This claim that there is a two tiered system of justice. We can all agree that there are inequities in our justice system. Period. Full stop. You cannot convince me otherwise. But this allegation that this is only targeting Trump or Republicans or MAGA is just patently false. Absolutely right. And I think you had great examples of that there. I would also want to point out that part of this narrative that we're hearing from the former president and his supporters is that this is the result of some sort of political persecution, election interference. The fact is that Donald Trump was indicted in New York and in three other jurisdictions, not by Joe Biden, not by any attorney general or any prosecutor. He was indicted by groups of 23 of his fellow citizens who got together on a grand jury, reviewed the evidence, heard the entire investigation, and voted that there was probable cause to believe he committed a crime. And in New York, he was then judged by 12 of his fellow citizens of Manhattan who heard that evidence through. What we can all observe was a trial that observed all of the privileges and rights, constitutional rights that any defendant is entitled to. And at the end of that trial, they decided that he was guilty of those crimes beyond reasonable doubt. And the irony, we couldn't actually observe it because apparently, like, that just can't happen in New York. So wouldn't it be great to go back? Wouldn't it have been great to actually watch it in some form or fashion? But, Tiffany, let me go to you on this, because there is this like split screen happening. You know, there's accusations about how the DOJ controlled the hush money trial. They did not. That was through the local D.A.. But there is a federal trial happening. It involves Hunter Biden. They had his daughter up there today. It is a bit of an uphill battle to prove that there was this narrow window of time that he, in fact, was using and in violation of what he stated. But talk to me about this split screen that you're seeing, that this seems to still have legs for people. I think it's unfortunate. I think B and a lot of it comes from the lies that the former president tells. Right. Like either he was the leader of our entire federal government for many years and doesn't understand that the state of New York is not within the control of the federal government or he's patently lying to people. And either way, it's unacceptable. But I think what we see with Hunter Biden really is an unfortunate picture of how addiction can rip apart a family. And that is what I see when I look at it. You have a man who has recovered, who is in his sobriety trying to recover, and all of that is being brought back up. His daughter is on the stand. It is heartbreaking to see the current president in a model that I wish President Trump would follow, say, I'm not going to consider intervening in the legal system even for my own son, even though I know he was suffering with addiction when he did. This is a really powerful model that I think should be one for all of our commanders in chief. You know, Liam, there is a real risk of a strategy to attack based on sobriety. Otherwise, it could backfire. In terms of a political talking point that suggests that this is you know, this is a case of pursue a or that they could undermine the system of justice by using this as a case study. There's a real tension there, because if you're if you're Republican strategy as you are, you've got this balance to pull between wanting to suggest that there is a two tiered system that's targeting Donald Trump and then proof of like Menendez being tried. I mean, a top ranking Democrat who only recently as a senator, as a as an independent, the president's own son. How should voters evaluate the two. Was two separate issues here. I think if you assume the premise of the system is rigged, all of these things just point that direction. You can you can back fill your rationale as to why the fact that Menendez is still a senator and Chuck Schumer hasn't called for him to resign. That's just proof that the system is rigged. The fact that he's taking Mercedes or gold bars or what have you. That's proof that the system is rigged. The fact that that hunter is on trial not for the things that they think he did. The Biden crime family or what have you. This is for, you know, lying on a on a gun application. That's proof the system is rigged. So I think you can always you know, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But from the standpoint of how voters should look at and frankly, how voters do look at it, I think they're disgusted by the whole thing. I think even having to look into these issues, you know, it's not comfortable. I mean, as we were talking about, it's as a you know, as a as a father, as a son, you wouldn't wish this on anyone. I think it's how voters really recoil from this stuff. And frankly, if they're thinking about what voters care about, especially as it relates to law and order, they're not worried about what politicians who they already are sort of disgusted by are doing. They're more worried about crime in their cities and the concerns over, you know, what's coming through our borders and those sorts of things. So I think the idea that we're focusing our time, that prosecutors are focusing their times on things that they think is as a sideshow or a distraction from the things that are driving people when they go to the polls. It's trying to think about Adam. I mean, Andrew McCabe excuse me, the idea of if if everyone's doing it right, it doesn't actually prove that you haven't done it. It's the idea that if you think everyone's corrupt, but yet you yourself are accused of being corrupt, it doesn't take the wind out of the sails of prosecution. But I want to get into the statistics here because in the Bob Menendez trial, I mean, you've got a key prosecution witness that happened today. I mean, you had a man by the name of Jose Uribe who took the stand today. He testified that he bribed the senator, gave his wife a mercedes Benz in exchange for gaining, and I quote, the power and influence of Menendez. I do wonder what kind of political impact this has to have. This and the same screen as an accusation that only Republicans are targeted, but also the larger issue that Liam's talking about, that you've got a sitting senator accused of this behavior. What does that do to the trust of the system entirely? It's horrible for the system. It's horrible for the Senate. It's horrible for our political system in general because it is yet another example of someone in that system who's gone, allegedly gone beyond the law, broken the law and found himself in this situation. But I think it's important to distinguish and I do agree with you in that people are disgusted by that and more concerned with the issues that are rightly the focus of a political contest. But I do think it's important to distinguish that the criminal justice system, be it New York or the federal system or anywhere else, is not designed to convince people who to vote for. Prosecutors don't bring cases because they're trying to commit election interference or they're trying to split off, you know, moderate voters. They bring cases because the facts and the law demand it. That's their job, right? Alvin Bragg was in was voted by, you know, elected by the citizens of Manhattan. He has the authority to bring cases where he thinks the facts in the law support them. He chooses to bring that case. That's his obligation under his under the responsibility that's been vested in him by the citizens. And then if they don't like the way that he's making those decisions, they can elect someone else the next time. But the results of any of these individual cases are not designed to decide elections. They're designed to determine accountability under the criminal laws of this country. To a good point. And yet we have people who will accuse any elected official who is a prosecutor in particular, unlike the appointed or aligned prosecutors, that if you've campaigned in a certain way, then they assume that your only goal is to please a particular constituency, that he has been very direct in saying that was not his goal here. But we'll see how the voters can judge that. But let me talk about this Hunter Biden case, because it is history in the making. I mean, a sitting president child in a criminal trial, it involves, I mean, some of the same narrative, same statements that would never have been brought up the last name wasn't this. This is a trumped up charge or this is never a standalone alone, wherever it could be. A lot of these things had been said about the Hush Money trial as well. And there's a lingering question that it's actually in both. When it came to Trump, would he testify his own big spokesperson and only bombast person? Hunter Biden will have that choice as well. Tiffany, should he testify. As a lawyer, I'm always hesitant to say that a defendant should testify. It seems that there is so much risk there, particularly because I think what's come out in the trial to this point is really the tip of the iceberg of some of the really unfortunate things that we know about that period of addiction in his life. And so he may not want to open himself up to that. I think it's a calculus between how certain does conviction look, if it looks pretty certain and maybe this is a Hail Mary testifying is something that could work or couldn't. There's not much risk. But if he thinks there's a chance he might make a different choice, I cannot say that what I would do, I just don't in the position that he or his lawyers are in. Well, you know, and the opposition today, it's somebody who gets $4 million over the course of his career, and that is Clarence Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas. I mean, turn the page for a second, because we saw that there has that there's been these disclosures that have happened. And I know you were a Supreme Court clerks, let me say here for a second. So he is acknowledged at the 2019 trips. You are you're already closing your. I'm shaking your head. Hold on a second. So can't I get left to have a cough? I can't laugh. I'm laugh. I'm going to look at you anymore. Okay. I'm over here. A 2019 trip paid by a Republican Megadonor. There was a watchdog group Fix the Court identifying Thomas as the biggest gift recipient on the court to the tune of more than $4 million over the last 20 years. So, I mean, this idea of justices having at one time enjoying the highest approval ratings, right? I mean, they were in touch with everyone was fine with them. They weren't in the mud. It was wonderful. They have been under a spotlight for a long time now over issues of financial disclosures and ethics and beyond. What does this tell you in terms of the amount of money that he which stands alone from others, has accumulated? Clarence Thomas helped make the principle that money talks a constitutional principle. He voted in favor of money being speech under the First Amendment. So the question for him is, what does this $4 million say? And I think you can look to the Menendez trial where this gentleman testified today that for $60,000, I hope to influence a criminal investigation. What does $4 million get you? Because I don't think there's any doubt that if Clarence Thomas were a random law firm partner in D.C., nobody is taking him on trips to Bali or anywhere else for free. But what I think it does buy is an ethically compromised justice who, when the next Voting Rights Act case comes before the court, when the next Dobbs opinion comes before the court, what is he going to say? Is there any doubt that had he voted the other way in Dobbs, for example, to overrule Roe versus Wade when he still be getting this money? I mean, these are the questions you raise when you are accepting this level of money from political people who are very wealthy.
