0:00

It's Monday, April 15, 2024 from

0:02

Peach Fish Productions. It's

0:07

the gist I'm Mike Pesca. Thank

0:09

you, Iran. You've united

0:11

a once shaky coalition behind

0:13

Israel. Israel with the help of

0:15

key Western allies, including the US, United

0:18

Kingdom and Jordan, were able to

0:20

intercept. The US Congress is now rushing an

0:22

aid bill and the coverage emphasized the stakes

0:24

and threat that Israel is under. True, there

0:27

is an argument that it is a threat

0:29

of their own making. I mean, why proactively

0:31

kill generals who mean to kill you eventually?

0:33

That thinking goes, just leave them alone, they'll

0:35

leave you alone, even if they vow to

0:37

wipe you off the earth. Maybe I'm tipping

0:39

my hand a little bit about what I

0:41

think of that theory. But

0:44

before we unspool backwards too many

0:46

degrees, my point is about world

0:48

sentiment and Israel's coalition. And

0:50

Iran is to thank for solidifying

0:53

the latter and, however briefly, turning

0:55

around the former. Next, I'd like

0:57

to also thank the Iranians for

1:00

pointing out that sometimes the euphemisms

1:02

and cliches of things like defense

1:04

industry, they're actually correct. Just

1:07

think of the entire notion of defense. We

1:09

changed the Department of War to the

1:11

Department of Defense. Mostly that's

1:14

chalked up to it being a

1:16

more palatable euphemism. Sometimes

1:18

we say the best offense is a good defense. But

1:20

you know what? This was a

1:22

case where that was absolutely valid. A

1:25

good defense, like the Iron Dome

1:27

and mid-air interceptions, David Sling, the

1:30

Iron Beams, all those intercepts of

1:32

ballistic and cruise missiles from medium

1:34

to long-range rockets, it really

1:36

was defense and it really worked. Without this

1:38

defense, hundreds of Israelis would

1:40

be dead, maybe thousands. And while that's

1:42

a desirable outcome to many of Israel's

1:44

enemies, foreign and within the United States,

1:47

it's actually a bad outcome, even if

1:49

you're entirely indifferent to Israeli life. But

1:51

all you care about is American life,

1:53

or world stability in general. A

1:56

huge death toll in Israel without the

1:58

Iron Dome, without the defense. without all

2:00

the countries coming together to knock those

2:02

drone suicide drones, right? Homicide, but also

2:04

suicide drones out of the sky. Without

2:07

all of that, there would have necessarily

2:09

been a larger military response and the

2:12

U.S. certainly would have gotten involved. Let's

2:15

for a second go back and

2:17

think about that vote for Israel's

2:19

defense system. A vote that Cori

2:21

Bush, Ayanna Presley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan

2:23

Omar, Chui Garcia, a couple others,

2:26

including, let's not forget, quirky libertarian

2:28

Kentucky Republican Thomas Massey, they

2:30

all voted against it. Their complaint, all

2:32

but Massey's, was as expressed by Rashida Tlaib

2:35

on the floor of Congress. We

2:37

cannot be talking only about Israelis' need

2:39

for safety at a time when Palestinians

2:42

are living under a violent apartheid system

2:44

and are dying from what Human Rights

2:46

Watch has said are war crimes. We

2:49

should also be talking about Palestinian need

2:51

for security from Israeli attacks. We must

2:53

be consistent in our commitment to human

2:55

life, period. Everyone deserves

2:58

to be safe there. Alexandria

3:00

Ocasio-Cortez, abstained by voting present,

3:02

she cried and she attributed

3:04

her teary abstention to, quote,

3:06

persistent human rights abuses against

3:09

the Palestinian people. She

3:11

then apologized to those in her district who

3:13

would fault her for not just a flat

3:15

out no vote. She said, yes, I wept.

3:17

I wept at the complete lack of care

3:19

for the human beings that are impacted by

3:21

these decisions. Meaning again,

3:23

the Palestinians literally impacted, would

3:25

have been hundreds if not

3:28

thousands of Israelis if they

3:30

didn't have the Iron Dome. That

3:32

thankfully hundreds of American lawmakers saw

3:34

the wisdom of. But

3:36

in the framework that we heard to those

3:39

members of Congress who voted against it, there's

3:41

only one group of people whose lives are

3:43

at stake. Palestinians and

3:45

Israel has gone out of their way to

3:47

make an enemy of just that one group

3:50

of people, Palestinians. But of

3:52

course, we saw there are other countries that

3:54

would love to destroy Israel. What

3:57

is remarkable is that those countries once included

3:59

and not. Not so long ago, and frequently over the years,

4:01

1948, 1967, 1973, they included Egypt, Saudi Arabia,

4:06

and Jordan. But even

4:08

now, Jordan and Egypt will acknowledge

4:10

what AOC and Rashida Tlaib will

4:12

not. The utility of

4:14

saving thousands of Israelis from being killed

4:17

is in the interest, even

4:19

of those with heartfelt deep

4:22

sympathy for the Palestinians. Geopolitics

4:25

is a little more complicated than simple morality

4:27

tells, right? The truly miraculous

4:30

anti-missile system, saving thousands of innocent lives,

4:32

it's not, I don't think, that hard

4:34

a call. In fact,

4:36

if there were a series of missiles being

4:38

lobbed at Jordan or Egypt by a hostile

4:41

power, which would probably be Iran, by the

4:43

way, I'm sure that an

4:45

Egyptian iron dome, call it Faro Staff,

4:47

whatever, would be welcome. But

4:49

since they don't have that in place, what would happen is

4:52

the United States and Israel would provide

4:54

the kind of air assistance of

4:56

knocking Iranian missiles out of the

4:58

sky that those other countries provided

5:00

to Israel, and also to themselves,

5:02

by the way. And if

5:04

you're saying, yeah, but Egypt doesn't have an iron

5:07

dome, why not? Well, they don't

5:09

need one, right? An ally of Tlaib

5:11

on this issue would be quick to

5:13

point out they don't need one because

5:15

they're not systemically limiting the movement and

5:17

freedom of an oppressed population, except, of

5:19

course, that exactly describes what Egypt does.

5:22

Egypt and Israel co-managed the blockade of

5:24

Gaza. It's just that Hamas doesn't

5:26

regularly fire missiles to the south. So

5:29

to steel man the position of

5:32

the opponents of the iron dome, I'll

5:34

pick a couple. I keep picking on

5:36

Rishida Tlaib. So to steel man Cori

5:38

Bush's position, Chui Garcia's

5:40

position. It's that what a no

5:42

vote says is that Israel has

5:45

such a bad human rights record,

5:47

they don't deserve aid, they don't

5:49

deserve defense. But there's actually

5:51

no doctrine in the world of human

5:53

rights which rob citizens of

5:56

defense for mass casualties. Anytime

5:59

You can achieve that... You should. So

6:01

the jury garcia position you know

6:03

any us on iron Dome or

6:05

Beam or slang. Might. Then

6:08

be ah but of were Bus Defense

6:10

allows Israel to be more aggressive knowing

6:12

they won't pay costs in real lives

6:14

to which I say slick series. It

6:16

is certainly not worth thousands of lives

6:19

to prove. And he attacks that Israel

6:21

conducts against Iranian generals and nuclear scientists.

6:23

They really are targeted. They're very similar

6:25

to attacks against those targets at the

6:27

U. S pulls off, and as much

6:30

as the term collective punishment has become

6:32

a buzz phrase, there isn't any allegation

6:34

of collective punishment against the Iranians when

6:36

it comes to killing. A specific

6:38

could force leader or to some.

6:40

What I'm saying here is, if

6:43

there is an argument that Israel

6:45

doesn't deserve an iron dome, don't

6:47

just think about the Palestinians. Think

6:50

about the Iranians. And they do

6:52

deserve protection from the Iranians. In

6:54

many ways, they're very similar to

6:56

other allies of the United States.

6:59

put aside every since Israel does

7:01

wrong. As regards, the Palestinians,

7:03

present everything Israel does right in

7:05

terms of being a democracy, freedoms,

7:07

protections, all that's just acknowledge their

7:09

strong ally of the United States,

7:11

staff a common enemy and every

7:13

other country in that position. Egypt,

7:15

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Chad gets

7:17

supported by the United States and

7:19

all those countries I don't have

7:21

you checked. The records. The Human

7:24

Rights record. It's not great. The

7:26

point is, the entire funding be

7:28

totally ignored. A real risk to

7:30

Israel, a risk that left unaddressed

7:32

would be horrible for the safety

7:34

not just of his, but to

7:36

the neighboring countries. And yes, even

7:38

you and be as Americans in

7:40

Gaza. Those horrors have

7:42

at least temporarily been subsumed

7:45

by the reminder that there

7:47

is a truly unprovoked, irredeemable

7:49

enemy of Israel out there.

7:51

You can't blame. To. ron

7:54

for wanting to strike at israel

7:56

for legitimate purposes there was no

7:58

not the boss in Iran, if

8:00

anything, in the opposite direction. Lots

8:03

of Israel's critics and enemies say

8:06

Israel always has a coming, but when it

8:08

comes to Iran, do they? And

8:11

if the answer to that is, yeah, they do,

8:13

then you'd have to say, well, certainly so does

8:15

the United States. That's the bin Laden position, for

8:17

instance. There's a coalition of noisy Americans, by the

8:19

way, who believe that, but even in 2024, even

8:23

on social media, that counts as a really

8:25

radical fringe position. So I say saving

8:27

lives is good, deterring the world's worst

8:29

actors is good, utilizing foresight

8:31

and technology to prevent tragic outcomes. We

8:33

should all be behind it. It's one

8:35

of the reasons why wealthy nations

8:37

have wealth. And

8:39

now we return back to Israel's

8:42

other war, its internal war, where

8:44

Israel's enemies aren't state-of-the-art missiles and

8:46

drones. Those were over

8:48

300 against Israel. No.

8:51

You don't have to worry about the

8:53

low-touch technology of tunnels, GoPro videos, and

8:56

purposeful scenes of suffering, suffering

8:58

inflicted and suffering endured. That's

9:01

all a much more effective

9:03

means of bypassing Israel's protective

9:05

measures. On the show

9:07

today, a full show interview. Will

9:10

Thomas is an assistant professor at the

9:12

University of Michigan School of Law. He

9:15

is the only person I'm aware

9:17

of who predicted that Trump's civil

9:19

bond would be dropped in price

9:21

so Trump could pay. Today, you

9:23

might have heard, Trump's criminal trial

9:25

in New York begins. I

9:27

hunted down. I found

9:30

out. And I interviewed the person

9:32

who got right key details of

9:34

Trump's civil bond. We will talk

9:36

about that in series of justice

9:38

as relates to Donald Trump. Will

9:40

Thomas is next. The

9:57

Defender is a beautiful car, a beauty.

10:00

Is of course sometimes only skin deep

10:02

not was a defender. Let's talk about

10:04

the interior. Robust. Built.

10:07

With integrity. Yes, It's

10:09

designed iconic, leave the exterior. That's

10:11

what compelled me. my my neighbor

10:13

Jace his mighty see what's on

10:15

the block defender and look down

10:17

the block and deeds areas and

10:19

me and J, the neighbor and

10:21

Michelle We gather around the descent

10:24

we pure in the window as

10:26

to say I don't wanna make

10:28

systems to tawdry but it's we

10:30

lost or perhaps week sell to

10:32

drive. The Defender is to explore

10:34

with greater confidence. With. Of the

10:36

cargo capacity more room for the gear

10:39

is really are a wide range of

10:41

adventurers the defend your family. Features.

10:43

The To door defend your ninety,

10:45

The Defender One Ten and to

10:47

Defend your One Thirty which seats

10:50

up to eight, Push what's possible

10:52

with a vehicle. Me to go

10:54

further, the Defender One Ten. Learn

10:56

more at Land Rover usa.com/defender. This

10:59

episode brought you by the Jordan

11:01

Harbinger show. you've heard me talk

11:03

about that. Jordan Harbinger served as

11:05

one of my favorites. it as

11:08

indepth interviews with some the world's

11:10

most fascinating my nickname few been

11:12

a Boxer Anderson Cooper, Michael Mcfaul

11:14

be Ukraine or Russia ambassador talking

11:16

about Ukraine. One I recently listen

11:18

to was Stanley Mcchrystal the general

11:20

the former General and he told

11:23

her an interesting story about revering

11:25

Robert easily. But then after having

11:27

a portrait of him for forty.

11:29

Years sixty three old man throwing it

11:31

in the trash. This is why says

11:33

you know what that picture and that

11:35

man is to do with doesn't mean

11:37

to other people in the Us understand

11:39

that an enemy And through. They got

11:42

around to the point where Mccrystal talked

11:44

about that interview and Rolling Stone Magazine

11:46

that pretty much ended his career where

11:48

I got to be gasket rock Obama

11:50

had Mccrystal saying unflattering things about the

11:52

war effort than just how he talked

11:54

to his wife How this site not

11:56

bitter and not wallow in it could

11:58

take some. Shots. The Prophet, the

12:00

reporter or the President had that point,

12:03

but he didn't you? Just an overall

12:05

good. it's Real is facilitated by Jordan's

12:07

excellent interview style weather. Jordan is conducting

12:09

an interview or vice to a listener.

12:11

You will find something useful I can

12:13

apply to your own life. and every

12:15

single episode of the Jordan Harbinger show

12:17

that can be learning how to ask

12:19

for advice the right way are discovering

12:21

of the mindset. Tweak the changes have

12:24

you see the world? Search for the

12:26

Georgia Harbinger show that's a T art

12:28

with first three letters and hard. Be

12:30

I g G as in how you'll

12:33

want to catch up on all the

12:35

episodes an Apple Podcasts modify or where

12:37

ever you listen to podcasts. Everyone

12:43

will be pleased to know Donald

12:45

Trump has posted. Bond is not

12:47

a criminal bond. This is a

12:49

bond for the New York State

12:51

court. Opposite ends a call their

12:53

court. Such crazy things in New

12:55

York. But for the Appellate Division

12:57

to be able to hear Donald

12:59

Trump's appeal of the verdict that

13:01

he committed fraud against the people

13:03

of the states with interest he

13:05

was on the hook for over

13:07

five hundred million dollars. He complained

13:09

about that. Certainly on Truth Social

13:11

now worth much more. Than five

13:13

hundred million dollars. but he also

13:15

complained about that in a legal

13:17

filings, which to court agreed with.

13:19

Somewhat surprisingly, they knock the bomb

13:21

down to one hundred seventy five

13:23

million. and through a couple of

13:25

mechanisms that we'd get into, he

13:27

paid that bond. There was one

13:29

person that I know of who

13:31

predicted more or less predicted this

13:33

outcome. right? The great debate was his

13:35

Donald Trump broke. Is he not broke, his

13:38

he just whining daddy paid of the not

13:40

want to pay and one c or in

13:42

the universe and I mean sea or and

13:44

c or in the universe of intellectual said

13:46

sink probably they'll knock the been down a

13:49

little so he can pay at that was

13:51

Will Thomas. He. Teaches at the University

13:53

of Michigan School of Law. He's an

13:55

assistant professor business law, but you know

13:58

what? He's kind of the Ss. In

14:00

residents were. Real. Thomas welcome to

14:02

the just hey thanks to have me

14:04

on here. That for the and the

14:06

flattering have overstated introduction but I'll take

14:08

it, that's that's what I do. I

14:11

butter you up to just bring you

14:13

down so that saw Let's continue the

14:15

buttering. Let's continue on with the slathering

14:17

of ah and and though just. What?

14:20

how to see this coming was

14:22

because of you're rooting in Essex

14:24

or because of your knowledge of

14:26

bare knuckled politics? You

14:29

know so did the court as humans

14:31

court knock down the a pure been

14:33

price for Donald Trump and. To

14:35

me or the decision to do so.

14:38

Strikes. Me as it's was the it's

14:40

the kind of equitable compromise the courts

14:42

do a lot and then often like

14:44

make sense, we just don't think too

14:46

hard act which is which is both

14:48

down. sort of what happened rights state

14:50

of New York when the trial against

14:52

Donald Trump for roughly three hundred fifty

14:54

million dollars as interest. Trump.

14:57

Says he shouldn't have to pay any this

14:59

until after field near says he should be

15:01

all that before appeals. Loaned.

15:03

Hold The Intermediate Court of Appeal

15:05

comes along and says, well, why

15:07

don't you put up a hundred

15:09

seventy five nine dollars which has

15:11

no, I think substantive significance as

15:13

a dollar amount. right? Right?

15:15

Except it's not. like I said, these are

15:17

these for properties were the most serious it

15:19

didn't pay. Get to. You know, these are

15:21

the most serious examples of fraud so you'll

15:23

just have to offer that It was the

15:25

number. It was roughly around the number he

15:27

requested of. I'm I would say actually it

15:29

was almost exactly half of what see Moss

15:31

Bluff. Himself. Once I said

15:33

zero one side said three fifty and and the

15:36

court comes along says what about when some some.

15:39

Spanish classes I think courts Catholic

15:41

Solomon A. Compromise. And

15:44

in some respects, that was what I was. When.

15:46

I was suggesting this numbers can get knocked down. I.

15:49

Think that this is an appellate court that

15:51

is trying to sort of just. Put.

15:54

To bed and issue that it sees as

15:56

mostly irrelevant to his job. A.

15:59

Lot of things and. Them as tempted to be

16:01

really. Exceptional at at least

16:03

as a legal. Actor: He's

16:05

really good at taking incredibly.

16:08

Boring. Mundane straight for the

16:11

issues us procedure and him.

16:13

For. Locations and stretching them into

16:15

laundromats. The. Posting in the about

16:17

his is a fairly. Mundane

16:20

routines thing and I think the court of Appeals

16:22

are sees it. I went to the that's a

16:24

little bit like thought they just knock it out

16:26

to move on. Oh. Okay so

16:28

that thing that they wanted to

16:30

combat his our ability to create

16:32

dramas and attenuate these mundane bureaucratic

16:34

measures. The Singh was ah the

16:36

posting in about the arguing about

16:38

the posting of the bomb. They

16:40

just didn't wanna deal with that

16:42

nonsense they thought would be better

16:45

for justice that they didn't get

16:47

into that. That. Is how I

16:49

sort of sawdust walking into it's am and some

16:51

specs in orange color process but. Bit.

16:53

Since Bond has been posted we just start

16:55

are still at the starting line of details

16:57

process even though. Strictly.

17:00

Speaking Donald Trump has been appealing now

17:02

for weeks. In. Some cases

17:04

the court can't just be solemn. Monique,

17:06

right? You have to go by procedure.

17:08

Sometimes you have to go by statute.

17:11

Why was this an exception? So

17:13

yeah we we spend our time a t

17:15

a tell been such it's what of worth

17:18

thinking through what exactly is going on at

17:20

been process. And fundamentally what?

17:22

What happens at a pure bred if

17:24

you want to pause a trial judge?

17:26

In other words, you don't wanna pay

17:28

to opposing party while you're peel is

17:30

still ongoing. You. Have

17:32

the option to do so. That's what we

17:34

lose, conferencing an undertaking. For

17:37

the Colombians big, you provide the court

17:39

some kind of guarantee that you can

17:41

and will pay the judgment if you

17:43

lose. Then. Without.

17:46

Even asking the court you can just get an

17:48

automatic pause on a judgment. Zoo.

17:50

Normally when he talked at a few months that's

17:53

or talking about we're talking about the town's ability

17:55

to stop. Something. Going forward,

17:57

but it was. Cute.

17:59

always. In the space. Retain

18:01

the ability to step in and say. Nice

18:04

things. That. You know, This

18:06

should be paused for a variety of

18:08

reasons. So when you look at the

18:11

get along statute in New York, all

18:13

of the focus around that suits judgment.

18:15

ten.com phrase have hundred miles and times

18:17

All that was just. Can

18:19

Donald Trump? Cause his

18:21

doesn't. Without.

18:23

Asking for France. But. Court always

18:25

retained that of those did so much

18:27

minute. Quarter. Kills

18:29

isn't doing anything that's not songs

18:32

a pittance. What

18:34

was dictating that he pay one hundred twenty

18:36

percent of judgment and the judgment was around

18:38

four hundred fifty million. So it up to

18:40

pay a little over five hundred million? Was

18:42

that a guideline? A statue to what. Said

18:45

a way to deep the been process works Hurt

18:47

Somebody else is essentially guaranteeing that you will be

18:49

able to pay at the end of this. So

18:51

what do you have to pay? Well, you have

18:53

to pay Did the judgment amount? That stuff like

18:55

what was on trial you also have to pay

18:57

was called post judgment interest. So.

18:59

Great that judgments can be occurring interest entire time you

19:01

wait. So when we look at an appeal bond, an

19:04

appeal Bond is calculated to do a couple banks, one.

19:07

Enough judgment to account for the

19:09

time lag between. The day get

19:12

them. To. A Bond and the day

19:14

the appeal actually wraps up. And

19:16

part of that lag is gonna be though the

19:18

risk of interest. So ah, there's no official statute

19:20

year. there's plenty of on some and it's a

19:22

huge market. The kind of worked out and said

19:24

you know. Based. On

19:27

the York based on these kinds of cases were going

19:29

to require you to post a premium of. Anywhere

19:32

from twenty five, two or forty percent

19:34

to make sure where good if we

19:36

get stuck paying the bills, you. Also

19:39

with the bondsman who is who were setting that

19:41

price desperate to the bonds means the ones who

19:43

said look, we're not going to reduce at face

19:45

value. Like any other kind of loan for

19:48

gonna have to like have higher amount because the principles

19:50

go edith. Yeah. i was under

19:52

the impression and my impression was

19:54

only from reading reporting and not

19:56

reading anything that contradicted desks that

19:58

there was a rookie Requirement or

20:01

a statute that Donald Trump have

20:03

to pay the full amount

20:05

or anyone in his position have to

20:07

pay the full amount Plus interest I

20:10

didn't when he was appealing I didn't

20:12

realize if there was wiggle room if

20:14

he was asking for some unprecedented

20:17

break on what was dictated by

20:19

statute or if he was

20:21

more asking for something reasonable and I guess

20:23

it turned out to be reasonable because his

20:25

appeal to reason worked if he was asking

20:28

for such something reasonable within the

20:30

parameters of what was acceptable

20:33

and maybe what there was

20:35

some precedent for And

20:37

and this goes to this idea that I think Donald Trump is

20:39

really good at shining a light on Legal

20:44

procedures that are in the background right so every state

20:46

has its own Bond system some

20:48

states have had appeal bond reform where they put

20:50

caps on these things New York has not had

20:52

something like that but the

20:55

furnishing of an undertaking usually It's

20:58

just usually I'm stuck to be you have to pay the whole

21:00

amount By

21:05

the way, let me interrupt you the furnishing is the payment

21:07

and the undertaking is the appeal is

21:09

that how that works Ah, so the the furnishing

21:11

of an undertaking the undertaking you have to furnish

21:13

another Jeff to provide evidence or support a guarantee

21:15

of The undertaking the undertaking

21:17

is the payment of your obligation. Okay, so the

21:20

furnishing is the means of paying your obligation That's

21:22

all of them means one thing he could have

21:24

done which he obviously didn't and few people do

21:27

He could have just paid that whole, you know,

21:29

three hundred fifty million dollars plus interest Yeah,

21:32

could have paid it to the state on the you know,

21:34

the day of trial that he did the

21:36

equivalent of that with the Jean Carroll So

21:39

actually in the Carol case, he's also got a bond.

21:42

Oh, okay, so he didn't pay it. He

21:44

had it financed I thought they put up

21:46

like 90 million dollars on that 80 something

21:48

million dollars So some right somebody's put up

21:51

a guarantee of about 90 million right on

21:53

his behalf He of course it's an

21:55

appeal bond if we think of appeal bonds bonds

21:58

in general are they're in the same of

22:00

things like loans and insurance that kind of have similar

22:03

properties. So obviously, he's posting

22:05

collateral, he's making some payments up front

22:07

to the person who's making PRT for him. We don't

22:10

have all the details of that, but we can kind of guess

22:12

based on market practice, it's not

22:14

free, but it's well

22:16

shy of 90 million is well shy of 500 million for

22:19

him. My opinion

22:21

was based on just everything I

22:23

read and the fact that I

22:25

didn't at all see it mentioned

22:28

that this was even a possibility.

22:30

So what do you account for that? So

22:33

I will say one thing that is hard about

22:35

some of these legal issues is in part

22:38

because they're pretty mundane and

22:41

uncontroversial. There's very little case law,

22:43

there's very little discussion of these things. So

22:45

it's hard to just grab an easy primer and figure out what's

22:48

going on here. You know, if you want to know what Supreme

22:50

Court did last year, you can find a pretty good summary on

22:52

those cases in Wikipedia. If you want

22:54

to know how the internal mechanics of

22:56

6312 and executive laws of New

22:58

York works, you're going to have to really

23:00

do some digging. I think

23:03

it's also the case that the Attorney General

23:06

made the argument, which I think was ultimately

23:08

successful, that actually, the

23:11

Court of Appeals couldn't do what it did. That

23:13

it had a reading of the language of that

23:15

statute that precluded them from stepping in. Now,

23:19

everyone is allowed to make legal arguments. But

23:23

it was very clearly a legal argument

23:25

being made here. It wasn't sort of a restatement of what

23:27

the rules are. It was an

23:29

interpretation. And so sometimes, you

23:32

know, somebody trained in this space one time,

23:34

the occupancy and reporting is you'll see things that are arguments

23:37

being made about what the law should say, being

23:41

treated as what the law

23:43

says. Right. And maybe we default

23:46

to when the Attorney General, who's just won

23:48

the case, and at least on this score

23:51

has a good track record, when the Attorney

23:53

General's office is saying, no, that's not what

23:55

the law is. And they've won every step

23:57

of the way. Perhaps the non-legal experts report.

24:00

on it, just say, well, that's not what the law

24:02

is. I think it's a completely reasonable sort

24:04

of default position to be coming from. And

24:07

I should say, like, I don't think it was a bad argument.

24:09

It's not like they were, you know. No, they have to, I

24:11

would even say they're duty bound to make the argument. Correct.

24:14

And 6312 is this, I guess, odd, unique, every

24:18

state has their laws, but other states don't

24:20

have their law that gives the

24:22

attorney general powers to investigate and prosecute

24:24

cases of alleged fraud in the

24:26

name of the people. So it would

24:28

be, so what you're

24:30

saying is there's not a lot of

24:32

case law around this unique law, or

24:35

which would give us a lot of insight

24:37

as to what happens when someone tries to

24:39

appeal a half a billion dollar bond. Correct.

24:42

We are, we're in such an

24:44

unusual position. And one way that I

24:46

think it's helpful to sort of think about what

24:49

makes an account unique here, usually

24:51

when you see cases alleging this kind

24:54

of systematic fraud, they

24:56

don't get to the place where we are today. Right,

24:59

if somebody uncovers this kind of fraud, chances

25:01

are the business goes bankrupt almost immediately or

25:03

soon thereafter, or they don't get a trial.

25:06

Right, or they take a deal to

25:08

avoid it because they know they'll go bankrupt is what

25:10

you're saying. Right, exactly. It happens to be that Donald

25:12

Trump is the combination of somebody who is not

25:15

going to settle this case, who has enough

25:17

independent wealth that he can avoid bankruptcy and

25:19

refuse to declare it. And

25:22

also, because it's this kind

25:24

of family run private business, the

25:27

business itself can withstand these kinds

25:29

of, frankly, no longer allegations, can

25:31

withstand public disclosure of all

25:33

of its fraudulent behavior. So

25:36

it's an odd universe of

25:38

weird sort of background facts that has to

25:40

all line up to get us to this,

25:42

which means, shocker, there's just not a lot

25:44

of cases where you get all these facts

25:46

lining up. Yeah, and I'll throw

25:48

another one in there. Every other business is

25:51

pretty much playing the same game, which is

25:53

let's maximize profits, whereas Donald Trump is playing

25:55

a slightly different game. He has that business

25:57

interest, but he also has let's appeal to

25:59

the public. public and maybe that appeal to

26:01

the public or funding a

26:03

sense of grievance will ultimately redound to

26:05

his goals, which are probably increasing profits,

26:07

but that's going on too. That's

26:10

absolutely right. And I do think, you know, it depends

26:13

how you're looking at Donald Trump, because oftentimes I'll have

26:15

people say like, Oh, this is working for

26:17

him or this is not working for him. You

26:20

know, I think the trial in this case, in general, is a

26:22

good example of what happens when Trump,

26:24

the politician gets in the way of Trump the

26:26

defendant. Yeah, because so much time

26:28

and energy was spent on arguments really for

26:31

public consumption that

26:33

didn't have much legal bearing. And

26:35

so by the time you get to trial, I think

26:39

they really walked themselves into a corner where they actually didn't have

26:41

a lot of good legal arguments to make to defend themselves. And

26:43

that leaves Donald Trump, the businessman, owing

26:45

$500 million. Right. Although you have

26:47

to weigh that against what would

26:49

some hypothetical cut deal have been

26:51

and maybe they engaged in those

26:53

discussions and found that it would

26:56

have been in the hundred millions. And then

26:58

maybe he makes the calculation, which

27:00

could be I'll take my chances at trial,

27:02

or even knowing that I

27:04

could be on the hook for hundreds of

27:07

millions more than settling, I could get hundreds

27:09

of millions in sympathetic donations or just the

27:11

sympathy of my people, which could result in

27:13

my election, which could result in my

27:16

financial benefit. That's another calculation going. Absolutely right.

27:18

The sort of the rational action prediction model

27:20

of when to settle versus when to go

27:22

to trial. That's hard enough when you

27:24

don't have the political dimension to it. Adding

27:27

that layer on is just a level of complexity that

27:29

really puts this way

27:32

beyond I think the

27:35

informed observer's ability to adequately assess. Right.

27:38

And that's why he's a lying liar who thinks

27:40

the laws don't apply to him. I mean, some

27:42

of that might be true, but that's not a

27:46

great framework to view and evaluate

27:48

what he was trying to decide

27:50

in this case. I think

27:53

that's exactly right. You

27:55

can have political views of any persuasion about

27:57

Donald Trump on

27:59

these issues. But if you really like bear

28:01

down to specific questions about like, when did we post

28:03

a pill bond or why, or what strategy to bring

28:06

to trial, I would tell

28:08

you that the kinds of like boring, straightforward,

28:10

like 19th century rational

28:12

liberal kinds of predictions are actually going to be driving

28:14

90 to 95% of the calculus. Now,

28:18

Donald Trump gives an observer

28:21

a lot to work with.

28:23

How closely did you follow

28:25

this particular set of legal

28:27

entanglements? I have

28:29

been following the Trump

28:31

organization relatively closely. My

28:34

research expertise is in corporate crime, which

28:36

is this kind of odd pocket criminal law that concerns

28:39

the prosecution, the conviction of business

28:42

entities themselves, as opposed to individuals. So

28:45

predating this case, we actually had a

28:47

prosecution brought by New York against the

28:49

Trump organization and that went to trial.

28:52

The Trump organization was found guilty. So

28:55

because I had been following that criminal trial so

28:57

closely, there's a bunch

28:59

of overlap in the

29:02

legal concepts between this criminal and civil case. I

29:04

started paying a good amount of attention, although I

29:06

was not, you know, at

29:08

the courtroom, I wasn't listening to the

29:10

full readout, but certainly this tracking is pretty close. We'll

29:13

be back with more from Will Thomas after

29:15

the break. Now,

29:25

the best rate for you is a rate based

29:27

on you. With all states, not one based on

29:29

the driver who treats the highway like a racetrack

29:32

and the shoulder like a passing lane. Why

29:34

pay a rate based on anyone else? Get

29:37

one based on you with DriveWise from Austin.

29:40

Not available in Alaska or California, subject to terms and conditions,

29:42

rates are determined by several factors, which vary by state. In

29:44

some states, participation in DriveWise allows all states to use their

29:46

driving data for purposes of rating. While in some states, your

29:48

rate could increase with high risk driving generally, safer drivers will

29:50

save with DriveWise. All state-bearing casualty insurance company in the Philly,

29:52

North Park, Illinois. We're

29:56

back with Will Thomas, law professor at the

29:58

University of Michigan. as you

30:01

were following the trial

30:03

and reading or hearing coverage,

30:06

was there a mix of Donald

30:08

Trump and his lawyers are

30:11

asserting these facially ridiculous things,

30:14

and that's just one of the things he's

30:16

doing for whatever reason, and they were being

30:18

treated and covered as these facially ridiculous arguments,

30:21

but also every once in a while, or

30:23

maybe once in a great while, were saying

30:25

things that had, you don't have to judge

30:27

on it, but at least had legal validity,

30:29

and were in the realm of something to

30:31

think about. So that's one

30:33

half of my question. But the real question is, and

30:36

did you see a flattening of those

30:38

kinds of arguments in the

30:40

general coverage of the trial

30:43

that, you know, for someone

30:45

without expertise, they would just take it,

30:47

I mean, depending on their predilections, as

30:49

Donald Trump's totally right, or everything Donald

30:51

Trump's saying is nonsense. Right,

30:54

there's lots and lots of arguments being

30:56

thrown around here, some designed for public

30:58

consumption, some sort of narrowly technical legal

31:00

considerations. I would say that I think,

31:05

in general, one challenge

31:07

that any good defense team

31:09

is going to have is striking the

31:12

right balance between making the arguments that you think

31:14

are going to be most successful in trial, and

31:17

making the arguments your client wants to make. And

31:21

sometimes the client's arguments are good, they align with

31:23

the law, but sometimes they're coming from a place

31:25

of, I see why you

31:27

feel this way, but I want to discourage you from going

31:29

that way. I would say that the Trump

31:32

defense team, or the sort of

31:34

Trump organization defendants broadly, made

31:37

several legal arguments, some of which I think

31:39

are good sound arguments that

31:41

are probably going to lose. Some

31:44

of them are boring kind

31:46

of technical considerations around things like statutes and

31:48

limitations that I would tell you still have

31:50

some life to them, even on appeal. And

31:53

then a bunch of arguments

31:55

that were categorical, over

31:57

the top, Profound. The

32:00

Bad in a way that I think

32:02

ultimately really hurt them both at trials,

32:04

but especially for someone to people. Who

32:07

who was one of those? This is

32:09

a victimless crime with that fall in

32:11

that category. I think the victimless crime

32:13

kind of argument has been red herring,

32:15

and I think a related argument that

32:17

they meet frequently was essentially like will

32:19

There never was any fraud. Might

32:22

have because there were no errors made

32:24

or because we had this disclaimer: I

32:27

think those arguments are clearly intended. And

32:29

countries to do to me. Making them

32:31

into social. I. Think

32:34

there somewhere between legally

32:36

irrelevant and undermining of

32:38

your. Actual. Own

32:40

case, you're ready to go around telling

32:42

everybody I've got his disclaimer that allows

32:44

me to do whatever I want It.

32:47

Playing. A presumption for fraud? Because

32:50

why would anybody have a disclaimer:

32:52

So. Broad that they can say whatever

32:54

they want the documents unless you get to

32:57

these concerns to the really set themselves up

32:59

for the kinds of arguments to the prosecutors

33:01

and not Ensenada basket beside them since of

33:03

the consortium city traditional wanted to mates. Which.

33:07

I think just made that case much easier to dance.

33:10

Interesting. Why wouldn't hurt him on

33:12

appeal? Doesn't The appeal isn't a dictated

33:14

by the points that one's own legal

33:16

team raises said they could just dispense

33:18

with the terrible arguments they don't think

33:20

are gonna win. Yeah, I

33:22

think that are gonna potentially be able to

33:24

jettison the argument that they don't like. Again,

33:27

this is the balance between what's gonna win

33:29

and what's going on that side. Client and.

33:32

I do think so important. Remember I'd lot of people will

33:34

think I feel like a new by to the apple. And

33:36

it's in reality. I did have a. Preference.

33:39

Or limited. Teleports a

33:41

are limited to what happened below a

33:44

trial but especially their limited to limited

33:46

but. I. Would say the primary

33:48

concern of an appellate court is

33:50

he did a trial judge identify

33:52

the crack law and to date

33:55

apply the correct legal framework to

33:57

the sax. that's a tough Trump

33:59

sucks. at least with

34:01

respect to the law, lots

34:03

of the decent solid down

34:06

the line legal arguments they make were

34:08

considered by the highest court in

34:11

New York, the Court of Appeals, annoyingly named

34:13

in I think 2013

34:15

in the case against AIG and

34:18

almost down the line the court rejected those arguments.

34:22

So they're good arguments, but they have they haven't

34:24

won at least in the past decade, that's really

34:26

hard for them. Meanwhile, all of these kinds of

34:29

messy other kinds of claims that Trump folks are going to

34:32

make. If

34:34

Trump wants to jettison all those kind of over

34:37

the top bad arguments, I think that leaves them in a space where

34:39

they're going to be conceding that

34:42

there was in fact, lots of rampant fraud at the Trump

34:44

organization. But

34:46

for technical reasons, like statute of limitations,

34:48

they should not be required to

34:50

pay as much. So it's not going

34:52

to vindicate Trump on appeal, what they do is might

34:54

lower the dollar amount. Is

34:57

the dollar amount unprecedented? Was AIG

34:59

did were they made to pay

35:01

more? In

35:03

terms of dollar amount, I think the dollar amount is

35:06

if you look at this as

35:08

an individual,

35:11

then the the judgment amount is huge. If

35:13

you look at this as a business, then

35:16

no, I don't think the dollar amount is out

35:18

of bounds with anything we've seen

35:20

before. There's definitely been substantially larger

35:23

judgments involving some companies, some non

35:26

business entities. So

35:30

it's really how you frame the case. Now, how

35:32

I frame the case is I look at the

35:34

case caption, and the case says the Trump organization

35:36

is one of the major defendants here.

35:38

So to me, there's just no question this is obviously a

35:41

business case, which case I think like, there's

35:43

nothing unprecedented going on here. Gotcha. But

35:46

it still is as Donald Trump and I

35:48

as a New Yorker would say, huge, after

35:50

credit Donald Trump, I didn't know that that

35:52

wasn't how one is supposed to pronounce huge

35:54

until people started making fun of him for

35:56

saying huge, huge, huge. You're

36:00

a ethical scholar you think

36:02

about big issues you think about

36:04

corporate governance and corporate law But

36:06

you think about fairness i'll ask

36:09

you flat out Is

36:11

halving the bond amount?

36:14

Is that an act of justice? Interesting.

36:17

So I think I would call

36:19

it An act of equity more

36:21

than an act of justice in

36:24

other words Whether

36:26

it is just or not the

36:28

the questions about like What

36:31

is the right decision be made on behalf

36:33

of the new york community in society? Is

36:36

a question that I think is really going to be reserved

36:38

for the actual substantive outcome of the appeal, right?

36:41

How ought somebody be treated based on this

36:43

weird combination of what they've been doing for

36:45

decades? Their celebrity the reasons this case

36:47

was brought all of those kinds of messy factors

36:50

in terms of Should

36:52

donald trump be allowed to raise

36:55

and vindicate those issues all the way

36:57

through the litigation? That

36:59

I think is much more of an equitable argument. In other

37:01

words should be given the opportunity to sort of really Push

37:04

this all the way to get the lines that we feel confidence

37:06

in what happened That is really where

37:08

the pellet bond stepped in And I

37:11

do think one thing that's going on with the court of appeals is it they

37:13

probably have in the back of their mind Look, 175

37:16

million dollars is nothing to sneeze at it's a lot

37:18

of money and also This

37:21

is not a person whose assets are hidden

37:24

offshore or overseas and will never be found again if

37:26

he loses He has property

37:28

in this state and the thing about property is that

37:30

you can't move it so practically

37:33

speaking at the end of the day if donald

37:35

trump loses the maximum amount of money is Leticia

37:39

james going to be able to secure

37:42

The judgment a hundred percent like it will be

37:44

relatively easy and straightforward. I think from the course

37:46

perspective the harm

37:49

of reducing That dollar amount

37:51

was low to the state and

37:53

the chance of Preventing Them

37:56

From really getting to a solid, decisive determination

37:58

of the merits of this case. That.

38:00

Was real concern. Because in

38:02

terms of equity, we have to

38:04

perform the mental task of separating

38:07

who we know or believe Donald

38:09

Trump to be or in outside

38:11

the context of this case. It

38:13

doesn't matter if he said horrible

38:16

things about broad swaths of the

38:18

world's population are pursued policies that

38:20

we morally object to or morally

38:22

lox right we have to do.

38:25

That's an equitable saying is the

38:27

question should have someone be able

38:29

to pursue their appeal, which is.

38:31

A right and something that the

38:33

justice system is based on should

38:35

someone be allowed to pursue or

38:37

denied the opportunity to pursue their

38:40

appeal based on this monetary set

38:42

of circumstances. And yeah, my characterizing

38:44

it fair. I I think that

38:46

exaggerates if you remember back disappears,

38:48

go at Gawker Media gets sued

38:50

by Hulk Hogan. Huge judgment against

38:52

them. It was. I'm. At.

38:54

The time of the can big issue but Gawker

38:56

could not pay their pocket lot. Really

38:58

didn't have the assets to go for it

39:00

now ultimately nexus and ups of settling a

39:03

deeper level the company and go bankrupt and

39:05

away. But I think people have liked a

39:07

natural instinct that. Maybe.

39:09

They thought the outcome of the trial

39:11

was terribly, really thought. What was unfair

39:13

is that Gawker had. Good.

39:15

Reason to kill my could not actually

39:17

afford to have. right? Now can

39:20

don't have actually of for this like that's when it

39:22

gets tricky things that him as his. Switches.

39:24

Team Businessmen, Legal Senate all the time. But

39:26

sometimes he says I could never pay more

39:28

than hundred million dollars and learn behold, the

39:31

next day he shows up with hundred. Some

39:33

sounds somewhat afford. I mean afford is such

39:35

as it. As such as City Word, who

39:37

knows what afford means. You

39:39

not as always bankruptcy a people and to be

39:41

sorts. bankruptcy is the worst thing. but it's the

39:44

whole point of starting fresh off the light on

39:46

it. I mean some of his assets have been

39:48

put into bankruptcy. Do think I want to ask

39:50

you that? I mean this is with less be

39:52

as a system, less the lawyer. and more

39:54

the business our had that you where

39:57

do you think that says anything about

39:59

his on underlying financials, how

40:01

much money or cash or assets he actually

40:03

has. Because I'll put my, I don't know

40:05

if you've heard past segments, I said that

40:08

Donald Trump doesn't want to pay, but if

40:10

he had to, if he didn't get this

40:12

$175 million judgment, I

40:15

was confident he'd be able to pay. I don't know where he'd

40:17

get the loan. I don't know if he'd get the loan. I

40:19

don't know if he'd have to take a mortgage

40:21

on Mar-a-Lago. I thought that

40:23

he was so

40:26

committed to appealing and believes that he'll at least get

40:28

some of the money knocked down that he'd find a

40:30

way to pay. But to go back

40:32

to my original question, can we draw

40:35

any proper inferences about the strengths of

40:37

his underlying financials from the fact that

40:39

he pursued this lowering, this ultimately successful

40:41

lowering of the bond? I

40:44

think I fall in the same camp you do,

40:46

right? In other words, we can take

40:48

what people say as evidence of what is true. We

40:50

can also take their actions as evidence of what is

40:52

true. One

40:55

thing I see reported often is Donald Trump had $350 million

40:57

of cash, which is not enough to pay the whole amount.

41:00

It's true that he said that in a deposition

41:02

in this trial. It's

41:04

also true that he said lots of just

41:09

observably false things during that deposition. In fact, many

41:11

of them were laid out in the trial. So

41:14

it's hard to credit that fact at

41:16

the same time you dismiss it with others. Likewise,

41:19

I think if we

41:21

followed the Eden Carroll's appeal,

41:24

the Trump defense was making

41:26

a lot of the same arguments. We

41:29

have to pay $90 million. That's a huge amount of money. Who can

41:31

afford that? They were making those arguments

41:33

on a Thursday afternoon and on Friday morning they posted

41:35

a bond for $90 million. So

41:38

it's a little bit hard to take either his

41:41

assertions or his practices at face value.

41:44

I think I have the background thought that you do as

41:46

well. He seems to just be able to generate money and

41:48

I don't quite know how. So that

41:50

superpower I think is probably still in effect,

41:53

but I guess we'll never know. So

41:56

I want to ask you one bigger last question. I think

41:58

it will be the last. last avenue to

42:01

pursue. So in so many

42:03

realms, Donald Trump is, I

42:05

think, credibly considered both the

42:07

cause and the outgrowth, nastiness,

42:10

the coarsening of public discourse,

42:13

embracing of conspiracy theories, right? Did Donald

42:15

Trump make it worse? Well, yes, you

42:17

could say in many of these aspects

42:19

he did. But was Donald Trump was

42:21

Donald Trump propelled by the fact that

42:23

this is where our society is also

42:25

true cause and effect. So I want

42:27

to ask you about your area of

42:29

expertise, corporate ethics. Is

42:32

Donald Trump's success? He was president.

42:35

Do you sense that? Do you pick

42:37

up that having an effect on

42:40

how seriously corporations take adherence

42:42

to the law and the

42:44

acceptability of, say, ripping off

42:46

the public? Do you look

42:49

at Donald Trump's ability to

42:51

navigate as he has and

42:53

accrue great fortunes based at

42:55

this court has now adjudicated

42:57

to be ripping off and

43:00

committing fraud? Where do you stand

43:02

on the Donald Trump cause or

43:04

effect of corporate

43:07

chicanery question? Interesting.

43:10

So there's

43:14

a couple ways to think about this question.

43:16

One is our sort of corporate executives and

43:18

leaders today, looking at the Donald Trump model

43:20

and thinking this is how we ought to

43:23

do it. There

43:25

I'm a little skeptical in

43:27

part because if you

43:30

asked me to sit down and write how

43:32

to do the Donald Trump business model, I

43:35

can't even begin to imagine it is

43:37

so fundamentally driven by this like

43:40

odd pre-existing wealth, this outspoken

43:42

personality that I think

43:45

it's a really hard thing to do well.

43:47

And meanwhile, it seems like the ways in

43:49

which you fall off the model can

43:51

be like exit. Yeah, you're right. It's like, go back to the 1980s, get

43:53

on the cover of

43:55

the New York Post a lot. Like that's gonna be hard

43:57

for most people. That's totally right. So

44:00

many things he's doing, we see similar

44:03

kinds of like, you know, outspoken brazen

44:05

activities being engaged in, that usually ends

44:07

up in prison. So

44:09

if the business model is succeed

44:11

like Donald Trump or go to jail, I think

44:13

any rational business actor is gonna say like, great,

44:15

that's a broken business model. You

44:18

know, on the other hand, the bigger

44:20

worry that I have around this stuff

44:22

is particularly for younger

44:25

individuals, one thing we know is when

44:29

it comes to sort of moral and cognitive

44:31

development, one

44:33

thing that we do, particularly younger in life, is

44:36

we kind of reverse engineer our ethics from role

44:38

models. So we look at how somebody behaves in

44:40

the world and then

44:42

we like extrapolate back what's acceptable behavior.

44:45

So when we see folks like Donald Trump and we

44:47

see folks like Elon Musk going out there and doing

44:50

things that I would say are sort of undermining of

44:53

settled norms around like fair

44:56

and ethical business practices. And

44:59

succeeding, then it's natural to draw like the wrong

45:02

instincts from students. In fact, I'll give an anecdote that

45:04

name of the student, but when

45:06

Donald Trump was first facing an impeachment,

45:10

I was teaching some just basic

45:14

legal principles, including something like quid pro

45:16

quo in the context of harassment litigation.

45:20

And I had a student come to me afterwards in class

45:22

and say, you know, professor, I don't understand this

45:25

law about quid pro quo that you just did to me, because

45:28

if that's what the law is, then it sounds

45:30

like what Donald Trump did was

45:33

a quid pro quo, but

45:35

that can't be right. And

45:38

I thought like you're- It can't be right if

45:40

he's never held accountable for that. Exactly,

45:43

he didn't do that. It's

45:45

a perfect example of like logical reasoning

45:47

except like we got the conclusion

45:49

flipped, right? The answer was somebody

45:52

got it wrong as opposed to that's

45:54

not how this comes up for. So that's the kind of corrosive

45:57

worry I have. It's that- These

46:00

kinds of over the top practices are going to

46:02

bleed back into how people see successful role models

46:04

in society, and that's going to be

46:06

the source of long-term, I would

46:10

say, degradation. Will Thomas is

46:12

an assistant professor of business law at

46:14

the Stephen M. Ross School of Business

46:16

at the University of Michigan, and he

46:18

looks into the normative and conceptual foundations

46:20

of corporate and white-collar crime. Wait, what's

46:22

that mean? What it means is

46:24

what you just heard. Thank you so much, Dr.

46:26

Thomas. Thanks for having me on here. That's

46:37

it for today's show. The Jist is produced by Corey

46:39

Warra. The senior producer is

46:41

Joel Patterson, Michelle Pesca, a C.L.O.

46:43

of Peach Fish Productions. The

46:46

Jist is presented in collaboration with Libson's

46:48

Advertised Cast for advertising inquiries. Go to

46:50

www.advertisedcast.com, slash the Jist, Oompa-Jee-Prew, Doo-Prew, and

46:52

thanks for listening. Thank

47:00

you.