millions of dollars and he used alot of it to invest in entertainment in
the United States, including the fundingof the movie The Wolf of Wall Street,
and he basically, it's alleged,looted this sovereign fund and spent all
(24:14):
kinds of money on all kinds ofentertainment projects and other things that he wasn't
really supposed to be doing anyway.Among the tens of millions of dollars,
it is alleged were eighty eight milliondollars that went to Pras Michelle to act
as an agent on this guy's behalfto try to influence government to stop investigations
into the spending of this Malaysian sovereignfund. That's about as simple as I
(24:38):
can make. There's all kinds ofcomplicated twists and turns, all kind of
figures involved in this. But theFEDS have brought felony charges against Pras Michelle
that he wasn't registered as a foreignagent, among other charges, and the
trial just commenced in Washington. It'svery complicated, but we care about it
because it is involving a formerly prominentrap figure. He was in the nineties.
(25:04):
He you're the biggest ape and youknow he's being depicted by the government
as being a kind of washed uprapper who was looking to take some kind
of money. This guy made eightyeight million dollars, it is alleged from
this Malaysian guy. That's a prettygood payday for, you know, a
former rap star. Yeah, whatdo you make it? Yes? I
always wonder first thing, you know, is how did these people ever get
(25:25):
to meet each other and take theirrelationship to the level where the right right?
Okay, fascinated by that, Butyeah, it's just gonna depend.
I mean, you know, isthis gonna settle? It could potentially settle,
right, But if everything is asbeing said, then I think that
(25:48):
you know, he has he hasa lot to be worried about because mainly
because when I read this, here'swhat popped out at me. What are
they gonna come at him with?They're coming at him with the fact that
he's not registered, which is somethingto you're a fuji, I know,
And this is kind of esoteric.I remember there are people involved in the
(26:10):
Trump campaign. There have been somecharters brought against former Trump transition team members.
Michael Flynn, I believe, wasaccused of being a foreign agent and
not representing that when he represented Turkey. I think anyway. Yeah, this
is a kind of kind of highlevel dog whistle federal charge that involves people
operating on a level that ordinary peoplejust don't understand, which is why I
think it's possible that this thing couldall come apart for the Feds. This
(26:36):
is incredibly complicated. Yeah, andordinary people being who are being asked to
make decisions on this, and ina lot of these cases, these people
either their cases, they don't getconvicted, or they get overturned because it's
a very subtle notion about being aboutlobbying. And of course in Washington,
everybody's a lobbyist if you're not ingovernment, come on, everybody. So
(26:59):
I don't know, you know,I saw these opening statements from the federal
attorney who basically said the defendant neededmoney and was willing to do anything to
get it, including being an agentof the Chinese government. And we know,
but the word Chinese is you know, never voting down there. Yeah,
it's going to say a lot moreto convict them than saying the guy
was desperate for cash and got money. I mean, I just don't know.
I agree. I think this iswelcome to Hollywood. We're gonna be
(27:21):
wait, wait, wait, waitto the point of and I agree with
you, And like I said,when I first read this, I'm like,
Okay, he doesn't have a license. That's that's really so far from
what I can see what they're comingafter him, right, But I'm with
you, and I think the moreinteresting story is how does a guy,
Malaysian guy, friends of million dollarssay I need help with the government.
(27:42):
Let me go higher prose as Absolutely, absolutely, Washington is full of like
you know, former you know,grandees like the late Clark Clifford and people
like that correct who know that LannieDavis, Correct, who know their way
around town. But then, okay, let's take it a step further.
(28:03):
How you end up Rose Michelle.At least we could have hired Lauren Hill.
That would have been okay, thatwould have been the bomb, right,
bring her out, Okay, tothe extent that any of this is
gonna go to the place that hefinanced the film in Hollywood and they're they're
triumph in any way, just bringthat in from left field or right field
(28:29):
or whatever. That's gonna fail becausea lot of films that are financed in
hollywould have questionable origins or investors orbackers. People may not know this,
but a lot of films that arefinanced in Hollywood, there may be a
studio name that you see, butthen there's ten other quote unquote investors,
(28:51):
and they come from all walks oflife in all places. So to the
extent he did that with Wolf ofWall Street, take that one and throw
it out. That one's going nowhere. And you know, supposedly leadercapris on
are witness list to talk about that, Well, let's talk about a star.
I mean, if Leo testifies,I'm in on that, and then
I guess. But I just thinkthis is an incredibly complicated kise And that's
(29:11):
the other thing. Okay, sothis is really like on a higher level,
was there an actual crime? Imean, what you know? And
so you have to then think thatthe concepts and what they're trying to prove
are so complicated that good luck.Well, here's an indication of the kind
of trials and the kind of casesthat get hurt in these federal courts in
Washington. Pros Michelle, according toPolitico, is the highest profile defendant from
(29:34):
outside the political world to go ontrial in federal court in Washington since Major
League baseball picture Roger Clemens. Isaw that stood trial on perjury chard Is
eleven years ago. So basically,this is a court that is designed for
lobbyists and politicians and business agents andother people involved in government, and they
(29:55):
operate well, certainly not in secrecy, but in these very kind of special
eised cases so as to be seenwhether or not he is famous as Roger
Clements. I mean, I don'tI see. This is like a zero
sum game in this sense. No, Rogers Clements was fair if you didn't
tell me who he was when yousent this to me. You had to
tell me, right, because Ididn't know who he was. You don't
(30:17):
know your fugies. I know myFuji's. I'm not like mister Fujie.
I mean I know who they are. I mean I know Lauren, right,
but I don't really know the restof the It's been a long time,
and it has been along and againto compare to this case that they
refer back to pall as they referto this story. You know, Roger
Clements was charged with perjury. Okay, ordinary people can understand absolutely, you
(30:40):
lied under road exactly. Yeah,so we'll see what happened down Yeah,
but very very interesting cases, bothsmall and totally but that's what we do.
Yeah, exactly, tell your friends, tell your neighbors about entertainment.
Brothers. Next week we'll be backwith more kind of stories. Maybe not
full in the courtroom, but thecourtroom okay, we'll take him as a
theater of the law. It isus. Thanks everybody, We'll see you
(31:00):
next week, next time. Bye, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.