Open Book with Anthony Scaramucci - Tristan Snell Successfully Prosecuted Trump Once, Can It Be Done Again?

Episode Date: January 31, 2024

This week, Anthony talks with attorney Tristan Snell about his new book Taking Down Trump: 12 Rules for Prosecuting Donald Trump by Someone Who Did It Successfully. Tristan provides insight into the rules of dealing with Trump; the challenges faced when prosecuting him; and the reality of the likely 2024 Republican presidential nominee being under such intense legal scrutiny. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor.

Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Hello, I'm Anthony Scaramucci, and this is Open book where I talk with some of the brightest minds out there about everything surrounding the written word from authors and historians to figures and entertainment, neuroscientists, political activists, and of course, Wall Street. Sorry, I can't resist. Before we get into today's episode, if you haven't already, please hit follow or subscribe, wherever you get your podcast, and leave us a review. We all love a review, even the bad ones. I want to hear the parts you're enjoying or how we can do better. You know,

I can roll with the punches, so let me know. Anyways, let's get to it. Taking down Trump, the thought of that is music to my ears, and I'm sure it may be to yours. My guest today, Tristan Snell, has done it before when he prosecuted Trump University. Let's face it, it's not going to be an easy thing to do, but like Tristan, I believe, and know it can be done. So let's see what advice he has for us. Joining us now on Open Book is Tristan Schnell.

He's the former assistant attorney general for New York State, and he's an MSNBC legal commentator. But he's also somebody that's written a very interesting book called Taking Down Trump, 12 rules for prosecuting Donald Trump by someone who did it successfully. First of all, thank you for joining us. I thought the book was excellent. Having a life experience about playing a lawyer. I mean, I'm not really a lawyer. I went to law school.

I sort of sometimes try to play a lawyer on TV. I found the book fascinating because you got really into the law. the blood and guts of criminal procedure. You got into some of the miscreant behavior, but also the most fascinating thing for me is what he's gotten away with. That's the thing that I don't fully understand how that happened. But let's start with you. The book is obviously terrific. Give us your background and what led you to prosecuting Trump University in 2011. Well, thank you. So the, you know, the kicker for me was I really wanted to work in government enforcement. It had been something that I had been looking ahead to as I was a younger lawyer, and I

got lucky to land at the New York H.E.'s office at a very good time when they had a lot of interesting work. They usually have a lot of interesting work, but I definitely landed on the right, on the right team at the right time. So my second day there, this is in October of 2011, I had taken a year away from law firm life to go work for a federal judge for a year, coming out. And out of that, I wanted to pivot into working of the government some more. Land at the AG's office, October 2011, in my second day on the job, they're like, hey, we got this case. We're not really sure where it's going.

And this is really key for people to know, is it's not like we came into it being like, we're going to get Donald Trump for something. We don't know what. Like, that was never it. We had some complaints from consumers. We had an investigation, sort of set of investigations looking into for-profit education and predatory company behavior in that space. And we were, going into this with a blank slate to go take a look at it. And my first job, and I talk about this in

the very beginning of my book, is I locked myself in my office for a month or so, just calling people, just having conversations, open-ended, just asking them what happened? And literally saying that alone would often get me ranting or tears, an hour-long conversation, and people were just mortified, embarrassed, upset, angry, all the emotions about how they'd been ripped off. And these were, mind you, not people that were like Trump skeptics or something like that. These were his super fans that he ripped off. And that was how it started. He's got super fans, though. I mean, honestly, I mean, you know, people are like they bought into the apprentice. They bought into him as a successful business leader. Trump University, obviously, he had these modules where you could buy in, you could go to seminars.

But there's an inherent dishonesty that you write about. And there's an inherent smoking gun everywhere. And we know that he's done that in other things. But why were you able to catch him in this particular situation? Yeah. I mean, I think the thing there was, it was really one of the first times that a major governmental enforcement agency were prosecutors' office went after him in a sustained way and did not stop and did not give up. And though there were moments at which the AG at the time, Eric Schneiderman paused or almost killed our investigation, it ended up living and getting greenlit and going forward. And that had never really happened before. And that sustained effort, and we got created. I think having the sustained effort

and having like, you know, the folks that I worked for really went to bat and made sure that we were going to be given the latitude to do what we needed to do. It gave me the ability to do things like, okay, great, we're not just going to go after Trump and then have him stonewallis and then we get no records. We're going to go after all of his vendors and past business partners that worked on this matter, and we're going to go get all the records from them because he outsources everything. It's not a very big operation. And thereby we were able to get most of the documents that,

we needed from third parties. I think that was a key thing. And then ultimately, there was, you know, Eric Schneiderman had a lot of laws. There was a lot that was done there to potentially scuttle this investigation. But credit where credits do, he did end up pulling the trigger and we filed the suit. But nobody had really done that before. Trump had managed to get away with it for about 40 years there by co-opting a lot of prosecutors and by promising to support them with campaign donations and so forth and so on. We don't know exactly what was said in those conversations, but we can guess pretty much. And that's how he was able to get away with it. He finally actually faced an office that didn't get bullied or intimidated or co-opted. And I think that made a lot of

difference. And once we were able to show the playbook for how to get this done, which is really what the book is, it's really the AG's office playbook for being able to go after him, now you see a lot of other folks doing a lot of the same things. You got 12. Rules. Yeah. Let's go over some of these rules and apply some of these rules to the current cases. Tell me what people are doing right that are prosecuted Donald Trump now. And if you could offer them any advice to do something differently, what would it be? Yeah, that's a great question. So, you know, I think, you know, and then it's broken into three parts. I got leadership, the investigation phase, and then going public. The leadership part is really about are you going to bring a case in the first place? So all of the people that are

currently bringing cases, by definition, have already passed this test. Although, it was a bit dicey there with like, is DOJ going to bring a January 6th case? For a long time, they actually weren't bringing it. I think the January 6th investigation in the house forced their hand and made it so that they had to name a special counsel. It took a while, but they got to the right outcome. I think that we saw a year go by where Alvin Bragg at the Manhattan DA's office should have been going forward, didn't saw the blowback. And then, you know, he, I don't know if he saw the light or felt the heat, but it doesn't matter because he got to the right outcome there, although we had a delay. I think that was a lot of the, that's what the first

three rules cover is that leadership factor. Then we get into the investigation factor. I think that the Mar-a-Lago case, they've been doing a good job going to his vendors. That's Rule 5 is that Trump constantly screws over his vendors and business partners. You go to those people, they can be allies, and they can help break open your case. I think that has been true for the New York AG civil fraud case. They got the Mazers, the accountant firm, to basically flip on Trump. In the Mar-a-Lago case, they've been getting a lot of these, like the security cam firm, I think that's going to end up being critical. They got them to cough up records. They got some other past employees to cough up records. They got other people to basically flip. Those

things are huge. I think there's a section on fighting the fight on statutes and limitation. That's a really big thing. The EG and Carroll folks did a good job with that. There's an overall effort to get laws passed to help victims be able to bring lawsuits like this. I also think that, again, the New York AG's office has been fighting the fight on that one with regard to the Trump's civil fraud case. You know, other ones about like, how well are you actually communicating your case to the public? I think all the offices have done a pretty good job of that. They didn't rush their case too quickly. I think everybody has explained their case pretty well. One thing that I think is worth flagging is that when Rule 11 is about Trump lashing out at his opponents at the prosecutors,

you got to be able to ignore it and don't take the bait. I'm a little worried about Fannie Willis in this regard, in that if she overreacts to this, like, attacking of her and her character that are happening right now, that it could be a distraction. I think that they need to be a little bit more stoic about just ignoring it and saying he's desperate. And by the way, who's behind this, who's funding it, like turn the tables on it and get surrogates out there to talk about it. Like there's got to be some other effort there.

If it looks like she's reacting too much, it potentially represents a distraction. It represents weakness to potentially that Trump will push on that further. You can't show that he's getting under your skin. He's going to come after you. You have to hold firm and just be a bulldozer. You just have to have no emotion and just be stoic about it and keep churning. Let me play devil's advocate for a second. Second, he's got four cases going on right now. Your case was successful. I believe a $25 million fine was paid,

and you got them out of the foundational businesses or charitable giving businesses, I think, they can't do that anymore. That was my colleagues. Yep, they did that. Yep. Yep. Right. Okay. So there's a combination of those things, right? Because there was some fraud there as well. So you were hitting him from both sides. Yet he goes on to become the president. Okay, now he's got a documents case where the people at the agency feel those documents move into his bathroom and then our human intelligence is dying in the field. So the agency is not happy with this. They think this is a direct violation. You've got the insurrection case where Mark Meadows is testifying against him in the insurrection case. So that's not a democratically elected Soros-funded DA, all the talking points. It's a white guy from the South who ran the Freedom Cogas and was his former chief of staff, chief witness. You've got the

The Brad case, we can talk about that, and we've got the election interference case. But then CNN last night, they got the microphone, exit polls. What do you think of these cases? And the people say, ah, you know, that's a political witch hunt. They're going after Donald Trump for political winch hunt and there's no fairness in the justice system. So how do you rebut that? Why do people think he's going to get off and why do you think none of this stuff is going

to harm him? I think that's really where the rubber hits the road. You know, it's what is public opinion going to view about this because we've got the legal aspect, but we've also got the political aspect of this as well with him likely being a Republican nominee unless something weird happens, which it could. But I think the key there is, yes, there is a part of the public that is going to view these prosecutions as as inherently illegitimate. That is probably somewhere between a quarter and a third of the country. It's not any more than that. They're just loud. So it seems like they're bigger than that. But if you actually

do a poll and people have, that's the most that it is. If you ask people, should actually Trump stand trial or should he be immune, that's actually a good like question as a litmus test for, do you think these are legitimate or not? And it's basically two to one. Two thirds of the country think that he should be standing trial, that he should not be immune. Now, that doesn't mean all of those people think that he's guilty, but it means that I think first, and foremost, we've got to clear that hurdle. Is he actually immune from all of this, or is this legitimate? And it's the way this country works. And he has to face the music, just like any of the rest of us would. And he's got to go through that process. And he's got to be found guilty by a unanimous

jury beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's a very high bar, but he's got to go to trial. So we got to clear that bar first. And we got to remember it's really about two to one. The most Americans, two out of three believe that he should actually be facing the music here. Now, then if you ask people, will he get off? It's actually flipped. Two out of every three Americans believe that he's going to get off. Only a third of people actually believe that he's going to face consequences for these crimes. So there's this group in the middle that basically thinks he should go to trial, but they don't think he's actually going to get convicted. And some of those people think he's guilty and some of those people think he's not. That's the part of public opinion that we don't know where they're going to land yet.

They believe that these trials should happen, but either they think he isn't guilty or they think that he is guilty, but they're cynical and pessimistic about whether or not he's actually going to face any consequences here. A lot of why I wrote this book was to give people a roadmap for how these things can unfold and to give people some sense of cautious optimism that's grounded in reality. You actually can bring a big case like this against a big powerful, seemingly invincible target like Donald Trump and win. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of resources. It takes a lot of slogging and hard work that is not sexy. But I believe that a lot of these cases are in fact achieving all of that. And I do believe one, at least one, and probably more of them are going

to result in convictions. But it is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Because again, even some of the people who think he should face accountability don't think he ever will. And that pessimism is a problem because it shows a crumbling lack of faith in our system. And if people don't believe in the system, that could really spiral. And I'm very, that makes me worried, but I do believe these cases are coming in the nick of time to hopefully restore our faith in our system. So let's talk about the timing if you don't mind, Tristan. So the timing is such, any of of these cases come to four before the Republican Party's convention in late August? I believe that the DOJJ6 case, the one that's going to go to trial in D.C. I think it's going

to happen either on time or with maybe a week or two delay. That's it. I think it's coming. The Supreme Court is going to be deciding, first we're going to hear from the D.C. Circuit, then we're going to hear from the Supreme Court on this immunity question. It was engaging in presidential acts when he did the things that are alleged against him in that criminal case. I believe that the courts are going to say very firmly that those are not presidential acts, that these criminal acts are kind of by definition, not acts that he was engaging in as in the office of the presidency, and that there's no immunity for ex-presidents. So just because he did it while he was still in office, doesn't mean that he's immune from consequences for it forever after. I don't think that's going to delay things too much, if at all.

And I think we're going to see that case start right now. It's supposed to start. arguments March 4th. Maybe it's mid-March instead, but I think it's going to happen. I think we're going to see a verdict in that matter, and I think it's going to be conviction on at least one count, probably multiple, by, say, mid-May, maybe even a little earlier than that. So he's now a convicted felon. That stops him from getting the Republican nomination? No, right? These people don't care, right? I don't think it does. I don't think it does. I think that, unfortunately, there's still too much of the party that is, I think, scared of him is actually... Yeah, no, there's no question.

There's a bunch of babies. This guy, Kevin McCarthy, he's like a jellyfish. I mean, he could have put Trump through the ropes on January 7th, 21. He could be using him a jellyfish, you know? Him and McConnell could have ended him right there, because I think that if he had been officially impeached and convicted by the House and Senate at that point, I think he would have been done. The nonsense that we're dealing with as a society would have been over.

There's others nonsense. And there's other nutbags, but this is the biggest nutbag. Okay, so he gets convicted likely. The document's case goes after the election, though, probably, right? Sadly, yes. I think that that one probably is that's just getting delayed, delayed, delayed. I think the Atlanta case might go to trial this summer, but I don't know that we're, and he might get convicted before the election, but I don't know if he's going to get

sentenced before the election, but I do think that one happens this year, even though it's slower. It's a bigger case. It has more defendants. There's more stuff. There's more counts. It's just inherently a bigger case. I mean, you know, this is off your topic, but I'm just curious of your opinion of it.

There's the 14th Amendment case that's going to be heard by the Supreme Court. Two states, Colorado and Maine said, hey, he's an insurrectionist and pursuant to the 14th Amendment. We're going to remove him from the ballot, which is consistent with the 14th Amendment. Now, there are conservative jurists who are quote unquote originalists. And so for my viewers and listeners out there, what does that mean? a lot of conservative judges will originally interpret the words of the Constitution. It's almost like an orthodoxy and a religion. And there's a lot of conservative jurists that have looked at the case, looked at the facts, and looked at the amendment, the 14th Amendment, and said, okay,

definitionally, he should not be allowed to be on the ballot. Now, you and I both know that the Supreme Court's a political gymnastic organization. And so what do you think happens with that case? Yeah, I have been following that one very carefully and reading into a deep lease. That's sort of part of my wheelhouse as well. So that matter, I do think, is also going to end up in front of SCOTUS and soon. Oh, they say they're taking it in February. They already said that, right? Right.

So that's happening. But I will say the one thing here is that I don't know that they're going to, they're going to take it, but I don't know that they're going to resolve it. So my feeling is that I think they're going to find a way to not have. to weigh in on the ultimate question. Rather than make a sweeping decision that Donald Trump is or is not disqualified, I think there's an excellent chance that they're just going to kick it back down to the state level and say, you need to do more fact-finding. We do not have enough of a factual record to determine whether or not January 6th was an insurrection and whether or not

Donald Trump engaged in it. And you need to go do that. That's a great way that any situation, a higher up court can basically kick the can back down to the lower courts and say, we don't want to deal with this right now. You go keep dealing with it further and bring it back later. But why not just say that? You know what I mean? Well, I mean, why not just say he's disqualified or not disqualified? No, why take the case? Why not just say, hey, you know, we don't want to take the case? I think that they're going to grant cert so that they can say that the factual record is not developed enough. I think that if they didn't grant cert, then those decisions would stand.

That's the problem. So they had to grant cert. They didn't want Colorado. So when Colorado was the Colorado Supreme Court, if the U.S. Supreme Court did not grant cert, then that would let the Colorado decisions stand. And he would be off the ballot in Colorado. SCOTUS didn't want to do that. They don't want that to be the impact in the meantime.

This is my prediction. I think they're going to go tell Colorado, go do some more fact-finding. And then that allows them to duck the issue, the more complicated legal issues of, is that provision 14th Amendment in Section 3? Is that still alive? Is it still applicable today? Are there other legal problems with it that prevented from being used in this way, which are things that people have been debating? I happen to be of the camp that says the plain words of the Constitution are right there. And as you pointed out with kind of more of the originalist view on this, the way those people think is to say you don't change the meaning of those words based on the times that you live in. You have to look to what the original intent of the drafters of that provision and what the dictionary definitions of those words were at the time. And that's how you interpret the Constitution. And even if you take that conservative originalist viewpoint, it's very clear that you just need to apply that provision straight up. It's not limited to the Civil War era. It was not eliminated by some other later and you can actually apply it today. And then what you're left with is that factual question of, do you believe it was an insurrection and do you believe Donald Trump engaged in it? We can quibble about the definition of insurrection. Go ahead. That's going to be a debate.

And then the question of Donald Trump engaging in it, some people have tried to argue, Trump's people are trying to argue, that unless he's convicted of something, that that is not applicable. And that is not what the Constitution says. It doesn't say if you were convicted by a jury or by a court of blah, blah, blah, blah, then you get disqualified. That's the irony. It doesn't say that. It doesn't say that. The court's going to be a bunch of babies.

They're not going to want to rule. But if this was right after the Civil War, they would totally say, this guy's done. He can't run because they were worried about the stability of the country, which is why they put in the 14th Amendment. And the notion that you needed to get a criminal conviction in order to have this apply is absolute absurdity. Because after the Civil War, you had hundreds of thousands. of Confederates, you weren't going to go convict every single one of them of insurrection. You

couldn't. So you just said, bye, bye, you're all out. Justin, it's great irony because these are all originalists, originally interpreting the Constitution. They're likely to give Trump a pass. Okay, so I'm running out of time with you. You're fascinating, by the way, but let me get to a couple rapid fire questions. Just your opinions. Is Trump going to be the Republican nominee despite these cases? Yes, I think he will be. Is Trump going to win the election? No, I don't think he will. Why is he not going to win the election? I think that if you look at the polling, there is a significant chunk of the country that currently is inclined to support him.

But if you ask the right questions, they will make it clear that if he is convicted, that will change their opinion of him. I think there are some died-in-the-wall Republicans that voted for him in 16 and 20 and have supported him up to now. that if he gets convicted, I think that might be where they pull the cord and get off the bus. And I don't think it's going to be all. There's going to be a maga, diehard contingent. But I think there's enough. Okay. Okay. So let me ask you this. He loses the election. We both agree on that. Does he run in 2008 at age 82? If he can, if he's not in prison, because it'll be tough to run from prison. I think he'll be in prison in 2028. And he'll be in prison in 2032. And he'll be in prison in 2036.

But if he wins the presidency, they won't put him in prison, right? If he wins the presidency, that will help him with, then he could use the powers of the presidency unconstitutionally to suppress those federal prosecutions, those two. The state ones, he cannot do anything about unless he really crosses the line and does what? What's he going to do? Come up here to New York and send in the army to stop the Manhattan DA from prosecuting him? This is the thing I don't understand about some of my fellow Republicans. He's capable of doing anything, which is why I speak out against them.

So, okay, I got five words. Every author gets them. You can give me the speed. This is speed dating now. I'm going to use the following word, get your reaction. Democracy. Awesome but fragile. Justice.

Worth fighting for every day, and it's a choice we make. Yeah, but the wheels of justice turn slowly, right? We both see that. And you did a brilliant job on your cases. I'm going to say the word voters. What do you think of that, word voters? underrated but must be communicated to correctly. Yeah, but I mean, you know, the collective wisdom of the country hopefully will prevail here.

2004. I'm just going to shake my head. It's going to be a long year, everybody. Long year, right? It's a long year. I'm just trying to keep my hair in 2024. I know, right? No, that's the goal.

That's the goal. I just want to keep my hair. I don't want to defend. Okay, I use the word Trump. You say what? Criminal. Yeah. Conman.

And unfortunately, he is one of the most diabolical con men ever. It's sad but true. Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, yeah. What's next for you, sir? You got another book coming? Hopefully, we'll see what happens. I'm going to be doing stuff on social media.

I'm also probably starting a substack. And I think I want to do one of these things like you. Your show's great. And I want to get in there and do a podcast. You're very telegenic. You're a great interviewee. I'm sure you'd be a great interviewer. The title of the book is Taking Down Trump,

12 rules for prosecuting Donald Trump by someone who did it successfully. And listen, you know, I mean, it's a shame. He is a criminal. And it's very hard. Like people think, oh, because I got fired by I'm saying that he's a criminal. No, that's not the case. He's actually, it's actually a criminal. And it's just unfortunate that we're in such a disinformation society right now that that message is not really being heard. But maybe it will be come November. But get ready for Trump 28. Tristan, get ready for Trump 28. It's going to be hard for him to run from a Supermax prison. That's what I'll say about that. Right. Well, let's see. Let's see. If they put it in prison, you know, it'll be a shocker to me because he's gotten away with so much. He's the true Teflon Don. You know, they put away John Gotti. They put

away Al Capone. We'll have to see what happens to this guy. Thank you so much for joining us, though. And I hope I had a chance to have a beer with you at some point. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks. You know, when we consider the cases that are going on right now for Mr. Trump, my good friend David Rubinstein, who has his own television show, he's the billionaire founder of Carlisle, he said, my God, Anthony, if you or I had all that pressure on us from four different cases, 91 plus indictments, we would implode. I was like, David, please don't expose Jewish and Italian neuroses to everybody. But the truth be told, it takes a certain disassociative beast to handle the pressure

that Mr. Trump is under because he knows, as Tristan has pointed out, that he's a full-on criminal, and he knows that he's been able to skate and get away with this sort of behavior for almost six decades. And so he believes he's going to get away with it again. Yet, there's a multitude of different cases and there's a multitude of evidence and star witnesses that he may not be able to escape. And as we spoke about on this podcast, what he did with Trump University is exactly what he's continuing to do now. However, it's on a much larger presidential scale. And as Tristan said, he's obviously a con man. And so the big lesson from all this is once a con man, always a con man. It's just unfortunate that he's been able to bamboozle so many of us, frankly, including

myself, for a short period of time. But I thought it was important to have Tristan on, and I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. All right, you want to be on the show, Ma? You know you're a star. All right. So today, my guest was a guy by the name of Tristan Snell, and he was a prosecutor that successfully won the case against Donald Trump for Trump University. Now, I don't know if you remember this, but Donald Trump had to pay $25 million to the victims in this fraud case where he more or less admitted to committing fraud here in New York State. So you think Trump is going to get caught in any of these legal cases that he's face with Ma or you think he's going to get away with it? Yes and no. He does have the hungry someone is to get the money, but he is, you know, he does fraud through things. Okay.

So I think he's going to get away with it. I think that his money power of someone's in need for money, they come. All right. So let me rephrase the question then, Ma, is the justice in the country is two-tiered then, right? Rich people can sometimes get away with way more than poor people. That's poor. Yes. You believe that, right?

I do believe that, yes. My father used to say money talks and shit walks. Okay, yes. You've said that before on many podcasts, Ma. This is why you keep getting invited back. Okay, you have very good ratings. You've got good Q. Oh, right?

Yeah, you got good Q ratings. Ma, you know you're the star of the show. Okay. So let me ask you this, Ma. If he's convicted in one of these cases, is that going to impact him winning? Because you think he's going to win, right? You grew up in the name. You do. You think he's going to win. Tell us why you think he's going to win.

Well, I think there's enough people that are. Okay. But you see him for what he is. You just call him a fraud. So even though you see him as a fraud, other people may not see him that way, right? Yeah, I think. But you believe in karma, right, ma? Yes, of course I do. Okay. So he may get it in the end, right? At the end, people get it. Okay. All right. Your birthday's coming up, isn't it, ma?

Yeah, it's Tuesday. It's my big birthday of 87. Okay. All right. So what should I get you? like a bag of coal? What do you want for your birthday, ma'am? But let's face it, I get you some pretty good gifts, though, no? Yeah. My butterfly ring is back on me. Yeah. Yeah, Nick picked out your ring, Ma. That's for sure. He's an exquisite. And I like butterflies and, you know, it's really craftful and tasteful, and it came from Grand Cleave. So how could it be walked?

Yeah, no. Listen, you know, my son has expensive taste because he's part of you. You know, you have the most expensive tastes that I know. All right. I love you, ma. I love you so much. Thank you for joining the show. Happy birthday, Mom. All right, no problem. I'll wait. Love you, baby. Okay, love you, ma. I am Anthony Scaramucci, and that was Open Book.

Thank you for listening. If you like what you hear, tell your friends, and make sure you hit follow or subscribe wherever you listen to your podcast. While you're there, please leave us a rating or review. If you want to connect with me or chat more about the discussions, it's at Scaramucci on Twitter or Instagram. You can also text me at Plus 1-917, 909-29-29-996. I'd love to hear from you. I'll see you back here next week.