Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Hello and welcome to another episode of Prosecuting Donald Trump. I'm Andrew Weissman and I'm here with my co-host, Mary McCord. Hi, Mary. Good morning, Andrew. Well, it's Tuesday,
December 12th in our world. But if you're listening to this, as I hope you are, well, actually, of course you're listening to it or else you wouldn't have heard it. It's like, does a bear? Oops, no. Does a tree fall in the water? Okay. Okay.
I was trying to stay calm. Does a tree fall in the woods? Does anyone hear it? The bear. Okay. Does a bear? The bear hears it. No, it's does a bear. It's a critter version. Okay. You know what? We're going to understand whether our audio team likes us or hates us as to whether they cut that. Cut that. Yeah. Okay.
So anyway, of course, you're listening to this because there's one you wouldn't hear it. So for all of you, it's Christmas or after or after. That's right. Happy holidays to everyone who celebrates Christmas and happy holidays to everyone else for whatever days you do celebrate. And so we have pre-recorded this.
And we have finally done something that we keep on promising people to do. Mary, take it away. What are we doing today? Mailbag. So longtime listeners will know that at the end of every show, Andrew invites everyone to submit their questions and even says maybe we'll answer it on the pod. And we only have
rarely an opportunity to answer one or two because the news is just so jam-packed every week. So this time, we figured this is a perfect opportunity to devote an entire episode to answering your questions, and that is what we will do. That sounds great. So let's get to it. Mary, you want to take the first question? I will. This question comes from Lynn.
Says, many thanks to you and Mary for the teachable moment introduction to criminal law. I have, however, come away with a fear that the rule of law in today's world is more threatened by the failure of the system to convict the guilty in a timely way than by convicting the innocent. Are there folks in the legal community who are worried about this problem? And if so, what are their thoughts?
So I think part of this comes from sort of longstanding and famous words from case law that talks about the importance of the criminal justice system to make sure that the innocent are not convicted of crimes that they didn't commit and that only the guilty are convicted of crimes. And I think what this listener is really getting at is does our criminal justice system work fast enough to
timely enough to make sure that those who have committed crimes are held accountable? And here I'll take that question specifically to Donald Trump. And I think in direct response, what we're seeing is a real effort by the prosecutors. Jack Smith, who's leading the federal prosecutions of the January 6th related case, as well as the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, really trying to get these cases to trial before the election, in part because
of just the general public's right to have cases go to trial in a timely fashion and not be delayed so long that there's no justice or justice comes too late. And in part, of course, because there is an election and these cases are very important to the electorate's ability to make decisions about who they want to be the next president of the United States. Fannie Willis also has been moving her case apace, although I will say I was somewhat surprised when she suggested in August that
trial date, which is very, very close to the election and after the Republican National Convention. So I do think, yes, there are people in the legal community who are worried about delays. And I think that's why, in particular, we're seeing the federal special counsel, Jack Smith, move quickly. And indeed, for us on December 12th, it was just last night that Jack Smith sought to take the issue of presidential immunity and whether presidential immunity exists or
for criminal prosecutions, take that issue straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. And that's because he is so concerned about this case getting to trial either on March 4th or as close to March 4th as possible so that will be resolved long before the election.
You know, the legal aphorism is "justice delayed is justice denied." And one of the famous usages of that was Martin Luther King.
saying in a speech that justice too long delayed is justice denied in connection with his and many other people's fight for civil rights. And we're seeing it now in a very different context in terms of legal accountability for the former president and his
allies and followers and enablers. That's right. So we have another question. This one is from Patrick, and there's a voicemail.
Hi, my name is Patrick. I live in Dallas. My question, I'm not sure if you're going to like this question, but these days, whenever we hear people talk about the judges who are sitting and deciding cases that judges identified by political party of the president who appointed them, I don't think we used to hear that all the time. Is the interest in
Who appointed judges heightened because Trump always talks about Obama judges and he heightened our interest in that? And so everybody thinks it's important now? Or is this something that I just am noticing now but was always done and I just didn't notice it because it wasn't important to me?
Anyway, that's my question. And it's, I guess, more of a history than a law question, so you may not like it. But anyway, that's all. Thank you. I love the podcast. Thanks. Bye. Well, thank you, Patrick. And we do love the question, so have no fear. So, you know, I think that it is...
something that has come up pre-Trump, where people in news media and conversations do talk about who appointed the judge. It is
Definitely true that it is even more salient now. Donald Trump, as Patrick, you note, almost always uses that to describe judges. And Justice Roberts famously pushed back on that during the Trump administration, saying there are no such things as
Obama judges and Trump judges. I would also say that certain conduct by certain judges or justices does play into that view. So we
commented a lot on Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Donald Trump. But it's important to note, as much as I think you could view her decisions as not just showing inexperience and not being tethered to, at times, the law or the facts, as potentially showing her bias. And so it's natural to think about, well, who appointed her and whether her actions are
consistent with that. But by the same token, it's really important to remember she was reversed twice by the 11th Circuit, a conservative conservative
a group of different judges, some appointed by, actually, I think all of them were appointed by Republicans. I think some were appointed by Donald Trump. And there are a slew of really great judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans. And the whole idea of life tenure is that these people are representing the best view of the law and the facts and are obeying their oath of office.
And you see that, I would say, more often than not. But I also, just to be fair, I don't think it's wrong to ask the question of who appointed them. But if you don't see their actual conduct being connected to that, then it's largely irrelevant, any more than when you'd look at a prosecutor and you think, oh, I'm
you know, they're part of this administration or they have these political views. It's all largely irrelevant if there's no conduct that's connected to it in the same way jurors could have views outside of the courtroom. Judges could have views outside of the courtroom and they can act on principle. So I think all
All of this is a way of saying whether you're looking at judges, jurors, prosecutors, anybody, yes, you can have all sorts of views and biases. But I think by and large, people are very good at being able to separate that from their duty to apply the law and the facts impartially. Yeah.
Yeah, I will just add to that a little bit on the question as it relates to history. I think two other phenomenon have occurred. And one is that I think court cases and judicial decisions are just much more in the news these days than they have been historically. And I don't mean these days just like 2023. I mean, over the last, you know, six to 10 years, I just think that there's a lot more news coverage of judicial opinions. There have been many,
controversial issues that have been decided by courts that are very newsworthy. And so people are paying more attention to what judges are doing. And as part of that, like Andrew said, the president who appointed judges is often identified. I personally think it's always been identified in my legal career. I think it's always been identified. There were just fewer judicial pigeons in the news. The other historical point I'd make is
that it used to be that judges who were nominated, regardless of the president who nominated them, were oftentimes confirmed in the Senate by votes of like,
you know, 100 to 0, 99 to 1, 98 to 2, like overwhelming people were qualified regardless of who nominated them. And the senators recognized that and confirmed. That has changed dramatically over the last couple of decades to where we now often see party line votes, we're close to party line votes in Senate confirmation proceedings. And in some ways, it's
That, you know, there are other people who study this will say that has driven some of the nominations to be more political because of the way that the Senate is running.
acting in its confirmation. We also know, of course, that we've had, you know, Senator McConnell at the end of the Obama administration refused to even hold hearings for President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to be a Supreme Court justice. So the entire process has become more politicized. And I think we see that partly in this identification of judges.
But I agree with Andrew that by and large, I don't think you can necessarily predict outcomes based on who nominated a judge, that you can predict outcomes based on what does the law say and the judges following the rule of law. OK, I think we have another voicemail. Hi, my name is Margaret and a hugely appreciative fan of your podcast. And I am in no way.
an attorney or involved in the law. So my question seems maybe layman's and simple, but as you cover more and more of these appeals that Donald Trump makes, I feel like they are beyond frivolous and have reached just to the point of being ridiculous. Is there ever a possibility of punishment for wasting taxpayer dollars or time on frivolous, endless appeals? Is that at all punishable? Thank you so much.
So I'll take a first crack at this, Andrew, and hand it over to you. I mean, attorneys can be sanctioned for bringing frivolous lawsuits, making frivolous claims. We've actually seen some of that happen with respect to the...
60-something cases that the Trump campaign brought after the 2020 election, challenging the results in various states and making baseless, meaning lacking evidence, claims lacking evidence of election fraud. We've seen a few judges in those cases, certainly not all 65 cases, but we've seen a few judges ask those attorneys to explain why they should not be sanctioned for bringing cases that lacked evidence.
We've also talked, Andrew and I, a little bit on this podcast about appeal of Donald Trump's double jeopardy motion, motion to dismiss his case based on an argument that because he was acquitted by the Senate in his impeachment proceedings related to January 6th, that it would violate his double jeopardy rights to be tried criminally for the crimes that he's being charged with in the January 6th related case.
And there is the possibility if a district court concludes that a challenge based on double jeopardy or immunity grounds, if the district court concludes that that challenge is frivolous, the district court can say so. And that can oftentimes expedite things and also mean that you don't stay all of the trial court proceedings while there's an appeal going on.
Judge Shutkin did not do that in her opinion, denying former President Trump's motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity and double jeopardy grounds. She ruled on the facts and the law in those cases. She denied the motions, but she did not make a declaration that those were frivolous claims. I have nothing to add to that. It's perfect. So the next question is from Bill, and
And he says, "If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Donald Trump regarding absolute immunity, wouldn't that mean that a president could knowingly commit crimes knowing they could not be prosecuted? A president could act as Putin does and poison his opposition or do again as Trump did in 2020.
and create fake electors and keep himself in power no matter the outcome of the election. And then he basically says, and if this happens, wouldn't you also be giving a license to President Biden to do the same? In other words, it's my words, not Bill's word, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's not a rule of absolute immunity for Republican presidents, but not for Democratic presidents. And so,
Wouldn't the current White House be able to take advantage of any such decision? So the answer to that is yes. I mean, of course, if absolute immunity were to apply, it would apply, of course, across the board to any president, whether it's Donald Trump or Biden.
to whoever is sitting in the White House, of course, a president may not choose to exercise that. I mean, I just doubt that President Biden is thinking about committing a crime, even though he would have absolute immunity, whereas Donald Trump has already suggested
that, let me just put it this way, that he would pardon people who commit crimes for him. If you remember when he was running in 2016, he made this comment in a very different context to one of his people in the crowd that it's okay if you attack a heckler and he'll pay for your legal bills.
He has suggested, of course, that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. And he is fine thinking about pardoning people who appear to attack the Capitol and have been convicted or in jail, and they could all get pardons. So,
I think about this both in terms of the perniciousness of absolute immunity being given to a sitting president for conduct in office. Remember, it has to be conduct that would be in office. That's part of their presidential functions.
But the same issue comes up with the pardon power, because the pardon power is so broad. One of the things we've just not had to deal with as a country, fortunately, is the idea that a president would use that to engage in crime and then pardon anyone who does those crimes for the president, up to and including potentially himself or herself.
So they sort of work in the same way as something that, to my mind, cannot possibly be what the framers had in mind, because the whole point of checks and balances, the whole point of having the revolution was to break away from the divine right of kings and to actually have accountability. But that being said, the...
absolute immunity issue is one thing to focus on. But I would say the pardon power is another sort of what I would say is a flaw in the Constitution, because I think when it was put into effect, it was viewed as something that wouldn't be abused because the Congress and the public would have a Democratic check on its abuse. And I'm not sure that is any longer the case when you've got a demagogue
Yeah, the only thing I would add to that is that even Donald Trump in his motion to dismiss the case on grounds of presidential immunity did not argue, and I don't think the argument in front of the Supreme Court will be that a former president is innocent.
absolutely immune from any criminal prosecution for anything they did while they were president. Even Donald Trump argued he was just immune for things within the outer perimeter of his official acts or his official duties. So, for example, literally shooting someone on Fifth Avenue while president, I think even Donald Trump's lawyers might have to admit was
outside the outer perimeter of his official acts, although who knows what they would actually say in court. But so I don't think we're talking about a situation where it's literally anything goes. And I don't think the Supreme Court would ever agree with anything like that. Yeah. But the pardon power.
Yes, the pardon power so far does seem to be anything goes. I mean, certainly former President Trump, when he was president on his last days of office, he pardoned people who didn't meet the criteria that the pardon attorney usually uses. Pardon attorney is an employee of the Department of Justice who usually makes recommendations to the president about pardoning. And Trump just went right around the pardon attorney and basically pardoned his friends.
and those who were his political allies. And that's his prerogative. I mean, it's obviously a total abuse because it doesn't make sure that it's handled appropriately and given out evenly without fear or favor to any particular person. But that is the president's power.
MSNBC Live Democracy 2024 Saturday, September 7th in Brooklyn, New York. Join your favorite MSNBC hosts at our premier live audience event. Visit msnbc.com slash democracy 2024 to buy your tickets today.
moving right along. We have another question. Yeah, and I'm going to start this, but I'm going to hand this one pretty quickly to you, Andrew. This we get a lot. If Trump is convicted, how long will sentencing take? And what happens if he wins the election but has yet to be sentenced?
First of all, sentencing, typically there's at least 60 days between a jury verdict of guilt and sentencing. And that's because there's a process by which a body of officials who are government, who work for the judiciary, write up a pre-sentencing report. They interview the defendant, defendant's family members, defendant's previous employers, things like that in a typical case and write up a report that recommends a sentence.
Here, of course, if it's Donald Trump who's found guilty by a jury, we know a lot about Donald Trump already, but there still will be a pre-sentence report, I expect, and the parties in an ordinary case and in this case both agree.
Mr. Trump's attorneys, as well as the government, will file probably pretty extensive sentencing memos making arguments about what the sentence should be. And so it could be that the court would try to hasten the time to get to sentencing to make sure that it was before the election. But it just depends on when a trial actually gets started and when it gets finished. Now I'm going to hand to you, Andrew, about what happens if he wins the election but has yet to be sentenced. Okay.
Okay. So, by the way, the report that Mary's referring to is called the pre-sentence report. Right. Aptly named. It's the pre-sentence report, and the lingo that we use for it is the PSR, hence pre-sentence report. Get it? I love how I'm spelling this out like big crayons. It tells you I probably haven't had enough caffeine. So let's just do the math. If the trial starts in
March. And let's just say it takes eight weeks. So that's March and April. And we're now at, let's assume there's a conviction, because if there's an acquittal, case is over. If there's a conviction, which I think I've been on record saying in DC, I think there will be, now we're in sort of the beginning of May. Add in 60 to 90 days. And that means that you could have
Donald Trump being sentenced by Judge Chutkan before the general election. What does that mean? One, there's nothing about being convicted by a jury and being sentenced by a judge that precludes you from running for office. So you could still have Donald Trump being the Republican nominee running for office, and he could literally be convicted and elected.
Now, what would happen in that situation if he is convicted and elected?
Well, no matter almost any stage that that criminal case is in, because it's a federal case, and it likely at that point would be on appeal. And so it's not considered a final conviction because appeals take a long time. The new president, and if it's Donald Trump, he could just tell the Department of Justice, get rid of the case. He doesn't have to pardon himself. He can just say it's over. So even if he is convicted and satisfied,
sentenced before the general election. If he were to win the general election, he could still just get rid of the case, even if it was pending on appeal. Can I butt in there for one second, though? Yeah, yeah, yeah. He would have to do it as a motion to dismiss, right? Kind of like under former President Trump, Bill Barr,
intervened after post-guilty play of Michael Flynn and moved to dismiss the case. And the judge would have to rule on that, although it is very unusual for a judge to deny the government's motion to dismiss a case. Absolutely. And so the sort of follow-up question I can hear is, well, would Donald Trump be in jail at any point prior to
let's assume he wins the election in January and he takes office in January of 2024, would he be in jail before then? And I think the answer to that is highly unlikely. So even if he is convicted and sentenced before the general election, it's
really typical and what's called a sort of white collar crime type case or in this kind of case that he would not be immediately sent to jail, obviously, unless he obstructs justice or commits a crime, you know, while he's out on bail. But it's much more likely that he would be allowed to remain out. Right. That is...
not in jail pending the appeal. For instance, Steve Bannon is not in jail pending his appeal of his conviction for criminal contempt. So it's unlikely that he would be in jail prior to the January inauguration. Obviously, if Donald Trump were to lose the election and a Democratic president were to come in,
a completely different scenario because the case can go forward. Judge Chuck can send him to jail. There obviously are appeals. But if he were to lose those appeals, he would, just like anyone else, if he was sentenced to jail, he would go off to jail. And personally, I actually think that would be an appropriate resolution because there's so many people who have done far less than he did in the January 6th insurrection who have gone to jail and are in jail right now.
So that sort of gives you an overview. And so...
I think I did my share on that. You did. You did. Thank you. Yeah, go on. So let's go to the next one. Oh, yeah, this one's mine. That's right. So this is from Debbie. It seems like for the most part, everyone agrees, including individuals like yourselves who are in the legal field and have an expertise, thank you, that there's a really strong argument in favor of having cameras in the court for the March 4th case.
due to overwhelming public interest. However, based on your discussion of Rule 53, the judge really has no leeway to rule in favor of cameras, even if she was so inclined. So the question essentially is, one, why do attorneys petition the court, including those advocating for the media, if there's really nothing the judge can do?
And my next question is, two, has there ever been a case in federal court where the media was granted more access than the rules require? And the last question, three, this is really a compound question. The last question, three, if the judicial conference is the governing body as it pertains to federal rules, what are mechanisms for which the rules evolve and change? I think that's great, by the way. Like, boy. Yeah, she's really thinking it through. This question is keeping us on our toes. Exactly.
So, you know, why do people make these motions? Well, look, sometimes there's no downside. It's like, you know, let's assume there's a 0.1% chance that it could happen. You might decide to do it. Sometimes you do it to just show the court and the public of this immediate need and to maybe put more pressure on the Chief Justice of the United States to do something here. So there's kind of no...
downside. But, you know, this is one where I don't think that Judge Chutkan on her own has any leeway. But the chief justice in the Supreme Court, as part of his role, and the Federal Rules Committee would have some leeway. How do things change? The way things change is, for instance, on the civil side, there have been efforts to do sort of test cases and exploration of
What if we in these couple districts try cameras? Or what if we try having simultaneous audio? For instance, that happened in the Supreme Court during COVID. It used to be that you couldn't hear simultaneously, but you could hear later. And that changed so you could actually listen in at the time. You didn't see it, but you could hear it. And that has stayed the rule. That has stayed the rule. Exactly. So we can still listen in contemporaneously. Yeah.
So that's one where COVID actually evolved what happens in the Supreme Court of the United States, including how questioning occurred during COVID, which was justice by justice had their own time. So you actually got, it was much more orderly and it was a very different process. Again, I'm not sure
I personally would be in favor of cameras in the courtroom, Mary. I know you agree with me that even though it's not an unmitigated plus, there's concerns about witnesses and protecting them. But overall, to me, it's a lot like the January 6th hearings versus the Mueller report. It's like the Mueller report is a 400-page, very, very dense report.
treat us and not everyone's going to take in their information that way. And having the visual and the audio and be able to see live witnesses is just a very different experience for many, many people who have a real interest in what's happening. But I don't think that's going to happen at the federal level.
in Georgia and potentially New York, where there are two criminal cases. In Georgia, we know it's going to happen. In New York, it may happen. So it may be very different for those cases if they were to go. Yeah. I really have nothing to add, although I will say one thing, which is that why do attorneys keep petitioning in addition to trying to continue to bring attention to the issue, to trying to push the Rules Committee, one of the committees of the Judicial Conference, to take up a rule change? I think they feel like that sort of builds momentum.
And, you know, they try to make a First Amendment argument and get the court to say, please declare the rule that bars cameras in the courtroom unconstitutional as a violation of First Amendment rights, the rights of the press to have access and to provide that access to the people, etc. So in some ways, some of the efforts are to try to see if they can't find a judge who would be willing to just strike down the rule. But of course, this rule has been upheld in the past, and I don't think Judge Chutkan is likely to do that.
Okay, last question. This is from Scott, and we are switching gears to the Mar-a-Lago case now. It seems as though Judge Cannon is slow-walking the Trump documents trial, but also taking a great amount of time in the case is combing through the vast amounts of classified information. But why does that need to be done?
It is known that much of the material Trump hoarded was classified. Why isn't it enough to know that he hoarded classified material? Why did the specifics of the material, the minutiae of everything have to be gone through? I love this question, by the way. It's a good question. Yeah, I think, I think, Mary, you, a memory serves. I can't remember if we did this during the podcast or whether it's just when you and I were chatting, because I feel like you've
thought about this a lot. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, the simple answer to it is some of the crimes that are charged that actually have to do with the mishandling of national defense information. Don't use the term mishandling of classified information. You can't prove it by simply saying I kept classified information with markings that it was classified in spaces that were not approved.
for classified information, the government actually has to prove that the information indeed is national defense information, meaning information, the disclosure of which could be harmful to the national defense. And even though the classification system lines up with harm to the United States, top secret being exceptionally grave harm, secret being serious harm, et cetera, that the statute itself
doesn't use that term, requires the government to prove that it's national defense information, which means the government has to get into the substance at least enough to be able to prove that a particular document or a particular piece of information is national defense information. The more subtle
I think, way to look at this. This is, yes, what the government has to prove. But when you look at Donald Trump through his attorneys, his complaints about the volume of classified information that they have to look at as part of discovery and they can't possibly do it in the time frame that the government thinks they should do it in, and Mr. Trump has to be able to come in and have access and read all of this stuff, that's where...
I think this question really hits to the heart of something. From Mr. Trump's perspective, it's marked classified. He knows because he's been briefed for his entire time as the president that that is sensitive information that is classified, that is harmful to the national defense, that cannot be read out in a public space. It can't be read at your desk. It has to be read inside of a SCIF, a sensitive compartmented information facility. And he really has no reason for his defense to
to have to read every document or look at every document because his defense, at least so far as we are aware of it, is either that he declassified things in his brain or that he has also said at various times that the classified documents were planted. I mean, he's made various other defenses, but not really that...
this wasn't national defense information or that I didn't know it was national defense information. So two other quick thoughts. One is with respect to the charges related to...
illegal retention of classified information. That's sort of a shorthand for national defense information. It is necessary for the government to show that this information was closely held, that it wasn't just out in the wild and disseminated by the government. And so that does get into the issue of needing to know a little bit about the substance.
But just to be fair, as Mary just said, I mean, a lot of these documents, I mean, they were chosen for a reason, which is, I can assure you, nuclear information about a foreign country and also about our own capabilities, not out in the wild. That's closely held. Right. Exactly. Right. In other cases, that could be an issue. I just don't think it's going to be an issue here. The other thing, and it's really, I think this question is so good, is with respect to the obstruction part,
part of the case. And particularly, there's one part of the obstruction is that Donald Trump got a subpoena. It called for the production of any document that had classification markings on it. That just means
turn those documents over. It doesn't matter if they're yours, it doesn't matter if they're the government's, it doesn't matter whether they were declassified later, it doesn't matter whether it's national defense information. If they bear classified markings, they were required to be turned over
by the former president. And that's where, for those charges, the content is not relevant. If it was just those obstruction charges, the content would not be relevant to the case. The government might want to put it in, but this question really does get to that
point, which is just does the face of the document have the classified markings? Did Donald Trump know about it? Did he know about the subpoena calling for its production? That would be this. That's sort of the end of the case. Those are sort of the key facts that you would have to prove.
So, Mary, it's so great that we got to the mailbag. Because, you know, like almost every week, people should know who are listening in. Mary and I are like constantly going, we have to get to the questions. We have to get to the questions. And then you know what happens? Jack Smith, Fonny Willis, Letitia James, Donald Trump, get in our way. Yes. They file papers and they make arguments and we talk about them. So.
So, happy holidays, everyone, and I wish everybody a really wonderful holiday season. And here's to a very good and happy new year, and one where we see justice prevail. That's on my New Year's resolution for 2024. Happy New Year's, Mary. Happy New Year's.
If you've got questions, you can leave us a voicemail at 917-342-2934. Maybe we'll eventually play it on the pod as we did today. Or you can email us at prosecutingtrumpquestions at NBCUNI.com. Mary and I will be back in the new year. And we can't wait to continue chatting with each other and with you. We will be back on Tuesday, June
January 2nd. So we're taking Monday off for the holidays. So see you on the 2nd, everyone. Happy New Year. The segment producers for this show are Jessica Schrecker and Ivy Green. The head of audio production is Bryson Barnes. Paul Robert Mounsey is our audio engineer. Aisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC Audio.
And Rebecca Cutler is the Senior Vice President for Content Strategy at MSNBC. And Andrew and I just want to give a special thanks to Alicia Conley, who has been a producer with us since we very first started this podcast in March.
She's the one who reached out to me. I don't know if she's the one who reached out to you, Andrew. And she is out now on a very well-deserved maternity leave with a brand new baby. So congratulations to Alicia and her partner, and we wish them the very best of the new year. And we can't wait to see this baby. 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.