Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
Hello and welcome to another episode of Prosecuting Donald Trump. Well, we're recording on the evening of Monday, August 28th.
Why is that such a big deal? Because two big things have happened, one of which has concluded and one of them is continuing, although we'll address what happened so far. So there's big news in D.C. and there's also big news in both of the so-called January 6th cases where there's just a lot going on. So, Mary, I cannot wait to talk to you. I know I say that every week, but this time it's like we haven't been able to even text or do anything. This is all going to be super fresh.
So welcome. Yes, good to be with you. I know you are across the pond, as they say, and so it's nighttime where you are later than it is here. But today, big, big news back stateside. In the District of Columbia, the federal district court judge, Tanya Chutkan, rejected the proposed trial dates of both parties. So she rejected Mr. Trump's request to put the trial off until well beyond the election to April of 2026.
But she also rejected the government's proposal to go to trial January 2nd, 2024, sort of right around the corner. Instead, she set March 4th, 2024. Now, obviously, that's much closer to the government's proposal than it is to Mr. Trump's proposal. And we can get into why that might have been and what factors she took into consideration. But suffice to say, even if that date, for various reasons, could slip by days or even weeks, I feel positive.
quite confident this case will go to trial before the election. Not just before the election. It's going to go before the Republican nomination. This is a huge win for the public.
in terms of having an answer to did he do it or didn't he do it? And then jury verdict. You know, there will be efforts of Trump to take various things up on appeal. He's already talking about trying to appeal this trial date, but that is not an appealable order. We can get into that as well. But in Georgia, just as a preview, what we're going to jump into. Mark Meadows, former chief of staff to Donald Trump,
has sought to remove his case, to move it from state court to federal court. And that hearing started today. And...
Mark Meadows testified, and he has been subject to direct and cross-examination. Big surprise. Now, before we talk about both of these, it's probably worth noting that because neither of these proceedings, they both happened in federal court, neither is televised, and neither of us has a transcript of exactly what was said. So we're going to come back to this when we know a lot more about the nitty-gritty, but we're going to give you a lot of what's been reported and
and our take on what's been reported in terms of not only what happened, but what's next and how to read it. So with that, let's go back to D.C. So first, since I always tell a joke or an anecdote that relates to something, but here's an anecdote of I have sort of
too. And you can feel his choice as to which you think is more appropriate. When we were deciding that we wanted to try to do a search warrant on Paul Manafort, we went in and talked to Special Counsel Mueller, and we said, this is why we need to do a search in his house, because he's not going to turn things over pursuant to a subpoena. He's already lied and says he doesn't have anything. At the very least, he's going to assert the fifth. So we're not going to get anything through a subpoena. We need to do a search.
And the other camp was saying, no, no, no, it's too bold. It's too aggressive. You may not get anything. What will people think? They're going to think we're jackbooted thugs. And I remember the special counsel listened to both sides and he said, OK, we're going to compromise. You can do the search. No battering ram. A battering ram when you do a search is what agents are allowed to bring with them if a
after you do a knock on the door and let a sufficient amount of time go and you knock again and they don't open up, you're allowed to essentially go through the door. So his idea was basically it's not really a compromise. And that's the way I sort of view Judge Chutkan going, OK, January 2024, April 2026, I'm going to compromise March 2024. I mean, that is such a great date for the government. And as I said, I think it's a really good date for the
people because, Mary, as you said so many times, is that the Speedy Trial Act is about the public's right to a speedy trial. The parties are not entitled to waive that and unilaterally choose what the date is.
And she made that point. I mean, we haven't seen the transcript, but based on journalists and others who were in the courtroom, she made the point this is not just Mr. Trump's right to the speedy trial, which of course he doesn't even want. It's also society's right. And that comes straight from the Supreme Court, as we've talked about before. So I'm sure you're on the edge of your seat and wondering what my second point is.
anecdote is, right? Yes, your second anecdote. Yeah. So Amy Berman Jackson, who is a colleague of Judge Chutkin, she's a respected federal district judge in D.C. She had the Manafort case, the Stone case. We were in front of her a lot. And Manafort, before his second trial, said, please put it off. And first he was like, you know, just like Trump, he was saying, you know, please put it off. It should be in Virginia. And it should also be
after the midterms. It was so bold. It was just like, I want it after the midterms. Gee, I wonder why. I mean, you've got to hand it to him. Totally. It was just kind of being candor. Exactly. A for candor, F for legal acumen. And...
We were like, Judge, this is outrageous. We've turned everything over. This date's been set for so long. We told you this was going to happen. And she said, well, I'm going to compromise. We're going to pick the jury on the date that I set in mid-September, but we're not going to start the trial till two days later.
Similar compromise. This is two months, not two days. So obviously much more. Yes. I mean, that's just incredible acumen. I thought this was really interesting, but I had a couple of things that I wanted to make a really quick point. And then I had a bunch of questions for you, Mary. So I have a quick point, too. So you're on your third quick point. So you owe me three quick points. You're right. You need to be like, zip it.
Zip it. We're done. You should basically say, you know, you get to choose one point or one anecdote, but you can't have two anecdotes and a point. Okay, so my really quick point is kudos to Alvin Bragg. Alvin Bragg, the district attorney in Manhattan,
He had the March trial date, and he very publicly a few weeks ago said on air and made it known that he was not wedded to that date, that if justice required the federal case to go first, that he wasn't going to say, just because I brought my case first, my trial should go first. And I just thought that was so statesmanlike. That's
That really allowed Judge Chutkan to be able to call the judge in that case, as she said she did, and say, is it OK for me to take that trial date, even if it ends up pushing your trial off? So it really shows an enormous amount of collegiality, graciousness, and really thinking about the public's interest here. So that was my really quick point. Mary?
Over to you. Yeah. And, you know, she wouldn't have had to do that. But I mean, it was definitely good for him to do that. I know practicing in D.C., sometimes we would have defendants who had cases both in federal court and in superior court. And the judges would talk to each other because it's just the right thing to do. What is, Mary, what's superior court? Just so people. So in D.C., the equivalent of a state court, D.C., of course, is not a state, but the equivalent of a state court is called the D.C. Superior Court.
Court and those cases, the appellate court for those is the D.C. Court of Appeals. There is no higher level of appeal like a D.C. Supreme Court. So the D.C. Court of Appeals is the highest court in D.C. in its capacity as the District of Columbia, kind of like a state, but not a state. And that's confuses people because the federal district court is, of course, the district court for the District of Columbia. The appellate court is the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and then things from there go on to the U.S. Supreme Court if they get reviewed further. Okay, well, that's a mouthful. So is that a way of saying that D.C. basically has got a federal system and a state system merged into one, basically? Yeah.
Yeah, all for, you know, less than 10 square miles. So it's, yeah, a lot of court, a lot of court. We also have other courts here, too. We can get into that another time. One of the things, though, I think that is important for people to before we get into kind of like how does this impact everything having to go to trial in seven months is, you know, not too surprisingly, Trump immediately posted on True Social his objections to this trial date using colorful language about deranged Jack Smith and Trump hating judge.
But he says, I will appeal. Now, some people might be thinking, OK, well, that's going to delay everything for an appeal. He can't appeal the setting of a trial date. Under federal law, not every decision a judge makes is appealable. And I would say this isn't even a decision in the sense of most decisions like opinions on legal issues. This is a scheduling order. And so he can't appeal this. Now, he could appeal.
try a real gamble that will fail, which is to take the only possible thing he could do would be to seek something called mandamus. This is like an extraordinary remedy when a judge has done something that is so clearly wrong, indisputably wrong.
in violation of a clear duty, any party can seek immediate review in the court of appeals on a writ of mandamus. But the standard is exceedingly hard to make, and it would not be made in something like this. This is the setting of a trial date. If
If Trump goes to trial, if he's convicted, he can appeal and he can add, if he wants, to his arguments on appeal. This judge made me go to trial too soon and I did not get my due process rights and it wasn't fair and the whole entire thing should be thrown out. But that would be the first time he'll be able to do that. Sorry. So people have a frame of reference. I mean, seven months is, frankly, a lot of time. I think Judge Shetkin made a very good record
Eastern District of Virginia's so-called rocket docket, almost all of their cases go well in advance of seven months. So, I mean, it obviously isn't a due process violation. If it was a due process violation, the Eastern District of Virginia's so-called rocket docket wouldn't exist. So this isn't something that he can complain about legally. He can only complain about it in the court of public opinion. So, yeah.
Mary, this is maybe a really good segue to a bunch of questions and issues that I was thinking about. So John Loro, the newest member of Donald Trump's legal team, he was quoted as saying to Judge Chutkan...
After she ruled, well, Judge, you should know you are going to cause there to be ineffective assistance of counsel because there's no way for us to be able to comply with our obligations under the Sixth Amendment to provide effective assistance of counsel within seven months. And very antagonistic, very in your face. I was really wondering what you thought.
thought of that. I have only once heard a defense lawyer do that with a judge. It's not what you say in a court, in my experience. You might disagree with a judge, but there are ways that you behave and there are ways you do not. And announcing that you're going to provide ineffective assistance, I can tell you what the judge said to the defense lawyer who said that to him.
was there are bars that take care of that situation when you do not do your job, meaning your license is on the line. I think John Loro, between that and his reports that he was just raising his voice and she had to calm him down, it was really inappropriate in his manner. I think he has decided that
I am going to be the legal version of Donald Trump in court, showing no respect for the judicial system. It reminded me so much of Bruce Cutler representing John Gotti in court. He was this mob lawyer who just, through all of their sort of rules and how you're supposed to behave and your professional obligations to the court, to the wind. And I'm interested whether you think I'm sort of overreacting because
I guess I just have this sort of very respectful view of how you're supposed to behave in court, even...
I mean, even you and I have both been in front of judges who've given us hard times or not doing things you think are wrong. Oh, yeah. And you maintain your respect. I mean, partly we were, you know, repeat litigators in front of the judges when we represented the Department of Justice and the people. And so you needed to maintain your reputation. And it's just the decorum of the court that I think we had respect for. So I have two reactions to that. One is a non-legal reaction and one is a legal reaction.
This sounds like John Laro is wanting to be the kind of lawyer that Trump has always said he wants. He compares everybody to Roy Cohn, who famously was Mr. Trump's longtime former attorney. Disbarred Roy Cohn. Disbarred. Right.
Right. He wants that aggressive lawyer. He wants that one who's pushing the barriers of what is ethical, maybe pushing too far, like you just imagined. So I think that a lot of this was Laro just playing to what he thinks Trump wants, but maybe getting sucked in a little bit.
The second point is more the legal point, and I just want to make sure listeners are aware. Ineffective assistance of counsel, that is a ground for getting a conviction reversed and getting a new trial. Yeah, good point. And I have certainly seen...
In fact, I've litigated many of these. When I was in the appellate division, we would also handle appeals from denials of ineffective assistance of counsel motions. That motion will often be made first in front of the trial court saying, you know what, that case you just tried, Your Honor, I was ineffective because I didn't do X, Y, or Z. More commonly, it's not the attorney saying I was ineffective. More commonly, it's a
The new attorney coming in and saying that old attorney was ineffective because he didn't investigate properly. He didn't, you know, even look at these, even talk to these witnesses that were important witnesses for the defendant. And then sometimes that attorney will then come in and fall on his sword and say, no,
You're right. I messed up. And sometimes the trial court will grant that, but other times the trial court will deny it and they can appeal that. But I've never seen somebody come in at the very beginning of the case, the day that the trial date is being set and saying basically to the judge, you're making me be ineffective and I will be ineffective. And what I think he's trying to do is bully her into saying,
giving him more time because she won't want to risk some sort of reversible error for ineffective assistance. Well, he can't manufacture his ineffectiveness like this. Joan, it's like, Mary, it's like saying the election is going to be rigged
before it occurs. And this is him saying, you know what? I'm going to be ineffective before the trial started. It's like peas in a pod. So I have to say, this is maybe a little in the weeds because part of this podcast was to sort of give you like how we think about these things. And I know this isn't a big picture item, but when
I looked at the performance, the sort of the professionalism. I was really aghast at, this is a guy who was a former prosecutor. And anyway, I just, that was my initial take. So I had a really quick question for you. So now Jack Smith has this locked in date, more or less. I mean, but it's not going to slip very much.
And it's one defendant. But we know he has these six unindicted co-conspirators that are articulated in the charging instrument. And we've talked about how it seems so likely that at some point he is going to be thinking about charging them one, two, three, four, five or six. But some number he's going to be thinking about charging. And I was just thinking about if Jack Smith and you have this date and you don't want to lose it.
On the other hand, you might want to bring those charges because you might be thinking, if I bring them, maybe those people will flip. Now, some of those people you might think that's never going to happen. And this is probably going to be a useful segue to Mark Meadows, although he's not one of the unindicted co-conspirators. But do you charge those people between now and March 4th with the risk that they're
Donald Trump and they say, wait a second, try us all together. It doesn't need judicial economy. There's no reason to separate the two and do anything that could jeopardize that date, even if you're giving up the additional pressure on potentially someone flipping. Like, let's just take an example.
Jeff Clark, somebody who you might think could flip and might be useful. We've talked about Rudy might not be the better person or Sidney Powell or there are a bunch of people you might not want to, but let's just take Jeff Clark. Do you do that or do you just say not worth it? Better just go to trial. I've got a really strong case.
I think that's a tough call because there is some risk that if you indict before March 4th, that those cases will be consolidated because they arise out of the same set of acts and transactions. And that's normally the standard for joinder of multiple cases. And you also don't want to...
risk the court thinking you are playing games, right? So if you wait until you're right before trial and then you indict them, it could look like you were waiting just so that it'd be so close to trial that I would deny a motion to consolidate. And so I think Smith needs to think long and hard. I can't give you...
An answer because, as you know, back when we talked about the fact that the indictment just named Trump, even though it made a persuasive, compelling case that all of the unindicted co-conspirators should have been indicted, we both, I think, had the reaction as prosecutors, we'd have much rather seen everybody indicted in one, but we understood what we...
believed was probably the strategy of just indicting Trump. And so my gut is still get these guys indicted. But there are definitely countervailing considerations. And as you indicated, one of the things that an indictment could potentially result in is, you know, one or more of these people, maybe the more credible of them, if any of them are credible, deciding to work with the government and cooperate in order to
lose their status as an unindicted conspirator and instead become a cooperator. That brings us a little bit. It's a good segue to Georgia because something else going on in Georgia could also result in some changes. You know, we have had two and there's rumors a third of the indicted co-conspirators are
who all happen to be also unindicted co-conspirators in D.C. We've had two of them and a third now talking about moving for a speedy trial that looks like it's going to start at the end of October. That's Kenneth Chesbrough and Sidney Powell. And I've read that John Eastman is also planning to file such a motion. And so that could also end up resulting, maybe not in cooperators, but depending on how those trials go, there could be evidence that would be admissible later.
in Jack Smith's case against Mr. Trump, but certainly also make cases against those three individuals. It could also be that Jack Smith would say, if they're found guilty, I don't need to gild the lily. They're going to be
They're being held accountable and I don't need to indict them. That's sort of where I am, which is, you know, there's pressure on them because of the state charges. He can wait and see what happens there. There's a lot moving along that we're about to talk about. And he just didn't need to decide that right now. And as you said, he can sort of explain that to Chuck and if she were later to say, why didn't you do this earlier? Are you playing games? I mean, there's a lot of reasons to wait.
And I just think you have this bird in the hand that is just so important to the American public that there be a determination before the Republican convention one way or the other. More prosecuting Donald Trump. First up, the D.C. trial in just a moment.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. I grew up in the front row of the spectator section in courtrooms. My father was a Boston cop who became a lawyer, and he had me in the courtrooms all the time. And I was learning literally the rules of evidence when I was in high school. My first book was about a case that went on for seven years. And so everything that happens in courtrooms makes perfect sense to me, and my job is to try to make it make sense to an audience. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell.
Weeknights at 10 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC. So, Mary, as you said, this is a really great transition to Mark Meadows, former chief of staff, who is seeking to have his case go from state court to federal court to remove it. He basically has to show, this is sort of the, it's not the legal definition, but he has to show that the charged actions were things that were done as part of his official responsibilities under color laws.
of his office and that he has a role defense under federal law. And so it is his burden.
And he testified. And what happened today is he went through direct examination. He went through cross-examination. We're hearing that Mr. Raffensperger, Secretary of State in Georgia, obviously the person who taped the infamous call that Mark Meadows was on, where Donald Trump asked to find a certain number of votes and threatened him in words and substance with criminal prosecution if he didn't.
He also has testified, and we're expecting that case to be in sort of closing arguments now. So it is possible that all of the evidence will wrap as we're speaking. So this is like beyond hot up the presses. So we'll hear more, and we don't have all of the details about what was said. What I think is a little bit surprising, which is Mark Meadows testifying, you know, is trying to figure out why that would happen. And first,
it is his burden. So he is the movement. That means that if he doesn't produce evidence, he loses. And so...
What evidence was he going to produce that was going to be compelling about how all of these charged acts were somehow part of his function as chief of staff? And that means they have to be things that were in the scope of his office and not part of politics. It's really important to remember what Fonny Willis argued here, which is
It's not just that committing a crime is not part of your office, but also even if you're saying that you were doing something that's just helping the Trump campaign, it's not just that you're committing a crime.
The Trump campaign has to, under law, be separate from your job as a federal officer. There's something called the Hatch Act, and that requires you not to engage in political activity. That's something Mary and I know very well. Every federal employee is trained on it. Every federal employee is bound by that. Exactly. So he has to show that this is unrelated to crime and unrelated to...
Trump campaign. And so that's why I think he sort of had, in some ways, no choice if he was going to gamble to do this. I think effectively, you're right. But theoretically, right, he could have had a former White House ethics counsel testify that, oh, no, these types of things are, you know, within the scope of your official duties and not in violation of hijack. He could have had he could have had something like that.
But either where do you find that nobody was willing to do that? Well, well, where do you pay for that person? I think that's telling. Right. Because if I think that there were such ethics officials or former White House counsel willing to say that they'd have been on that stand. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, you're right.
Theoretically, somebody else could have carried the ball. He could have called somebody, but it would have been telling to the judge, I think, that he didn't hear from Mark Meadows. I think there's another potential point as to why this gamble that he's taking where he's testifying and potentially incriminating himself, providing false testimony or statements that the DA or Jack Smith wants to use is that it's not open and shut.
that the DA and Jack Smith can use this testimony in their case. I mean, I think that there's law that they can. I think there's law and arguments that they cannot. Meaning, if you're Mark Meadows, you might think, you know what, I'm going to do something that's a little risky. It's my only chance of getting into federal court. And I do have an argument later that if I say something that is potentially...
useful for the prosecutors that I get to say, you're not allowed to use it because I shouldn't have that burden of choosing between one or the other to assert my right to try and go to federal court. That's a big open issue. I mean, I was busy talking to my colleague, Ryan Goodman, who, you know, was really trying to think through with me why Mark Meadows might've made this gamble and
And that's possible. Because just to make sure everybody's clear, normally, once you decide to testify about sort of the facts of something that you've been accused of doing, that's considered a waiver of your fifth amendment, right? Not to incriminate yourself. And you can't pick and choose. You can't say, well, I'm going to waive for purposes of this hearing, but then I'm going to invoke it later on down the road. And normally, you know, what you say can be used against you. There are some
exceptions to that. And this has all happened so fast. Most of us haven't even had a chance to do the research into that. So that'll be an issue for the next time. I think the other thing that bears mentioning is that, and there's been a lot of talk about this in the legal arena and those who go on legal blogs and things like that, but there's a
It's a two-step process between what you have to show to remove your case to federal court and then what you have to show to get your case dismissed on the grounds that you're immune from prosecution because what you were doing was part of your duties in your federal role. And they kind of feel smushed together because in order to remove your case, you have to be saying, I was an officer, a federal officer. I was acting.
as part of my official duties and the legal terms are under color of such office, and I have a colorable federal defense, meaning a plausible defense. That defense, of course, is I'm immune from prosecution because I was actually doing my job. So I think
Many of us want to fast forward and to say, well, we think you lose there on your defense. So therefore, you shouldn't get to remove it at all. But the standard is actually if it's plausible, you might get to remove it. Then you battle it out in court over whether you're right that you really are a
immune. And that immunity comes from the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. And to show that you're immune, a federal officer has to show, again, that they were engaged in conduct that's authorized by federal law or the Constitution and that the federal officer did no more than what was necessary and proper to carry out their federal duty. And that's where I think a lot of commentators, and I tend to agree with this, say the point you were just making. It's not part of your
official duties to violate the Hatch Act, to engage in political activity. It's not part of your official duties to be doing campaign-related activities. And it's also not part of your official duties to be pressuring people, soliciting people like Brad Raffensperger to violate their oath of office. But it could be that...
And the point here is even if the judge and we don't know whether he'll rule tonight or a will tomorrow or someday in the future, he doesn't have to rule the same day he's heard evidence. He could actually say, I'm going to allow this case to be removed. And that does not mean that Mark Meadows beats this prosecution, because then they will go on to actually having to argue. And he's already filed his motion to dismiss, argue that he should be dismissed on these
grounds of immunity. So it's another one of these kind of complicated areas of law that is easily confused, but something we'll be talking about as we go forward, whether the court grants it or doesn't. So at least at this stage, we're not yet at the immunity stage. If the court were to grant removal, just to remind people, there are certain consequences. I think one of the key things is that
it is extremely unlikely that a federal trial would be televised. And that obviously, you know, is so important for these defendants, particularly Donald Trump, but Mark Meadows as well. Second, the jury pool is slightly different because it draws from a different pool veneer. So that's the technical term than if it were a state case. Those are sort of two big differences.
But these are still state charges. They still cannot be pardoned by a president. And the prosecutor goes along with the case. So you're not removing the prosecutors. So that's sort of why this is something that Mark Meadows might want. It is also why Fannie Willis is posing it. On the merits of it, I just think there's so much...
evidence that hurts Mark Meadows on this. I mean, for instance, he's in a text talking about whether they could speed up another sort of audit done by the state if the Trump campaign pays for it. How can the chief of staff
Right.
Mark Meadows was very much involved in. And when Mark Meadows was asked about this today, he said, well, as chief of staff, I did not coordinate it.
And that built in two problems. Well, first, of course, he didn't do it as chief of staff because that's not the role of chief of staff to coordinate a fake elector scheme. So that is literally true, but also means that's why it can't be removed. And then coordinate is just one of those words, Mary, you and I deal with all the time when someone on the stand uses the word. Okay.
Okay, let's just... Okay, you used the word coordinate. Did you assist in any way, shape, or form, whether you were the coordinator? I mean, those are the kinds of words that as trial lawyers, Mary, you and I have our antenna go way up. Our spidey sense. Exactly. So...
It'll be really interesting when we actually get to read the transcript to see how strong the state was in sort of putting forth all of this. But I have to say, I was really impressed with their brief. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm going to. Wait, I owe you so much, Mary. Bring it on.
Yeah. So everything you're indicating, I'm sure, were points that came out in cross-examination. Meadows' affirmative argument, essentially based on reading his briefs that were filed—obviously, we weren't there in court today—was basically, look, as chief of staff, it's my job to go with the president everywhere he goes, to arrange the phone calls he wants to make, regardless of what they are. He's running for office. Some of those things that he, Mr. Trump, does—
will have something to do with the campaign, but I'm still chief of staff and I have to coordinate his schedule for him and I have to be present and all of that's within my official duties. So these points you just made, which I'm quite sure were points made on cross-examination, are exactly what sort of put the lie to that, right? Okay, even if you have to travel along, you didn't have to do some of these other things.
Just remember, Mark Meadows is quoted in an investigation that found he violated the Hatch Act.
Meaning, yeah, of course, that's what I did. That is going to be such an important issue for this federal judge. So we'll see what they do with that. Mary?
So in addition, there is one other thing that is going to happen that we learned about today, and it involves September 6th. So there are two reasons that's an important date, September 6th. You want to tell us what they are? Right. So one reason is because all of the defendants in the Georgia case, Fannie Willis's case, will go.
be arraigned that day. They'll be arraigned in court. They'll be asked, do you understand the charges against you? How do you wish to plead guilty or not guilty? Maybe they'll even set trial dates. I don't know. Mr. Trump will be arraigned at 930. But
But it's also the day that we are actually going to do something we have never done before, but we're going to be doing it a couple of times this fall. We are going to do our podcast live. We're going to do it at Georgetown University Law School, where I'm a visiting professor and where my other litigating organization is based at noon. And then the following month, we're going to go up to New York University, NYU, and do it where Andrew is a law professor, also live. So we're excited. Hometown to hometown.
- Yeah. - That's right. And we planned this a month or two ago. It just so happened that that is arraignment day. So we get to do a live podcast on arraignment day. - The thing that's so interesting about that arraignment is it'll be so different than what we've seen in any other of the three courtrooms. And that's because we will see it. - Yes. - There will be cameras in the courtroom, which is just so important.
Mary, I look forward to being with you live in the same room and not an ocean apart. Absolutely. Yes. Looking forward to it. And get home safely. Thank you. If you've got questions, you can leave us a voicemail at 917-342-2934. Maybe we'll play it on the pod. Or you can email us at prosecutingtrumpquestions at NBCUNI.com.
Thanks so much for listening. We'll be in Georgetown live on Wednesday, so that will get out to everybody Wednesday night or Thursday morning.
The senior producer for this show is Alicia Conley. Jessica Schrecker and Ivy Green are segment producers. Our technical director is Bryson Barnes. Cedric Wilson is an audio engineer. Jen Maris Perez is the associate producer. Aisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC Audio. And Rebecca Cutler is the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC. Search for Prosecuting Donald Trump wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series.
Hi, everyone. It's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening, author and philosopher Daniel Chandler on the roots of a just society. I think that those genuinely big fundamental questions about whether liberal democracy will survive, what the shape of our society should be, feel like they're genuinely back on the agenda. I think it feels like we're at a real, you know, an inflection point or a turning point in the history of liberal democracy. That's this week on Why Is This Happening. Search for Why Is This Happening wherever you're listening right now and follow.
