PBD Podcast Episode 240. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Tina Glandian.
0:00 - Start
2:57 - Did Andrew Tate’s 2 Female Associates Snitch & Make A Deal With the Romanian Government
7:48 - Andrew Tate's Lawyer Reveals The UNTOLD Truth About Arrest
27:23 - Tate's Lawyer REVEALS How They Have Handled 60 Days Behind Bars
41:28 - Andrew Tate's Lawyer On The Web Cam Business
44:42 - Andrew Tate's Lawyer To The Tate Haters
FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/
Want to get clear on your next 5 business moves? https://valuetainment.com/academy/
Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Why would you bet on Goliath when we got bet taved?
Value tame and giving values contagious.
This world of entrepreneurs, we get no value to hate it.
I'm the one.
Okay, our guest today, Tina Glandian from, she's a partner at law firm Garrigus and Garagus.
I have to think about asparagus, Garrigus and Garagus.
And she's been a former lawyer to celebrities such as Mike Tyson, Chris Brown, Michael Jackson, Keisha, as well as Jesse Smollett.
And now Andrew Tate.
Tina, thank you so much for making the time.
Hi, Patrick.
Thanks for having me.
Yeah.
So, you know, we've been following the story very closely.
Some of the audience that's here, let's assume they don't know and they haven't seen the other interviews you've done with other folks.
We have followed it closely.
But just to start off with an open-ended question, how are they doing right now?
How are Andrew and Tristan doing right now?
So I spoke to Andrew yesterday and, you know, they're obviously beyond frustrated at the situation.
However, one of the things that I think wasn't as widely covered as the fact that their detention was ordered continued for another 30 days is the fact that the two women that they were detained with and who've been in custody since the end of December alongside them, they were released under house arrest.
So they are now home.
And that was obviously, in our opinion, a big step in the right direction.
And when I spoke to Andrew and I was trying to see how they're feeling after that result, because two of the four got sent home under house arrest, his reaction was that if he had a choice and if he could decide which two of the four would get to go home, he would have had the women go home because he said, obviously, jail is a really rough place.
And he thought it was better that he and his brother suffer if anybody has to rather than the women.
Kudos to him for doing that.
Now, here's a question for you.
Are you representing all four or just the brothers?
Just the brothers.
Okay.
So now, are you and their legal team working closely together?
Is it a team or is it separately?
No, definitely.
I'm working alongside the Romanian legal defense team because, again, I'm not a Romanian attorney.
I can't appear before the court there.
I attended the previous hearing and I was able to observe and be in the courtroom, you know, at the table with my Romanian counsel, but I can't actually address the judges in Romania.
So I'm working very closely with them.
We're in constant communication and we are handling the defense together.
Got it.
So the two girls, I believe Georgina and Luana, if I'm saying it correctly, right?
Georgina and Luana.
Georgina's known Tate for quite some time.
Luana was a former police officer and they were friends and associates working together.
My question is, are their lawyers and you working together?
Are you guys on the same team?
We're not necessarily working together.
However, everybody pretty much has a consistent defense, which is nobody committed any crimes in this case.
Got it.
So to that extent, everyone has a common goal and interest in this case.
However, we're not necessarily working together.
Okay.
And the only reason I asked this, and so please push back anything I ask in skepticism, whatever I say.
You know, I'm just thinking like a, I've interviewed a lot of people that are in different lives they've lived.
You know, I've interviewed the Sammy the Bulls of the world, a lot of former mobsters.
And the model the government will sometimes use when they have multiple folks that they're working on, they'll try to go to the weak ones to get information out of them and try to get a deal and say, hey, if you tell us this, it's going to be this.
Do you want to be in jail forever?
They'll put the fear tactic.
You know the tactics they use.
This is your world.
So how confident are you that for the folks that are worried if they will keep the four fully, fully united on the same page versus the government's going to try to get the girls to break and say something?
So some may look at this as a, hey, they're now being released to go home.
This could be seen as did they do a deal with the government or it's Andrew and Tristan saying, no, if anyone's going to go home, they're going to go home.
So two different things.
First of all, I think absolutely it's a common, both a police and prosecution strategy to try to divide and conquer.
I think how we refer to it here is they always try to get the weakest link to roll on, you know, the bigger targets.
So absolutely, I would not be surprised if that's something that the prosecution intends or tries to do.
However, we feel confident that there's nothing for these girls, you know, short of if they were to decide to come forward and lie.
Beyond that, we're not afraid of anything they would say.
And we're not afraid of them of the police or prosecution exerting pressure because we think, again, the truth is going to set everybody free, including the Tate brothers.
Yeah, that's my biggest concern.
My biggest concern is them trying to gamify it.
And they try, listen, Art of War, Sun Tzu, divide and conquer, put them against each other, put the fear tactic and then eventually get them to open up and then give them protection for a couple of years.
And then you get the information.
Can you release other people that we can get?
So that's why I ask, are you guys working collectively together or not?
Okay.
So that was helpful.
If you have a response.
Sure.
If I could just interrupt for one second, I was going to say there's also in this case, voluminous, what we call documentary evidence, meaning text messages, written correspondence.
And we think that speaks for itself.
And when, again, unfortunately, I can't get into the details with you now the way I wish I could go through specific evidence and show why, you know, this case immediately falls apart.
But we think even in the worst case scenario, if somehow the prosecution got to the girls and got them to change their story and not be truthful, you know, in exchange for some sort of deal to get them out of this, we think that the documentary evidence will undercut any potential argument that the Tate brothers are guilty of any of the charges that they're being investigated for.
When you speak to Tate, and I don't know if you're going to answer this or not, is that a concern that the two girls may do something?
Because if I'm an attorney, I'm going to ask the question.
You can say no to all the answers, but I'm just going to do my job as a person asking questions.
If I'm the attorney, I want to know everything about those two girls, what they have on you.
What would they say?
How would they come back?
What would be their weak spot?
Is there anything that you're worried about?
And then we're not worried about it.
We are worried about it.
Is that a potential concern at all or no?
That is the last thing we're concerned about.
Right now, that is the last thing we're concerned about.
We believe everybody is just trying to get the truth out.
And all four of them are, again, they have the same common interest in doing that when it's going to set all of them free.
My fear is government.
I don't trust what they do to pin people against each other.
So, we'll see what they're going to be doing.
So, okay.
Um, the next question for me would be with the following: you, you're, you have a track record, you're very successful.
The audience doesn't know this.
You and I went to high school together and we've never met, but uh, you know, just figured that out minutes before the interview.
Literally, just figured this out minutes before the interview, yes, which was interesting.
That's why when I looked at your last name, I said that's an Armenian last name.
And they say, No, you don't say Nalbandian, it's now Bendian.
I'm like, Oh, okay, let me find that for myself, and then we figure that out.
But, you know, the cases you've worked out, these are not small cases, these are heavyweight cases.
Uh, you know, whether it's Michael Jackson, whether it's Jesse, that was very controversial, whether it's you know, the other ones, Brown or Keisha, all of these things we can go through.
How different of a jurisdiction, I am not a lawyer, how different is it dealing with the laws that we go by in the states, let alone dealing with somebody that you're representing who's in Romania?
Do you have to, are you working with their laws?
Do they kind of push you around?
Do you hold them accountable to you because there is the U.S. citizenship?
How do those dynamics work?
Sure.
So, I think typically in high-profile cases, already there are so many additional factors that go into representing a client that isn't there in a standard case when the attorneys actually just get to focus on their defense on the legal strategy and it's very clear-cut.
And typically, in those cases, the defendants also really are presumed innocent.
So, those cases are much easier to handle.
The high-profile cases, to begin with, once information is, and it's almost exclusively leaked by the prosecution or the police, the information comes out.
It's always out of context.
The defense can't really respond to it as far as to address the details because there's an ongoing investigation.
You're not supposed to be talking about those facts, so you're really at a disadvantage.
And the public starts getting a false picture of what the case is about, what the evidence is.
And so, you know, already in a high-profile case, you're dealing with the court of public opinion, everything that's coming out, combating the misinformation that's circulating.
And so, those are challenges.
Now, you add to that, you know, all of this happening in a foreign jurisdiction.
And yes, it makes it much more complicated.
There's, you know, difficulties.
Like for now, I have not actually been able to visit the Tate brothers in jail.
While I was in Bucharest, I went numerous times to the jail with my Romanian colleagues.
We took all the paperwork and I was told that it's ultimately the prosecutor's decision.
And the prosecutor, until now, still hasn't approved the request.
I mean, we're still trying, and hopefully, I will get to see them.
Of course, my preference would be to see them out of custody, but depending on the timing.
However, you know, it's difficult to you're in a different time zone.
All of the documents are in the Romanian language, so we have to have everything translated.
Or I'm relying on my Romanian counsel to interpret things for me.
Their system is different.
So it's, you know, and the politics of it are different.
So it's certainly very challenging.
Is that a protocol that the prosecutor can use according to the Romanian laws to not allow you to meet with your client?
I mean, is that a common thing they do there?
Or do you have leverage to say, no, I have to see my client?
This is how the laws work.
So unfortunately, I don't think it's very common for U.S. attorneys, or I should say, even attorneys who are not Romanian, to be trying to visit Romanian clients in jail.
So it's not a common occurrence to begin with.
And according to my Romanian counsel, they say it's this is how it works.
It's standard.
Now, if this was not the Tate brothers, would this have been approved by now?
I'm not sure.
Does the role of, well, I'll come back to that.
So, I guess my other question would be: when you were working with Jussie and he was being accused, the things that he was going through with what happened to him, I believe he was still, he was not in jail when he was going through it, right?
I know the detention, and I may be wrong, the detention here, this is the third round of 30 days, and they can go up to 180 days, but there is still, we still don't know fully what is going on.
The key word that's being used is allegedly, allegedly, allegedly of human trafficking, allegedly of this.
Once again, is this a common thing that Romania does as a government to say, whether we have you or not, you got to be in here.
Some of the times people don't know, they live around the world.
American laws are different than Romanian laws or different than German or UK.
So, as to understand how these things work.
So, the whole 180 days that they have, we keep extending it at this pace.
What are some of the criteria that you can use to get them to be at least at home while they're going through this?
So, yes, this is very unusual for us because this is not how our system works here in the U.S. Typically, and it varies a little bit by jurisdiction, but typically they have 48 hours to hold you before they either have to charge you or release you.
Romania has a different procedure, and they refer to it as preventative arrest, where they initially held the Tate brothers for 24 hours, and then they applied for a 30-day extension.
And as you correctly said, they can extend that up to 180 days.
So, this period is actually still an ongoing criminal investigation.
So, they have not actually had an indictment returned against them.
They have not been formally charged.
And again, this is really contrary to our notions of justice, which is that pretrial deprivation is really to be a measure of last resort, unless there's substantial factors warranting keeping somebody in custody that they should be out.
And when you said allegedly, allegedly is a word that you use even after the charges are filed.
Here, we're not even there yet.
We're still in an open criminal investigation.
And so, if that answers your question, I think the process is very different in Romania than we're used to here in the U.S.
And I think a lot of other places.
How are you as the attorney adapting to that?
I mean, are you, I bet this is a tough job you have.
I mean, you went to school here, you went to great school, you've done phenomenal for yourself.
So, to learning how to work with the laws here to represent your client and then to go over there, are you like on an overdrive of learning all the laws and you're reading this and that to see what the adjustments are?
Are you looking at all the cases?
Is that kind of what you're going through as an individual?
Definitely.
I'm doing a lot of research on how the Romanian process works, reading some of their cases and some decisions, even by the European courts, as to how they've applied Romanian law and whether they've sanctioned this type of conduct.
I'm, of course, talking to my Romanian colleagues who are the best source of information as to what is common there.
So, there's a lot to take in, but obviously, you know, when you asked how I'm dealing with it, for me, it's much easier to deal with as the attorney on the outside.
It's much harder to see my clients who are in jail.
And it makes my job a lot harder when I can't easily communicate with them.
So, that's the biggest, I think, factor here is the fact that I wasn't, I would have stayed in Bucharest had I been granted access to visit with them frequently.
But that's been the biggest challenge for me so far.
If that happened in America, you could make calls to get Congress or somebody, a senator or congressman or congresswoman to make the call and say, what is this all about?
You can't be doing this, right?
So, who can you call?
Because the part that makes it complicated with this, if you have a political figure, let's just say you have a political figure, and if they're a Democrat, the president's Democrat, well, you make the phone call.
Hey, listen, this is, you know, if you have a Republican Trump saying, hey, Roger Stone, hey, you got this.
What is going on?
Over, can you guys make the call?
This doesn't make any sense.
Who can you call to say this is not a fair thing they're doing?
I mean, who I did call when I was in Bucharest was the U.S. Embassy to see if I could get assistance with this, but they pretty much just deferred me to my Romanian council and said I have to work with them and follow the procedure that they recommend.
So ultimately, they weren't really much help in me trying to achieve that.
How much of that do you think is because him being a controversial figure and he's called out pretty much everybody under the sun?
You know, they tell you there's three things you should never talk about.
Two of them are politics and religion.
And as my mother would always say, hey, Patrick, why are you talking politics?
I've told you for years, never talk politics, just talk business.
Why are you the fear, right?
He's called out everybody.
So how much of that has to be with him calling out the people in power?
They're like, if there's anybody we're not helping, we are definitely not helping Tate.
You know, I would be guessing, but I certainly would think in a case that didn't involve maybe Andrew Tate that the U.S. Embassy would have been more helpful when it involved a U.S. citizen.
Yeah, that's, I would probably give the answer as well if I was in your situation.
But for me and many other people that are listening, they would be thinking maybe there's some of that going on as well.
Let me transition.
I got the WhatsApp messages I want to get to part of that as well with the messages that came out.
But the other question I would have for you is with them saying, hey, now that these messages have come out, you know, we are thinking we are going to, I'm going to be suing them for $300 million.
I'm sure you saw that tweet that came out.
I saw your answer on this, but some of the audience may not know about it.
Are they actively, personally, do they have access to the internet?
Are they tweeting or all the tweets that are coming out or the messages or the email that's coming out?
It's somebody else emailing, tweeting on behalf of Tate.
It's not, yes, they don't have access to Twitter or social media.
So they're in a jail cell with a very limited access to just phone calls that are all recorded.
They don't have access to social media.
So yes, they're not posting anything themselves.
Got it.
You said phone calls that are all recorded.
So whoever they have a call with, it's all recorded.
Yes.
And so even if you want to talk to your client, they're recording all the calls you're having with your client?
Yes.
So as I said, it's very challenging to not be able to visit the client in person and to be, you know, having limited communications, which of course, you know, are recorded phone calls.
How do you strategize?
How do you, how do you say, hey, you know, because you need intel.
So who do you get intel from to be able to defend?
There's only so much you're going to get if you can't have a, and you can't ask the question if you know it's going to be recorded.
Because who do you trust?
If you know the calls are being recorded, you almost can't trust having any conversations with them because you know it's all going to leak to somebody.
How do you manage that?
We're aware of the fact that the calls are recorded, as are the clients, of course.
And, you know, at this point, the strategy really is just for us to try to get to the truth and how do we find the truth.
So it's obviously limiting, but and we keep the conversations short and discuss what we need to, but it poses certainly a big challenge.
Tina, is that also the case in America?
So if you want to talk to a client of yours and you're going to go and have a conversation with them, is it 100% recorded?
You have to assume that everybody else can hear the conversation, or are you able to have one-on-one convo with your client without anybody hearing it?
So typically, jail calls are always recorded.
Now, when it's an attorney call and you announce that at the beginning of the call and you say, this is Tina Glandian, this is an attorney-client phone conversation.
They're either supposed to stop the recording or later, if it was automatically recorded, they are not to listen to anything that's attorney-client.
So even if that gets bypassed in some cases, they can't use it because they're not allowed to record the attorney-client communications.
But it's not.
It's not unusual because calls are also recorded here.
However, when you get to visit in person in an attorney-client context, you should be in a setting that's not recorded.
Do you trust it in America?
Like, is it even a thought?
Like, do you guys as a group sit there and say, listen, ask the question, but make sure it's not all the questions.
Just be aware that somebody could be listening to it.
Or is it a code where it's like, no, talk freely.
As long as you say it's a lawyer, you don't have anything to worry about.
No, we're always a little bit cautious because, again, rules get broken.
And just because someone's not supposed to do something doesn't mean it won't happen.
So we are cautious in all cases.
Sure.
So, you know, during COVID, I've run an insurance company.
I've been in the financial industry for 20 years.
So you're dealing with lawyers all the time.
I've spent a lot of money on lawyers.
So we've kept a lot of law firms in business because you have to deal with it.
But during COVID, when we were dealing with lawyers or courts, everything was super slow.
And I'm talking, hey, things that would get done in 30, 60, 90 days, nine months to 12 months to get anything.
They're not coming in.
They're not doing this.
They're not doing that.
And it was very annoying because you couldn't get things to be resolved quickly.
Are you dealing with any other factors that is delaying you being able to get to the bottom of what's going on?
Or is it just purely the government saying, hey, this is how slow we're working?
We can take our time if we want to, and there's nothing you can do about it.
With their procedure, with their preventative arrest procedure that they have in place, they certainly have the protection that they could extend this to 180 days.
And there really isn't much we can do if they continue to try to take the position that they shouldn't be released because they might be a flight risk or they're a potential danger and things of that nature.
So I do find normally that in high-profile cases, because there are so many eyes on a case, typically those tend to move a bit faster than maybe a normal case would that gets put on the back burner and nobody's in a rush to prosecute that.
So typically they do move a little faster.
Now, in this case, this has been an extremely slow investigation.
So I know they've been in custody since the end of December, but what a lot of people might not recognize is this investigation actually started in April of 2022.
And there was allegations made at the time.
You know, police did a raid.
They investigated and there was nothing to those allegations.
So, but they did open up, you know, a bigger investigation.
And another fact, because you did bring up the $300 million, you made some reference to a potential lawsuit about that.
And so just to make this clear, what happened is after this investigation happened in April and it was shown that the allegations were false and the police made no arrests at the time, the Tate brothers actually filed criminal complaints in Romania against the two women who made these accusations.
And again, that's not a fact that's been widely reported, but that is an open criminal investigation against the women.
And that started almost eight months before the Tate brothers were ever arrested or investigated really for any of the criminal accusations that they're currently being investigated for.
So the lawsuit that you referenced and the cease and desist letter, that is part of that original criminal complaint that was initiated in April by the brothers when they were not charged or being investigated for anything further and when they were the victims of false allegations and they were pursuing their legal rights.
And that was in April.
So, from April till February now, but they put him in jail.
You know, the timing of that to me, there's a lot of theories out there, and I'll just pose the question: you know, you're a pro, you're going to give whatever response you're going to give.
Sometimes, you know, certain events happen.
You know, it could be ironic, it could be like coincidental, or it could be like, you know, it's a little bit, you kind of crossed the line with who you went after with the Greta Thunberg and all this other stuff.
And here's what you did, and boom, and then all of a sudden, two days.
Could they have done what they did to the Tate brothers, what they did two days after Greta, could they have done the same exact thing and started detention in April, in May, in June?
You know what I'm saying?
Like, could they have just automatically said, hey, why not wait till this time?
It just so happens they did it two days after that.
So there's some theories where maybe you cross the line a little bit, you're pushing a little bit too much of the envelope, and this is the time to take this guy down and silence him.
So I guess to break it down a little bit, what they were initially the allegations that were made in April were that these women were being held against their will by the Tate brothers.
And that was investigated, and that there was absolutely no truth to that.
So they were, they were not, you know, their status when the investigation started of the Tate brothers were as witnesses.
And so Romania has different categories that they put people in.
You could either be a witness, a suspect, or a defendant.
So they started in April.
They were witnesses to this allegation.
The police investigated.
There was nothing there.
And that's what the criminal complaints that they filed in April were about those particular instances.
Now, since that time, I think, you know, police began to surveil the brothers and were, I think, trying to find something to further investigate.
And again, I don't want to speculate as to the reasons why they were trying to, you know, find further allegations to investigate.
But the timing of it, yes, it's obviously it was many, many months later.
What may have triggered that particular date?
It's hard to say.
So in other words, they could have done that earlier, right?
So they could have, because if it's all allegedly human trafficking rape, they could have done it in August.
They could have done it in July.
They could have done it in June.
They just so happened to choose to do it two days after that.
And I know that whole one thing where people were like, well, if you're going to order pizza, why would you put the pizza?
That was already debunked.
And that's not even a part of the conversation.
If they wanted to get him, they're going to get him.
It's not like they're going places they're not going avoiding places.
This is specific about the fact that could the government have come in and taken him to jail and put him in detention in any other month except the time that they did it at?
Yes, because again, this is preventative arrest.
It's not like they had enough evidence to charge them with crimes.
This was a preventative arrest because they were investigating.
They certainly could have done this weeks earlier if that's what they chose to do.
So what that does is that gives a lot of credence to the audience that is saying this guy's being set up because of who he called out and the establishment to that audience that goes, I told you so.
I knew this.
I don't.
Well, you're giving him credit if you're doing it this way.
So I almost think I almost think that works against them and it works in your favor.
Why are you waiting this long until you're doing XYZ?
Okay, so let's go to the next one.
And then I got a couple other things here as well.
So if there's anybody that has lived a life where they've lived a very interesting life, I don't think anybody can, you know, dispute that.
You know, however many cars you got, all the women, the travel, the lifestyle, the yachts, the this, the that, the fighting.
It's like the profile of a guy where a 16-year-old boy is going to look up and he's going, man, look at this guy.
He's a tough guy.
He knows how to fight against the girls.
He's this.
He's that.
I'm going to be like this guy.
I think the moment Tate started wearing glasses, I never seen a spike in more YouTubers wearing glasses when they're doing interviews in the middle of the day.
And that never happened until this guy was wearing glasses, right?
He made them look good.
But mentally and emotionally tough, the life they've lived, the father they've had, the experiences they've had, it's almost like that's preparing you that if you do go through something like this, they can't break you.
They're going to try to break you.
How are they holding up purely mentally and emotionally themselves?
I'm sure knowing him, how competitive he is and how annoyed he is and how much he likes to be in control.
Like a lot of business CEOs, we understand that DNA and the fabric of wanting to be in control.
And now you're not.
So there's a part that's driving him insane.
But also you see him when he's walking around, he's always got the Quran in his hand.
So I'm assuming he's praying a lot.
So he's trying to work on this.
When you talk to them, how are you feeling their energy, where they're at?
You know, the energy is remarkably positive in light of where they're at and what they're going through.
I think they just have tremendous resolve and strength.
And that's both mental and physical and emotional strength.
So I think they're doing the best they can in the situation they're in to stay physically strong.
I know they're, you know, continuing to exercise and work out and do what they can within the confines of being in jail, but to stay physically strong at the same time, as you said, they are praying, meditating.
They receive a lot of letters and fan mail.
So they read those.
It keeps them occupied.
So they are the one, you know, they don't complain about boredom.
It's more about just this intense frustration of having all of this going on.
You're, you know, proclaiming your innocence.
You want to prove your innocence and you are in a jail cell where you can't, you have no means to do so.
So, you know, you're putting a lot of trust, obviously, in your team and your attorneys, but it's very frustrating to be in that situation.
I think, again, under the circumstances, I think they are holding up quite well, even though it's very challenging.
I bet.
But again, I think if there's anybody that could do this, the two of the guys together.
You know, one time I think Tate said, you can take everything away from me.
As long as you don't take my brother, I'm going to be okay.
You know, to the way the father raised to get these two guys to be as close as they are, that's probably giving them a lot of strength.
But are they in the same cell or are they keeping them separate where they can't interact with each other or be around each other?
I know that they do interact.
I'm not actually quite certain about the cell situation because I think that's changed over the detention period.
Got it.
So, you know, this other question here, if, if back in the days when they went after Capone, or I've spent a lot of time with Rudy Giuliani, you know who he is, how he cleaned the streets in New York the other day.
We're at an Italian restaurant here in Florida.
We're having lunch with a couple folks.
Rudy is there.
The owner of the restaurant comes in and says, oh my God, when I lived in New York, you cleaned up the streets.
He automatically went to, when I was in New York, you clean up the streets.
And how he was able to work with changing the laws to figure out how to go get them.
And even back in the days, they didn't get Capone on anything but on taxes.
So there's many ways if the government really wants to target somebody to ruin their lives.
You got a lot of cards to use, right?
You can do, well, let's use rape allegation.
It's not hard to do.
There's a lot of people that have been there that never committed a crime, but you kind of have to prove your argument.
Hey, let's do trafficking.
Hey, let's do taxes.
Hey, let's do this.
Do you think this is going to be one of those things that if they really want to target these guys, they're going to keep using their cards until they get them?
Or is this truly they're only focused on these two allegations that they're making?
No, I think you raise a really good point.
And I think that's exactly what's going on in this case.
I think that's why this investigation initially started in April.
They seized a lot of their belongings, devices, things like that.
And I think it's just been this very lengthy search for any evidence of crime.
And I think as far as the actual charges that are being investigated, I think those are going to be proven demonstrably false.
I think everything we've seen shows that the prosecution, it's such a stretch.
They're trying to pigeonhole human trafficking into a set of facts that just doesn't fit.
And again, the rape allegation is entirely unsupported.
I think the evidence, which again, unfortunately at this point in the proceedings, I just can't comment on, but I think there's damning evidence showing that these are not charges that would ever be proven.
So I think the fear is, and also one other fact is, you know, the other allegation is of an organized criminal, organized crime group, which includes the two women who were just released on house arrest, which I think, again, is a big, I guess it speaks a lot as to what the evidence is that during this investigation.
Now they've released the women on house arrest, the same women that are allegedly part of this organized criminal group.
So I do not feel that they're ever going to be able to prove any of the charges that are currently being investigated.
I just think they're using this preventative arrest to prolong their detention in hopes of actually being able to find evidence of crime, which they don't currently have.
Yeah, that's going to be the interesting part because if they do that, you know it's targeting.
You know it's targeting.
Is there anybody that if, for example, you know, I keep going political because Tate is political and that's where you can do all the other stuff.
It's one thing, but he calls out a lot of people that are not liking the call outs that he makes.
So if when Trump's running and they had their RNC who they wanted to be at the RNC, well, Dana White spoke and he says, look, I don't, this is all I know about the guy.
20 years ago, when nobody gave us a place to go and do our first event for UFC, he said yes.
I'm going to back this guy up because Vegas said no, this said, no, and he said yes.
And he helped us stay in business.
Okay.
So that gets the audience of UFC to say, man, shoot, if Dana's defending Trump, maybe I ought to, right?
Hey, Barack Obama, hey, I'm Oprah Winfrey.
Listen, this is the guy we've been looking for.
We've been looking, okay, boom, support.
You know what?
If Oprah says it, you know, I got to kind of support this.
Hey, the other day, Oprah, hey, as much as I'm the one that found Dr. Oz, I'm not going to go against Dr. Oz for Dr. Oz.
I'm going to go for Federal.
I think Fetterman's better.
People are like, wait a minute, that's your guy.
But you're going, there's a lot of weight in who supports who and says what, right?
Politically.
How much, like, is there any other?
Because ever since, you know, he spoke about his Muslim religion and videos were posted about him going out there and praying and how he feels about the Westernized, you know, Christianity, the standards, all of that.
Is there support from a sect or a community that has reached out to say, Tina, how can we help?
We would like to get involved to help.
Is there anything like that taking place?
Or is it silenced?
No one's saying anything.
They're just kind of saying, well, let's see what happens here.
We're going to keep our hands off of this.
There are many, many efforts by people who want to help.
It hasn't really come from some sort of organized sect of, you know, of anything like that.
But we have so many individuals reaching out, offering support and help.
And, you know, I think it's a little tricky in cases like this where it is political, as you said, and people are outspoken.
Like the Tates are very outspoken, particularly Andrew.
Think sometimes there is reluctance from people to publicly show support and to come out when they still do support the individuals.
So, I experienced this in Jussie's case where he had a lot of support, a lot of people who would privately message him: I believe in you, I believe you.
But those same people felt that in this climate, they couldn't come forward and publicly support him because of the tremendous backlash.
Because again, there was this false narrative.
And based on the information that was put forward by the one-sided leaks and everything else, people believed a different set of facts than what the actual facts were.
And based on that, they didn't want to come out and support somebody who may have done what people were saying he did.
So, I think there's a lot of that in this case, too, where there certainly is a lot of private support.
Now, who would be willing to come forward publicly?
I'm not sure because I think there is a lot of backlash.
I bet, I bet there is.
But maybe some need to see this and hear this to say, Hey, we're going to come out and support.
Maybe they need to hear this message and say, Hey, let's make a phone call and offer what we can.
I don't know what happens when they're freezing, freezing accounts, cars, taking stuff that, you know, there's many ways.
I interviewed Effley Bailey nine years ago, 10 years ago, and they took his license away as well.
And you know, F. Lee Bailey wrote one of the best books ever for lawyers.
You know, which one I'm talking about, like 2000 pages, whatever.
Cross-examination.
Right.
The legendary book that everybody talks about, which I haven't read because I'm not a lawyer, but I know you know which book I'm talking about.
So, and they took his license.
That's one way where when you're a lawyer for too long and you represent a lot of people and then you keep doing it and you're allowed, sometimes the way they do it is, hey, take this guy's license away.
He can't make money, and then that's how they go broke.
It's a sad situation of what they do.
But in this instance, you know, if they're freezing accounts, if they're freezing everything, you know, are, you know, maybe this is a way, and I don't know, financial situation where that are they able to make the payments to you.
You're not a cheap lawyer, you're not somebody that's 400 bucks an hour.
That's a very expensive lawyer, you are.
So, if somebody's hiring someone like you, are they able to meet their expenses that they're, you know, having to pay today?
Is that something that they're able to do?
Are they frozen right now with their funds?
So, they've seized a lot of assets, certainly not everything, but they have seized, you know, a great amount of assets, which is vastly disproportionate to any sort of money that the government would need as a result of this investigation.
So, it is concerning all the assets they've taken.
And this, you know, really comes back to why, you know, they are in this prolonged detention.
All of these things are being seized.
That's putting a lot of pressure.
I don't know if it's in the hopes that at some point they crack and confess to something they didn't do, but that's not going to happen.
So, yeah, I was watching an interview the other day with Musk where Musk is like, he called out the SEC.
I don't know if you've seen this clip or not.
He says, you know, he says what he says to the SEC.
And he says, they called me and they said, you have to do this or else this or else that or else this.
And he says, I agree.
But let me tell you something.
He took a shot at SEC right afterwards in the interview.
And it's a public video going viral where it's like, hey, you need to come out and say, yes, you did this, or you need to come out and say you did that.
It'll be interesting to see, like you're saying, they're not going to break.
These guys don't seem like the kind that they're going to be break.
But I wonder the government, people think they're so creative until you go into, you know, you think criminals are the most creative people.
You know, people are a lot more creative in the government than they know because they see all these cases.
So they know how to maneuver with power that nobody else can.
You can't go write a negative view about the government on Yelp.
Oh my God, we got to, you can't do that.
That's only in the free markets that we experience that.
The next thing I want to talk about is WhatsApp messages that came out.
When you saw this, this was live.
A lot of people reacted to it.
A lot of people read them.
A lot of people looked, oh my God, this is it.
It's over.
It's going to be done.
You can't be doing something like this.
What was your reaction when you first saw these WhatsApp messages of these two girls going back and forth?
You know, we got them.
Do this.
I came in there.
We'll play the victim.
All these things.
We've all read them.
What was your reaction when you saw this that was to the public?
Is this a benefit for Tate that shows what they're doing?
Or was it kind of like, yeah, we're not even going to be using this?
So, unfortunately, I'm really limited to addressing potential evidence in the case.
And so I cannot address that at this time.
And I wish I could, but that's for a later discussion.
For now, I have to be very careful about what I say as to matters that are still being investigated.
Fair enough.
If the people haven't seen it, Rob, let's put a link below where they can go read it for themselves.
The exchange, when you look at this, it definitely looks like, and I know you can't comment on this.
I'm just telling the audience for them to.
It definitely looks like they are framing that's it, they are playing the game, they are talking to each other, play dumb, good advice.
Thank you, babe.
You know, all these weird things play the victim.
I mean, we are like, act like we still love them and stuff, blah, blah, blah.
All these things.
Tomorrow we should wear makeup and sunglasses so nobody really notices.
Yeah, I guess LOL.
We should make a movie out of this.
So when you see this, you know, I've seen both sides of the argument on these tweets, on these exchanges, what people are saying that are saying, well, they're innocent.
And I see the side where people are saying, well, they're guilty.
They can make up their mind for themselves.
But this definitely tells a lot here.
So, last but not least, Tina, before we wrap up, and once again, thank you so much for being generous with your time.
I know you're working on a lot of things and you're probably not getting a lot of sleep because you're working with time zones.
When we were going through doing a deal, and at the time we were in France and we were selling one of our companies, and the people that we were doing business with were in San Francisco, that time zone messed us up.
We try to have a good time, but we were non-stop, you know, doing this and we're trying to entertain people.
It's kind of a weird place.
I appreciate you for being patient with your time.
To wrap up here, any final thoughts on where you are with this, your level of optimism?
You know, just a couple of weeks ago, a tweet came out, oh my God, they're going to be free today.
Oh, this is every day.
Someone's saying they're going to be free today.
They're going to be free today.
With where you are today, what is your level of optimism of how this thing's going to end?
I have a great deal of optimism in where this will end as far as what's currently being investigated.
Because, again, there have been what's really important in all this time that's passed, there has been no new evidence, no new alleged victims, nothing new to support this case.
And clearly, at this point, the evidence has not been strong enough for them to file charges against the brothers.
So I think they're going to push this preventative arrest, you know, because they can for now while they're looking for evidence.
But everything I've seen, I think it is not going to be hard to disprove all of these allegations.
So I'm very optimistic in the ultimate result of this case.
Obviously, it's not as soon as we would like.
Each day they're in custody, we feel like it's an injustice because they should be home.
But the only other thing I want to add is that, you know, you hear human trafficking, and that sounds awful, but this is just not a case of human trafficking.
And again, without getting into the evidence, obviously it's difficult to explain really what I mean.
But this, you know, to emphasize, the webcam business is a legitimate business in Romania.
Many women have come forward.
There's articles you can read about why this is a thriving business there.
And this gives women there a means of making a lot more income.
You know, some of the time women don't have the means or the education to make the kind of money that they could get from an industry like this.
And they're standard like any other job.
They have set hours.
They take royalties.
They pay commissions to the business that they're dealing with.
So this is not something unusual in Romania.
It really is a legitimate, thriving business.
They are trying to take this legitimate business and criminalize it in this particular scenario.
And I think it's going to ultimately fail.
Well, that's a playbook.
You know, the playbook is, hey, if we just this question on what you just said, right, the curiosity.
So if it wasn't illegitimate and it wasn't a crime to go to jail, can the government suddenly create a law and get it passed to be in then to get someone where you're convicting them of a crime because the laws have changed today?
Because that's what Giuliani did with the mob.
And all of a sudden, 240-something people went to jail on the same day.
Can they do that?
Or that's not something they can do?
Typically, you can't enact.
I mean, you could enact legislation, but it's on a moving forward basis.
There's no in a criminal context, there typically is no retroactive application.
So if something had, you know, predated when the law changes, then you can't go back and say something you did.
Because, you know, for a criminal charge, you need to have noticed that the behavior is deemed to be criminal conduct.
Got it.
Okay.
Well, that's, that's good to know to see.
Okay.
And last but not least, to wrap up to the audience.
So think about the audience that's watching this who doesn't like Andrew Tate.
And think about the audience here that's watching this that loves Andrew Tate.
And then there's some that are in the middle, like, I don't know.
I'm just trying to see what's going on here.
Is he guilty?
Is he not?
I'm just like, I like some of the stuff.
He says, there's some stuff I don't agree with, but I'm more neutral.
Similar to politics, left, right, middle, right?
What would you say to the people?
Like, what do the people who think this is somebody who is guilty, what should they go look at?
Like, is there any articles?
Is there any things to follow?
What can they do?
Because there are a lot of people screaming off the top of their lungs that these guys belong in jail for the rest of their lives.
And there are those that are saying they don't on the opposite side, being very supportive about it.
What do you say to the people saying, no, these guys are guilty.
They need to be done.
They need to go to jail and stay there forever.
Two points I want to make on that.
First of all, I think people need to focus not on the content of their speech, whether they like or agree with what the brothers are saying.
I think there's some other critical things that you need to think about, which is the fact that do we believe people should be detained when they haven't even been criminally charged?
Is it right to keep someone in jail for several months when there is not enough evidence to charge them at the time?
That's one thing.
Second of all, do we want to start criminalizing speech?
Are we putting people in jail so that we could try to reprogram them?
I mean, that's not what our justice system is supposed to be.
And so we're trying to keep the system accountable.
And that's not, you don't put someone away, seize all their assets, try to get them to break so that they come out and they don't say the things they were previously saying.
And I feel like that's something that seems to be happening in this case because there's a number of people who don't, or I should say a big portion of people who don't agree with our messaging.
But that's something that should be addressed in a different way, not through the criminal justice system.
That's not where you debate ideas and it's not an appropriate use of the system.
As far as what people could look at or read to learn more, I would just say that I think a lot of the things that Andrew says are taken out of context.
I think you'll always see that one little phrase that says misogynist Andrew Tate believes women are property.
And then, if you actually sit down and watch his long form interview, he puts everything in context.
And, you know, he says, no, I believe women are equal.
I think when I said that, what I meant was, you know, in a religious way, the way somebody gives, you know, the father gives away the bride.
So, you know, he'll explain a lot of what he means.
And I think it makes a lot more sense when you hear his long format interviews rather than just hearing, you know, reading a headline or seeing one little clip of something he said taken out of context, which I don't think accurately reflects what his messaging is.
And I think if you watch enough of his content, you realize that the overwhelming majority of the things he says is, you know, are things that I don't think anybody disagrees with.
I think it's all meant to be motivational and it's trying to get young boys and men, but it applies equally also to women just to be the best version of themselves and to work hard and to live their best life and not to be lazy.
And, you know, there's a lot of positive messaging that people relate to.
And I think it's a very small fraction of the things he says that are controversial.
Makes sense.
That was helpful, Tina.
Any major dates to look at?
That's any event, any dates that are coming up or nothing yet?
Yes.
So Monday is actually a big day.
Monday, we are going to be in court again in Romania for the appeal of the extension of the detention order as to the Tate brothers.
So the lower court pretty much extended it.
However, that decision is being appealed and that'll be heard on Monday.
And we're hopeful that on appeal, you know, it gets reversed and they are released on house arrest as well.
That's great.
That's great to know.
I know many people are, many of us are following it very, very closely.
Tina, once again, thank you for taking the time to coming out and giving us a bit of an update on what's going on.
A lot of people are following this closely.
And I can tell you if there's anything they could have done to make the persona even bigger than it already was, they just did that because it's going to be interesting when he does come out, if the allegations, once everything is done with, and if he is freed, where he lives, how he changes his messaging, how much bigger it gets.
Does he push back more?
Does he challenge more?
Maybe does he get on a spaceship with Elon Musk go to a different planet and create his content from there so the jurisdictions are different?
Who knows what's going to be happening?
All I know is I appreciate you giving your perspective.
And GHS got a shout out today.
This is a very weird shout out today from Gwendolyn High School out of all the high schools.
