>>> THIS IS "METROFOCUS" WITH RAFAEL PI ROMAN, JACK FORD, AND JENNA FLANAGAN.

"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, JANET PRINDLE SEIDLER, JODY AND JOHN ARNHOLD, CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY, JUDY AND JOSH WESTON, DR. ROBERT C. AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION.

>>> GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."

I'M JENNA FLANAGAN.

24 HOURS AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EXTRAORDINARY SECOND IMPEACHMENT FOR INCITING THE CAPITOL RIOT, THERE ARE STILL SO MANY QUESTIONS LEFT TO BE ANSWERED, SPECIFICALLY WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

HOW WILL THE SENATE HANDLE THE TRIAL OF A PRESIDENT NO LONGER IN OFFICE?

IS WHAT POLITICAL CALCULATIONS CAN BE HAPPENING BEHIND THE SCENES?

WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL EXPOSURE, AND HOW DOES THAT DETERMINE TRUMP'S FUTURE?

THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE PRESSING QUESTIONS WE'LL TRY TO TACKLE WITH OUR TWO GUESTS TONIGHT.

FIRST WE HAVE WNYC'S ANDREA BERNSTEIN.

SHE'S AN AWARD-WINNING JOURNALISM INVESTIGATOR AND AUTHOR OF "AMERICAN OLIGARCH: THE KUSHNERS, THE TRUMP AND THE MARRIAGE OF MONEY AND POWER."

ANDREA, WELCOME TO "METROFOCUS."

>> SO GREAT TO BE HERE, JENNA.

>> JOINING US AGAIN WE HAVE JENNIFER ROGERS.

IN ADDITION TO BEING A FORMAL FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, SHE'S CURRENTLY A LECTURER IN LAW AT COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL.

WELCOME, JENNIFER.

>> THANKS, JENNA.

GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

>> FIRST I JUST WANT TO START WITH GETTING A READ FROM BOTH OF YOU.

SO MANY AMERICANS WATCHED THOSE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS BUT, JENNIFER, I'LL START WITH YOU, WHAT'S YOUR BIG TAKEAWAY?

WHAT STRUCK YOU ABOUT THE WAY THOSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED?

>> IT'S REALLY INTERESTING, JENNA, BECAUSE SOME WAYS IT WAS THE REVERSE OF WHAT WE SAW WITH THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT, WHICH WAS A VERY THOROUGH HEARING IN THE HOUSE WITH WITNESSES AND EXPERTS AND ALL SORTS OF EVIDENCE COMING IN.

AND, OF COURSE, WHEN WE GOT TO THE SENATE TRIAL AROUND THEY PROCEEDED WITHOUT ANY WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE AT ALL.

THIS TIMES IT'S GOING TO BE THE REVERSE.

YESTERDAY WHAT WE SAW WAS A FAIRLY RUSHED SINGLE-COUNT HEARING ON THE IMPEACHMENT BUT ONLY WITH NO WITNESSES, WITH NO EVIDENCE, WITH JUST TWO HOURS WORTH OF SPEECHES AND THEN A VOTE.

SO IT WAS VERY QUICK BECAUSE OF THE TIMING.

THE PRESIDENT, OF COURSE, IS LEAVING OFFICE IN A WEEK.

SO I THINK WE CAN EXPECT WHEN WE GET TO THE SENATE TRIAL TO SEE A MUCH MORE THOROUGH AND LENGTHY PROCESS WHERE THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE AND MORE DELIBERATION THAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR.

>> ANDREA, WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT STUCK OUT TO YOU ABOUT THE WAY THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS WENT?

>> ITYES, A COUPLE OF THINGS STRUCK ME.

ONE IS UNLIKE LAST YEAR WHEN THEY WERE DISCUSSING A TRANSCRIPT OF A PHONE CALL MADE TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, WHICH IS A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE SORT OF PROBABLY HAVE NO CONCEPTION OF, MOST OF THEM IN CONGRESS, THIS WAS A SITUATION IN WHICH ALL OF THEM WERE WITNESSES THEMSELVES.

SO THEY DIDN'T NEED A LOT OF EVIDENCE BECAUSE THEY LIVED THROUGH IT.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THE SORT OF FACTS WERE BUT THIS WAS AN EVENT THAT WAS VERY VIVID FOR ALL OF THE HUNDREDS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO VOTED YESTERDAY.

SO I THINK THAT WAS QUITE STRIKING THAT THEY WERE SORT OF THE INTENDED TARGET OF SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE VIOLATING THE CAPITOL LAST WEEK.

AND THEN ALSO, I DO REALLY THINK IT IS VERY HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT TEN REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR IMPEACHMENT.

ON THE ONE HAND, IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY SMALL NUMBER.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS A SIGNIFICANT BREAK WITH THE PARTY.

I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN GLOBALLY WITH REGIMES THAT HAVE AUTHORITARIAN TENDENCIES IS THEY HAVE THIS VERY TIGHT SET OF PEOPLE WHO KEEP GIVING THE LEADER PERMISSION TO DO THINGS.

ONCE YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE SAYING NO, YOU DO CREATE A SPACE WHERE PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY CAN SAY NO.

AND WE'RE ALREADY SEEING THAT WITH McCONNELL.

McCONNELL IS SAYING I MIGHT VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

AND THAT IS REALLY SOMETHING WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHERE WE WERE JUST A YEAR AGO TODAY.

>> AND, OF COURSE, SPEAKING OF THAT SMALL MINORITY, OR MINORITY IF YOU WILL, ONE PERSON THAT SEEMED TO BE BROUGHT UP MORE WITH REFERENCES TO ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS, OF COURSE, LIZ CHENEY, THE CONGRESSPERSON FROM WYOMING.

AND THAT SEEMED TO BE SO UNIQUE BUT AT THE SAME TIME SHE DIDN'T MAKE A SPEECH, SHE SIMPLY RELEASED A STATEMENT THAT DEMOCRATS KEPT READING OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

SO, JENNIFER, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, DOES THAT ALSO SHOW A CRACK WITHIN THE STRONGHOLD OR THE GRIP THAT THE PRESIDENT SEEMED TO HAVE ON THE GOP?

>> WELL, THERE'S NO QUESTION AS ANDREA SAID THERE NOW ARE TWO SIDES IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WHERE BEFORE THERE WAS ONLY ONE.

IT WAS ALL ABOUT TRUMP AND SUPPORTING HIM.

SO NOW THERE ARE THESE TWO DIVISIONS AND WE DON'T KNOW YET WHICH ONE OF THOSE DIVISIONS WILL EMERGE VICTORIOUS IN THE POST-TRUMP ERA BUT THERE IS NOW SPACE FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BREAK WITH TRUMP TO DO SO.

AND LIZ CHENEY IS LEADING THAT CHARGE.

McCONNELL IS AT LEAST BEHIND THE SCENES SEEMING TO SUPPORT THAT SIDE OF THINGS.

McCARTHY'S STILL SORT OF ON THE FENCE ALTHOUGH POSSIBLY LEANING THAT DIRECTION.

I DO THINK WE WILL SEE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE COMING OUT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

OF COURSE, YOU COULD SAY IT'S NOT NECESSARILY PROFILE IN COURAGE AS HIS TERM IS ENDING IN DAYS NOW BUT AT LEAST WE ARE SEEING FOR THE POST-TRUMP ERA SOME MOVEMENT AWAY FROM HIM AND TOWARDS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP FOR THAT PARTY.

>> BEFORE WE GET TOO DEEP INTO THE IMPACT THIS MIGHT BE HAVING ON THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, JENNIFER, I DO WANT TO ASK ONE OF THE THINGS WE SAW SEVERAL DEMOCRATS SAY ON THE HOUSE FLOOR WAS THAT IF WE DON'T IMPEACH FOR THIS, THEN WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT PERIOD?

I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, IS THIS -- IT SEEMS TO A LOT OF PEOPLE THIS IS A VERY OBVIOUS THING TO DO.

DO DEMOCRATS HAVE A SOLID POINT WITH THAT?

SECONDLY, DOES THAT GIVE US ANY INSIGHT INTO WHAT KIND OF A SENATE TRIAL WE WITH MIGHT BE SEEING?

>> IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE SUBSTANTIVELY I THINK THEY'RE RIGHT, THIS CONDUCT ESSENTIALLY WHIPPING UP A VIOLENT MOB TO STOP A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS UNDERTAKING FROM PROCEEDING IS ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS.

MAYBE YOU CAN SAY TRUE TREASON, ACTUALLY BANDING TOGETHER WITH A FOREIGN POWER TO OVERTHROW A GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE WORSE, BUT THEY'RE ABOUT ON PAR.

SUBSTANTIVELY, I THINK THEY'RE RIGHT.

WHERE SOME REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO MAKE A POINT IS PROCEDURALLY IT'S NOT THE WAY TO GO BECAUSE HIS TERM IS ENDING.

SO IMPEACHMENT USUALLY IS FOR REMOVING THAT PERSON FOR OFFICE SO THEY CAN NO LONGER CONTINUE TO DAMAGE THE COUNTRY.

HE'S LEAVING IN SIX DAYS, AND HE WILL NOT BE REMOVED BEFORE THAT TIME.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING IS EVEN IF THE CONDUCT IS BAD, THIS ISN'T THE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.

LET'S JUST LET HIS TERM END.

THERE'S NO POINT IN ALL OF THIS.

SO IT KIND OF GOES BOTH WAYS WHETHER YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ACTION OR THE PROCESS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> NOW, ANDREA, THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHY I WAS REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SPEAKING WITH YOU, AND THAT IS, OF COURSE, THE ISSUE OF CONSEQUENCES.

WE ALSO HEARD A LOT OF DEMOCRATS REALLY STRESS THAT WE CAN'T BEGIN TO MOVE FORWARD AS A COUNTRY WITHOUT PEOPLE BEING HELD TO ACCOUNT AND PERHAPS NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES BEING ENFORCED.

YOU BEING SUCH A STUDENT OF, I GUESS, ALL THINGS TRUMP FOR A WHILE NOW, I'M WONDERING WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS THE PRESIDENT'S EXPERIENCE WITH THE IDEA OR THE NOTION OF EVER PAYING CONSEQUENCES?

>> YEAH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT GOES WAY BACK IN THE TRUMP FAMILY TO DONALD TRUMP'S FATHER FRED TRUMP.

FRED TRUMP AT ONE POINT WAS CALLED BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE TO EXPLAIN WHY HE USED CERTAIN FEDERAL HOUSING MONEY IN THE WAY HE HAD.

THE SENATORS WERE VERY DISPLEASED WITH THE WAY FRED TRUMP AND HIS FAMILY USED THESE BENEFITS, BUT THEY SAID IT WAS BAD, AND FRED TRUMP WENT ON TO DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

AND THAT WAS THE SORT OF HISTORY OF THE TRUMP FAMILY.

DONALD TRUMP IN HIS FIRST MAJOR MANHATTAN PROJECT, THE THING THAT MADE HIM A MANHATTAN MEDIA MOGUL, LIED TO THE BANK, LIED TO THE STATE AND THEN BRAGGED ABOUT THE WHOLE THING IN HIS BOOK "THE ART OF THE DEAL."

THE SENSE WAS WITH TRUMP, YOU COULD ALWAYS GET AWAY WITH IT.

YOU COULD ALWAYS FIND AWAY TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.

WHETHER IT WAS CAJOLING, AS HE ONCE DID WHEN AN FBI AGENT CAME TO INTERVIEW HIM AND HE DID IT IN HIS FATHER'S OFFICE IN BROOKLYN WITH HIS THEN WIFE AND HIS TODDLER SON DON JR.

IN ATTENDANCE DURING AN INTERVIEW, WHETHER IT WAS THROUGH INTIMIDATION, WHETHER IT WAS THROUGH DONATING TO LOCAL PROSECUTORS, TAKING THEM FOR LUNCH, FOR HELICOPTER RIDES, THERE WAS ALWAYS A SENSE THAT YOU COULD GET LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GO EASY ON YOU.

AND THAT WAS DONALD TRUMP'S HISTORY AS A BUSINESSMAN.

HE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN THOUSANDS OF LAWSUITS, BUT NEVER BEEN CRIMINALLY CHARGED.

NEVER BEEN SERIOUSLY TOLD WHAT YOU HAVE DONE CROSSES A LINE THAT SHOULD NOT BE CROSSED.

AND LAST YEAR WHEN HE WAS ACQUITTED BY THE SENATE, THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT SAID WELL, NOW, WHAT'S THE CHECK ON HIM?

THE ONLY CHECK IS THE ELECTION, AND THE ELECTION, THE VOTERS CHOSE NOT TO RE-ELECT DONALD TRUMP.

SO THE VOTERS WERE A CHECK BUT THEN DONALD TRUMP REJECTED THAT AND WHAT WE SAW, THE CULMINATION OF THAT, IS WHAT WE SAW LAST WEEK WAS THE INTERACTION AT THE CAPITOL.

SO WHEN DEMOCRATS SAY IF THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES FOR TRUMP, IF HE DOESN'T GET TOLD HE CANNOT DO SOMETHING, HE WILL DO SOMETHING EVEN BIGGER AND MORE OUTRAGEOUS THE NEXT TIME, THERE IS HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR THEM TO BELIEVE THAT.

>> JENNIFER, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU THINK CAN BE BROUGHT INTO A SENATE TRIAL?

AGAIN, I ASK, IS THIS GOING TO BE SOMETHING WHERE THEY FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR SINCE THE ELECTION, OR IS THERE POSSIBLY A CHANCE TO MAKE A CASE THAT THIS IS AN ONGOING PATTERN THAT, AS ANDREW POINTED OUT, HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS?

>> I DO THINK THEY WILL TRY TO MAKE A POINT OF HIS LACK OF ACCEPTING CONSEQUENCES AND REPEATED PATTERNS OF OF BEING EMBOLDENED BY WHAT'S HAPPENING AND CONTINUING TO PROCEED.

SO IT WON'T NECESSARILY BE PART OF THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF PER SE BUT AS PART OF THEIR ARGUMENT, CERTAINLY, I THINK THEY WILL BRING UP THE FACT HE HAS THIS PATTERN BREAKING NORMS, GOING AGAINST TRADITIONS AND BREAKING THE LAW IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITHOUT HAVING TO BE HELD IN CONSEQUENCES, WE SEE THAT AGAIN AND AGAIN.

BUT MOST OF THE EVIDENCE I DO THINK WILL BE FOCUSED ON HIS PATTERN OF DENYING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ELECTION, PREPPING AND GROOMING HIS SUPPORTERS TO FIGHT THE ELECTION RESULTS AND OVERTURN THE ELECTION RESULTS, WHICH CULMINATED IN LAST WEEK'S EVENTS.

>> JENNA, IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN -- >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> I THINK WE SAW WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS JOINED A LAWSUIT THAT WENT TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN WHICH THE STATE OF TEXAS IS SAYING WE SHOULD OVERTURN THE RESULTS IN ALL OF THESE OTHER STATES.

A MAJORITY OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

SO WHEN TRUMP GOES OUT IN FRONT OF WHAT IS ABOUT TO BECOME AN ANGRY MOB AND SAYS THE ELECTION SHOULD BE OVERTURNED, WELL, HE JUST HAD HUNDREDS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SAY THAT WAS OKAY.

SO WE SEE RIGHT THERE THE PERMISSION STRUCTURE THAT WAS CREATED FOR TRUMP TO DO WHAT HE DID, AND LED HIM TO BELIEVE THAT HIS ACTIONS THAT DAY WERE FINE.

>> OF COURSE, NOTHING HAPPENS IN A VACUUM, AND I THINK SOMETHING ANDREA JUST SAID,I JENNIFER SAI TO YOU, ANDREA, AND THAT WAS JUST TELLING IN THE WAY THE PRESIDENT PREPS AND GROOMS PEOPLE TO DO THINGS.

I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN JUST TOUCH ON THAT, HOW THIS FITS INTO A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, HOW HE'S ABLE TO GET PEOPLE TO BEND HIS WILL.

>> YEAH, I HAVE TALKED TO SCORES OF PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS, HIGH-LEVEL EXECUTIVES IN THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, BUSINESS PARTNERS, LENDERS, ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO BASICALLY SAID, AGAINST MY BETTER JUDGMENT, I WENT WITH TRUMP.

I GOT UP THERE TO THE 26th FLOOR OF TRUMP TOWER AND I SAW THE BEAUTIFUL VIEW, AND I THOUGHT THIS IS GOING TO BE INCREDIBLY EXCITING.

AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING TRUMP HAS MANAGED TO OFFER PEOPLE, YOU'RE GOING TO GO ON AN EXCITING RIDE IF YOU GO WITH HIM.

PEOPLE FEEL LIKE OKAY, MIGHT AS WELL TRY IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

WHAT CAN GO WRONG?

MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY TALKED ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT COULD GO WRONG, WHICH IS TRUMP ASKS YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT CROSSES A LINE, AND YOU DO IT.

AND THEN YOU DO SOMETHING ELSE, AND THEN YOU DO ANOTHER THING AND SUDDENLY YOU'RE AT A POINT WHERE YOU CANNOT GO BACK BECAUSE YOU'RE ENTIRELY COMPLICIT WITH HIM.

HE'S DONE THIS OVER AND OVER WITH PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR HIM, WITH OTHER POLITICAL LEADERS, WITH HIS WIVES, WHERE HE CREATES A CONDITION WHERE THEY FEEL THEY CAN'T SAY NO UNTIL HE HAS NO USE FOR THEM ANYMORE.

WE'RE NOW SEEING REPORTS HE HAS NO USE FOR RUDY GIULIANI.

HE IS DENYING THAT BUT THIS IS HIS BEST LEGAL FRIEND, HIS MOST STAUNCH ALLY WHO HE'S NOW TURNING AGAINST.

HE EVEN TURNED AGAINST ROY COHN, HIS ORIGINAL LAWYER.

SO THERE'S A SENSE WITH TRUMP THAT HE'S ALWAYS MANAGED TO GET SOMEBODY ELSE.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE SEE HIM FACING NOW IS A SITUATION WHERE SO MANY PEOPLE KNOW WHAT HE HAS DONE THAT IT IS VERY, VERY HARD FOR HIM TO FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO SAY, OH, YEAH, I'LL DO THAT.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

>> JENNIFER, THAT DOES BRING UP A VERY IMPORTANT POINT, AND THAT IS WHO IS GOING TO BE HIS DEFENSE TEAM?

WE HEARD SOME RUMORS, AS ANDREA MENTIONED, RUDY GIULIANI.

MAYBE THEY'RE ON THE OUTS, MAYBE THEY'RE NOT.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THESTHE PRESIDE LEGAL EXPOSURE GOING INTO THIS?

HOW MUCH DOES HE STAND TO LOSE?

>> IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN SUGGESTIONS HE WON'T REALLY HAVE A DEFENSE AT ALL THIS TIME AROUND.

WE'LL HAVE TO SEE WHAT HE DOES.

HE CERTAINLY FACES EXPOSURE OUTSIDE OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

WE KNOW HE FACES A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

WE KNOW HE FACES CIVIL LAWSUITS.

SO HE'S GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF LEGAL TROUBLES GOING FORWARD.

IN TERMS OF IMPEACHMENT, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO SHOW UP TO DEFEND HIM THIS TIME AROUND.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ APPARENTLY HAS REPORTED HE'S ON BOARD.

AND I'M SURE HE WILL BE ABLE TO -- TO SCROUNGE UP A COUPLE OF PEOPLE TO DO IT.

THE PROBLEM IS, HE HASN'T HAD THE BEST OF THE BEST IN A LONG TIME.

SO HE'S GOING TO HAVE TROUBLE ATTRACTING TRUE LEGAL TALENT HERE.

BUT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE UNCLEAR.

HE ALREADY WILL BE GONE SO HE CAN'T TECHNICALLY BE REMOVED.

REALLY THE ONLY PENALTY IS IF HE'S CONVICTED OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS THEY CAN VOTE BY MAJORITY VOTE AFTER CONVICTING HIM BY TWO-THIRDS TO BAR HIM FROM EVER HOLDING FEDERAL OFFICE AGAIN.

OF COURSE, WE KNOW HE'S FLOATED THE IDEA OF RUNNING IN 2024.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONE PENALTY THAT COULD COME OUT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH I WOULD SUGGEST KNOWING TRUMP AS WE DO THAT HE MAY EVEN TRY TO FIGHT THAT IN LITIGATION IF HE DECIDES TO DO SO AFTER THE FACT.

>> AND I DO WANT TO COME BACK TO THAT POINT, BUT, ANDREA, I WANTED TO ASK YOU, SO JENNIFER DID MENTION THAT THERE ARE OTHER LEGAL EXPOSURES THAT THE PRESIDENT IS MOST LIKELY GOING TO FACE, AND WHAT ARE THEY JUST SO THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND?

WE KNOW HE HAS DEALINGS WITH DEUTSCHE BANK, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY OWED.

THOSE PAYMENTS ARE GOING TO START COMING UP SOON.

AND THERE'S OTHER LEGAL EXPOSURE THAT HE HAS AND HE DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE INCOME STREAM HE HAD BEFORE AND SO MANY BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN CUTTING TIES.

>> YEAH, I MEAN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS WHICH ARE PRETTY FAR ADVANCED.

THERE IS ONE BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ATTORNEY GENERAL TONIGHT INAUGURAL COMMITTEE THE LAST TIME AROUND.

THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL IS LOOKING INTO WHETHER THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION VIOLATED CIVIL TAX LAWS.

BUT THE MOST SERIOUS IS THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS ENGAGED IN A FAIRLY ADVANCED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, WHICH WE ONLY KNOW ABOUT BECAUSE TRUMP SUED TO PREVENT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FROM GETTING HIS TAX RETURNS.

BUT BECAUSE OF THAT SUIT, THERE HAVE BEEN ALL OF THESE LEGAL PAPERS FILED.

SO WE KNOW THAT AMONGST THE CHARGES THAT THE D.A.

IS LOOKING AT IS VARIOUS FRAUD STATUTES, WHICH COULD BE FOUNDED.

IT'S A VERY SERIOUS FELONY IN NEW YORK.

ONCE TRUMP IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT ON JANUARY 20th, THERE'S AN EXPECTATION THE SUPREME COURT WILL BASICALLY ALLOW THE D.A.

TO GET THOSE TAX RETURNS.

AND HE WILL PROCEED WITH HIS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION QUITE QUICKLY.

AND IT LOOKS TO BE A VERY SERIOUS, VERY THOROUGH INVESTIGATION FROM WHAT WE CAN TELL FROM THE COURT FILINGS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC.

SO THAT IS A SERIOUS MATTER AND THE D.A.

HAS ALREADY SAID HE'S LOOKING AT TRUMP, HIS ASSOCIATES AND HIS BUSINESS.

SO TRUMP MAY BE FACING THAT INVESTIGATION.

THERE IS ALSO TALK THAT THE FULTON COUNTY MAY BE LOOKING INTO WHETHER TRUMP VIOLATED CIVIL STATUTES IN GEORGIA WHEN HE CALLED ELECTION OFFICIALS THERE TO TRY TO HAVE THE RESULTS OVERTURNED.

AND THEN THERE ARE SO MANY CIVIL SUITS.

THERE IS HIS NIECE, MARY TRUMP, WHO SUED HIM FOR FRAUD.

THERE'S E. JEAN CARROLL, THE FORMER ADVICE COLUMNIST, WHO SUED HIM FOR DEFAMATION.

THERE'S A FORMER CONTESTANT.

AND JENNIFER, MAYBE YOU HAVE SOME IDEAS, WHO WILL REPRESENT HIM?

WE SEE WHOLESALE BUSINESSES RUNNING AWAY FROM TRUMP FLEEING AND A LOT OF LAW FIRMS, I WOULD IMAGINE, WOULD BE FEELING A LOT OF PRESSURE IF THEY GO AHEAD AND REPRESENT DONALD TRUMP.

SO I THINK HE'S IN A BIT OF A SQUEEZE THERE.

>> JENNIFER, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU, THAT HE MIGHT REALLY HAVE TROUBLE FINDING LEGAL REPRESENTATION?

>> I THINK SO.

THERE'S NO SHORTAGE OF LAWYERS WILLING TO TAKE A HIGH-PROFILE MATTER BUT THE PROBLEM WITH DONALD TRUMP IS NOT JUST HE TAKES POSITIONS THAT HAVE NO MERIT AND HE'S ABUSIVE TO THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR HIM AND HE DOESN'T LISTEN TO HIS LAWYERS, BUT HE DOESN'T PAY HIS BILLS.

THE ONE THING THAT LAWYERS WANT IS TO BE PAID.

SO I DO THINK THAT HE IS GOING TO HAVE TROUBLE FINDING GOOD COUNSEL FOR THESE SUITS.

SOME OF SUITS, OBVIOUSLY, ALREADY HAVE COUNSEL.

THAT SAID, THERE ARE A LOT OF LAWYERS IN THE WORLD.

SO UNQUESTIONABLY HE WILL BE ABLE TO FIND SOMEONE.

WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SEE WHETHER THESE PEOPLE ARE MAGICALLY ABLE TO PUT UP A GREAT DEFENSE.

>> ANDREA, SO MUCH OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS VERY SPECIFICALLY DONALD TRUMP.

HOWEVER, TRUMP, INC., IS HIS WHOLE FAMILY.

FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, THEY DEFINITELY SEE THEMSELVES AS A DYNASTY AND NOW REAND BBRANDING HOPEFULLY A POLITICAL DYNASTY.

WHICH TRUMP DO YOU EXPECT TO TAKE UP THE BANNER AND GO FORWARD WITH THE TRUMP BRAND?

>> I THINK THE QUESTION IS DOING WHAT?

IVANKA TRUMP AS WHITE HOUSE ADVISER WAS THE PERSON WHO WAS ACTING THE MOST AS IF SHE HAD A POLITICAL FUTURE.

BY THAT I MEAN SHE WAS VERY DISCIPLINED IN HER MESSAGING FOR THE MOST PART, UNLIKE DON JR. AND EVEN ERIC, SHE WASN'T INVOLVE ED REALLY, FOR THE MOST PART, BETWEEN TWEETING CONSPIRA THEORIES, BEING OPPOSITIONAL, FUJLEISTIC, SHE OFTEN HAD PICTURES OF HERSELF IN AFRICA WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN, FOR EXAMPLE, OR THE MILITARY.

THE KINDS OF IMAGES PEOPLE WHO WANT A FUTURE IN POLITICS PROJECT.

I DO THINK THE LAST WEEK REALLY COMPLICATES THAT FOR IVANKA TRUMP.

THERE IS NO INDICATION SHE WANTS TO GO BACK SELLING HANDBAGS AND SHOES, THAT SHE LEFT THAT BUSINESS BEHIND.

NOR IS THERE AN INDICATION SHE PARTICULARLY WANTS TO GO BACK TO THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS.

SO I THINK IT IS A REAL QUESTION MARK WHAT SHE DOES NEXT.

AND ERIC TRUMP, I IMAGINE, WILL SORT OF CONTINUE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF ROLE IN THE FAMILY COMPANY, WHICH IS IN DEEP, DEEP TROUBLE.

ITS BANKERS ARE FLEEING.

ITS BROKERS ARE FLEEING.

ITS CUSTOMER BASE IS FLEEING BECAUSE IF YOU'RE A PRIVATE GOLFER AND A MEMBER OF A PRIVATE CLUB, THE LAST THING YOU WANT IS TO SEE YOUR PICTURE ASSOCIATED WITH TRUMP CONTROVERSY.

SO DONALD TRUMP'S CUSTOMERS ARE NOT HIS POLITICAL BASE AND THERE'S ABOUT TO BE, I BELIEVE, A RECKONING IN THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION ABOUT HOW TO STRADDLE THAT DIFFERENCE.

>> WELL, ONE THING PEOPLE OFTEN SAY ABOUT DONALD TRUMP IS TO NEVER COUNT HIM OUT.

SO, JENNIFER, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A LEGAL THEORY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT THAT MIGHT BRING HIM BACK TO POLITICAL LIFE.

>> WELL, LEGAL SCHOLARS DIFFER ABOUT WHETHER A FORMER OFFICIAL CAN BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED.

WE KNOW THAT BY THE TIME THE SENATE HEARS THE TRIAL AND VOTES, HE WILL BE GONE.

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, IS IT LEGITIMATE TO CONVICT DONALD TRUMP AFTER HIS TERM ENDS?

IS IT LEGITIMATE TO VOTE TO BAR HIM FROM FURTHER FEDERAL SERVICE AFTER HIS TERM ENDS?

A DISTINGUISHED FORMER APPELLATE JUDGE, MICHAEL LUD IG, WROTE AN OP-ED SAYING HE THOUGHT THE ANSWER WAS NO.

ANOTHER LEGAL SCHOLAR SAID YES.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE IT'S NEVER BEEN LITIGATED.

BUT SENATE COULD CONVICT, VOTE TO BAR HIM FROM FURTHER FEDERAL OFFICE AND THEN THE PRESIDENT CAN FILE PAPERS TO BE ON THE BALLOT SOMEWHERE, PRESUMABLY HE WOULD BE BANNED FROM THAT AND FILE A LAWSUIT SAYING THIS WHOLE THING WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE AND I DEMAND TO BE ON THE BALLOT.

SO AS LITIGIOUS AS HE IS, I WOULD NOT BE THAT SHOCKED TO SEE HIM CHALLENGE THIS IN COURT.

HE COULD EVEN FRANKLY CHALLENGE THE FACT HIS PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY POST PRESIDENCY WITH THE CONVICTION.

SO HE MAY GO TO COURT TO TRY TO STOP THIS.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE WILL, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING TO KEEP AN EYE ON GIVEN HIS PAST HISTORY.

>> ANDREA, DOES THAT TRACK WITH THE MAN YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING FOR ALL OF THESE YEARS?

>> YES.

HE'S NOT SOMEONE WHO SLINKS SILENTLY INTO THE WIND OR TO TRUMP BEDMINSTER PLAY A FEW ROUNDS OF GOLF NEVER TO BE HEARD OF AGAIN.

HIS INSTINCT IS TO SUE AND HIS INSTINCT IS TO LITIGATE AND HIS INSTINCT, AS WE SAW LAST WEEK, IS TO FIGHT AND I ASSUME HE WILL TRY TO DO SO.

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL GO ALONG WITH THAT KNOWING WHAT WE NOW KNOW ABOUT THE POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF THOSE TENDENCIES?

>> WELL, THEN, KEEPING THAT VERY IMPORTANT POSSIBILITY OF LEGAL LITIGATION IN MIND, MY FINAL QUESTION TO BOTH OF YOU IS GOING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY ONCE THE SENATE TRIAL GYPS, IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU WOULD BE KEEPING AN EYE OUT FOR?

IS IT A TYPE OF DEFENSE THAT GETS MOUNTED, PERHAPS EVEN WHO SHOWS UP AS HIS LAWYER?

WHAT IS IT YOU WOULD BE LOOKING FOR GOING FORWARD?

JENNIFER, I'LL START WITH YOU.

>> I'M REALLY LOOKING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE STORY TO EMERGE FROM THE TRIAL, WHICH IS IT HAS TO START LONG BEFORE JANUARY 6th.

THEY REALLY HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS WHOLE, BIG LIE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TELLING AND HE SET UP FOR EVEN BEFORE THE ELECTION, THAT HE REALLY WON THE ELECTION AND PEOPLE NEED TO FIGHT FOR HIM TO OVERTURN IT, IS SOMETHING THAT WAS PLANNED, IT WAS DELIBERATE, IT WAS METHODICAL, AND THAT'S WHAT LED US KIND OF BUILDING BLOCK BY BUILDING BLOCK TO GET TO WHERE WE WERE.

HE USED PERFECTLY LEGAL MEANS, FILING MORE THAN 60 LAWSUITS, AND ARGUABLY ILLEGAL MEANS TO FORCE THE GEORGIA OFFICIALS TO "FIND VOTES."

SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PIECES OF EVIDENCE THERE, INCLUDING A LOT OF EVIDENCE WE HAVE NOT SEEP.

THERE'S EVIDENCE COMING OUT NOW HOW DIFFERENT GROUPS PLANNED IN ADVANCE TO GO WITH VIOLENT INTENTIONS AND WEAPONS AND SO ON.

THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION TO COME OUT.

I'M LOOKING FOR THEM TO PUT TOGETHER A STORY OF ALL OF THOSE EVENTS, NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE LEAD UP TO THE JANUARY 6th.

AND IT'S INTERESTING WHAT DEFENSE THERE WILL BE.

I WONDER IF THE PRESIDENT OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES WILL CHANGE COURSE AND ULTIMATELY ADMIT THIS WAS A BIG LIE, THAT HE DIDN'T WIN, THAT HE LOST.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BUT THAT REALLY WOULD BE THE ONE THING THAT HE COULD DO THAT COULD BRING THE COUNTRY BACK TOGETHER IS ADMIT THAT BIG LIE, AND ONLY THEN, I THINK, CAN WE MOVE FORWARD.

>> ANDREA, WE HAVE A FEW MOMENTS LEFT, I'M SORRY, BUT WHAT WOULD YOU BE LOOKING FORWARD TO?

>> I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THE LEGAL RECKONING.

I DO THINK WE NEED TO TELL THIS WHOLE STORY IN THE FULLNESS THAT IT NEEDS, THAT IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO THE HEALING OF THIS COUNTRY, AND WE REALLY CAN'T MOVE ON AND BECOME A MORE UNIFIED DEMOCRACY UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WENT SO BADLY WRONG.

>> LADIES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME.

WNYC'S ANDREA BERNSTEIN AND LECTURER-IN-LAW AT COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL, JENNIFER ROGERS, THANK YOU BOTH FOR JOINING ME.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> "METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, JANET PRINDLE SEIDLER, JODY AND JOHN ARNHOLD, CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY, JUDY AND JOSH WESTON, DR. ROBERT C. AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION.