What was your take on this report that was released?

Well, Attorney General Nessel produced the report and she said it was for historical purposes.

Exactly what you said, Chris.

It's an account of what took place in the prosecution side of this case.

That is true, but it really is Dana Nessel's account and the prosecutor's account.

So this would be akin to if we looked at the historical record of a legal proceeding or a case.

It's relatively one-sided, and then it explains from the prosecutor's perspective and their view how we viewed this and the decisions we made and what the outcome was.

Why would she have done that at the time?

What was your take on this report that was released?

Well, attorney general Nessel produced the report and she said it was for historical purposes.

Exactly what you said, Chris, it's an account of what took place in the prosecution side of this case.

That is true, but it really is Dana Nessel's account and the prosecutor's account.

So this would be akin to if we looked at the historical record of a legal proceeding or a case.

It's relatively one-sided, and then it explains from the prosecutor's perspective and their view how we viewed this and the decisions we made and what the outcome was.

It doesn't include a lot of the defense's arguments and the positions they put forth and how they ultimately prevailed in this case.

Why would she have done that at the time?

But does merely hearing the president's opinion compromise the prosecution or does the real question involve what the attorney general does with that opinion?

Yeah, it's, it's not improper for a prosecutor to listen to people.

What's improper is for a prosecutor to do things that are not allowed by the rules of ethics.

For example, you can only bring a criminal charge if it's based on a probable cause and you have to follow the law and not one individual.

So as long as the prosecutor does that, it's not a problem to have interaction between the white house and the president.

I mean, let's think about the context about, as I was saying, Before, earlier in American history, when John F. Kennedy was the president, who was his attorney general? It was his brother, Robert Kennedy, his own brother.

And not only that, he wasn't only his brother as the attorney general.

How can a public distinguish a legitimate prosecution from a politically motivated one?

Blanche says he would take President Trump's views into consideration in some prosecution decisions, but does merely hearing the president's opinion compromise the prosecution, or does the real question involve what the attorney general does with that opinion?

Yeah, it's not improper for a prosecutor to listen to people.

What's improper is for a prosecutor to do things that are not allowed by the rules of ethics.

For example, you can only bring a criminal charge if it's based on probable cause and you have to follow the law and not one individual.

So as long as the prosecutor does that, it's not a problem to have interaction between the White House and the president.

I mean, let's think about the context about, as I was saying, Before, earlier in American history, when John F. Kennedy was the president, who was his attorney general? It was his brother, Robert Kennedy, his own brother.

And not only that, he wasn't only his brother as the attorney general.

How can a public distinguish a legitimate prosecution from a politically motivated one?

What's their responsibility now that it didn't go through the normal- ... chain of command.

So that, that is a great question as to what this actually is.

Is it a referral to the Justice Department, or is it a contempt resolution, or is it both? It looks like it's a little bit both.

The contempt, you, you're correct, that would have to go in front of the full Senate, and it didn't.

But then they just sent it over to the Justice Department.

So the Justice Department, they sent it to the US attorney in the District of Columbia.

Uh, the US attorney can look at it or not.

How does that jive with what the Supreme Court's decision on this matter was?

Does that leave him with a legitimate reason to invoke the fifth?

It certainly could, and that came up.

Senator Gary Peters sent a letter to the committee members reiterating his previous comments, which were about why this shouldn't be done and why this shouldn't be sent out for contempt.

And one of the issues is whether or not there's a federal prosecution, there are state attorney generals who have, in fact, 17 of them have sent a letter saying, we intend to investigate Dr. Fauci.

So they're already on the record saying that we want to look into prosecuting Dr. Fauci for federal crimes.

And if you invoke the Fifth Amendment, that could protect you from that.

But if that's not covered, then yes, you could be exposed to state prosecution by an attorney general or perhaps by a county prosecutor.

How does that jive with what the Supreme Court's decision on this matter was?

And now the questions, Matthew, are, okay, well, is he protected and should he have to answer those questions, or does the Fifth Amendment still play into factor here?

Those are all great questions.

So let's kind of start with the context about what the Fifth Amendment actually is.

It says that no person shall be compelled basically to be a witness against themselves, and it's in the context of a criminal case.

So here it's congressional testimony.

It's not a criminal proceeding, but it could result in that.

So the Supreme Court took this up years ago, and they looked at is it possible for you to actually plead the Fifth in front of Congress? And this was way back in the days of the House Un-American Committee where people were asked questions about their affiliations with the Communist Party.

Did it strike you? Do you look at these cases as an attorney, as a steward of the law, or do you look at it as somebody like me who goes, well, that's fascinating that you wouldn't answer some of these questions?

And now the questions, Matthew, are, okay, well, is he protected and should he have to answer those questions or does the Fifth Amendment still play into factor here?

Those are all great questions.

So let's kind of start with the context about what the Fifth Amendment actually is.

It says that no person shall be compelled basically to be a witness against themselves, and it's in the context of a criminal case.

So here it's congressional testimony.

It's not a criminal proceeding, but it could result in that.

So the Supreme Court took this up years ago, and they looked at is it possible for you to actually plead the Fifth in front of Congress today? And this was way back in the days of the House Un-American Committee where people were asked questions about their affiliations with the Communist Party.

Did it strike you? Do you look at these cases as an attorney, as a steward of the law, or do you look at it as somebody like me who goes, well, that's fascinating that you wouldn't answer some of these questions?

What's broken about real estate data today?

Well, I'd say the first problem is a disparate systems problem.

You have a lot of different databases, pieces of software.

You have people holding on to information.

Some some things are still in paper form.

Everything's scattered about.

That's an issue.

What has to happen operationally before an asset can be tokenized responsibly? A lot,

And how often would this, can we look back at history and say something like this has happened?

Good morning, Chris.

You're right.

It is a long shot, but it is possible.

So there is a process for this, for getting a rehearing.

Before the U S Supreme court, there is a Supreme court rule on this rule 44.

And it says that if you want one of these re hearings, you've got to file it within a certain amount of time.

What would President Trump's legal team have to show to convince the Supreme Court that it should take the extraordinary step of rehearing this case?

And how often would this, can we look back in history and say something like this has happened?

Good morning, Chris.

You're right.

It is a long shot, but it is possible.

So there is a process for this, for getting a rehearing.

Before the U S Supreme court, there is a Supreme court rule on this rule 44.

And it says that if you want one of these re hearings, you've got to file it within a certain amount of time.

What limits does the Constitution place on a president that's, you know, trying to reinterpret constitutional rights through an executive order?

Like, what does it mean to verify? And when documentation is coming in for you to assess, how do you create a baseline? Like, how do you think about that?

Yeah, absolutely.

First, I'd like to begin by saying that Matthew Schneider and Nord Building are verifying your documents.

We give you the tools to do that.

And that actually puts you in a better situation because your stakeholders are credentialed.

They're trusted.

You could be working with Cushman or a law firm or whoever it might be.

What inspired you to start building? You know, how do you see the team growing maybe in two, three years from now? Like what's true? What are you building?

How significant is that distinction?

It's pretty significant, and there was a lot of dispute among the justices about it.

It was quite a bitter opinion.

What's important to note here is really what the case is not about.

It's not about absentee voting in general.

It's not about using the mail to mail in ballots or even about early voting or counting the votes after Election Day, it's extremely narrow.

The issue is whether counting ballots that are postmarked or mailed by Election Day, but then they're not received until five days later violates federal law.

How does that play into the decision here?

How significant is that distinction?

It's pretty significant, and there was a lot of dispute among the justices about it.

It was, uh, quite a bitter opinion.

What's important to note here is really what the case is not about.

It's not about absentee voting in general.

It's not about using the mail to mail in ballots, or even about early voting or, or counting the votes after Election Day.

It's extremely narrow.

H- h- how does, how does that play into the, the, the, the decision here?

You know, for health care providers, Matthew, who operate legitimately, what kind of compliance measures should they have in place to avoid becoming, you know, entangled in these questionable arrangements?

It's a great question because most health care providers operate appropriately.

I mean, that's really a big point to make here.

There are bad apples that got caught and are being charged, but the grand majority of healthcare providers and doctors and physicians, they're doing the right thing.

Sometimes they have nefarious employees, or sometimes they don't have the proper systems to know whether or not their data is being hacked.

When you have a data hack like that, you also have to report that to the state authorities.

If you have an intrusion in your systems, you've got to report that, for example, to the state attorney general.

And, you know, when you look at the sheer size of this nationwide takedown, Matthew, does it suggest the system is working because investigators caught these schemes, or does it reveal just how vulnerable our health care system remains?

You know, for health care providers, Matthew, who operate legitimately, what kind of compliance measures should they have in place to avoid becoming, you know, entangled in these questionable arrangements?

It's a great question, because most health care providers operate appropriately.

I mean, that's really a big point to make here.

There are bad apples that got caught and are being charged, but the grand majority of healthcare providers and doctors and physicians, they're doing the right thing.

Sometimes they have nefarious employees, or sometimes they don't have the proper systems to know whether or not their data is being hacked.

When you have a data hack like that, you also have to report that to the state authorities.

If you have an intrusion in your systems, you've got to report that, for example, to the state attorney general.

And, you know, when you look at the sheer size of this nationwide takedown, Matthew, does it suggest the system is working because investigators caught these schemes, or does it reveal just how vulnerable our health care system remains?

They even really showed that on the broadcast throughout the game last night.

Yeah.

And I, you know, I think one of Tortorella's biggest strengths generally as a coach, he gets his best players on the ice as much as he can.

And, you know, he's, he's won.

He knows what it takes.

But when you look at any Stanley Cup winner, they have to be able to put four lines on the ice.

They have to be at y- you know how many times you see a Stanley Cup winner, oh, their fourth line came up with the biggest goal of the game, and their, you know, their, your third and four, fourth line are the ones pitching in a lot of nights because your first two are, are jammed up so much because it is so tight out there.

There's not [laughs] a lot of rope left, um, for, for Vegas to, to get some of those guys scoring and putting pucks in the back of the net.