Hi, and welcome to a brush episode of prosecuting Donald Trump. It's Tuesday, March 12. I'm Andrew Weissman, and I'm here with Mary McCord. I shouldn't really say I'm here with, because we see each other and we're talking to each other, but you're gallivanting around.

Oh, you do some gallivanting, too. Sometimes you just have to work from a different location. So that's what I'm doing anyway. Good morning, Andrew.

Good morning. And we're going to cut to the chase because there's so much going on. It is Tuesday morning and lots of topics to get to. So, Mary, what's up on your radar screen?

I think, let's start with, and I guess you can't knock them for trying. Immunity takes two and three. So I think Mr. Trump's attorneys seeing, I think what they thought was a good thing, the delay they're getting by taking their immunity case up to the Supreme Court, they're trying to get that kind of delay in both the Mar a Lago case as well as the Manhattan case brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg that is set to go to trial on March 25. So we'll talk about this tactic that they're using.

So just to be clear, that trial is set to begin two weeks from yesterday. We're also going to talk briefly about the civil judgments in the two New York cases, the E. Jean Carroll case and the New York attorney general's case. Up to the tune of a half a billion dollars and a bond has been posted now in connection with one of the judgments in the Eugene Carroll case. And we're going to talk about that and what kinds of issues that raises and also the fact that within about, as we would say here, a New York minute of posting that bond, Donald Trump proceeded to continue to attack Eugene Carroll in various ways. So we're going to talk about that. But as we say, as like the Ginsu knife commercial used to say. But there's more.

There is more. Today, actually, as we are recording this, the House Judiciary Committee is having Robert Herr as their witness to testify. Of course, he is the special counsel who was appointed by the attorney general, Merrick Garland to investigate President Joe Biden's potential mishandling of classified information, national defense information. He, of course, wrote a very lengthy report, more than 350 pages, concluding there was insufficient evidence for charges against Mr. Biden. Nevertheless, he is, of course, and as you predicted, Andrew, and of course, we all knew this would happen. He has been asked to come testify before the House Judiciary Committee. And then last week, we talked a lot about the new documents that were revealed when my organization, ICAP, and our co counsel settled a civil case against a couple of the Trump attorneys who'd been involved in the fraudulent electorate scheme. We now have learned that grand jury subpoenas have gone out in Arizona to the fake electors there, the Trump Pence electors who like the electors in Wisconsin. The Trump Pence electors met on December 14, cast their ballots and sought to get them to Vice President Pence to be counted, even though they were not the legitimate electors in Arizona.

So grand jury subpoenas have gone out to them, and I think possibly a few other people associated with that scheme. So we'll see what comes of that in the coming days and weeks. So we've got a lot. So we ought to get going.

Okay, so let's talk about immunity, and we'll sort of differentiate the motion that's before Judge cannon in the Florida case and the motion before Judge Mershon in the New York case. In many ways, there's a lot to say about the judge cannon litigation. But that's sort of a story of a slow boat to nowhere because there just is no sign that that's going to get scheduled before the election. That's why the judge Morchan, one is sort of more salient in terms of people thinking, is that going to delay going to trial? But before we get to sort of the substance, I wanted to give you, Mary, sort of my big picture on immunity. And it sort of relates more to the immunity issue before the Supreme Court.

And just as a reminder, I think that's, you know, that issue up in the Supreme Court is whether and to what extent does a former president have immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions alleged to have been taken within the outer perimeter of his official acts. So that's the question as it relates to, of course, the January 6 case, the case brought by Jack Smith in the District of Columbia district court, where he alleges, Mr. Trump alleges that pretty much everything he did was within the scope of his official acts, and therefore he is immune from criminal prosecution. That's been rejected now by four judges.

Right. And that's, the Supreme Court's going to weigh in on that. But the way I think about this is sort of two issues to think about in terms of what's in my head. One is something that you have repeatedly told me and our listeners, that because this is about immunity, the normal rule that you don't wait until the case is over goes by the wayside that's why there are these appeals pre verdict. The normal rule is that you have a verdict and then you appeal whatever factual and legal issues are. And the defendant, if there's a conviction, raises them. But here, because the defendant's saying, I'm immune, they shouldn't even go forward, the court allows that to be heard. And so that's why these issues can sort of cause delay. That's sort of bucket one, bucket two is that the issue in the Supreme Court is not whether Judge Chuckin correctly decided what is the date of the trial, and did she abuse her discretion, and was it enough time or not enough time? What's before the Supreme Court is just this immunity issue. Why is that relevant? Because the way I look at it is, if you just are considering that issue, the government has an enormous interest in having that decided quickly, because the government has a duty, and the public has an interest in having a speedy trial.

And the defendant may have an interest in never going to trial. They may have an interest in delaying the trial date. But that's not the issue before the court. The issue is the immunity issue. And a defendant who says they're immune and wants to be vindicated on that has an interest in saying every single day that this criminal case is pending, I am harmed because it shouldn't be.

I shouldn't have to go through it at all. Right?

I shouldn't have to go through it. I shouldn't be suffering the appropriate of a criminal charge. And just to relate it to Donald Trump specifically. And what's unique is he says there's a gag order in the DC case that is interfering with my ability to campaign for the presidency. This is a form of election interference. And so all of that is why his interest is to have this decided quickly. So what I'm really saying is, I, like you, agree that defenselers make all sorts of arguments. As long as they're in good faith. That's their job. The Supreme Court has sort of weighed in essentially by this sort of lackadais goal.

Leisurely schedule.

Yes, leisurely languid, get your thesaurus out. And so this issue of immunity, now raised before Judge Cannon and judge merchant, is one that the only legitimate interest on that issue is for both parties to want it decided quickly based on.

The rationale you just described. That's right. But that is not what we're seeing.

Right.

That is clearly not what they're.

Exactly. Exactly. But if you're a judge, like, if I'm going before Judge McCord, I would expect Judge McCord to turn to the parties to say, what possible reason is there not to do this expeditiously on this issue? Because for the life of me, I can't think of a legitimate argument on this issue. That's sort of a backdrop as to how I'm thinking about this, and that it shouldn't be a vehicle to do what the Supreme Court, unfortunately, has done.

Well by scheduling it the way they have, it has put the trial date in issue. Even though you're absolutely right, this motion, this appeal, none of this is really about the trial date, but the impact of it is until the court, Supreme Court, decides things, there's no trial taking place on the January 6 case. So what's interesting about the way you've laid that down about the interest that there should be is to quickly determine, hey, I can't be put to trial at all. Let's move that motion quickly. And even though Judge Cannon in the Mar a Lago case has scheduled a hearing for Thursday on some of the motions, she actually has not scheduled the hearing on that motion. The motion filed by Donald Trump's attorneys arguing that the first 32 counts of the indictment, those are the counts that relate to the mishandling of national defense information. Those counts should all be dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity. That is not a motion she's hearing on Thursday. She's hearing motions to dismiss the case on the grounds of the presidential Records act and on vagueness grounds. And so we'll talk about those in a minute.

To get to the substance of what Mr. Trump's attorneys are doing in both Mar a Lago and now the Alvin Bragg Manhattan case is, they're saying, whoa, whoa, whoa. You should just pause everything here and wait for the Supreme Court to issue its decision on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, because that will impact these cases. And the real question there, I think that, I think you and I both think is rather frivolous, is that it really would impact these two cases, because these are in very different posture than the January 6 case. And by posture, I don't mean where we are in the schedule, I actually mean in the January 6 case. If the president were to win on his argument that all of his conduct, all of the alleged conduct in the indictment is within the scope of his official acts, then the entire case goes away. He cannot be prosecuted in Mar a Lago. The argument is know, remember for this to apply. And right now, the question from the Supreme Court is, does it apply at all? Does presidential immunity apply at all, even to things within the scope of official acts?

Both Judge Chuckin in the district court and the three judges unanimously on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said, no, it doesn't apply. For it to apply, you have to have been doing something within the scope of your official acts.

Right?

And so remember that the Mar a Lago indictment is about retaining classified and national defense information after Mr. Trump was no longer the president, failing to return it, when he was asked by the National Archivist and by the Department of Justice to return it. Those are not things that he did in the scope of his official acts as president because he was no longer the.

I mean, but it's literally saying, I had the right to take the stuff to Mar a Lago. That is not a defense to the illegal retention and the obstruction, et cetera. So that is very frivolous. It is, of course, before Judge Cannon. And so the second immunity motion is in New York.

Can we mention one point? Because you've used the word frivolous, and so have I. Listeners may recall that even in the January 6 case, even though everything stops when Mr. Trump took an appeal of the immunity issue, there is an argument, and I think this would be more applicable in the Mar a Lago case, that if the immunity issue is so frivolous that it should not stop the trial. A district court judge can make that decision. A district court judge can say, this is so frivolous, I'm not stopping everything. Now, the appellate court could say, well, you still have to stop it, but the pellet court could say the same thing. So frivolous. So even this issue in Mar a Lago is one where potentially, again, this would be up to the judge. Potentially, it wouldn't stop things even if there was a ruling against Mr. Trump and he sought to take it on appeal. But now we're, of course, getting potentially months down the road.

Exactly. And also, Judge Cannon, her safest course, if she doesn't want to get reversed or removed from the case, is to just sit on this and continue the slow boat approach to the case. So Judge Merchant, Judge Merchant yesterday received a motion that was out of time and unscheduled. He actually issued an order saying no more motions without permission from the court. He got a motion from Donald Trump, and he ordered the state to respond by tomorrow, Wednesday. So he's clearly going to rule on this quickly. The motion's really interesting because what it really is about is precluding evidence, right?

It's not about a motion to dismiss all of the counts that Alvin Bragg brought against Mr. Trump, to be clear.

Exactly. So this, of course, is a case involving false business records and in connection with hush money payments, to have stormy Daniels not speak about her trist with the former president during the campaign for the presidency in 2016, the false business records which were disguising those payments as legal payments, that part happened while Donald Trump was president. But that's not really what the motion is about because there's no argument that those payments were made in his official capacity. Those are sort of personal conduct. The argument that is made is that there's certain evidence from the time when Donald Trump was president that the state wants to use statements he made and tweets. Exactly. And he's saying, well, because those were made in my official capacity, allegedly, they can't be used. And that's a really different argument than I am immune from the charges because the charges, he has not made that argument. And, in fact, he has had the opportunity to and has explicitly sort of waived that. So this is now about evidence. It seems very frivolous to argue that. Imagine a situation where as president, let's assume he said, and he totally confessed on Twitter, or truth social or whatever medium he's now using.

And he said, this is why I paid the money. Or let's take the Eugene Carroll case. This is why I sexually assaulted her and defamed her. Those admissions are admissions. And the fact that you happen to be saying them in whatever capacity you're saying them, whether you are saying them as president or not, they're admissions that should be useful. I know of no doctrine with respect to the presidency that would make those immune from being used as evidence of a crime. That is not a crime, that is subject to presidential immunity.

Right. Because, for example, sometimes in an evidentiary posture, a president or a former president, in fact, Mr. Trump has made this argument, will say, I have executive privilege over certain communications. And because those were made sort of in confidence to my core top advisors, those can't be used as evidence in a criminal case. But these are not those type of statements. These are public statements. He made tweets, statements he gave during interviews with Fox and friends and things, things that show his state of mind, his motive, and his intent behind making those payments. But, Andrew, totally agree with you on all of how it's apples and oranges trying to apply this immunity doctrine to preclude evidence at trial. But really, I think that just was his little hook to be able to file a motion at all, because what he really wants is delay. This is what he asks for. President Trump respectfully submits then an adjournment of the trial. That means pause, hold everything, don't go to trial is appropriate to await further guidance from the Supreme Court, which should facilitate the appropriate application of the presidential immunity doctrine in this case to evidence that the people, people means Alvin Bragg and his team intend to offer at trial.

This is really just about stopping the trial. And then he says, after the Supreme Court issues its guidance, then the court should hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to identify and preclude documentary and testimonial official acts evidence based on presidential immunity. This is all about delay. And I will say the number of statements that he claims should be precluded are really just a fraction of the evidence that Alvin Bragg, at least based on his own motions and his statement of facts, intends to introduce. So the easiest way out of this would be for Alvin Bragg just to say, I'm not going to introduce any of this stuff. Let's move on. But he may want to fight about it because he may want to say, hey, I have a right to introduce this. This is intent, motive, and you lose on presidential immunity. So we'll see what he says tomorrow.

We'll see. Final point on this is, Mary, these are not the actions of somebody who is innocent, who wants their day in court. This is somebody who wants to have their day in the court of public opinion and to engage in invective and untested adjectives and adverbs about witch hunt and election interference, et cetera. But it is so unusual that it's like this is somebody who's not seeking to actually be able to say, you know what? I'm going to prove that these are unfounded allegations. This is somebody who is seeking to avoid at every cost any tribunal where there will be. It's required that facts and law govern. And the thing that he has learned from having 60 court cases that said the election was not stolen is avoiding the court system because it is easier to just engage in hyperbole. Yep. But let's move on. After a break, we'll come back and talk about some things going on here in New York.

Join MSNBC's Simone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele and Alicia Menendez as they team up to host the weekend.

We want to get the newsmakers, the.

People that are in the middle of what is happening.

It's about the conversation a lot of Americans check out of conversations. We want to check them in conversation.

We begin and that you continue all.

Week long, the weekend, Saturdays and Sundays at 08:00 a.m. Eastern on MSNBC. Get the best of MSNBC all in one place every day with the MSNBC Daily newsletter. Each morning, in your inbox, you'll find expert analysis, video highlights of your favorite shows.

Running for reelection is when you actually get your report card from the american.

People, previews from our podcasts and documentaries, as well as written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves. Understand today's news. Sign up for msnbc Daily@msnbc.com.

Welcome back. So we are switching gears to the E. Jean Carroll case, which, of course, was a civil trial for defamation brought by E. Jean Carroll, which resulted in a verdict quite a while back. At this point since then, we've had a whole separate verdict and a whole separate civil case against Mr. Trump. That's the 450 plus million dollar verdict. But going back to smaller numbers, one might say Eugene Carroll, he was ordered.

It's such a pittance. Yeah, it's so ordered to pay her.

$83 million as damages for defamation against her. And that was, of course, on top of a previous trial, damages assessed against Mr. Trump of around $5 million for.

Sexual, sexual assault and defamation.

That's right. And some people may think, well, gosh, wouldn't the sexual assault damages be even greater? But we should recall that one component of this most recent damages verdict included punitive damages, too, because this is somebody who has continued to defame E. Jane Carroll, even after being successfully sued for defamation, and indeed, up to and including just yesterday, continues to defame E. Jane Carroll. So the news we got was that on Friday, his attorneys proposed a bond to put up the money while this case is on appeal. That is something that is generally required when you appeal from a judgment against you. The court system doesn't want you spending all the money that you owe the person while you're appealing, because if you lose that appeal, you're going to have to pay it. So they generally require you to put up that money that you owe, plus interest, as either cash payment, which he did after the first E. Jean Carroll trial, or a bond. This time, he has gone with a bond, and he's proposing that. And E. Jean Carroll's attorney is accepting his proposal to get a bond under terms with a company called the Federal Insurance company, which I find it very interesting name because it sounds almost like it is a federal agency, but I don't think it is.

Is it, Andrew?

No, it is Chubb. And there's some connectivity between a chief executive there, having Eric Greenberg, who had had a position, a sort of low level position, relatively low level within the Trump administration. This is an area where I just think there is more to come on how this was orchestrated, and we just don't know enough. And why do I care? I care because I think it's really important for the public to know to whom Donald Trump may be financially beholden as a candidate. And if you were to win the presidency as the president, because you might say he has 91 million reasons to be beholden to that person. He may not, but I just think you need to know what the circumstances are. Let me just give a backdrop, because this is an area both as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer. I've dealt with these kinds of situations. When you have an individual who has taken out bank loans and had to give a personal guarantee, meaning not just their company, but they themselves are guaranteeing the amount of money that will be paid, which apparently is the case with respect to Donald Trump.

That means when you are trying to get a new loan or a bond, in this case, you have to pledge assets that are unencumbered, meaning that they're not already being used to shore up a loan from somebody else. Because let's say you've already pledged that to like Morgan Chase, that's giving you a loan. JP Morgan Chase is going to be like, hey, we have a lien on that. Exactly. First dibs. So someone's going to be like, you need to have assets. Where I get first dibs. Also, a lot of times, if you get a loan as part of that, you can have commitments that you make that you will have a certain amount of unencumbered assets or cash on hand. So that if you were to say, oh, but don't worry, I have $100 million in the bank, yeah, you have that. But if you were to have less than that, that you're breaching your loan commitment to. Again, I'm going to use Morgan Chase. So there are all sorts of things that could be written into existing loan agreements with Donald Trump that would preclude how he could get a new loan. So you don't know whether Chubb is doing this to get influence as a bet on the future, whether there were sort of, somehow there were unencumbered assets, did Donald Trump find a third party who would co sign the loan, which would make that person just as liable and Donald Trump just as beholden?

Could Donald Trump have sold an unencumbered asset for an inflated value and then used that money to pledge? I mean, there are just all sorts of possibilities. And because he is running for office, that issue is one that is relevant to this $91 million bond. And it's going to be relevant depending on what happens with. Now we're just talking about the small pittance of 91 million.

Right?

Exactly. There's a much bigger one coming. Yes.

Yeah. So that's why this is a big issue. But from Eugene, Carol's perspective, that's not her problem. She is interested in just, will I.

Get money at the end of the day?

Yeah, exactly. The issue of, I mean, she might care as a citizen.

Yes.

In the same way all of us might care. But her interest is just, I want to make sure when I win this appeal that there is a pot of money so I can be made whole. And that's what the bond does do, regardless of whether or not there are shenanigans or not even shenanigans, but just sort of facts that would be relevant to how to treat this person. And by the way, one thing we haven't talked about, Mary, is that third party that we're seeing as a potentially involved couldn't be a foreigner. There's nothing that would prevent a foreign person from doing this, like hypothetically, an MBS doing this. And again, you would want to know that in terms of, it's not like Donald Trump hasn't made incredibly ingratiating statements to foreign dictators who are antithetical to traditional american interests.

That's right. And that's not all on Eugene Carroll. As I noted right here after the break, Mr. Trump continues to defame her, at least arguably, and I think we've got a little bit of a clip of that.

I just posted a $91 million bond. 91 million on a fake story, totally made up story. Think of it. 91 million. I could say things about what it would cost normally. 91 million based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn't know, never heard of. I know nothing about her. She wrote a book, she said things. And when I denied it, I said, it's so crazy, it's false. I got sued for defamation.

So, Mary, I just think it's worth reminding people that what the juries, plural, have found, just so we can put this in context. This is how we decide things in this country. When there's a dispute, it goes to court. Both sides have due process, both sides get to present evidence, and this is a civil case. And a jury unanimously found in the first trial that Eugene Carroll is a victim of sexual assault and was defamed.

In addition, false statements, knowingly false, made about her by Mr. Trump.

Exactly. And the second trial was ongoing. Continued defamation. And as Sean Crowley, one of Eugene Carroll's lawyers said, just to be clear, this man pointing at Donald Trump sexually assaulted, victimized Eugene Carroll and then continued to defame the woman he sexually assaulted. And that is what two juries have found. Let's just put that in context for what we're about to talk about, was continuing to make statements that I'm not going to say defamed her, because that will be for conclusion, yet another jury. Let's just say there's enough for the lawyer to say, there's enough to go.

Forward saying, as we just heard, that the $91 million was based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn't know, never heard of. Right. I mean, these are things the jury clearly bound against him on. And one of the important things to recall is that in the second trial, the judge did say these questions about whether she was sexually assaulted or whether these statements are falsehoods, are lies. That's already been decided. There was a full and fair opportunity to litigate that in the first trial. It's been decided against you, Mr. Trump. You are collaterally stopped. In other words, you're precluded from getting a second jury to redecide those questions. Exactly. No do overs. And so if Eugene Carroll were to say, darn it all, here he is doing it again, I'm bringing another lawsuit, we would expect, again, that he would be precluded from relitigating the things that have already been decided. So we'd really be mostly talking about a jury deciding, did you say these new things, and what's the number, the amount of the damages? Now, I don't know if she'll bring another case or not.

I mean, it's not fun going to trial. It's not fun being on the witness stand. And she already has huge verdicts against Mr. Trump. But gosh darn it, it's got to be really hard to sit here and listen to him just do it over and over and over again. And clearly, these judgments are not enough.

I mean, talk about victimized and then victimized and then victimized and then victimized over and over again. And if there's any case for an injunction, which is complicated, it is, particularly.

When we're talking about speech, but defamation is not protected. Right. That's why you can sue about it. So, actually, topic for another day. But it certainly does seem to be the case that money damages are not a sufficient deterrent to Donald Trump.

Absolutely. So, Mary, let's take another break and come back and talk about what's on our radar screen.

On the MSNBC podcast how to win 2024, political experts former senator Claire McCaskell and democratic strategist Jennifer Palmieri examined the campaign strategies unfolding in this all important election. The focus is on the voters that are not necessarily in your corner. Now, if Democrats are going to win in 2024, we have to be able to explain what is happening at the border and what the solutions are. Search for how to win 2024 wherever you get your podcast. New episodes every Thursday. Hi, everyone. It's Katie Fang. Did you know? My weekly show on MSNBC is now available as a podcast? With my decades of experience as a trial lawyer? You'll get an insider's perspective on all things legal. At a time when politics and the law are inextricably intertwined. My guest and I break down what's next and why it matters both inside and outside the courtroom. Search for the Katie Fang show wherever you're listening, and follow.

Back as promised, we're going to kind of look ahead a little bit. And as we said at the top of the episode, as we are recording, special counsel, former special counsel, it's been reported, has now left the Department of Justice just within the last day, I believe. Special counsel, former special counsel Robert Hurr is testifying before the House Judiciary Committee today about his investigation into whether President Biden mishandled national defense information, the same type of charges against Donald Trump. We can't say too much about it because that hearing is going on right now. But I think one of the things that we can reiterate is that in almost 400 pages of report, a lot of focus has been on a few sentences and one or two paragraphs focusing on Mr. Biden's age and his memory. But there are 380 something pages that conclude there is insufficient evidence for any type of charges because there's insufficient evidence that Mr. Biden knew there was any classified information in any of his homes. Insufficient evidence that a box of documents that included classified information was actually ever in his home when he wasn't either the vice president or the president, because there's only one month that it could have been when he wasn't the vice president or the president, and there's insufficient evidence that box was even in his home at the time, insufficient evidence of willfulness, et cetera.

So I think we will hear that many of those points that come from Robert Hur's own report will get reiterated at this hearing because he's certainly not going to deny those points, that the evidence was insufficient and that there were innocent explanations that they could not refute. The second thing I think that is important to flag is that Robert hur himself in the report drew a distinction, a strong distinction, between what President Biden did and what Mr. Trump is alleged to have done in the Mar a Lago indictment. And Robert Hurr himself discussed how Mr. Biden had flagged this issue originally and brought it to the attention of the Department of Justice that he had willingly agreed to searches not just of his home, but his home, a vacation property, I believe, and his office, et cetera. He had sat for a five hour interview. That interview transcript has just become available this morning, and at least according to New York Times reporting, I don't think you and I have had time to actually read it ourselves yet, but there's a lot in there that also know how really exacting and clear headed Mr. Biden was in answering questions, sometimes correcting the investigators on things, as well as actually funny.

Yeah, sometimes funny. And, of course, there is some in there know things he couldn't remember. But it's 5 hours of interviews, so I think we're going to start seeing things in a very different light here.

One of the funny things is he's shown a photograph of Lindsey Graham and has asked about it, and he says, well, you know, it's an old photograph because I have my arm around him. That's good.

Yeah, it'll be very revealing as we get through that.

Yeah. So obviously, the reason the Republicans are going to want this hearing is to talk about Rob Hurr's statement, about his assessment of President Biden's mental state. And let's leave to the side whether the issue of whether he should or should not have been making those statements in the report. The way I look at this is I don't really care about one individual's assessment of that any more than, I mean, there are lots and lots of people who can talk to the president and will make their own minds. And it's also something uniquely within the ability of the president of the United States to refute or address. It's sort of irrelevant to me, like whether he or James Comey about Hillary Clinton is telling me about their personal assessment. That's not really a prosecutorial function. It's just something for President Biden to deal with. And it's sort of irrelevant whether you shouldn't elevate Rob hurd into some medical expert and sort of a unique position. So that's sort of one. The other I just wanted to address quickly the idea of some people may be saying, why did he step down from the Department of Justice.

And what's the relevance of that? That he left yesterday. So this comes from my experience working on the special counsel Mueller investigation. So if you are a former employee of the Department of Justice, you still have an obligation to go through something called pre publication review. I actually wrote a book, and before that could go out, I had to submit it to the Department of Justice for a word by word review and answer a whole series of questions. And then they authorized them. And there was know back and forth as to what they thought. They were actually very, very responsible. I had a very good experience, but my obligation in writing and signed is that I'm going to go through pre publication review. So Rob her has the same obligations. A special counsel is part of the Department of Justice. So he has pre publication responsibilities. Now, that's something where the department could have already said to him, we're giving you authority to say anything in response to a question under oath that's asked by a member of Congress. But he is required, even as a former employee, to have gotten that permission. So it does somewhat without that permission, it tethers him to not going further than the report, the written report.

So that'll be interesting to watch to see that piece. The only other thing is, if he is a former employee, there can't be the same kind of instruction given to him. If you are in the current employee of the Department of Justice, the department has the ability to say, I'm directing you not to answer that question. We are asserting privilege with respect to that, let's say work product privilege or attorney client privilege or some kind of deliberative process privilege. And because you're a department employee, you have to follow that instruction, or there could be consequences to you if you're no longer at the department. You may choose to follow that instruction, but there's a lesser ability to give those instructions. I'm not thinking that those instructions will necessarily happen in this context. In other words, that the department will actually seek to invoke those kinds of instructions. But it is a lesser tethering of your testimony to the department's views as to whether you should or should not be revealing certain information. So I wasn't surprised that he would step down beforehand. But I'm not sure which way it's going to play in terms of what's.

Going to happen given that Merrick Garland released the report in full, didn't make redactions, could have, if he had wanted to, could have just decided not to release it at all, I would be very surprised if he or those in his office advised Robert Herr not to speak about anything in particular or gave him any parameters, because that would seem to be pulling back on essentially the agreement to be very transparent about this. So we'll have more to say about this potentially next week after we get some reporting out of the hearing. Okay. Well, unsurprisingly, we've more than filled up our time today, and there's still so much we could have talked about that we're going to have to wait for another episode for. As noted at the top, we have heard that the grand jury in Arizona has issued subpoenas to the fake, I'm going to call them the fake electors, the Trump Pence electors from 2020. And so, as listeners probably recall, there have been criminal cases brought against Trump Pence electors in Michigan, in Nevada. There has been investigation in Georgia. There's been an investigation in Wisconsin. So we will see what ends up happening, and it could well be that we'll be more indictments coming out of Arizona sometime soon.

And stay tuned for a decision from Judge Mershawn on the New York immunity issue and what Donald Trump is going to try to do to appeal that, because Judge Merchant is certainly going to deny that request. And we'll see what happens there. Lots and lots of things to keep an eye on. We'll be back with you really soon.

Indeed we will.

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 prosecuting Trump questions@nbcuni.com Thanks so much for listening. We'll be back next week with much more. So this show is produced by Vicky Vergolina, Paul Robert Mouncy, 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. Hey, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why is this happening? Author and philosopher Judith Butler on their new book, who's afraid of Gender?

The question of gender is fundamentally linked with the future of our democratic world. And we would be, I think, making a mistake by imagining that it's simply identity politics or that it's fragmenting the left or that it's an artificial notion. It is not.

That's this week on why is this happening? Search for why is this happening? Wherever you're listening right now and subscribe.