[music]

Brian Lehrer: On WNYC. Good morning, everyone. If there are two people well-positioned to explain President Trump's pardon last night of Jared Kushner's father, they are Chris Christie and Andrea Bernstein. Andrea, who will join us in a minute, is author of the book, American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power. Chris Christie, before he was governor of New Jersey, if you don't know this or don't remember it, was the US attorney for the state who prosecuted Charles Kushner, a lawyer and real estate developer and Jared's father. In a PBS interview last year, Christie explained a little of why he prosecuted Kushner and why Kushner was not just any criminal in Christie's eyes but was special.

Chris Christie: I just think that it was so obvious he had to be prosecuted that-- If a guy hires a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law and videotapes it and then sends the videotape to his sister to attempt to intimidate her from testifying before a grand jury, do I really need any more justification than that? It's one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes that I prosecuted when I was US attorney and I was US attorney in New Jersey, Margaret. We had some loathsome and disgusting crime going on there, but I just laid out the facts. Any objective person who looks at the facts knows, confronted with those facts, I had a moral and an ethical obligation to bring that prosecution.

Brian: Chris Christie pulling no punches last year on PBS. With us now on Charles Kushner and some of the other 50 or so pardons the President has given out this week, including how they relate to the President's own potential legal problems, are Andrea Bernstein and Ilya Marritz, co-hosts of the WNYC podcast Trump, Inc., about the intersection of the President's business interests and the national interest. They have a new episode about the possibility that Trump will be charged with various crimes after he leaves office. Again, Andrea's book is American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power, never more relevant. Hi, Andrea. Hi, Ilya.

Andrea Bernstein: Hey, Brian, great to be here.

Ilya Marritz: Hey, Brian.

Brian: Andrea, that Chris Christie clip, wow.

Andrea: Yes. I mean, [chuckles] it's interesting, Brian, because in the course of writing my book, I went back and I read the whole legal file on Charlie Kushner. What Chris Christie said is true. It was a pretty serious crime. Aside from the witness tampering, Chris Christie as you know, [chuckles] I have been giving him a lot of scrutiny for the truthfulness of his statements, but Charlie Kushner's crimes, the underlying crimes had to do with tax evasion, had to do with stealing money from us, the taxpayers, had to do with evading federal campaign finance laws.

He made huge contributions in the names of other people, which is campaign finance 101 you're not allowed to do. Then when Christie began to get wind of it and was about to wrap up his grand jury investigation, Charlie Kushner had this tape sent to his sister. Christie didn't even mention that the tape was sent on the eve of his nephew's engagement party or that he wanted to send the videotape to his nephew and nieces and had to be talked out of it.

Brian: Let me back up a little bit so people can follow the family dynamics here. Did Kushner set up his brother-in-law with a prostitute like bait his brother-in-law into having sex with a prostitute and then recorded it?

Andrea: Yes, that is what happened. Kushner, who was, at the time, a very important wealthy man in Livingston, New Jersey, convinced a running buddy, who was actually an East Orange cop at the time, to help him set up this scheme whereby Charlie Kushner's brother-in-law, that is, obviously, his sister's husband, would-- he was set up at the time to eat diner in Bridgewater.

It was a snowy day and a sex worker said to him that her car had broken down and could he give her a ride back to her motel, and then she gave him her phone number. He called her. He eventually goes to the motel and the whole thing is videotaped by this cop and by his brother and delivered to Charlie Kushner. He actually kept it for a while. He just sat on it, but it was only when it was clear that Chris Christie was concluding his investigation that he sent the tape.

Brian: He sent the tape to his sister in order to break up their marriage just as that couple's own kid was about to get married?

Andrea: Well, it didn't break up the marriage. They're still married, but what it did was, obviously, it sent a message. It backfired grossly because what his sister, Esther, did is brought the tape to the Feds and they had been doing this white-collar tax evasion investigation. Those things, even when they're quite serious as this one really was, it involved a lot of money and a lot of very flagrant violations, doing things like using business money to buy alcohol for parties and personal landscaping, a lot of things that you really can't take as tax deductions from your business.

Nevertheless, those white-collar crimes usually go away quietly. There might be a little publicity around them. What happened with the witness tampering pretty much ensured that it would never end quietly. Obviously, it did not. Charlie Kushner eventually plead guilty and served a year and a half in prison.

Brian: Just to close the loop on this part, the whole prostitute thing was witness tampering because his brother-in-law had testified against him and he was just getting back at him?

Andrea: Charlie Kushner, in his mind and the way he has spoken about it later on, basically spoke about it, the case, as if it was some kind of hit job that was developed by Chris Christie and by his siblings to get back at him out of jealousy was how he once described it. From Chris Christie's point of view, he was investigating the case. From his office's point of view, they were investigating the case when one of the people who they had subpoenaed for documents and from whom they had requested information, that is Charlie Kushner's brother-in-law, was threatened through this tape to his wife, who was actually also what Chris Christie calls a cooperating witness.

Although I think it's important to understand that from a prosecutor's standpoint, that doesn't mean that you're somehow colluding or conspiring with that prosecutor. It just means that you are actually answering the questions that they ask of you. It was designed, they thought, to dissuade them from providing information to the prosecutors that could help bring about an indictment of Charles Kushner.

Brian: That's why it's witness tampering. Ilya, how much was Christie's prosecution of Charles Kushner, Jared's father, a reason that Chris Christie never got a real job in the Trump administration?

Ilya: Oh, it seems pretty clear from the various memoirs and different published insider accounts from the Trump administration that as soon as Trump won that Jared Kushner took steps to freeze out Chris Christie. You'll remember that Chris Christie was the Trump transition chief. He had drawn up extensive memos and they had binders full of books about how they were going to do the Trump transition. As soon as Trump won, Christie lost that job. To add insult to injury, all of Christie's transition work was discarded and Mike Pence was elevated to be the transition chief.

That fit of pique actually had a very real cost to the Trump transition and, in effect, to all of us. If you remember back four years, we were in the middle of a very chaotic, rudderless transition where right up until Inauguration Day and past Inauguration Day, no one really understood what the Trump administration's priorities were, what they were going to do. There were all kinds of weird messaging, people coming in and out of Trump Tower. The reason that it unfolded so chaotically is because Jared Kushner effectively sidelined Chris Christie.

Brian: Trump was just using Christie for a while to the displeasure of Jared because Trump felt he needed a certain kind of credibility that Chris Christie brought him during the campaign. Then once he won the election, he didn't need that anymore. He didn't have to push Christie into the face of his son-in-law basically, right?

Ilya: Well, I don't know because Chris Christie has still hung around the periphery of Trump world. He's one foot in, one foot out. He's sometimes a critic, but it seems that he still has talked to Donald Trump over the years. I don't know. Do you see it differently, Andrea?

Andrea: I don't think that it was Donald Trump overthrowing it. As Christie described it in his book and as I actually went out and corroborated when he was hired to be on the transition, so this was now in June of 2016, Jared Kushner tried to block it and he said, "It's not fair. This prosecution was a family matter. It should have been handled by rabbis, not prosecutors."

Christie told people in his circle about this conversation but didn't really seem to continue thinking about it, but what is clear is that Jared Kushner did and that as soon as he could, he did a power play because he is, after all, the husband of Ivanka Trump and so long as Jared Kushner is married to Ivanka Trump. By saying that, I don't mean to imply anything about their marriage. It just gives him this incredibly, incredibly important position in Trump world. Very, very powerful. I think that's part of what we saw playing out last night. If it's something that Jared Kushner wants, it is going to happen in the Trump administration.

Brian: Listeners, our phones are open for your questions or comments about the slew of Trump's pardons this week, the Charles Kushner one, which we've been dwelling on so far because Andrea wrote that book about the Kushners and the Trumps, or any other Trump's potential legal problems when he leaves office. Also fair game here, the topic of the new Trump, Inc. or anything else relevant for Andrea and Ilya, 646-435-7280, 646-435-7280.

Ilya, let's take a big step back here. In the context of Charles Kushner and anyone else on this list, pardons are for people traditionally who have served their time, shown remorse for their crimes, and have turned their lives around and become positive, active citizens. How much can you say Charles Kushner fits that mold or people on this list in general?

Ilya: There's a good test of that, which is to look at which pardons came through the pardon office. The Department of Justice actually has a pardon office. It's existed for, I think, well over a hundred years. It's there to evaluate pleas for clemency and to rigorously vet who should be considered for some kind of clemency because they have shown remorse. I haven't looked up Charles Kushner, but I'm fairly confident that Charles Kushner was not on the US pardon attorney's list of people who should be considered for a pardon.

I'm fairly certain that he's there because Jared Kushner is Donald Trump's son-in-law and the husband of Ivanka, but bigger picture, it's really worth keeping an eye on how very differently Donald Trump has applied the pardon power compared to all previous presidents. For an episode a month or so ago, I spoke with Jack Goldsmith. He was a Bush administration Justice Department official, who has been keeping a running tally of Trump's pardons.

He's been looking specifically at the ones that form that in some way are self-interested. He has four criteria of his self-interested pardon for Trump. One is, does the pardon or commutation advance a political agenda? Two, is there a personal connection? Three, was it brought to Trump's attention by a TV commentator? Number four, was it brought to his attention by a celebrity?

Well, the overwhelming majority tick one of those boxes. In fact, 91% of the 94 pardons given so far, 86 of 94 pardons given so far tick the first two boxes that the person pardoned or receiving clemency advanced a political agenda for Trump or had some kind of personal connection. Really, when we look back to the very first pardon that Donald Trump gave back in 2017, it was to Sheriff Joe Arpaio down in Arizona, who was an outspoken Trump supporter.

Trump broke the seal on self-interested pardons and commutations right at the beginning of his term. What we've seen every year since is that he has discovered more and more places where he would like to apply that power. There's very few places where the President of the United States has monarchical-type power, but this is one of them. The President can pardon anyone at any time for any federal crime. He has discovered that this power is very much to his liking.

Brian: Some of the pardons that have been in the news this week are people close to Trump with respect to the Mueller investigation like Paul Manafort and George Papadopoulos and Roger Stone. They seem like attempts by Trump to clear his own name by saying, in effect, the Mueller investigation, which found pretty damning stuff about Trump, was unjust. Andrea, Charles Kushner is irrelevant to that and, in a way, belongs in the category of his own because this is the first instance of Trump pardoning a member of his own family. I wonder what that indicates to you might come next.

Andrea: Well, I think it's almost certain that he is prepared to pardon family members. I think that just the whole string of pardons, let me just sit back and say I've been to a number of white-collar sentencings. Every time I go to them, I feel badly because people have families and they have lives that they've built and they face substantial consequences. It's not an easy thing when someone actually suffers the consequences for their crimes.

So long as people are suffering consequences for crimes and there is a prison sentence, then people who commit white-collar crimes and political corruption should face those consequences just the same as somebody who might hold up somebody with a gun. What is so disturbing about these pardons taken together is that they're so laden with people who have committed corrupt acts, tax evasion, fraud, all of these kinds of crimes that, in fact, Trump himself has been accused of and is actually being investigated for now by the Manhattan DA.

What it says is those crimes aren't important and those people don't have to suffer consequences. What is disturbing is sort of like-- I mean, it is a sort of monarchical king-like pattern when you're saying, "My family cannot be held accountable for any crimes." Trump being Trump. He is almost certain to make sure that he shields his family from any legal liability that he can possibly shield him from. I expect him to do so.

Brian: We're going to take a break and continue right on this point. I'm going to ask you point-blank. Are Jared and Ivanka at risk of any prosecution after they leave the White House? Also about these media rumors, I guess I call them at this point, that Ivanka might primary Marco Rubio in Florida as her next act. A lot more with Andrea and Ilya from Trump, Inc. and your calls here on WNYC.

[music]

Brian: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Andrea Bernstein and Ilya Marritz from our Trump, Inc. podcast and Andrea with her book, the American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power with Charles Kushner, Jared's father, having been pardoned by President Trump last night. Andrea, I know you have to jump off. Ilya's going to stay with us, but are Jared and Ivanka at risk of any kind of prosecution themselves after they leave the White House?

Andrea: Well, we do know that Ivanka Trump is being investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney as part of this investigation into Donald Trump's business practices. This is something that New York Times recently reported. Basically, in a nutshell, it seems that she took a very large consulting fee on a project while also working as an executive of The Trump Organization, which could be tax fraud. Don't necessarily know that it is, that can be the basis of a tax fraud case. That is something that she couldn't be pardoned for.

What's interesting is, is when that story came out, she struck back very hard. She called the Manhattan DA, Cy Vance, politically motivated and acting out of rage. That case is pardon-proof because it's a state case. It means that she couldn't be pardoned by that for any federal crime. Now, Donald Trump could certainly give a blanket immunity to his children and to Jared Kushner for any crimes they might have committed.

Pardon experts that I've spoken to say they don't have to specify a crime, although he has to say, "I pardon them of any crimes." There is that, but this Manhattan DA case is a case where she could potentially-- Now, I want to be clear that there's been no indictment, but we do know from court papers that Vance has filed because Trump has been trying to block him from getting the records all-- a lot of this is public. We know that one of the things that Vance is investigating is criminal tax fraud basically in the first degree, which is a serious felony in New York.

We don't know what's going to happen with that. The Supreme Court actually hasn't said they can have the tax records, although that is the expected outcome. There's been no indictment, but it remains a live possibility. I should add, the DA sent out a statement last night because the DA has a separate case against Paul Manafort. That case was dismissed on double jeopardy grounds. Vance is appealing it. Last night, his office sent out a statement saying, "This is why it's so important that we get to prosecute this case in New York so that we can see that justice is done."

Ilya: I should jump in here and say New York actually changed its double jeopardy law last year to close that loophole precisely to avoid a situation where a federal pardon-- to avoid a situation where a local prosecutor would be unable to prosecute similar crimes to federal-- if the federal crimes had already been prosecuted. Unfortunately, for Vance, the closing of the loophole would not apply to Paul Manafort because he has already been tried and convicted. It would have to be for someone who was not already indicted and tried.

Brian: All right, Andrea, thanks. Ilya, I've seen some media speculation that Ivanka might run for Senate from Florida, challenging Marco Rubio in a primary. I don't know if you've looked under those tea leaves, but do you see that as a real possibility or just some Page Six writer's tabloid dream?

Ilya: I have no idea, but the Trumps-- Obviously, Donald Trump is the master of playing with media speculation. You could imagine that Ivanka Trump would have learned something from her father about that. I don't think she engages in that kind of thing quite as much, but what has been very interesting to us at Trump, Inc. over just the last little short while is the change in tone that is evident in some of Ivanka Trump's tweets.

Generally they are very anodyne, very upbeat, very positive. Twice in the last month or so, she felt the need to weigh in on probes that could ensnare her, one, by DA Cyrus Vance that Andrea was talking about. The other to do with the Trump inaugural fund from 2016 and Ivanka's role in setting the price at the Trump hotel there where, basically, the Trump family stood on both sides of that transaction.

That is now in court. That's been assigned to a judge. In both cases, she attacked the prosecutors and said, "These are politically-motivated Democrats." I think she used the word "rage" in both tweets. You can see her throwing out a little bit of red meat in a way that she hasn't done before but also providing another way of looking at any legal problems that she may run into.

It almost could be seen as a way in which she could justify accepting a pardon even without having been charged with a crime. You ask yourself, "What kind of person accepts a pardon when they haven't been charged with a crime?" It is a little bit of a mark on your record. If you can say, "Well, my political adversaries are hell-bent on retribution or hell-bent on getting me no matter what the facts say," then perhaps there is a reason to accept such a pardon.

Brian: Lila in Miami Beach, you're on WNYC. Hi, Lila.

Lila: Good morning, all. Merry Christmas. If you don't celebrate it, happy holidays. I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts, the Hidden Brain, last Sunday and he talks about being stoic. I'm going this way because I'm from Guatemala. I immigrated here 43 years ago to try to get away from this kind of stuff because it's typical banana republic behavior. I think the most harm that Trump has done is he's tried to dismantle our institutions. We've seen a good number of followers voting for him this time. I think that's the most painful.

I have decided that, yes, let's pay attention who's being pardoned, but let's move on. Let's just move on. Let's be stoic. Let's take notes. Let's learn from our lessons and move on and try to make our democracy stronger. Somehow we have to learn. He's been like one of those-- I see him like a little baby that you take him to Mattel and you let him pass the toy and he tries to destroy them all. He's been a great tester for us. I think he'll go down in history as-- You know how you have teachers and some teachers teach you a different way because they teach you how not to do things. He's been one of those and he's given us a lot of wisdom.

Brian: Reverse wisdom. Lila, thank you very much. Great stuff in that call. We appreciate it. Thanks for chiming in. Merry Christmas to you. Ilya, I think as a matter of programming, the time is coming to studiously ignore Donald Trump once he's out of office and at least to meticulously inspect, is he just trying to grab headlines as compared to when he's in office?

Yes. He's trying to grab headlines all the time, but it actually has an impact on people's lives because those headlines come with policy and come with executive orders and come with corruptions of our legal system and all of that stuff that has consequences. When Lila says, yes, talk about this for a minute and then move on, I do think that time is coming. Well, do you want to say something about that?

Ilya: Yes, there's a huge Trump hangover that is facing our country and the hangover takes many forms. There's the legal hangover, which we talked about in our recent episode of Trump, Inc., looking at prosecutions or investigations that are going forward on the local level, so stuff that can't be pardoned. There's the bigger hangover of what has happened to our political system, to our institutions.

Last night, as I was thinking about, really, the brazenness of these pardons and the aberrant nature of these pardons when you look into historical context, it really seems to me that Joe Biden didn't want to talk about this on the campaign trail when he was running for president. He positioned himself as someone who could heal the country, but he was pretty vague on whether that healing required thorough investigation by the Department of Justice. Interestingly, his running mate, Kamala Harris, said, "Yes, the Department of Justice absolutely should investigate Trump for obstruction."

Now, with Trump pardoning so many people who were part of the Mueller probe, I think it really forces President-elect Biden into a position where even if he takes no position, he is effectively taking a position. Maybe the right thing for the country is to just move on and try to get back to some kind of normal. Maybe the right thing for the country is to spend the next however many years investigating exactly what went wrong and all the crimes that happened here and whether Donald Trump committed obstruction. It is a very difficult question.

Brian: Yes. Biden and prosecutors around the country will have to figure out where on that spectrum they fall. Paul in Brooklyn, to some degree, in defense of Charles Kushner. Paul, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling in.

Paul: Hi, Brian. I want to tread lightly because I think there are a lot of abhorrent people and I would love to see Southerners and a Biden Justice Department go after all of them, but Charlie Kushner, I don't doubt he got this pardon because of who he is. I just want to add a little bit of context. I worked with him at an organization in Harlem called Getting Out and Staying Out.

It's a non-profit organization in which he actually volunteered his time and would go into Rikers and mentors on them who were returning to the community. He invested a lot of his own money, definitely at least over $100,000, which maybe isn't a lot of money. Well, if you go on Twitter and elsewhere bashing him and he's probably deserved it, but I think he's done more than most people have [unintelligible 00:29:10] with his own time and energy. I just wanted to add that.

Brian: Paul, thank you very much. Let's go next to Gail in Queens. You're on WNYC. Hi, Gail.

Gail: Good morning. I have a question. Of the various prosecutions that are likely to come forward, is there anyone in particular that is likely to result in prison time for Trump? If so, what would that look like? I'm particularly curious about the role of the Secret Service in this. If he actually goes to jail, are they going to have to guard him in prison? I've been wondering about this for a while.

Ilya: I don't think we've ever asked ourselves that question at Trump, Inc.

Brian: Who guards a former president if he's in prison? Is it the Secret Service? Well, there's that one specific question and to her larger question of what's the most likely thing to wind up in a prosecution of Trump out of all the potential ones.

Ilya: The answer right now is pretty unambiguous and that is Cy Vance's probe into both Trump and The Trump Organization. You'll remember, he's looking for eight years of tax returns and financial documents. The investigation apparently began around the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, but Cy Vance has been very clear in his court filings that it could include a lot of other felony activity in the realm of financial crimes, inflating and deflating the value of assets, that kind of thing.

Right now, as far as we know, he's looking both at the Trump businesses but also at Trump the man. He's also looking for exculpatory evidence. Separately, the New York Attorney General has a probe into some related matters, but that's a civil probe. Then separately, again, the DC Attorney General has a case against The Trump Organization and some other Trump businesses. Over the inaugural fund, that's a smaller thing and that, again, is civil.

Right now, the only criminal matter that we know of that looks like it could yield something is the Cy Vance probe. I would say watch that closely because as legal experts have told us at Trump, Inc., if the Supreme Court punts on the question a second time and basically says, "Okay, Cy Vance can have the records that he is seeking," which Donald Trump is trying to block, prosecutors could move pretty quickly to bring charges. Even though they're going to be going through tens of thousands of pages of documents, they actually do already have a roadmap of where they want to look. That's an interesting thing that we will be looking out for closely as the winter goes by.

Brian: How tough a call do you think this will be for DA Cy Vance in terms of actually bringing charges? Because on the one hand, it's an election year for him and we have to acknowledge that and Manhattan's political leanings. It might be very politically popular but then taint the decision to file charges if he does so. On the other hand, conventional wisdom is that you don't bring a case against someone so politically prominent with suspicions off the bat that it's a political prosecution unless it's an absolute slam dunk, open-and-shut crime. How much of a dilemma or a conundrum along those lines do you see this being for the Manhattan DA?

Ilya: Adding to that dilemma, Brian, is the fact that no prosecutor has ever been in this position before in our country and had to decide whether to prosecute a former president, at least that I know of. Then adding to it further is the fact that Vance did not prosecute Donald Trump, Jr. and Ivanka Trump as Andrea and I and two of our court reporters at ProPublica reported a couple of years ago. This had to do with the marketing of the Trump SoHo hotel. He's going to be under enormous pressure.

He has always said he will go where the facts and the law lead, but this is the kind of case that you can't separate from the politics of it and you can't separate from the high-profile nature of it. I suppose one way of splitting the baby would be to charge The Trump Organization and not Trump the man and go hard after the business and make that business's own life miserable effectively. I have no clue where Vance is going to come down on this. He doesn't even have the facts yet.

Brian: Let me ask you about one of the other pardons. I don't know if you've looked into this, but these former Republican congressmen convicted of financial fraud of various kinds. Chris Collins from Buffalo and Duncan Hunter from California. There was also a commutation of a sentence of Steve Stockman, former congressman from Texas. As the DC newspaper Roll Call puts it about Duncan Hunter, he pleaded guilty last December to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds for his own enrichment.

His illegal purchases included Lego sets, they report, movie tickets, a $14,000 family vacation to Italy, and flights for his family's pet bunny rabbit. Nice. I wonder if the rabbit had TSA Pre. Why pardon Duncan Hunter? What does Trump get from that or these other congressmen who did sleazy things? They're not family members and they don't reflect on the Mueller investigation.

Ilya: Well, if I recall correctly, Chris Collins was one of Trump's earliest supporters in 2016.

Brian: That's true.

Ilya: I believe Duncan Hunter was an outspoken supporter as well.

Brian: Early. They were both early, so it might just be thank-you pardons.

Ilya: You can put them in Jack Goldsmith's category of, that's right, political thank-you pardons effectively. I want to echo something that Andrea said earlier though because what I'm really left with here is the corrosive effect of pardons for these kinds of infractions, for insider trading, and other kinds of financial stuff where other people are not physically hurt. If you think about it, when a murderer is pardoned because they've served time and they're repentant and they've made amends and they've gone above and beyond, that's not taken as an invitation to other people to commit murder, right?

When someone who broke campaign finance laws or committed fraud or bilked investors or engaged in any number of other white-collar crimes is pardoned, I think that lands a little differently. I think that says, "These aren't real crimes. They don't really matter." That's why so many of Trump's pardons, not just the ones of people in the Russia investigation, are so very troubling to me.

Brian: Trump, not the first president to issue sleazy-looking pardons as favors for people close to him. Bill Clinton did it, among others, but you've described a whole other scale, an unprecedented scale and type. We leave it there with Ilya Marritz, co-host of our Trump, Inc. podcast. The new episode discusses the various potential legal liabilities for Trump himself after leaving office. Ilya, thanks a lot.

Ilya: Good talking to you, Brian.

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.