Andrew Weissmann

Sure.

Well, Donald Trump himself had said that isn't this odd because I'm suing myself.

And that actually got it right.

And under the law, in order for there to be a legal case, there has to be what's called a case or controversy, meaning that the plaintiff and defendants want different things.

And here it was entirely collusive.

And that's why when people are referring to this as a, quote,

settlement, unquote.

It really isn't.

This is just one party making an agreement with the same party.

They could obviously write whatever they wanted.

And here they wrote that they would get $1.776 billion for a claim that seems, let's just say, highly, highly dubious and is fought by the IRS in all sorts of cases other than ones that involve Donald Trump.

He's a Trump appointee and he was his defense lawyer and something that people don't realize.

yes and one thing having i'm a lawyer i've been a defense lawyer one of the things that when you represent somebody even when that representation is over you have a continuing duty of loyalty so now you have somebody with a continuing duty of loyalty who is entering into an agreement that it is extremely hard to see the public interest here in other words where the public is being represented

And that actually is what the federal judge who had the tax case said when she was very concerned about this.

She said, who is actually representing the public fisc here?

And my view of this is what separates what is now in black and white from just theft, where somebody is just taking almost $1.8 billion for their own personal use.

Absolutely.

So one of the things, Terry, I am keeping my eye out for is—and I've talked to various tax consultants and sort of their assessment is—

This normally would be a $1.8 billion recording of income to Donald Trump and his children because they're the ones who are getting this benefit.

That they choose to use it for a so-called slush fund is sort of irrelevant under the tax laws as I understand them.