back over 70 years and looked at all the cases that have been tried under this rule,

66, or 6312, which is used here, which doesn't have to show harm done.

It's not the, that's not the burden. You don't have to show harm done. It's not the burden.

You don't have to show that anybody was hurt by your practices.

There's nobody you defrauded specifically.

But they went back and they looked to cases over 70 years.

I believe it was about 150 cases and found that there was no case

where there was a ban on doing business,

where there wasn't harm shown.

So even though the threshold is harm shown,

in the past, it has only been used to ban someone doing business

when it's been shown that somebody was hurt. Say you're selling cosmetics that are poisoning

you. There's somebody that was hurt there, the cosmetics company gets banned.

Is this fair to go after Donald Trump like this in this environment?

Is my question.

Well look I think what you said about the statute is absolutely true.

Kristen Snell, who just joined us at the table and has used it.

I was going to introduce him, but we can introduce him now as well.

Tristan Snell is here.

He's used this.

Well, let's ask, Kristen, you use this 6312 in the Trump University a university that was scamming people

wasn't actually giving them useful information for them to do business and

...