0:00

Shopify is the global commerce platform that

0:02

helps you sell at every stage of

0:04

your business. With the internet's best converting

0:06

checkout, 36% better on average

0:09

compared to other leading commerce platforms,

0:11

Shopify helps you turn browsers into

0:13

buyers. In fact, Shopify powers 10%

0:16

of all e-commerce in the US. Sign up

0:19

for a $1 per month trial period at

0:21

shopify.com podcast. Free

0:24

all lowercase shopify.com/podcast

0:26

free shopify.com slash

0:28

podcast free Hello

0:41

and welcome back to prosecuting Donald

0:43

Trump. It is Tuesday, June 4th,

0:45

and I do not have to

0:48

give the time because we're just

0:50

kicking back, resting

0:52

on our laurels with not

0:54

a care in the world. Hi,

0:57

Mary. It's Andrew Weissman. Yeah, speak

0:59

for yourself. I have a few pairs in the world, but

1:01

yes. You have a day job. That's

1:03

right, and a weekend job. But yes,

1:05

you're right. I mean, it's not like we're under

1:08

the pressure of reading 300 pages of

1:10

transcript before we go on to record in the

1:12

morning. We're not in the middle of trial anymore,

1:14

and we can reflect a little bit on it.

1:16

And we got a little bit of that on

1:18

Friday, but it was still so new. The verdict

1:20

was so new. And now I think,

1:22

you know, we've seen some of the aftermath,

1:24

and we'll talk about that a little bit.

1:26

We'll also, of course, talk about what's going

1:28

on down in the Mar-a-Lago case. And if

1:31

we have time, we will get to some

1:33

listener questions. So I had a

1:35

couple thoughts. First, this whole period

1:37

reminds me, and I'll be

1:40

interested whether you had it too, where when

1:42

you finish a trial, you have all

1:44

of that adrenaline, and your whole routine

1:46

changes, and you're not sleeping. We've talked

1:49

about how both of us were the

1:51

non-eating types, and you're killing

1:53

yourself. There's like a performative aspect.

1:56

In the evening, you're preparing your

1:58

witnesses and outlines and dealing

2:00

with a million issues and then

2:02

suddenly, it stops and

2:04

you're back at your desk and

2:07

it's like the reverse of the Wizard of

2:09

Oz. You go from a color world to

2:11

a black and white world. That's

2:13

a great analogy. It's just suddenly it's like,

2:16

oh, this is it. It's just... What next?

2:18

Yeah, all of that sort of adrenaline

2:20

rush is gone and it feels so

2:23

like a deflated balloon and I'm a

2:25

little bit in that mode. Obviously, we

2:27

weren't doing the trial and we didn't

2:29

have a dog in the fight, but

2:32

it's sort of back to normal. But

2:34

my second thought was I'm really looking

2:36

forward to what I'll call our A-block

2:39

and I think it's really important

2:41

that we're in this phase of

2:43

seeing people spin the

2:45

verdict and the disinformation campaign.

2:47

So I know, Mary,

2:50

we chatted briefly about wanting to debunk

2:52

that and give listeners tools. Obviously, listeners

2:55

who listen to this podcast know what

2:57

the facts are and we've tried to

2:59

be super dispassionate about what happened, but

3:01

we want to go through sort of...

3:04

It's like a top 10 list of

3:06

things that bother us about what's being

3:09

said about the trial. So maybe that's

3:11

a really good intro for Mary. What's

3:13

on your list of things that annoy

3:15

you, bother you or just think it's

3:17

just incorrect? Yeah. I mean, and I

3:20

just want to start too by saying,

3:22

you know, the attacks on this trial

3:24

as having been rigged, been a

3:27

scam, all of these kinds

3:29

of things, that is very dangerous to

3:31

the rule of law. That is

3:33

undermining confidence in our criminal justice

3:35

system. We've talked before about how

3:37

there are problems with it for

3:39

sure. Things that, you know, frankly, in my

3:41

day job that the attorneys with whom I

3:43

work, we work to bring reforms

3:45

that will help make the system

3:47

better. But those reforms are not

3:49

about reforming something that reputable lawyers

3:52

think is a scam or a

3:54

rigged system. This is just about

3:56

making it more fair, more egalitarian,

3:58

making sure we... are not criminalizing

4:00

poverty, which some of the practices

4:02

in our criminal justice system do

4:04

tend to do through cash bail

4:06

and fines and fees and things like

4:08

that. That kind of reform is not

4:11

based on notions that the entire system

4:13

is rigged and a sham and corrupt.

4:15

And that's what's very dangerous about things

4:17

that the former president is saying and those

4:19

of his allies are saying. But just to

4:21

debunk some of what's out there right now

4:23

that just seems to be wrong, one I

4:25

really want to start with is this notion

4:28

that the Supreme Court should step in.

4:30

I mean, that's coming out. We just

4:32

have a verdict of guilt found by

4:34

the jury here. We are just days

4:37

out of that guilty verdict. We have

4:39

not even gone to sentencing yet and

4:41

we have had people, including members of

4:44

Congress, saying that the Supreme Court should

4:46

step in. And it's going to be

4:48

clear there's no mechanism for the Supreme

4:51

Court to step in and insert itself

4:53

into an ongoing state criminal prosecution

4:56

that hasn't even reached the point of

4:58

appeal within the state system. In

5:00

New York system, as in all other

5:03

systems, we've talked so many times about

5:05

the fact that there are only limited

5:07

opportunities for a defendant to appeal before

5:09

they've been sentenced, found guilty or pled

5:11

guilty and been sentenced. And some of

5:13

those are things like on grounds of

5:15

immunity. And that's why that immunity case

5:18

in the January 6th federal prosecution is up

5:20

in the US Supreme Court right now. And

5:22

that's why we're waiting. And

5:24

that's something to talk about too. The decision days

5:27

on the calendars right now are Thursdays for

5:29

the rest of the month. So we'll see if

5:31

we get this decision on one of these Thursdays.

5:33

Ultimately, we'll get it. But that's why

5:35

that's up there. That might be confusing

5:37

people into thinking, well, look, you can

5:39

just run to the Supreme Court anytime

5:42

you want. But that's very limited circumstances.

5:44

And here, what we're talking about with

5:46

Donald Trump is an opportunity for him

5:48

to appeal his conviction. And we expect,

5:50

of course, that he will. But he can't

5:52

do that until after he's sentenced. And

5:54

then the appeal goes to the appellate

5:57

division of the New York state court

5:59

system. which is that intermediate court

6:01

of appeals stage, depending on the

6:04

outcome there. And he'll raise various

6:06

issues, which we will talk about in

6:08

due course as they come up. He'll

6:10

raise various issues. And depending on

6:12

the outcome of that, he may seek further

6:14

review in the New York Court of Appeals,

6:16

which is the New York State's highest court,

6:19

depending on the outcome of that. And

6:21

they don't have to take the case. Like most

6:23

state highest courts, they have the authority to take

6:25

or declined cases. Depending on

6:28

the outcome of that, he could maybe

6:30

seek review in the US Supreme Court,

6:33

depending on whether he's raised federal issues

6:35

like federal constitutional issues. So

6:37

we are many, many steps removed from

6:39

the Supreme Court stepping in. And can

6:42

you even imagine, Andrew, if the Supreme

6:44

Court were to try, it doesn't have

6:46

any authority by congressional statute, but to

6:48

try to somehow insert itself in this

6:50

process at this time? No.

6:53

In a word. Yeah.

6:56

There are limited bases

6:58

eventually for the Supreme

7:00

Court to rule. Some

7:03

people may be asking, why should

7:05

a federal court ever have any

7:07

jurisdiction here? Because this is

7:09

a state case. It's decided on

7:12

state law. Why should the United

7:14

States Supreme Court ever get involved? Which is sort

7:16

of a separate issue than the one you're raising,

7:18

Mary, which is really right, which is when would

7:20

it be involved? That's the process. Yeah,

7:22

exactly. Eventually, I think, be

7:25

some effort to go federally. And

7:27

the Supreme Court does set out,

7:30

based on the Constitution, what I'll

7:32

call certain baselines, but it's very

7:34

limited in terms of due process,

7:37

what kinds of issues it could

7:39

reach. So for instance,

7:41

if the judge was not actually

7:44

a judge, if the defendant was

7:46

denied sort of basic due process

7:48

in the most fundamental way, there

7:50

are review processes. And

7:52

that, by the way, has come up

7:55

in death penalty litigation where in the

7:57

South in particular, which was imposing the

7:59

death penalty. much more than

8:01

currently where the goal would

8:22

have that ability but again it's very limited

8:24

and it's not now. That's right. So let

8:26

me give you one of my pet peeves

8:28

and we'll just go back and forth

8:30

and it's like okay this is

8:32

like gripefest. Yes and really more

8:34

than that it's correct the record

8:36

right? There's so much stuff

8:39

out there whether it's on cable news

8:41

whether it's in political speeches whether it's

8:43

on social media that's just wrong and

8:45

unfortunately people consume that and they take

8:47

it to be true oftentimes based on

8:49

who is delivering it and then we

8:52

have a real problem. And I think

8:54

both of us talked about we don't want

8:56

to get into motives of like why people

8:58

are doing it because that's not really the

9:00

issue it's just we just want to correct

9:02

the record it's for others to talk about

9:04

why this might be going on and they're

9:06

probably different motives for different people and even

9:08

several motives within one person leaving

9:10

all that aside. Another thing

9:13

that's come up is the

9:15

idea that how dare Judge

9:17

Norshan schedule this case for

9:19

sentencing just four days before

9:21

the Republican National Convention. Look

9:23

how political he's being he's

9:25

doing it for politics this

9:27

is the reason that he

9:29

scheduled it you know he's

9:31

a Democrat in robes blah

9:33

blah blah. The date

9:35

of sentencing was one proposed

9:37

by Todd Blanch.

9:39

Yes. Todd Blanch lead

9:41

lawyer for Donald Trump. So you

9:44

don't get to propose the date have

9:46

the judge agree and then complain about

9:48

it. Yeah that's what we hear in

9:50

New York called chutzpah. Yeah. And whether

9:52

that was done so he could complain

9:54

about it in other words like with

9:57

that is sort of knowing he picked

9:59

that date. so he could do it. Whether

10:01

it was done because he thought it

10:03

would help him with his victimization tour,

10:05

to be able to say at the

10:07

RNC, look what's going on with me,

10:09

whatever the reason is, it

10:12

is wrong to suggest that the

10:14

date was picked over the opposition

10:16

as opposed to at the insistence

10:19

of the defendant. Okay, Mary,

10:21

what do you got next? Mary E. Deeb Okay,

10:23

so I've got another one that has some of

10:25

the same themes in my first, which is this

10:27

notion. And one person who has been promoting it,

10:29

but it's been amplified by others, is

10:32

that this prosecution was a result of

10:34

the weaponization of the federal government, that

10:36

it was instigated by Joe Biden or

10:38

by Merrick Garland or by the US

10:40

Department of Justice. And in fact, we

10:42

know that Jim Jordan has already indicated

10:44

he wants to have hearings about this.

10:46

Jim Jordan That's how you know it's

10:48

not true. Mary E. Deeb It's true.

10:51

And now we are impugning motives, but

10:53

okay, fairly though. Jim Jordan I'm not

10:55

impugning motives. I'm just saying his track record. Mary

10:57

E. Deeb Yes, absolutely. Jim Jordan On weaponization is-

10:59

Mary E. Deeb Yeah, and a whole series of

11:01

hearings on it. Jim Jordan Yeah, it's also his

11:03

track record is look in

11:05

the mirror. Mary E. Deeb Yes, absolutely. But

11:08

let's be clear. And this is, I guess,

11:10

somewhat related to my first point. This

11:12

was a state prosecution. Alvin Bragg

11:15

is the district attorney in Manhattan.

11:17

He was elected by the people

11:19

in Manhattan. He does not report

11:22

to the US Department of Justice. He

11:24

does not report to Merrick Garland. He

11:26

does not report to Joe Biden. There

11:28

has been nothing I have seen anywhere

11:31

reported in any media. Now,

11:33

granted, I don't necessarily go to the

11:35

fringe US of fringe media that would

11:37

suggest that there was any pressure or

11:40

collusion or anything else brought to bear

11:42

by the US Department of Justice or

11:44

the federal government on Alvin Bragg.

11:46

In fact, if anything, there's been criticism

11:48

that the federal government hadn't done a

11:51

prosecution like this itself. Jim Jordan Exactly.

11:53

Mary E. Deeb So the notion that

11:55

this is a political prosecution brought by

11:57

the sitting president against a political opponent.

12:00

That just has no legs at all.

12:02

That is completely baseless, completely unfounded. Now

12:04

people can criticize and have criticized Alvin

12:06

Bragg for bringing a political prosecution. We

12:09

can address that separately, but that has

12:11

nothing to do with the federal government.

12:13

But this mixing things up in people's

12:15

mind as though a state prosecution is

12:17

something directed by the Department of Justice

12:20

or the President of the United States,

12:22

that is just flat out wrong and

12:24

there's no basis for it. So

12:27

two more data points, one of which

12:29

we alluded to, which is if Joe

12:31

Biden wanted to direct the prosecution, he

12:33

could have just told the Southern District

12:35

of New York that it previously had

12:37

the case. That is the US Attorney's

12:39

Office, let's be key layers, that does report

12:41

to the Department of Justice, that is

12:44

part of the Department of Justice. They're

12:46

federal prosecutors in the Department of Justice.

12:48

They're assigned to a particular part, which

12:50

is in Manhattan, and they could have

12:52

told the federal prosecutors there, go forward.

12:55

That could have happened. The day he

12:57

was inaugurated and it didn't

12:59

happen. It did not. And this is like

13:01

conspiracy theories, just it's like they don't focus

13:03

on the data. As we

13:05

are sitting here, Mary, recording this, there

13:08

is proof positive that

13:11

Joe Biden means what he

13:13

says when he says the Department of

13:15

Justice acts independently of

13:17

me. They decide who

13:19

to prosecute. There are two cases

13:22

going on right now

13:24

that are really good data points

13:26

that Joe Biden is living what

13:29

it means to act by the

13:31

rule of law. One is Senator

13:33

Menendez, the Democratic Senator from New

13:35

Jersey, is on trial in that

13:37

same Southern District of New York

13:39

that we just talked about that

13:41

is prosecuting a sitting Democratic Senator.

13:44

That is going on right now. But there's,

13:47

as I can see, knife commercial. But there's

13:49

more. But there's more. I don't

13:51

think this is getting enough attention. Joe

13:53

Biden has the deepest personal

13:55

interest in seeing that a

13:58

prosecution, a federal prosecution. execution

14:00

be ended. If you were

14:02

thinking about just his personal interest,

14:05

not his official interest, his son,

14:07

his only living son is being

14:10

prosecuted right now. Sitting

14:12

in trial right now today. Exactly. Today

14:14

and he's facing yet another trial in September.

14:16

So the one today is on a

14:19

gun charge for allegedly falsely saying

14:21

that he was not addicted to

14:23

drugs at the time that he

14:25

purchased a firearm. And I just

14:27

want to be clear, you mentioned gun

14:29

charge. Really, we mean a false statement

14:31

on the background check application, not not

14:33

actually something about using the gun. Right.

14:35

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's making a

14:37

false statement in connection with buying a

14:39

firearm. Yes. And then he's facing tax

14:42

charges in September. The president of the

14:44

United States has the power under the

14:46

Constitution to tell his attorney general to

14:48

drop this case. He has the power

14:50

under the Constitution to pardon his son.

14:52

Neither of those are being exercised

14:54

in any way, shape or form

14:57

in spite of the deepest personal

14:59

interest at stake. And I don't

15:01

think he is getting credit isn't the

15:03

right word because you shouldn't get

15:05

credit for doing the right thing.

15:08

But what he's not getting credit

15:10

for is that he is living,

15:12

he is embodying the principle of

15:14

the rule of law and of

15:16

not exercising a power because of

15:18

that understanding that the Department of

15:20

Justice has to be acting independently.

15:23

That is the complete antithesis that

15:25

I have lived through and obviously

15:28

everyone has witnessed, but I've experienced

15:30

it in connection with my own

15:32

cases in the Trump administration with

15:35

Trump and Bill Barr, where to

15:37

a person, every single person, for

15:39

instance, in the Mueller investigation, every

15:42

defendant who was prosecuted who did

15:44

not cooperate was pardoned. Yes. So

15:47

Roger Stone, Paul Manafort. And

15:49

we have promises now, right? We have

15:51

promises now of pardons should Mr.

15:54

Trump become the president again. So it's

15:56

the utter disrespect for the role of

15:58

law and undermining of

16:00

our system, of how we adjudicate

16:03

rights and responsibilities in this country.

16:05

And last point I'll make before

16:07

the break is that is not

16:09

going unnoticed outside of the United

16:12

States. We had a Kremlin spokesperson

16:14

calling this verdict the elimination of

16:16

political rivals by all possible legal

16:18

or illegal means. They should know.

16:21

We've had Victor Orban commenting. We've

16:23

had the Chinese media commenting, right? So,

16:25

you know, welcome to the club, say

16:27

some of them, and this is very

16:30

dangerous for us. And if people don't

16:32

have confidence, both people here in the

16:34

United States and people abroad, in our

16:37

system of justice, our court system,

16:39

that's a long-term danger that is

16:41

going to be very judgmental as

16:44

we move forward and really could

16:46

change the trajectory from here on

16:48

out in terms of political retribution.

16:51

Well, on that unhappy note... Yeah, I

16:53

know. This is like a downer. Okay. So

16:56

I have two more that I'm going to

16:58

do. Our producers will love this because it's

17:00

like we've learned how to do cliffhangers. That's

17:02

right. I have two

17:05

more things on the

17:07

sort of misinformation about the verdict, but we'll

17:09

do that right after the break. Sounds

17:11

good. Then.

17:19

Hadn't had a decent night's sleep in a

17:21

month. So during

17:23

one of his restless nights he

17:25

book a package triple brought on

17:27

Expedia. When he arrived at Ease

17:30

Beachside Auto, he discovered a miraculous

17:32

bit slow between two trees and

17:34

fell into the best seat of

17:36

his life. You

17:38

learn to be rechargeable. We

17:41

were me to packets flights

17:43

and hotels and hammocks for

17:45

less Expedia made to travel.

17:48

Shopify is the global commerce platform that

17:51

helps you sell at every stage of

17:53

your business. With the internet's best converting

17:55

checkout, 36% better on average compared to

17:58

other leading commerce platforms. Shopify

18:00

helps you turn browsers into buyers.

18:02

In fact, Shopify powers 10% of

18:05

all e-commerce in the

18:07

US. Sign up for

18:09

a $1 per month

18:11

trial period at shopify.com/podcast

18:13

free. All lower case,

18:15

shopify.com/podcast free, shopify.com/podcast free.

18:18

Andrew? Throw

18:23

me a rope here. What's the

18:25

next one on your list and then

18:27

we'll get to one of mine. Okay,

18:29

really quick one. Donald Trump. I

18:32

really wanted to testify but I

18:34

was precluded from Testify. Yes. Okay,

18:37

folks, black and white, there's

18:39

a transcript. He made that

18:41

claim during the trial saying that the

18:44

gag order was precluding him from Testify

18:46

and after that, Judge Marchand directly spoke

18:48

to Donald Trump and said, I just

18:51

want to make sure you know you

18:53

have the right to testify and nothing about

18:55

the gag order interferes with that. Even

18:58

that his lawyers could make the decision.

19:00

It is a personal decision by the

19:02

defendant. He chose not to testify. He

19:04

could have hopped on that stand any

19:06

day of the week. He has a

19:08

right not to like every defendant. It

19:10

cannot be used against him when he

19:12

chose not to. What he doesn't get

19:15

to do is then tell people but

19:17

I really want to testify but I

19:19

couldn't. So, another just false it. Yes,

19:21

absolutely. What do you got Mary? So,

19:23

this one is one I know you and I talked a

19:25

little bit about on the weekend

19:27

which is this notion out there

19:29

that this case was tailor made

19:31

for Donald Trump. That's outrageous

19:34

Mary. I can't believe they tailor made

19:36

the case. So like I almost

19:39

I'm speechless on how to begin on

19:41

this because of course every single criminal

19:44

prosecution is tailor made to fit the

19:46

facts and the law that apply to

19:48

what the defendant is alleged to have

19:51

done. You can't prosecute something for something

19:53

somebody else did or facts that don't

19:55

relate to something that the dependent did.

19:58

You look at the law. you see

20:00

how they apply. If they apply to

20:02

the conduct that is alleged to have

20:04

been committed and at this point has

20:07

been proven to have been committed, proven

20:09

beyond a reasonable doubt according to a

20:11

finding by 12 jurors, then that is

20:14

the case. And so to suggest that

20:16

there's something untoward or something wrong or

20:18

unlawful or illegal or unconstitutional about tailoring

20:21

a charging instrument and the evidence to

20:23

the facts of the case, I just

20:25

it's hard to even get my mind

20:27

around that. I think it's a shorthand

20:30

for you manufactured this case but

20:32

again what we're talking about is

20:34

Alvin Bragg looking through the statute

20:36

book applying a statute that as

20:38

we discussed last week is the

20:40

bread and butter of that office

20:42

fraudulent business records seeing

20:44

that this conduct involved fraudulent

20:47

business records of three sorts,

20:49

invoices, vouchers, checks all done in

20:52

an effort to conceal another crime

20:54

that crime and this brings up

20:56

another bit of disinformation out there

20:59

that crime was clearly identified as

21:01

a violation of New York election

21:03

law, a conspiracy to promote an

21:05

election through unlawful means that was

21:07

directly explained to Mr. Trump is

21:09

explained to the jury that other

21:12

crime was very well known. That's

21:14

the law that applied to the facts here and that's

21:16

the case that was brought and that's the case that

21:18

was proved. So there's an effort

21:20

by some to say well Donald

21:22

Trump did now until the very

21:24

end what that other crime was

21:27

and that's also just not true.

21:29

First of all at the very

21:31

least in the opening statement before

21:34

the jury, the state stood up

21:36

and said this case is about

21:38

election interference that is the crime

21:40

and election campaign violation in connection

21:42

with interfering with the 2016 election

21:46

and that was taking in money

21:49

and things in kind from the

21:51

National Enquirer AMI that the parent

21:53

company as part of the catching

21:55

kill and there was this effort

21:57

to collude. to

22:00

it. By the way, he was not

22:02

cross-examined in any way, shape, or form

22:04

to say that this was not true

22:06

at no point in closing did Donald

22:08

Trump say he was lying. And so

22:10

they were saying, that's the crime that

22:12

causes this to be a felony.

22:15

And then the false business records are

22:17

the cover-up. So it was just very,

22:19

very clear. But just to be even

22:21

clearer on the sort of, oh, I

22:23

had no idea and they're playing fast

22:25

and loose, this was litigated. Now, there

22:27

was the issue of whether this would

22:29

be appropriate and what those crimes could

22:31

be. Of course, Donald Trump knew it

22:34

because he litigated it before the judge.

22:36

Now, that'll also be and

22:38

it is a valid basis to claim

22:40

on appeal that the trial judge got

22:42

it wrong. But you can't make the

22:44

claim that they didn't know when actually

22:46

in black and white is litigated. And

22:48

I don't know for the life of

22:50

me why there are people out there

22:52

who I think are sort

22:54

of responsible people who are trying to

22:57

make it sound like this was never

22:59

even revealed to Donald Trump when

23:01

it's just in black and white that

23:03

it was. And I should point out

23:05

that the DA's office did more here

23:08

than what it traditionally does. Normally in

23:10

these situations where you have to, it's

23:12

a misdemeanor, but it's a felony if

23:14

you intend to further or cover

23:17

up another crime, they don't reveal what

23:19

that is. It's sort of left to

23:22

the jury. This was much, much more

23:24

than any other defendant gets by the

23:26

way. I think it's totally appropriate. I

23:28

think they should reveal that, but they

23:30

did. Yes, they did. Okay, end of

23:32

story. That was wrong. That's

23:34

right. But that brings us to

23:36

the point of appeal. And once we

23:39

see that appeal, we will dig in

23:41

more to the theories of appeal. There

23:43

are many possibilities there. I will say

23:45

that it's never a good idea to

23:47

take a kitchen sink approach to an

23:49

appeal of a criminal conviction because not

23:51

everything that you might complain about would

23:53

be reversible error. Errors even when

23:56

made are only reversible if they

23:58

actually would have had a... an

24:00

impact on the outcome. Other heirs are considered

24:02

to be harmless and there's lots of rules

24:04

to apply. So his attorneys, Mr. Trump's attorneys,

24:06

will be really trying to narrow it down

24:08

to what do we think are the big

24:11

ticket heirs that were made here that

24:13

would require an actual reversal of the conviction.

24:15

And there's no doubt this question about even

24:17

though it seems to be totally in compliance

24:19

with New York laws, we've just been talked

24:22

about, there's no doubt in my mind that

24:24

this question about sort of whether the jury

24:26

had to be unanimous as to what unlawful

24:28

means were used in the conspiracy to promote

24:31

an election by unlawful means, which

24:33

was the crime that Trump was

24:35

found to have been concealing. There'll

24:38

be some arguments probably about that that are

24:40

made on appeal. I just wanted to make

24:42

sure everyone follows something that you're saying because

24:44

there's been a lot of talk about unanimity.

24:47

And Mary, what you're saying, and I just

24:49

want to show everyone's following this, is the

24:51

jury had to be unanimous on the elements

24:53

of the crime. There's no question that the

24:56

judge said you have to be unanimous on

24:58

each and every one of the elements. And

25:00

you have to, of course, be proved beyond

25:03

a reasonable doubt by the state. Mary,

25:05

what you're getting at is what's commonly

25:07

known federally as methods and means. Right?

25:10

So like a really stupid analogy is

25:12

it doesn't really matter whether you took

25:14

the staircase up or you took the

25:16

elevator up if when you got there

25:18

you shot somebody. Right. And whether you

25:20

used a gun or a knife to

25:22

kill the person, those are methods and

25:25

means. And so the judge

25:27

said with respect to methods and means

25:29

you do not have to be unanimous, but

25:31

with respect to the elements you do. Obviously,

25:33

there will be litigation over whether it's

25:35

a methods and means or whether it should have been considered

25:37

an element. Right. But I just

25:40

want to make sure everyone understood that Mary

25:42

is not saying that the judge said that

25:44

you do not have to be unanimous because

25:46

that's another one of the falsehoods out there.

25:48

So right. And in fact, you know, those

25:50

elements were right that there were business records

25:52

that were falsified and they were done to

25:54

conceal this other crime being the New York

25:56

election crime that all had to be unanimous.

25:59

What the unlawful. of committing the election

26:01

crime, these are the manner and means you're talking about.

26:03

And we'll come back to that. So in all

26:05

of this talking about appeal, what you are not

26:07

going to see, and you know, I

26:09

guess I'll be eating crow if I'm wrong

26:12

about this, but I would be shocked. This

26:14

would be bad lawyering, you know, lawyering at

26:16

its worst. I don't think you're going to

26:18

see the words rigged or scam or corrupt

26:21

in the appeal because these are

26:23

not bases for appeal. These are

26:26

words that Mr. Trump uses because

26:28

they rile up his base, they

26:30

convey a sense of undermining the

26:32

prosecution, undermining the justice system, undermining

26:35

the New York courts, undermining the

26:37

judge, but these are not bases

26:39

for appeal because they are not based

26:41

in fact. There's no evidence of a

26:44

rigged prosecution, right? There's no evidence

26:46

of a scam prosecution. So I

26:48

think people need to understand the

26:50

rhetoric about this verdict is

26:53

very different from legal issues that

26:55

will be subject to appeal. I

26:57

wanted to give one other comment

27:00

about some of the attacks that

27:02

are going on that are not

27:04

too subtle. We heard

27:06

an attack by Donald Trump directly

27:09

from his mouth about Judge Marchand saying,

27:11

of course, these bias look where he's

27:13

from. Right. We all know what that is.

27:16

It's so resident of what he did during the 2016

27:19

election. One of the things that I have

27:21

seen is questioning the

27:23

appellate judges who will hear this

27:25

and showing a photo of them

27:28

and they are black

27:31

female jurists.

27:34

I can't even say hidden

27:36

or dogwistle because it's not. It's

27:38

a megaphone. In this day and age,

27:40

it is so disheartening

27:42

isn't really the right word. It's

27:44

so disgusting. And again,

27:47

this is such an apolitical point

27:50

because you and I both know

27:52

there are Republicans and Democrats who

27:54

believe in civil rights, who believe

27:56

in equal justice, who

27:58

of course not racist in

28:01

any way, shape or form and

28:03

just have different views about

28:05

policy issues, which is totally

28:07

fine. But that idea is

28:10

so outrageous and it's

28:12

so destructive of

28:15

who we want to be and should be. Yeah.

28:19

And like you said, it hearkens back to what we, you know, what

28:21

we saw in the attacks in 2016, 2017 and it's just dangerous. It's

28:27

polarizing. It's really, like

28:29

you said, not thinly veiled at all. And I'm

28:31

not going to get into today the stuff

28:33

that we are seeing in extremist media.

28:35

Folks who listen to this podcast know

28:37

that I work with a lot of

28:39

researchers who monitor what's going on in

28:41

the extremist milieu and it's very, very

28:43

ugly right now. And I really don't

28:45

want to justify it by further conversations,

28:48

but I am certainly concerned. I'm concerned

28:50

about the prospect of political violence. We

28:52

have conventions coming up. We

28:54

have, you know, the election coming up.

28:56

I mean, we are in a perilous

28:58

position and this is why it really

29:00

is incumbent on our leaders to rather

29:03

than throw fuel on the fire to

29:05

actually try to calm things down. And

29:07

final point, there was someone who tried

29:09

to do that. There have been

29:11

a few, including, and here I

29:14

will name a name, former Maryland

29:16

governor, Republican Larry Hogan, also a

29:18

current candidate for Senate, who

29:21

urged people to respect the rule of

29:23

law and was immediately basically, you know,

29:25

kicked out of the club. You have

29:28

just ended your candidacy was, and that

29:30

might not be the exact words. You

29:32

just ended your campaign. I think that's

29:35

what he was told. This

29:37

is a person who has respect for the

29:39

rule of law, which again, should be a

29:41

bipartisan ideal, a bipartisan

29:43

commitment. And again, we're

29:45

not going to try to get into partisan politics

29:48

here, but this is a man who said what

29:50

needs to be said and more people need to

29:52

be saying it to calm things down. Okay.

29:55

So I think we've gone through B-block. I like it.

29:57

Okay, so we're going to turn to Mark. Mar-a-Lago

30:01

and then turn to some

30:03

questions that you folks have.

30:05

I know that we've been, let's just say,

30:08

somewhat preoccupied and haven't gotten to as many questions

30:10

as we want. So, we do have time for

30:12

that. And so, why don't we take a quick

30:14

break, come back, talk

30:16

about Mar-a-Lago and then get some questions.

30:19

Sounds good. I

30:28

switched my dog to Purina One True

30:30

Instinct and her true instincts really came

30:33

alive. From day one, it's

30:35

high protein nutrition she instinctively craves,

30:37

with real meat as the number

30:39

one ingredient. Supporting healthy energy and

30:41

strong muscles, differences I see day

30:43

after day. Purina One True Instinct

30:46

is the food she was born

30:48

to eat. Come on girl! Purina

30:51

One True Instinct, a difference from

30:53

day one. Learn more

30:55

at purinaone.com Shopify

30:58

is the global commerce platform that helps

31:00

you sell at every stage of your

31:02

business. With the internet's best converting checkout,

31:04

36% better on average

31:06

compared to other leading commerce platforms,

31:08

Shopify helps you turn browsers

31:10

into buyers. In fact, Shopify powers

31:13

10% of all e-commerce in the US. Sign

31:16

up for a $1 per month trial period

31:18

at shopify.com podcast.

31:20

Free all lowercase

31:23

shopify.com/podcast free shopify.com

31:25

slash podcast free Welcome

31:33

back. Mary, while we've been

31:36

on something I know that is

31:38

dear to your heart because you've

31:40

been so focused on the fake

31:42

collector scheme, we have news. We

31:44

have breaking literally I was getting

31:46

this from my co-counsel as we

31:48

were speaking my co-counsel in the

31:50

Wisconsin fake electors case that my

31:52

team at Georgetown laws I kept

31:55

brought the Wisconsin attorney general Josh

31:57

call has today filed felony forgery

31:59

charges against ex-Trump attorneys Kenneth

32:01

Chesbro and Jim Troopis and ex-Trump

32:03

aide Mike Roman for their roles in

32:05

the Wisconsin 2020 fake

32:07

electors scheme. So I feel

32:09

like all that work that we did in our

32:12

civil litigation, obviously that is not what pushed

32:14

the attorney general to do this, but it's

32:16

now going to go beyond just the civil

32:18

realm into the criminal realm. And I think

32:20

this was a long time coming, but

32:23

very warranted and look forward to talking

32:25

more about this next week after I

32:27

get a chance to dig into the

32:29

charging documents. One word and one quick

32:31

comment. The one word is brava. And

32:35

the comment is, I find the

32:37

Chesbro piece fascinating because as you

32:40

and I have talked about this

32:42

idea that he is like fully cooperating

32:45

and somehow skating seemed

32:47

not consistent with the record. And

32:49

I find the fact that he

32:51

has been charged a sign of

32:54

clear eyed vision about who he is,

32:56

but more to come. We haven't looked

32:58

at it, but that is, those are

33:00

my two quick notes. And Mary, I

33:02

couldn't be prouder. Accountability. Accountability is a

33:05

good day. All right. Mary,

33:07

let's turn our attention to what's

33:09

going on in Florida because we

33:12

have a refiled motion.

33:14

Walk us through why is it refiled?

33:17

What do we expect? $100 million

33:19

question. What's the timeframe? Right.

33:22

So on Friday we talked about and

33:24

people will know I got a little

33:27

worked up about this we talked about

33:29

Jack Smith moving to modify Mr. Trump's

33:31

conditions of release in the Mar-a-Lago

33:34

case to order him basically

33:36

not to make statements that

33:38

were reasonably likely to

33:40

result in violent attacks

33:43

on law enforcement that presented an

33:45

imminent danger to law enforcement. And

33:47

this was because of Mr. Trump

33:49

falsely stating and others around him

33:52

falsely stating that when the FBI

33:54

executed the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago

33:56

that they had been authorized by

33:58

the Department of Justice. justice to

34:00

use lethal force and to

34:02

kill Mr. Trump and others

34:04

went even further to say that

34:06

this was an assassination attempt. As we discussed,

34:08

Friday is flat out wrong. Every

34:11

federal search warrant has with it a

34:13

use of force policy to make sure

34:15

that agents are limited in their use

34:18

of force and would only use force

34:20

when necessary to defend themselves or others

34:22

against lethal force being used against them.

34:25

It is not an authorization to use

34:27

force at will. It is a limitation

34:29

to make clear that you can't just

34:32

use force unless it is absolutely necessary.

34:34

By the way, Mary, my favorite part of this is when

34:36

you say, I was a little worked up

34:38

about this. Which

34:41

I do have an anecdote that's really relevant

34:43

to this. A wonderful, wonderful

34:45

friend of mine who is a prosecutor,

34:48

Leslie Caldwell, but is very measured. She

34:50

was so good in the courtroom. Yes.

34:54

I mean, just amazing. I saw her

34:56

one day and I said to

34:58

her, your rebuttal summation, it was

35:00

just amazing. It was just fantastic.

35:02

She said, I'm so embarrassed. I

35:05

was like, Leslie, I mean, I was there for the – Yeah.

35:08

I said, what were you embarrassed about? She

35:11

said, I just really lost

35:13

it. I just was

35:15

so over the top. What she

35:17

meant was at some point during rebuttal,

35:20

she goes, the defendant's counsel

35:22

made the following argument and then she

35:24

sort of looked down. So

35:26

it could be – and she just goes, that

35:29

was outrageous. Like it

35:31

was the most – but what she meant

35:33

was that she had to – because she

35:35

scoped on and that she felt

35:38

so embarrassed that she had that moment where

35:40

she had to actually control her outrage. Get

35:42

her composure. So that's my analogy to you,

35:44

Mary, going, as you know, I was just

35:46

a little perturbed. A little worked up. Yeah,

35:48

a little perturbed. By the way, I'm teasing

35:51

you, but just to be clear, you

35:53

have every right, just so everyone understands why I'm

35:55

teasing you because I know why you

35:57

were in law enforcement. I know why you're doing this.

36:00

what you're doing now in your

36:02

day job and so this is

36:04

so fundamentally disrespectful of safety and

36:06

safety of people who put their

36:08

lives on the line for us

36:10

every day. So, I don't

36:13

really mean to make light of it. No, but

36:15

no, I appreciate all of that. And Leslie Caldwell, by

36:17

the way, is the former Assistant Attorney General

36:19

for the Criminal Division at DOJ when

36:21

both you and I were in the

36:23

department, so very, very fine lawyer. Okay,

36:26

so where are we at now?

36:28

On Friday, we talked about how

36:31

the judge had granted the defense

36:33

request to deny this motion of

36:35

Jack Smith. She did it without prejudice

36:38

on the grounds that Jack Smith had

36:40

not adequately conferred with the defense and

36:42

tried to work out this matter

36:44

before coming to the court and seeking

36:47

the conditions of release to be modified.

36:49

So, of course, Jack Smith and his

36:51

team dutifully did what the judge requested

36:54

of them. They had phone calls with

36:56

Donald Trump's attorneys. They did emails with

36:58

Donald Trump's attorneys and those

37:00

conversations about trying to work this out, of

37:03

course, did not result in this being worked

37:05

out. So, they refiled their motion

37:07

in accordance with the judge's rules.

37:10

The motion reads almost identically to the

37:12

first one with a couple of differences.

37:14

One is that based on her order,

37:17

they were told they had to

37:19

have a whole separate certification about

37:21

their conferral process and that they

37:23

had to include in their certification,

37:26

if requested by the defendant, a

37:28

statement of the defendant's position on

37:30

the motion of up to 200

37:32

words. So, of course, this is exactly what

37:35

Jack Smith and his team did. They certified

37:37

that they had conferred and they included

37:39

a statement of Donald Trump's team

37:41

about their position. Their position is

37:44

that the pretrial services people, that's

37:47

part of the US probation office,

37:49

should be ordered by the court

37:51

to make a recommendation about whether

37:53

these conditions are necessary and how

37:56

they would be enforced and that

37:58

Donald Trump should not even have to

38:00

respond to Jack Smith's motion for

38:03

a modification of the conditions of

38:05

release until two weeks after the

38:08

pretrial services people provide this report

38:10

that they were asking the court

38:12

to order be provided. Now

38:15

that means delay, delay, delay.

38:18

I will note that Jack Smith in

38:20

a footnote in their renewed motion made

38:22

clear they had already reached out to

38:24

the probation office. People might be thinking,

38:26

why am I saying probation pretrial? Part

38:28

of the same office in the Southern

38:31

District of Florida had reached out to

38:33

the probation office to see if they

38:35

had a position on this request. And

38:37

they said because Donald Trump had been

38:40

released pending trial on a

38:42

bond, they had no supervision

38:44

over them, hadn't exercised any

38:46

supervision over him. It would be

38:48

outside of the scope of their authority

38:50

to make any recommendations unless the judge

38:52

were to order them to do so.

38:55

So now what we have is the

38:58

judge coming back and issuing an order

39:00

setting June 14th as the

39:03

date for Donald Trump to

39:05

respond to Jack Smith's

39:07

renewed motion. And the question in

39:09

my mind is, was that

39:11

an implicit denial of the request

39:14

for pretrial services to do a

39:16

report and she wants a substantive

39:18

response? Or will Mr.

39:21

Trump's attorneys take that as, oh, we

39:23

now get until the 14th to actually

39:25

write up a motion about why we

39:27

think pretrial services should have to make

39:29

a report, then litigate that

39:31

for a while, then have a rule

39:33

on that, then finally get at some

39:35

point in the unknown future to

39:38

arguing about these conditions of release.

39:41

What's your bet on that? So Mary,

39:43

I'm just so happy that she's taking

39:45

these allegations so seriously. So seriously, yeah.

39:47

Yeah, this is what's outrageous. It's one

39:49

thing to say, here are some serious

39:51

allegations and see here from both sides

39:54

and decide I'm not going to do it.

39:57

But this is pre-deciding. Yeah, that.

40:00

By all accounts, it's something where they are

40:02

asking for it and they want

40:04

it to be heard. I actually think her

40:06

sort of handling of this and the way

40:08

she handled it, if this ends

40:10

up being something that Jack Smith goes

40:13

to the circuit on, it's going to make her

40:15

look really bad. But to

40:17

her point, but time

40:19

is passing. That's right. And

40:22

it's just like what's going on in the Supreme Court

40:24

where it's like this is, it's all

40:27

about the clock. I said this like a year

40:29

ago. I was beating this drum of everyone keep

40:31

your eyes on the clock. And

40:33

so she's like, yeah, great. You know

40:35

what? Taking things down the road,

40:38

that's the point. And here

40:40

I think what she ultimately does

40:42

will depend in some ways on

40:44

what happens, what kind of verbiage

40:46

Mr. Trump uses in these ensuing

40:49

days and weeks, right? And if

40:51

he stops talking about that Mar-a-Lago

40:53

search, she'll use that to say this is

40:55

not necessary. If he keeps it up, it's going

40:57

to be a much tougher thing to ignore.

40:59

And certainly if we see any types

41:01

of attempted attacks on

41:04

law enforcement, you know, I mean, if that

41:06

were to happen while she's still pending, I

41:08

could see even a mandamus petition. So we'll

41:10

come back to that if any of that

41:13

materializes. One other thing I did

41:15

want to mention because, and we don't really have time

41:17

to get into it, and it's very complicated and it'd

41:19

be like going back to law school, but it's driving

41:21

me nuts is the fact that she's

41:23

had outstanding for quite a long time. Another

41:26

motion to dismiss, you know, there have been

41:28

many, many motions to dismiss this one based on

41:30

what is alleged to be the unlawful

41:32

unconstitutional appointment of special counsel. This

41:34

is an argument that is rehashed

41:37

arguments that have been made and

41:39

rejected with respect to past special

41:41

counsels, including the one you worked

41:43

for, Robert Mueller, an argument that

41:46

these appointments are in violation of

41:48

the appointments clause of the US

41:50

Constitution. That has never been successful,

41:52

yet nevertheless, she has not ruled

41:54

on that yet. And she's now

41:57

not only, you know,

41:59

allowed. amicus briefs on this from

42:01

some of the folks who've been arguing

42:03

repeatedly for years, including with respect to

42:05

Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel, that

42:07

this was in violation of the appointments

42:10

clause. Not only has she allowed these folks to

42:12

file an amicus brief, and that's fine, amicus briefs

42:14

are fine. She also has now ordered

42:16

the parties and amicus if they wish

42:19

to brief a whole separate issue that

42:21

was raised by Mr. Trump, which is

42:23

whether the appointment also violates the appropriations

42:26

clause because of the way that the special

42:28

counsel's office is funded, a way that it

42:30

has been funded for decades and decades and

42:32

decades without an issue. And she wants

42:34

special briefing on that based

42:37

on whether the court's recent

42:39

decision upholding the

42:42

funding of the Consumer

42:44

Finance Protection Board, CFPB,

42:46

upholding those funding sources,

42:48

whether that impacts the

42:50

appropriations clause issues raised by Mr.

42:52

Trump and his motion to dismiss.

42:54

Now, listener's eyes have probably glazed

42:56

over at this point, and I'm

42:58

sorry about that, but suffice to

43:01

say, it's hard for me to

43:03

imagine how supplemental briefing is useful

43:05

or necessary in this case, particularly

43:07

when the issue in CFPB was

43:09

to actually uphold the way that

43:11

that was appropriated. So yeah, and

43:13

also I'm still waiting for the

43:16

motion that's filed by Trump challenging

43:18

the appointment of Jack Smith. I'm

43:20

not seeing that same motion with

43:23

respect to Rob Herr, right? Who

43:25

was the special counsel appointed for

43:27

Joe Biden or David

43:29

Weiss, who is the special counsel

43:31

appointed for Hunter Biden? Who is

43:33

prosecuting Hunter Biden. Yes, exactly. So,

43:35

you know, this is like, again,

43:38

completely inconsistent. I should also point

43:40

out that one of the many

43:42

judges who have ruled on this

43:44

issue is Daphne

43:46

Friedrich, who is a

43:48

really well-respected district judge

43:50

in the District of Columbia. As

43:53

you know, Mary, she was appointed by

43:55

Donald Trump. She is one of the

43:57

people who we can point to to

43:59

say, you really do not have to

44:01

ask who appointed them when you're dealing

44:03

with a judge like Daphne Friedrich and

44:05

many, many others because they believe in

44:07

the rule of law. That's right. And

44:10

they don't feel like they're beholden. And

44:12

she wrote one of the decisions saying

44:14

that the special counsel appointment of Robert

44:16

Mueller was of course constitutional and valid,

44:18

that he is a so-called subordinate officer.

44:20

So for anyone who's sort of looking

44:22

for what does a Trump judge do?

44:25

I mean, I hate calling her that because

44:27

that's not who she is. But

44:30

that is a really good role

44:32

model for what Judge Cannon should

44:34

be but is not. That's exactly

44:36

right. Yeah. So with that,

44:38

should we take a few questions? There was

44:40

one that was really technical. One

44:43

of the questions was about our use

44:45

in the last episode about convicted felon.

44:47

This is like so technical. And

44:50

people shouldn't really get too wrapped

44:52

around the axle on this. But

44:55

in federal court and in New

44:57

York, technically,

44:59

you are not convicted, the

45:02

word convicted under the law

45:05

until you've been sentenced. So you've

45:07

been found guilty by a jury,

45:10

but you are technically convicted after

45:12

the imposition of sentence. So here,

45:14

presumably, that will be July 11th.

45:18

So technically, Donald Trump in

45:20

state law is not convicted.

45:22

It's also the separate issue just

45:25

to be super nerdy, which is

45:27

that a conviction isn't final.

45:29

Even though you're convicted after sentencing,

45:32

a conviction is not final

45:34

until all of your appeals are exhausted

45:36

because you have certain appeals as a

45:39

right. That's right. And a good

45:41

example of that and why does anyone care is

45:43

that if, for instance, you

45:45

die, just be morbid

45:47

before your conviction is

45:50

final, it goes away.

45:52

The prosecutor has to move to vacate

45:55

it. I know that from Ken Lay.

45:58

Ken Lay was... found

46:00

guilty by a jury. He wasn't

46:03

convicted because he hadn't been sentenced

46:05

and then he died before

46:08

sentencing which then erases the case.

46:10

You have to move to dismiss

46:13

that case because his appeal had

46:15

was not final. So

46:17

those are some technicalities as to why

46:19

we were saying he's been found guilty,

46:21

etc. But you'll hear people saying he's

46:24

a convicted felon. You know euphemistically

46:26

that's right and obviously in short

46:28

order he will be. Yeah, and

46:30

you know one place where you see how

46:32

this works out oftentimes there

46:35

can be a criminal penalty that

46:37

is higher for committing a crime

46:39

if it is your second felony, for

46:41

example, right? And so that definition and

46:43

under New York law and the same

46:45

under federal law is that second felony

46:48

that I guess really we're talking about

46:50

the first felony if you're being tried for

46:52

the second felony. That first felony won't increase

46:55

your penalty if you haven't

46:57

been sentenced yet at the time that you

46:59

know you're being charged with another

47:01

felony because again you haven't actually

47:03

been convicted. So it doesn't become that

47:05

first felony that would increase your

47:08

penalty of a second if you haven't been sentenced yet.

47:10

So these are all very technical but like

47:12

you said when people are out there saying

47:15

he's convicted felon, I mean they're meaning he's

47:17

been found guilty by a jury and you

47:19

know, I think in that casual use that

47:21

makes perfect sense. Some lawyers even are out

47:23

there saying well now that that he's been

47:25

found guilty isn't that a

47:28

violation of his bail conditions

47:30

in other cases in DC,

47:32

in Georgia, in Mar-a-Lago,

47:34

the Florida case and the answer

47:36

to that is no. Because the

47:38

conduct happened before he was on

47:40

bail. So the conviction itself is

47:42

not the critical thing that you're

47:44

looking at. You're looking for when

47:46

did the conduct occur and in

47:49

fact you could violate your bail

47:51

conditions just by doing something even

47:53

though you haven't been charged and

47:55

convicted of it. And so for

47:57

instance even if you're just charged

47:59

but not... convicted, that can be

48:01

a violation if the conduct is

48:04

conduct after the bail restrictions are

48:06

imposed on you. Paul Manafort's

48:08

a good example of that. He

48:11

was charged with witness tampering while

48:13

he was out on release subject

48:15

to those bail conditions, but that

48:17

was conduct that post-dated his being

48:19

on bail. Because again, the condition

48:22

is you may not commit any

48:24

other crimes while you are on release

48:26

pending trial. So, it's not about you

48:28

may not get found guilty for a

48:30

crime you committed four years ago. Exactly.

48:32

While you're on release, you may not commit any new crimes.

48:35

Okay. Next question. This

48:37

listener asks, Judge Marchand found that Trump

48:40

committed criminal contempt, of court, ten times

48:42

over. Could the immediate

48:44

threat of continued law-breaking lead

48:46

Judge Marchand to go ahead

48:48

and require him to start

48:50

serving his sentence right

48:52

after it is imposed, assuming

48:54

there is a sentence of

48:56

imprisonment as opposed to letting

48:59

him stay out pending any

49:01

appeals? Yeah. What do you think

49:03

about that? First of all, that assumes there's a sentence

49:05

of imprisonment and that's a big assumption right

49:07

there. But let's assume there is. My

49:09

understanding of state law is that it's

49:11

a little bit different than federal law

49:14

in terms of the discretion that the

49:16

trial judge and appellate judges have to

49:18

keep somebody out. Similarly, you

49:21

look for whether there's a real

49:23

appeals issue, like a lively one,

49:25

that would justify keeping

49:27

somebody out. As I said, de facto

49:29

in white collar cases, a lot of

49:31

times judges sort of overlook that or

49:33

bend over backwards to keep someone out

49:36

until their appeals are over. And

49:38

so, C. Bannon is a good example of that,

49:40

where he was out in terms of appeals

49:42

tonight and now they're litigating whether he should

49:44

go back in. With respect to this case,

49:46

I really do think that the judge's if

49:48

he does impose sentence is going to say

49:50

that he can stay out until his appeal

49:53

is over. And I think the reason is

49:55

because it's not the federal standard, it is

49:58

more discretion is the fact that he's running

50:00

for office. And you could

50:02

imagine he might say, well, you can

50:04

go in certain hours

50:08

after the election before

50:10

the inauguration. But this is sort of the

50:12

problem with that. I could see him also

50:14

saying, I'm going to defer on that issue

50:17

of when you have to decide, because if

50:19

he is not reelected and so he's not

50:21

president again, then he can go serve his

50:24

time immediately right after

50:26

the election. And there's

50:28

no reason. He's not interfering with the

50:30

transfer of power. He's not doing any

50:33

of that. And if he's elected, the

50:35

whole thing's going to get deferred anyway,

50:37

because until after he leaves office, if

50:39

that ever happens. Whole

50:42

other topic. Yes. Right. Whole other.

50:44

Right. Exactly. This is like preview

50:46

of another episode. So I

50:48

think he could just say, for now, I'm going to

50:50

leave it out and I'm going to leave him out

50:52

pending appeal and he can just revisit it. Yeah. I

50:55

do think if there would be

50:57

more contemptuous conduct, particularly attacks on

50:59

the jury members, you might see Judge Michonne.

51:01

Again, that would be contempt. That'd be a

51:04

separate penalty. You know, each contempt is

51:06

punishable by a thousand dollar fine or

51:08

up to 30 days in jail. So

51:10

I could see potentially contemptuous conduct landing

51:12

Donald Trump in hot water, but we

51:14

will have to see what happens. Okay.

51:18

Mary, it's so nice to be

51:20

back to once a week. Yes.

51:22

Yes. Even though it don't take that personally. No, no,

51:24

no. It was good seeing you twice a week, but

51:26

it was a lot. It was a lot on top

51:29

of full time jobs. It's a lot of weisbeth. I

51:31

understand. No, not that. Now, having said

51:33

all of that, I did indicate at the top

51:35

of the episode that right now the decision days

51:37

on the Supreme Court's calendar are Thursdays. Now

51:40

they could add other decision days, but one

51:42

of these Thursdays, they are likely to decide

51:44

the immunity case, in which case we will

51:46

be back a second time in that week.

51:49

I can't wait. Thanks

51:52

so much for listening. We want to continue to

51:54

answer your questions as they come up. So send

51:56

us questions. You can leave us a voicemail at

51:58

917-930-8 or

52:03

you can email us

52:05

at prosecutingtrumpquestions at nbcuni.com. And

52:08

also for your convenience, the email is

52:11

in the show notes. This

52:13

show is produced by the

52:16

terrific Vicky Virgolita, our associate

52:18

producers, Jameris Perez, our audio

52:20

engineers, our Catherine Anderson and

52:22

Bob Mallory, our head of

52:25

audio production is Bison Barnes.

52:27

Aisha Turner is the executive

52:29

producer for MSNBC audio. And

52:32

Rebecca Cutler is the senior vice

52:34

president for content strategy at

52:37

MSNBC. Search for prosecuting

52:39

Donald Trump wherever you get your podcasts and

52:41

follow the series. Hey,

52:51

it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast,

52:53

Why is this happening? Enter Sasha Eisenberg

52:55

on his latest book, The Lie Detectives in

52:58

search of a playbook for winning elections

53:00

in the disinformation age. The disinformation narratives that

53:02

are going to be a problem for

53:04

us electorally with a small share of persuadable

53:06

voters are the ones that

53:09

respond to some existing concerns or

53:11

anxieties that voters have about a

53:14

particular issue or about Biden. And

53:16

we need to not chase the

53:18

particular story or deep fake that's

53:21

moving today. We need to

53:23

have a messaging attempt that addresses the underlying anxieties

53:25

that that voter has. That's this week on Why

53:27

is this happening? Search for Why is this happening?

53:29

Where we're listening right now and follow.