Tangle - The Trump fraud ruling.

Starting point is 00:00:00 Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight.

Starting point is 00:00:19 Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. Breaking news happens anywhere, anytime. Police have warned the protesters repeatedly, get back. CBC News brings the story to you as it happens. Hundreds of wildfires are burning. Be the first to know what's going on and what that means for you and for Canadians. This situation has changed very quickly.

Starting point is 00:00:44 Helping make sense of the world when it matters most. Stay in the know. CBC News. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to

Starting point is 00:01:05 your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the ruling against Donald Trump in his civil fraud case, a major, massive, gigantic

Starting point is 00:02:08 judgment. He owes a lot of money and is maybe potentially being prevented from actually running the Trump organization in New York. We're going to talk about the ruling. I'm going to share a little bit of my take. As always, before we jump in, we'll kick things off with some quick hits. First up, for the third time, the United States vetoed a resolution from the United Nations calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. The United States is circulating a rival resolution that calls for a temporary ceasefire and hostage release. Number two, a former FBI informant who was charged with fabricating bribery allegations about President Biden and his son Hunter told federal officials

Starting point is 00:02:57 he had ties to high-level Russian agents. Number three, in a Fox News town hall, former President Donald Trump revealed his vice president's shortlist includes Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Senator Tim Scott, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Representative Byron Donalds, and former Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat turned independent. Number four, the United States Supreme Court opted not to review a case challenging the use of socioeconomic status during the admissions criteria at a prestigious high school. Parents had sued over the policy, saying it discriminated against Asian Americans. And number five, a Russian helicopter pilot who had defected to Spain was shot and killed.

Starting point is 00:03:42 Separately, Russia said it arrested a dual U.S.-Russian citizen who was charged with treason for donating money to the Ukrainian army. The 33-year-old woman is a Los Angeles resident who returned to Russia to attend university. A massive civil penalty for Donald Trump, his companies and two of his children. On Friday, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay nearly $355 million after finding the former president engaged in a scheme to fraudulently inflate his wealth to banks and other lenders. The largest judgment to date has been issued against former President Donald Trump. Judge N'Goran has imposed a penalty of more than $350 million against Donald Trump, as well as his adult sons and his corporation in that civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. And next, we'll be getting a judgment that should happen in a week or two,

Starting point is 00:04:47 and nothing can actually happen until that judgment comes out. But once it does, the state could start going after Donald Trump's money. They could start freezing his bank accounts. They could start selling off, having the state sell off his stock. On Friday, Manhattan judge Arthur Ngaran ordered former President Donald Trump to pay over $354 million and barred him from serving in a top role of any New York company for three years. Ngaran's decision concludes the civil fraud suit against Trump for misrepresenting his wealth for financial gain while leading the Trump Organization. Trump is expected to appeal,

Starting point is 00:05:24 which could take more than a year and would delay any enforcement of the penalty, though the court would require an escrow account or a bond to cover the penalties should he lose. Engeron also barred Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump from holding positions at any New York corporation as officers or directors for two years, a move that could shake up the organization's leadership. Along with Trump and his oldest sons, two former executives were also found civilly liable for issuing false documents and falsifying records, among other related offenses. Quick reminder, following congressional testimony from Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, that he

Starting point is 00:06:02 improperly inflated his wealth, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Trump, alleging he systematically inflated and deflated the values of his properties and assets to receive low interest rate loans and pay lower state taxes. Among other things, James accused Trump executives of tripling the square footage of his Trump Tower triplex penthouse in order to concoct $200 million of value. The inflated net worth allowed Trump to receive 1.83% interest rates from Deutsche Bank's private wealth management division. Otherwise, he would have had to use the bank's commercial real estate division, where he was once offered rates as high as 10%. Trump's net worth is

Starting point is 00:06:41 currently estimated to be $3 billion. He promised to maintain a net worth of at least $2.5 billion in certain loan agreements, a guarantee that a Deutsche Bank representative testified was the reason he received favorable pricing on loans. Trump testified that he relied on his accounting team to quantify his wealth and properties. His lawyers argued that there was a plausible basis for all the valuations and that the private lenders involved in the deals all made a profit and never alleged any breach of contract. Deutsche Bank, for instance, assumed in its own analysis that Trump's net worth was much lower than he stated, but still acted as his principal lender. Nobody from the bank testified that the loan should have been priced differently, and some bank employees testified Trump's business was in high demand among the banks. Initially, James sought $250

Starting point is 00:07:30 million in penalties, then asked for $370 million, a number she said accounted for all the financial gains Trump accrued through his deceptive tactics. Close to half of the $355 million Engeron ordered Trump to pay was associated with low interest rate financing, with another $187 million coming from his sale of two properties in New York and Washington, D.C. In a deposition last year, Trump said he has roughly $400 million in cash. The frauds found here leap off the page and shock the conscience. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological, Angaran said in the 92-page decision. They are accused of only inflating

Starting point is 00:08:10 asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. Trump responded on social media, saying this decision is a complete and total sham. There were no victims, no damages, no complaints. Trump has already been ordered to pay $83 million in a defamation lawsuit filed by the writer E. Jean Carroll, whom he was found liable for committing sexual abuse against in a civil trial last spring. Separately, Trump is also facing federal indictments for ordering hush money payments, mishandling classified documents, and attempting to undermine the 2020 election, as well as state racketeering charges in Georgia for organizing a conspiracy to overturn the

Starting point is 00:08:50 election results there. Today, we're going to take a look at some arguments from the left and the right about this ruling, and then my take. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. First up, we'll start with what the left is saying. The left mostly welcomes the ruling, suggesting it foreshadows more legal setbacks for Trump. Some worry that the heavy penalty imposed by Ngaran will prompt new political support for Trump. Others worry that the heavy penalty imposed by Ngaran will prompt new political support for Trump. Others say Trump's debts make him right for exploitation by wealthy interests. In MSNBC, Glenn Kirshner wrote that Trump's loss in New York is a powerful predictor of what's to come in his criminal trials. Trump fights every battle, large and small, in the court of public

Starting point is 00:09:42 opinion. That court has no rules of engagement, no rules of evidence, and no rules of procedure. But when his legal disputes move into courts of law, he loses. When the rules of evidence and procedure apply to legal contests, Trump loses, Kirchner said. In public, Trump has insisted that he never overstated the value of his properties. Yet Judge Angaran found that the documentary evidence of fraud was so overwhelming that even before trial, he ruled that Trump, his sons, and the Trump organization's chief financial officer had inflated asset values. This string of civil trial losses augurs poorly for the former president's coming criminal trials. First, unlike civil trials, defendants are

Starting point is 00:10:22 required to attend all trial proceedings in criminal cases. Furthermore, as a general proposition, criminal trials are more exacting affairs than civil cases, Kirchner wrote. Once Trump is constrained by the rules of evidence and the rules of criminal procedure, no longer allowed to say what he wants about stolen elections and telepathically declassifying documents, his series of trial losses is very likely to continue. In Vox, Abedaya Fayed said Trump is suddenly in need of a lot of cash. That is everyone's problem. Trump isn't just one of the country's richest men with an estimated net worth in the low billions. He's also running to serve a second term as president of the United

Starting point is 00:11:02 States. And for any candidate for public office, let alone the presidency, being cash-strapped while owing such significant amounts of money could be a serious liability, Fyed wrote. You don't have to look far to find the reasons why. Trump's first term was riddled with conflicts of interest, and that's in no small part because of his financial well-being, or lack thereof, depending on how you look at it. Lawsuits aside, Trump also has plenty of debt on his hands. His financial disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission last year showed that he has at least $200 million in debt, and according to Forbes, his business owed roughly $1.3 billion in 2021, Fayyad said. The problem for Trump isn't just his inability to self-fund his White House bids. The fact that he is constantly on the lookout for new loans or sources of income

Starting point is 00:11:50 gives special interests a vehicle to curry favor with him. All right, before we jump into what the right is saying, we're actually going to bring in David Ordenlicher from CNN, who talked about why we should not misread Trump's loss. David Ornlicker, welcome to the show. Thank you. It's great to be here. So we have a little bit of an understanding of what's going on here in this Trump case, and I have some questions about this piece you published in CNN, but I would just want to start here from your own words. What was your reaction to this ruling? What's your general take, I guess, in a couple minutes about what happened here and your view

Starting point is 00:12:31 on it? Well, to understand this, we have to put it in the context. We've got a series of prosecutions and other litigation against Trump. And the problem is, while there's a lot of misconduct that we need to hold the former president accountable for, prosecutors have stretched the law on a number of cases, and that's wrong in itself. But it also undermines the legitimate prosecutions. For example, Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed appropriate charges to hold the former president accountable for his election efforts to overturn the election and handling of classified documents. But other prosecutors and judges haven't adhered to the rule of the law, and it just undermines public trust in anything that's being done to hold the president accountable. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting. I actually tend to agree with you, and listeners are going to hear this a little bit in my take today, not to spoil it, but I am pretty wary of this specific prosecution and this ruling.

Starting point is 00:13:49 Could you talk a little bit about what sort of gives you some hesitancy or concern, despite the fact I assume there are areas where you think Donald Trump really does need to be held to account for his actions? Yeah. So in this case on the business fraud, he clearly filed inaccurate financial statements. And what happened, and then the judge then issued his ruling in September that there was fraud. But when he did his initial penalties, his penalties went beyond what the law said he could do. Like he ordered the dissolution of Trump's companies, which wasn't permissible. And fortunately, he did correct that in his final order. He removed that. But again, that makes people wonder, is this judge acting according to the rule of law or out of his own personal views about the former president? And then in the final order, the penalties, I'm not an expert in this area of law, but other people have questioned whether it's appropriate when the bank that's making the loans doesn't feel that they were harmed to still impose severe penalties.

Starting point is 00:15:27 harmed to still impose severe penalties. Yeah, I guess a question maybe I'm left with is what would have been maybe a more appropriate outcome here in your view? I mean, I think, you know, there's sort of, for me at least, there's two positions I kind of hold at once, which is zero consequences for this doesn't seem seem right. But also a $350 billion fine or $350 million fine, basically a capture of his organizations via this monitor and ruling that he can't run any corporations in New York. I mean, all this stuff in totality, also punishing his sons and these top two executives seems like a bit of an overreach. I think the Wall Street Journal had this really funny line in their editorial about this. They said that this remedy is like using a hellfire missile to annihilate a shoplifter, which I thought was

Starting point is 00:16:25 pretty evocative. I guess I'm interested in what you think a different path could have looked like for holding the president, the former president accountable, but maybe not going as far as the judge and Letitia James did here. Yeah. So I would say one of the concerns that you seem to get, as I said, Donald Trump has done a lot of bad things and he needs to be punished. But you get the sense with some of these prosecutions that because he's so-called a bad man and done bad things, that influences all of his cases. And that there's sort of punishing him for things that he did that aren't part of the case at hand. And that's a the focus should be. Jack Smith, as I said, the special counsel, has done a good job of bringing the proper charges and not overcharging. And I think it's detrimental. The first criminal prosecution that's going to start next month in New York is for the least, the weakest charge, I think the hush money charge. I don't think there should be a criminal charge at all for that. And so that's what the problem

Starting point is 00:18:01 I see is if you bring the right charges, there is criminality that needs to be prosecuted. But don't prosecute the non-criminal things or as in Georgia with the election case there. Yes, there's criminal behavior, but don't use RICO charges, which are not designed for this kind of a setting. And then for his financial dealings, where the focus should be is on his, there's good reason to think he committed tax fraud, that he undervalued his assets and his income for tax purposes.

Starting point is 00:18:42 And that's a serious problem. income for tax purposes. And that's a serious problem. And that's what the focus should be on that kind of financial fraud, as opposed to pursuing a fraud that the bank isn't even complaining of. So I'm going to ask you to do a tiny bit of prognostication here before we get out of here. I guess I'm just curious what you expect the public reaction to be here. I mean, on top of being an attorney, you're a politician. How do you think this is going to play out with the public? Do you think this helps or hurts Trump, a judgment like this on net, just through a political lens, putting the law aside for a moment. Be the first to know what's going on and what that means for you and for Canadians. This situation has changed very quickly.

Starting point is 00:19:49 Helping make sense of the world when it matters most. Stay in the know. CBC News. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot.

Starting point is 00:20:12 Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. Yeah, so the worrisome side on the political side is to the extent that we have problematic prosecutions. It allows Trump to reinforce his message that he is a victim and that people are bringing partisan prosecutions. And that allows him to mobilize his base and get them fired up to vote for him. And I think another reason why it's critical to make sure that all of the efforts to hold him accountable are done scrupulously and that there's no suggestion of impropriety because he can just exploit that for his political gain. And we don't want to give him that kind of

Starting point is 00:21:29 opportunity. All right, David Ornlicker, thank you for coming on the show. I appreciate it. David, if people want to keep up with your work or writing, where's the best place for them to do that? Well, that's a good question. I guess going to my website at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law. It's law.unlv.edu. That's our main website. And then they can find me at the law school's website. Awesome. David, thank you so much for coming on. I appreciate the time. Sure. Thanks for having me. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, so let's jump into what the right is saying. The right is outraged by the ruling, calling it another political move to damage Trump's election chances. Some say the penalty was excessive, but push back on the notion that Trump's actions were victimless.

Starting point is 00:22:30 Others predict the ruling will scare businesses away from operating in New York. In The Federalist, Sean Fleetwood criticized the decision as Democrats' last gambit to rig the 2024 election. Friday's ruling was hardly surprising, given the level of bias Angaran demonstrated throughout the trial, Fleetwood wrote. The civil penalties levied against Trump represent Democrats' latest attempt to weaponize the legal system against the former president to keep him from getting re-elected this fall. Across four different venues, the Biden Justice Department and Democrat prosecutors have levied a collective 91 criminal indictments against Trump with the goal of imprisoning the likely Republican presidential nominee before the November

Starting point is 00:23:10 election. And these charges don't even include the various attempts by Democrat election officials to kick Trump off the ballot in states such as Maine and Colorado. Despite casting themselves as the party of democracy, Democrats are utilizing every tool at their disposal to deprive voters of free and fair electoral process. If they aren't attempting to throw Trump in prison, they're trying to strip away his financial assets and ability to sustain a living. In the Cato Institute, Walter Olson assessed the good and bad critiques of the verdict. and bad critiques of the verdict. The power to order equitable disgorgement, as it is called, is one that judges often use sparingly, in part because its consequences can be harsh, Olson said. The judge found Trump used faked-up statements of financial condition to swing the necessary financing on his old post office hotel project in Washington, D.C. As a result, the judge ordered

Starting point is 00:24:02 the former president to disgorge the entire $126 million in profit he made over the five years he owned the project. This kind of reasoning leaves fortunes to hang on the web a prosecutor can spin with but four arguments. But some of the defenses offered on behalf of Trump simply don't hold water. Chief among them, the claim that Trump's conduct was somehow victimless and that the counterparts, primarily banks and insurance companies, came out fine, Olson wrote. Lying about his net worth and property values also enabled Trump to get markedly lower interest rates from banks. And Gorin credited an expert for the state who estimated that Trump saved $168 million in bank interest by posing as a better risk than he was. You can argue about

Starting point is 00:24:46 this number, but it's hard to argue it's zero. In Fox News, Jonathan Turley explored the unexpected consequences of the ruling. By making the fines so large, and Gorin not only makes an appeal difficult, but could guarantee that Trump will lose tens of millions of dollars even if his judgment is dramatically reduced or tossed out. As New Yorkers cheer this moment, many business leaders are likely wondering if they're but for the grace of God go I. Undervaluing or overvaluing property is a common practice, particularly in real estate. That is why representations like the one made by the Trump organization come with a warning that estimates are their own and that the banks need to make their assessments. The line between doing business and a public

Starting point is 00:25:29 execution now appears to be at the dubious discretion of the Attorney General. That is not the type of assurance that most businesses would accept in risking billions in investment, Turley wrote. Creating an ad hoc business code for Trump undermines the city's reputation as a premier jurisdiction for corporate and tax law. If the rate of exit increases, it will impact not just employees working for these companies, like the Trump companies, but the vast network of supporting businesses, including law firms. All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So yesterday, I described Trump's efforts to pressure the election officials to find votes,

Starting point is 00:26:19 submit false electors, or otherwise change the 2020 election result to be the most dangerous and despicable acts he took while in office. This case is on the opposite side of the spectrum. Yes, there is strong evidence Trump inflated or deflated his assets and net worth to his advantage. And yes, Trump and plenty of other real estate developers have been doing that since long before he became a presidential candidate. But the details of this case and how the law is being used to try to bankrupt Trump is egregious to the point of being astonishing. Let me be clear here. The Justice Department's investigation into Trump's mishandling of classified documents is not some political hit campaign, nor is the investigation into his actions leading up to January 6th, nor is the Georgia investigation into his conduct. Trump's actions, egregious in their own right, brought

Starting point is 00:27:11 those criminal prosecutions to his doorstep. And while he can blame the media and the so-called deep state for some things, he can't blame them for those indictments. But this? It truly does reek of a political prosecution, which makes it dangerous not just on the face of it, but because it manifests all the biggest fears so many supporters of the former president have. What I thought was the most genuinely illuminating piece about this case came from Stephen M. Cohen in the Wall Street Journal. And since he explains much of this better than I can, I'm going to quote heavily from him and refer to him here. Cohen explained that James used a little-known statute in New York called Executive Law 6312 that empowers an attorney general to pursue cases involving repeated

Starting point is 00:27:56 fraudulent or illegal acts or persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting, or transaction of business. James can then petition a court to order damages or restitution, prohibit the continuance of those practices, or even cancel incorporation status. Cohen rightly points out that James obtained all this and more. And Gorin said in court that the conduct being debated only needed to have the capacity or tendency to deceive, rather than include a party that was actually deceived. This statute is supposed to protect the public from persistent fraud, but in this case, we are mostly looking at Trump's interactions with complex private

Starting point is 00:28:35 business entities who were already presuming he was not being totally honest. Moving on from that oddity, James doesn't even prove any party suffered loss. Again, nobody is suing Trump. The banks, the lenders, the real estate entities, they've all profited from the business they did with Trump. Deutsche Bank representatives testified on his behalf in court, while the Attorney General is simultaneously trying to disband Trump's entire business on the public's behalf because of Trump's conduct in his business dealings with them. Nobody should overlook how bizarre that is. Cohen, a former U.S. attorney

Starting point is 00:29:11 and chief of staff to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Democrat, has a hard time not celebrating the news. Many of us are delighted to see Mr. Trump get his comeuppance. We believe that his art of the deal is a version of the long con, Cohen said, adding that James should be credited with a novel use of an existing statute. But Cohen also describes why even he finds the result so uncomfortable. It is worth considering whether, in the quest to get Mr. Trump, many of our public officials may be pressing the law in ways that will outlive the cases against the former president, he said. Shouldn't we consider whether this is the appropriate statute

Starting point is 00:29:50 and the appropriate proceeding to prove that case? And shouldn't we be concerned that the further expansion of this law is something we may regret? The Trump maelstrom continues to contort, if not wreak havoc on, the institutions that seek to tame it, end quote. And that's the heart of the matter for me. In seeking to rein in Trump's behavior, James and Engeron have gone far beyond what seems reasonable. That doesn't mean Trump should avoid all consequences for his actions here. Specifically, paying any back taxes he owes or has evaded, money that belongs to the public, would be appropriate. He did lie, and he has a history of harmful fraud, and the idea that nobody got hurt in this case is not enough to wave it all away. Someone who drives drunk without crashing their car should not be

Starting point is 00:30:36 exempted from any kind of accountability. But to steal a line from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, this remedy is like using a hellfire missile to annihilate a shoplifter. What we're left with is the peculiar sense that Trump is both guilty of something real, but simultaneously the victim of something more insidious and far-reaching. From a legal perspective, this should be uncomfortable for everyone. It should also raise questions about James, who campaigned for Attorney General specifically on a promise to go after Trump, and Engeron, who seemed throughout the trial to have an open animosity for the former president. From a political perspective, it is exactly the kind of fuel Trump needs for his fire, one that is going to continue to insulate him from public accountability for far more harmful offenses.

Starting point is 00:31:30 for far more harmful offenses. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Richard in Fernandina Beach, Florida. Richard said, what do you think of the law that the Florida state legislature, along with Governor DeSantis, passed in May 2023 that allows the death penalty to be imposed by a jury vote of 8-4 instead of a unanimous vote on child sex abusers? Okay, heavy question. First of all, before I give you my answer, let me clarify something here. You're referring to two separate bills? First, in April 2023, Florida passed a law to allow juries to recommend the death penalty in an 8-4 decision instead of by unanimous vote. That is not common. Alabama is the only other state to allow the death penalty from a non-unanimous

Starting point is 00:32:23 jury, but it may not be unconstitutional either. This law only impacts sentencing, but guilty verdict still requires a unanimous decision. However, a similar law was found to be unconstitutional in Louisiana, so it's very likely that this first law is challenged in court. The second law, signed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on May 1st of last year, authorizes the death penalty to be used on criminals convicted of child rape. This past December, that law was used for the first time. So yes, it is possible for a person to be convicted of child rape in Florida and put to death on an 8-4 jury recommendation, but because of two separate laws.

Starting point is 00:33:03 What do I think about them? Well, I'm always open to changing my mind, but this is an area where my opinion has never changed. I do not support the death penalty in any case, and I don't support bills that expand it. For the law passed in April, it's easy for me to hold that position consistently. For the law passed in May, it feels a little harder because of the absolutely gruesome and heinous nature of the crime. in May, it feels a little harder because of the absolutely gruesome and heinous nature of the crime. It's hard to imagine a person committing an act so vile and hurtful, but as unimaginable as it is, those perpetrators are still people. And the same logic I use in other cases still applies. Ending their lives does not undo the harm they cause,

Starting point is 00:33:42 and study after study says the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent. Not convinced? Consider that by some estimates the wrongful conviction rate is 4%. Consider that not every government prosecutor and officer is scrupulous. We wrote a piece in September about how the FBI is still entrapping people, in some cases violating the civil rights of Americans, because the public sees anyone who committed these two crimes as subhuman, terrorism and child abuse. Consider that it's possible for a person to be accused of attempted child rape just for meeting an adult police officer pretending to be a teenager. With all that in mind, do you think it's a good idea to make it easier for people

Starting point is 00:34:22 to be put to death? I don't. All right, that is it for today's reader question, which brings us to our under the radar section. The Biden administration is quietly easing its proposed requirements to aggressively cut tailpipe emissions and ramp up electric vehicle sales. Automakers have urged Biden to moderate its policy, saying electric vehicle technology is still too costly for most U.S. consumers and more time is needed to build charging infrastructure. In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, proposed a 56% reduction in new vehicle emissions by 2032, which would require automakers to aim for 60% of their new vehicle production to be electric vehicles by 2030. Under the new regulations that are expected

Starting point is 00:35:11 to be unveiled next month, the EVs will account for less than 60% of total vehicles produced by 2030, though the final number is not yet clear. clear. All right, next up is our numbers section. The sum of the financial penalties and fines imposed on Donald Trump as a result of civil litigation since 2023 is now $443.7 million. The amount of Trump's presidential campaign and his other fundraising organizations have spent on legal fees over the last two years is now $76.7 million. That's according to the Associated Press. The amount Trump's leadership political action committee, Save America, spent on legal fees in 2023 alone is $51.2 million. The amount raised by Save America over the final six months of 2023, it's $36.7 million. And the highest effective tax rate Trump paid on his income between 2015 and 2020 is 4.1%. All right.

Starting point is 00:36:15 And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day section. Chad McIntyre is a long-haul truck driver from Illinois who travels with his co-pilot, a spirited 15-pound cat named Tyler. At a truck stop in Nevada, Tyler managed to escape. Somehow, he turned up hundreds of miles away at another truck stop in Wyoming, where he was taken to the local animal shelter and microchipped. The shelter contacted John Nickum, a volunteer pet rescue organizer who coordinated Tyler's multi-leg cross-country return journey from Wyoming to St. Louis, Missouri. He's grounded from going on the truck for a while, Chad's wife,

Starting point is 00:36:51 Brandi McIntyre, said. My husband and I have decided that maybe it's better if he stays home for at least a while, and then maybe down the road he can go again. Cowboy State Daily has the story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, if you want to support our work, you can go to readtangled.com and become a member. You do that by just clicking the little membership button at the top of the website. It unlocks a whole bunch of stuff. If you have not done that yet, if you are not yet a Tangle member, you really, you really should become one. We need your support. It's how we

Starting point is 00:37:30 keep the lights on. We'll be back here same time tomorrow. Unless you don't get a membership, then we might have to close this whole thing down. See you then. Peace. See you then. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Wall. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will Kabak, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bokova, who is also our social media manager.

Starting point is 00:38:03 Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. We'll be right back. begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed.

Starting point is 00:39:19 Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

Tangle - The Trump fraud ruling.

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.