Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Hi, welcome back to another episode of Prosecuting Donald Trump.
It's Tuesday morning, January 16th. I'm Andrew Weissman, and I'm here with Mary McCord. Hi, Mary. Morning, Andrew. So once again, there's a lot going on. And we were just chatting about the theme for today. And obviously, this is against the backdrop of the political world. You know, we all watched the beginning of the real political season with Iowa. And I was
I was struck by the number of people who said they believed that Joe Biden wasn't, in fact, properly elected. So what we're going to talk about, since we're not political pundits, is lies in the courtroom. In other words, that the courtroom is a place where facts and law, at least so far, still matters. And so we're going to talk about some of the things that are going on in the courtroom.
courtroom. In fact, there's so much going on. But we're going to talk first about something we just briefly alluded to last week, which is the civil fraud trial against Donald Trump and his sons and some other people who worked in the Trump organization. That is the case brought by Letitia James, the New York attorney general. And that's a case that is now fully completed in terms of evidence. And we're waiting for Judge
Judge Ngoran to issue his decision, which he aspirationally said would be by the end of January. And then, of course, Mary, I'm going to hold you to the other thing that we're waiting for, which we spent a lot of time last week talking about, which is the D.C. Circuit immunity case. And I think you have until the end of today.
Right. I said, I said, maybe within a week, believe me, over the weekend, I thought, okay, please issue this opinion. Issue this opinion. I know, because, you know, you don't usually, I think I've been such a bad, I know I've been such a bad influence on you because you were just like right out there. But I, by the way, I agree with you that, you know, it's like,
Who knows if it's going to be today, although it's going to be soon. It will be soon. I mean, there's no question that the D.C. Circuit expedited the briefing. They didn't expedite so that they would sit and take months and months to write an opinion. They expedited because they believed it's important to get a decision out and get it out quickly. So I think every day, I mean, it could come any minute. And I suspect they probably worked all weekend, notwithstanding the three-day weekend.
Yeah. So like you said, thematically, that case in New York was at base about lies, right? Fraud is about lies, fraudulent business statements, false statements of financial conditions, those kind of things. Exactly.
But then, of course, we also had Mr. Trump himself addressing the court and being extremely misleading, if not outright lying about what the courtroom procedure was about. And that, like you said, sort of ties in to his attacks more generally on the judiciary as an institution and how that does seem to be impacting people like those in Iowa who said a large percentage
scary percentage who said they don't believe that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. So we're going to spend some time talking about that and then, of course, preview other things on the radar, including the E. Jean Carroll case starting today in New York and some other things going on in some of the other cases, civil and criminal, involving Mr. Trump.
But let's start off with those closing arguments. And maybe it makes sense to talk a little bit about what was at stake here, because as we've mentioned before, the judge had already found sort of a conspiracy to commit a fraud in terms of the overvaluation of properties and things like that. This case was about individual counts of false statements, false records, insurance fraud. These counts were
required proof of intent to commit the fraud. And this particular trial also was about determining what amount of disgorgement would be required. And because a lot of times I think people confuse the remedy in civil cases, what
what damages are with what disgorgement is. And we've talked about this before, but it bears repeating because I do think it relates directly to Mr. Trump's attorney's arguments. They like to say no bank lost money, right? All of his loans were paid back. No insurance company lost money. There were no damages. Damages are compensation to someone who did lose money or other things that can be compensable in money damages.
Discouragement is very different. That's about requiring a defendant to basically turn over sort of an ill-gotten gain, a benefit that that defendant received, even if no one else was actually injured in a way that you could put a dollar figure on it. And the other thing that I'm going to be keeping an eye out for is...
One of the remedies that the New York Attorney General seeks is barring Donald Trump from doing business in New York for life. With respect to the children, she seeks a five-year ban. So five years for the children, life for Donald Trump in terms of doing business. Because just to your point about liability was found to back up, the first cause of action didn't require the court to find intent or...
or materiality, certainly not reliance. So there are six other causes of action, which the court could find liability, but it requires an intent finding. So we should expect some kind of decision on that. And just before we go on to big picture, I think for the government, that's what most of their closing argument was focused on, right? Here is all the evidence, not only of fraud in the statements, you know, false falsity in the statements, but
the intentionality. Exactly. Mr. Trump was involved in the day-to-day business. He wasn't just like some absentee, you know, head of a company who deferred to others. He was involved. Yeah. And it's a tiny little company. I mean, this is not, we're not talking about ExxonMobil. But I think the big picture, if I were just looking from afar, is because there's liability already on the first cause of action,
The case very much comes down to what's the amount of damages and will there be a bar on doing business? And I wanted to just focus for a moment on the bar issue.
Because I thought that was one where going to our theme of lies in the courtroom, this case, as you said, Mary, is completely grounded on the New York Attorney General's claims that these were false statements. The financial conditions statements were false. Either they included cash on hand that wasn't actually theirs, that they valued things without consideration of all the restrictions on the property.
Most notably, famously, because it's so easy to understand, they trebled the
size of the Trump Tower apartment that he lived in. So it's like, come on. I mean, even they had to say, oops, you're my bad. But when it goes to what is the remedy in terms of barring the person from doing business, one of the arguments that I thought was very well taken that I thought when Donald Trump was being so obstreperous, but in court,
And outside of court, the argument from the attorney general is this is somebody with no remorse. This is somebody with no acceptance of responsibility, with no understanding that he is not going to do this again. And that if you're thinking about protecting New Yorkers, which is what the attorney general's job is, you can consider that there
There is not an ounce of belief that he has to use Senator Collins' phrase, he's learned his lesson. And in fact, when we talk about the E. Jean Carroll case, same thing. In other words, he's doubling down on this and just saying it's a witch hunt and it's judging Goran or judging Goran's law clerk. And so I think that is a very powerful point.
for why one of the remedies may, I think, very well be some kind of bar, whether it's lifetime or some period less than that, because you're not dealing with somebody where you think, you know what, that's not needed to protect New Yorkers. As I've mentioned, the amounts of money are, there's lots and lots of pieces to that,
And I do think regardless of whether causes of action two through seven are approved, it still will be relevant to the first cause of action. So in many ways, it's sort of icing if there's findings of intentional fraud. There doesn't even have to be other findings. In other words, Trump could be ordered to disgorge
hundreds of millions of dollars and get an industry bar, even if the judge did not find liability on those other counts. You could do it purely on the first count. And to the extent people are thinking, well, what would that disgorgement be measured by? It's things like the interest rate differential between what he was able to get based on allegedly false and fraudulent statements of financial condition and what the
what the rate would have been if he hadn't made those false or fraudulent statements of financial conditions. One of the other components of the disgorgement would be related to profits that Mr. Trump realized from not only the old post office in Washington, D.C., but Ferry Point, a golf links in the Bronx. And the Bronx, by the way,
is one of the five boroughs, and it's notable because it's, for some reason, we call it the Bronx, but the other boroughs are Manhattan, Brooklyn. You don't say the Queens. Exactly. It is like, so, you know what, maybe some listener is going to chime in about why we say the Bronx, but we don't do that for any of the other four boroughs. But anyway, little insider question for us in New York, which I should know the answer to.
but we're going to outsource that. We're going to outsource that. Sounds good. And that secondary amount is because he could take the profits, the ill-gotten gains, and it's
What we in the law call fruit of the poisonous tree. He took those profits and then put them into other investments. And so when you're trying to root out the ill-gotten gains, you can have the direct amounts, which is the difference between the interest rate he should have paid versus the interest rate he did pay. So that's a very direct amount, assuming the judge finds that all is accurate. But then what he did with those proceeds to earn money.
So it'll be interesting to see whether the judge does that, but that's how you get to the $370 million, you know, where the judge finds all of it. It'll be also interesting to see what he does with, I know everyone's focused on Donald Trump, but what he does with respect to the damages with respect to the other players. There's Allen Weisselberg, there's Donald Jr., Eric Trump, all of those people are defendants in this case, and it's worth remembering that. And then
And then the other thing that I think everyone always forgets, the Trump organization has been criminally convicted at a criminal trial. Yes, that's right. I think people do forget that. And people just keep on forgetting, like, as if it's nothing. That...
company was found unanimously by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to engage in a widespread tax scheme criminally. So this is a civil case. So that's a backdrop. That is something, of course, that the court can consider in deciding whether
What should be the remedy in terms of not disgorgement, but what should be the remedy in terms of doing business in New York? That's right. And I think people tend to forget about or not fully appreciate what it means for a corporation to be criminally prosecuted because, you know, you can't put a corporation in jail. Right. So people I think many Americans connect.
prison with criminal. And if it's not a, you know, prison as a penalty, it seems like it's not criminal, feels civil. But, you know, normally the penalties against organizations, and you've been involved in many of these cases, Andrew, might include huge, huge fines and other kinds of bars, right? So... Yeah, this was like a whole part of my life for many years. I was, you know, on Enron and the fraud section of my, we used to investigate and prosecute numerous companies. So
So that's what happened here with the Trump organization. This is probably a really good segue to, Mary, the bigger picture that I know you really wanted to talk about, which is the sort of Trump use of the legal system and how much damage he is going to be doing to the rule of law.
Yes, people are probably surprised we haven't yet talked about Mr. Trump's own little closing argument last week in the civil fraud trial. But we'll hear more about that and how that really relates to his persistent co-opting of the legal system for his own personal gain just after this break.
As Democrats unite around Vice President Harris, they'll gather in Chicago to endorse their presidential ticket. A new era is here. It is go time. Stay with MSNBC for insights and analysis. The race is going to be close. Everybody should prepare themselves for that. Plus reporting on the ground from the convention hall. Extraordinary levels of enthusiasm from Democrats for the fight ahead. The Democratic National Convention. Special coverage this week on MSNBC.
Okay, so Mary, let's turn to this issue of Donald Trump taking on sort of the legal system, backing up having been in the Mueller team. I mean, it's so palpable to me that prosecutors were always going to be the target of his wrath and undermining in the same way that
the media is, the same way any politician, whether it's a Republican who dares to disagree with them or a Democrat, there's anybody checking power, even, by the way, if it's people in his administration who are no longer doing his bidding. See, Attorney General Sessions, one of his most loyal followers. This is something that's happened continuously, but
Obviously, with this year coming up where there's so many court cases, civil and criminal, it is going to be a full frontal attack on the court system, the judges and the jurors in a way that this country hasn't seen before and will be a real testament to what this country is and how much people care about it.
It's true. And what's really remarkable is that, and this is really a result of some reporting that Politico did last week, tracing back 50 years
of Mr. Trump really using the legal system for his own purposes. And I use the word co-opt a lot because I think that Mr. Trump has just lived his life co-opting other processes for personal benefit. It goes back to early on in his real estate career when, of course, he had the famous or infamous Roy Cohn as his lawyer, someone disbarred, criminally charged and indicted multiple times, you know, really kind of
the worst type of lawyer i mean from my perspective and all lawyers who obey the ethical rules and believe that you know when you walk into a courtroom or any time that you speak on behalf of a client that you should be doing so speaking truth making
arguments where they're warranted, but speaking truth and not using lies and falsehoods to argue your claims or argue your defenses. But of course, Mr. Trump saw nothing wrong with using the system when it would benefit him. And if he bought a property like one of the examples in the story, he brought a property that he wanted to make in fancy condos. But the problem is it had a whole bunch of
Tenants in there under rent control. So how do you get rid of them? Well, you start suing them for various things, whether those are legitimate things or not, because he had enough money and resources to be able to persist in using the legal system to go after little guys who couldn't afford to defend themselves.
against him. And time and time again, the reporting goes through instances of this. And it also goes through instances of him basically taking even a loss as a win, because this is what he does, right? Even when he loses something, he's never going to admit that he lost. He's always going to turn that into a win. Today, we see a little bit of a different tactic.
still very much co-opting the legal system. He is using the criminal cases in particular, but the civil cases as well, for his own campaigning and fundraising. I mean, we know not just from the reporting by Politico, but from other reporting over the last year that with every new indictment,
more money came in to his fundraising efforts. We know that he goes into the courthouses in order to be able to make public statements to the media, calling every one of these cases
political witch hunts, weaponization of the departments of justice, both the U.S. Department of Justice, New York's attorney general, its Department of Justice, the district attorney in Georgia, and, you know, uses this to say that it's election interference, these cases, and this just drives up his fundraising. So he's now co-opting still the legal system for his benefit,
But what almost bothers me more than any of that, we expect all that from Mr. Trump, is that what we've seen with him is that when he tells a lie enough times,
in enough places, in enough forums, people start to believe it. And let's just come out of the courtroom for a minute. The lie about the 2020 election, that there was massive fraud, that he really won, that Joe Biden was not legitimately elected. As you just said at the top of the hour, the polling in Iowa from the caucuses shows that a scary number of
caucus goers believe Joe Biden was not legitimately elected. We had every court throw those cases out. We've had no evidence. There were 60 cases. There were 60. So that is the divergence of the legal system from the sort of false reality that Trump creates. So you have this huge schism. And just to bring it back to today, that right as we're doing this, Mary, the E. Jean Carroll scandal
second defamation trial is starting today. Exactly. Who is the victim here? And this is not an opinion. This was found by the jury, by a preponderance for some of the cause of action, by clear and convincing evidence with respect to one component of it. But a jury unanimously found she is the victim, and of not something minor. She is the victim of sexual assault
by the former president, and yet you have the former president saying, I'm the victim.
No evidence of that. No testimony under oath by him. You have a jury finding that she is the victim. He was found to have defamed her with respect to the sexual assault. This case is about the continuation of that defamation that continues over and over again. It's actually continuing this morning as the trial is starting. And she just wants to get him to stop defaming her. And again, you have this...
enormous disconnect between the judicial system and findings that are being made and this false reality. I will say, and I don't think it's like a silver bullet, but everything we've talked about so far is civil. And with respect to criminal cases, I think it will remain to be seen whether that
will lead a certain portion of the electorate to actually believe the jury verdicts. Yeah. And that's exactly why we're raising this point, because my fear, you know, and the reason I gave the example about the 2020 election is my fear that
Same thing. If he says it enough, that these cases are a fraud on me, that these cases are election interference, you know, the kind of things that he said in his five minutes of closing argument, that the judge was a fraud, that the case was a fraud, that Letitia James was a fraud, that he should be paid for having to be there. These are all attacks on our judicial system. It is a solid co-equal branch of our government that our entire society
structure of the United States Constitution, our governmental system, separation of powers, it all relies on respect for the judiciary and the rule of law. And if he, through his lying, convinces enough people that the judiciary is not valid, that does real significant damage to our ability to continue to move forward unlawfully.
under our constitutional system. And we talk about the threats to democracy, you know, in many ways all of the time, but there has got to be respect for the rule of law. You know, when we talk about rule of law, I think a lot of people wonder, well, what do you really mean by that? And I think it's worth talking about that framework for just a minute.
which is a system of laws that both the governed and the government agrees to abide by, transparency in the actment of those laws and the enforcement of those laws so that we have predictability and we have stability.
It means a fair legal process for redressing grievances, for adjudicating rights and responsibilities evenly and equally applicable to everyone, and neutral and detached, competent, diverse, independent judges. And so each of those are parts. And juries. And juries. And jurors, yes.
And each of those are critical to a civilization. And he attacks every piece of that. You know, none of it applies to me. You know, you and I were both prosecutors for a long time, and nobody likes to be charged with a crime. But by and large, with few exceptions, when people are charged...
They abide by the rules. They have an attorney. The attorney explains to them what they need to do and what they shouldn't do. They come to court when they're supposed to. I mean, there are exceptions. And they generally abide by those rules. And Mr. Trump just flagrantly violates all those rules. I'm very focused on this issue that there will always be Donald Trumps in the world. There will always be those kinds of actors. And it reminds me when Enron happened online.
A lot of us on the Enron prosecution team said, look, there will always be the Jeffs, Gillings and the Kenleys of the world. That case was about the enablers. And so that is just, to me, the way I think about what's going on is the enabling of this. And one of the huge advantages of our legal system in the civil and criminal realm is that we have
civilian participation. It is not findings by judges. The fact finding is by jurors, and we are the participants. And, well, no one's going to say that's infallible, but it is a damn good system. And one of the advantages of jurors participating from all walks of life is it's supposed to breed a lack of cynicism about the system because we participate in it. And
And so many millions and millions of people have served on a jury. And I've served on a jury. I've obviously worked with juries as a defense lawyer and a prosecutor. And so that's why when we're seeing what's going on now where you say, oh, well, there was a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt into the Trump organization. There was a finding by clear and convincing evidence with respect to E. Jean Carroll and her
it's not allegations, they're actual now findings. It's not like, oh, she alleges this. It's been found. And that deserves respect, especially when the person on the other side has not bothered to say under oath in a courtroom what he is happy to say on the campaign trail. And again, that is where, you know, I was very struck by he didn't testify in the first impeachment. He didn't testify in the second impeachment. He is not
testifying in the E. Jean Carroll case. It'll be interesting to see whether he actually does know. Who knows, right? He may change his mind. Yeah, it'd be fascinating because, again, it'll be interesting to see what happens, you know, because I don't think he's a particularly good witness. But
We'll see. I mean, it's his right to testify and it'll be interesting to see what happens there. But I do think that is a key thing to keep our eye on. And obviously, the one thing that we don't know is whether the criminal context will make a difference. That's right. Everything you just said about jurors, I think, brings up another topic worth briefly mentioning, which is
With all of the lies that Mr. Trump tells about the judicial system, about these cases, with the fact that, you know, in so many instances when he criticizes people, judges, prosecutors, etc., they get attacked, they get violent threats made against them, they get swatted, etc. You know, jurors
will be understandably concerned, some people, about serving on a jury. And one thing I know you and I have been talking about a little bit, Andrew, is what can a court do? And we know in E. Jean Carroll, it's going to be an anonymous jury. Yep. And so what's remarkable to me is that's what happens in the organized crime cases. I prosecuted Gambino, Genovese, Colombo.
We always had anonymous juries and partially sequestered, if not fully sequestered. The idea that we're contemplating that and you have Judge
Kaplan and E. Jean Carroll case doing it with respect to who? The former president of the United States. Well, anyway, Mary, this is to be... To your point, though. I got to say one more thing. To your point about the law developing in organized crime cases, it did so much so that the key five factors that courts look at to determine whether
they should have an anonymous or partially or fully sequestered jury starts with the defendant's involvement in organized crime. And here, of course, we're talking about the former president. But the key to the rest of those factors about when a court can legally and lawfully have a jury be anonymous, do things like refer to them only by their number, transport them to the courthouse so that people don't know where they live, keep them together at lunch, those kind of things are really about
potential danger to the jurors from the type of rhetoric that we see in cases involving the mob and cases involving Mr. Trump and the court's obligation to keep them safe while they're doing their civic duty. So I'm not surprised we're seeing it in E. Jean Carroll. And I suspect that this will be something that we will also see if and when the other criminal cases move forward. Totally agree with you. So, Mary, time for another mid-roll break.
Yes, absolutely. So we're going to take a quick break and we're going to come right back and talk a bit about what's on our radar screen.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. I have an obligation to find a way of telling this story that is fresh, that has angles that haven't been used in the course of the day, to bring my experience working in the Senate, working in journalism, to try to make sense of what has happened and help you make sense of what it means to you. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, weeknights at 10 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.
Welcome back. Before we wrap up, Andrew and I wanted to highlight a few things we're watching this week. So we already mentioned the E. Jean Carroll trial starting today. What else about that do we need to talk about, Andrew? I think that the main thing there is it's going to be super fast because it's only about damages. Yes. It is possible that Donald Trump may testify. And if that happens, it would probably be
on Monday. But if not, that case could wrap this week. It is really just about damages and the jury will certainly be selected today. There'll be openings today. And so keep your eye out for a
Essentially, the dollar amount. What is the compensatory damages and what is the bigger figure that could come out? The punitive damages, which is to get him to stop defaming. So that's the thing to watch with the E. Jean Carroll case. What else is on your mind? So there's been a whole lot of, you know, newspaper articles, social media and TV coverage now of some allegations made by
Michael Roman, he's one of the defendants in the Georgia January 6th related case. Remember, that's the RICO case. It involves January 6th and the lead up to that and the fraud, frankly, on the voters of the state of Georgia, 19 co-defendants. Michael Roman filed a motion to dismiss that case, accusing Fannie Willis of violating ethical rules in Georgia and violating the law.
by alleging that she essentially purposely hired as an outside special counsel someone named Nathan Wade and paid him for his services and then reaped the benefit of those payments because she's supposedly allegedly having some sort of personal relationship with him and he's funding lavish vacations and cruises, etc.,
So much to talk about here that we can't get into today. For one thing, we have not seen Bonnie Willis's response yet. So we have no idea whether these allegations of a personal relationship or vacations are true. We do know that it's true that pursuant to authority, she did appoint three different outside lawyers as special counsels, Mr. Wade and two others.
Mr. Roman is only suggesting his case should be dismissed because of Mr. Wade. And of course, when you hire outside special counsels, I've actually been an outside special counsel to a DA before, although I did do it pro bono, meaning I didn't get paid for it. But they're certainly entitled to be paid and they're being paid at a rate of $250 per hour. We know that that much is true. We just don't know anything about these other allegations.
One of the things that I think is remarkable about this is that even Mr. Trump's own attorney has declined so far to join in that motion, which is pretty remarkable given that usually Mr. Trump, through his own attorneys, goes about as far as he can to try to dismiss cases and get out of cases. But even his own attorney has said these are pretty salacious allegations.
We want to wait a while and see what the facts show before we determine whether we even want to join in that motion. It has nothing to do with the merits, has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Mr. Roman or Mr. Trump or any of the other defendants, four of whom have already pleaded guilty. But it certainly creates a sideshow. And I know that Fannie Willis did over the weekend make certain statements about this, but she hasn't yet responded in court.
court. And I do think there are legitimate questions about what happened. But I agree with you, you have to kind of keep two ideas in your head at the same time, which is like, there's the issue about Mr. Roman or anyone else and their guilt or lack thereof. And there's the issue of what was the propriety or not of doing this. And there's just a host of questions about, you know, was it the same amount paid, but for anyone else? What was the role that the
Vonnie Willis had, even if she was having a relationship, what was her role in terms of selection? Or was there a selection committee? What was the amounts paid? Were they, was it standard? My understanding is it was the standard amount that was given, which...
frankly seems, you know, it's a lot of money, but frankly for lawyers, it's called something low bono is something. Right. And that's a take on pro bono, which is doing it for free. But a lot of times you're paid sort of well below the market rate. So it's called low bono. Right. So there are just a lot of questions.
questions on that. It's like, I'm waiting to see what's said in court. Just table it until we can see the pleadings. But it's legitimate that she has to respond and say what the facts are and we'll go from there. And then I think the third thing, sort of moving on, is there were a bunch of filings in the
the Florida case. That is the federal Florida case that has gotten sort of lost a little bit in the shuffle. That is the classified documents case and two types of obstruction that are charged in that. And there were a series of filings. That is the case which is technically still on schedule for May. But the judges said that she will hear from the parties at the beginning of March as to what's going to happen to that date. I think it seems pretty clear that's not going to go in May.
But we'll see. There were filings that the government made, which, you know, gave some hints as to some of their evidence. And it basically was their expert witnesses. And for me, Mary, it just brought back being at the FBI and also being a prosecutor, because most of these people were experts on the so-called police.
CART team. And CART is basically, it is computer forensics. What was so interesting to me about that expert filing is when you go and you look at each of the attachments that describe what each expert will say, it ties totally into the indictment. So for people who don't know this, if the government is alleging in an indictment and going to prove at trial that
you know, Walt Nauta sent text messages and photographs of the spilled classified documents to another employee. They've got to prove how did they get those text messages off his phone? How do we know that they're not doctored, right, or manipulated? And, you know, they've got to substantiate what they put in their indictment. They just can't have somebody say, oh, he texted someone. And I think it's really interesting when you put together what's in this filing with what's in the indictment, including geolocation, right? When
And while Nada moves from Bedminster, New Jersey to LaGuardia Airport, to Logan Airport, to West Palm Beach Airport, back to Mar-a-Lago as he's trying to talk with D'Oliveira about, hey, we need to get these videos. So anyway, terribly interesting. Yeah, there's a lot of data that essentially is on your phone. One thing that was notable is that
the government went out of its way in various footnotes to constantly say everything that was done was pursuant to court orders. - That's right. - That they had search warrants to seize phones, to go into them, to get the information, that all of this was sanitized to make sure they didn't get attorney-client information, et cetera. So to make sure that they were sort of anticipate, was it pre-budding? - Yes, pre-budding. - People couldn't say, as Donald Trump, even over the weekend, he was saying, "Oh, my home was raided."
"This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment." Well, no, it's not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment allows you to do this if you get a warrant. And they did. The government got a warrant. That's right.
for somebody who used to be the president of the United States and the head of our law enforcement, pretty remarkable in terms of taking on the rule of law and completely undermining it. Mary, there's going to be so much more because, you know, I expect that by next week, we will probably have a decision by the D.C. Circuit. We'll be talking about that opinion. That's going to be really key. And I think maybe the
Final thing for people to focus on is I think we both think this decision is a foregone conclusion on the merits of it, which is Donald Trump's going to lose. Keep your eye on what the court says about the mandate, which is how much time is the court going to give Donald Trump essentially before this goes back down?
to Judge Chutkin so she can get that trial back on track. To me, that is the number one thing. I'm going to be going to the last page of the decision to see that. Last page first. Exactly. Sounds good. Mary, so nice to chat with 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 back next week. This show is produced by Vicki Virgulina and Jessica Schrecker.
Katherine Anderson and Bob Mallory are our audio engineers. Our head of audio production is Bryson Barnes. 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.