Hello.

And.

Welcome to another episode of prosecuting Donald Trump. It's Monday, October 30th. I'm Andrew Weissman, and I'm here with my co-host, Mary McCord. Mary, this is one where I think we have to speed talk- Yes, we do. -because there's so much going on. I was thinking about it, and it's a little confusing because there's New York, DC, Florida, and wait for it, Colorado, because-.

You left out Georgia. Well, yes, exactly. Although we're.

Not going to talk about Georgia today. Georgia is always on my mind, insert joke here. But of all of those jurisdictions, we're not actually going to talk about Georgia, even though that's where we saw this flipping of witnesses last week. But this just tells you just how much legal trouble and legal issues get spun off by the former President. One of the things that's starting today that we will definitely take a deeper dive in as we go forward, but not today, is an evidentiary hearing that is going to raise some factual issues, some legal issues in Colorado. This is the issue about whether the former president is actually eligible under the Constitution to run and be elected and serve as President of the United States again. That raises a host of legal issues. And some factual issues, and that will be heard at the lowest level, federal court. But that's a long story. So even if their district court were to roll one way or the other, there's all sorts of issues that are going to come up on appeal and potentially all the way up to the Supreme Court. So that's something we're going to keep a close eye on.

But that's not even the story for today.

Yeah, that's right. And that case for those who are thinking, well, what would be the basis for keeping Trump off the ballot? That is the argument that under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, he's ineligible. So we'll have more on that. But yes, we are definitely going to dive into a little bit to the extent we can into this week in the Manhattan Civil Fraud case. It's a big week because as the attorney general brings its case to a close, they plan to call Donald Trump's family. So Donald Trump Jr, is expected to take the stand on Wednesday, followed by Eric Trump on Thursday, then the former President himself next Monday, and then Ivanka next Wednesday. So we will get into what we are expecting, although it's always a wild chord with the Trumps.

There's another what I'll call table setting issue before we get to what we're really going to talk about. So the table setting issue is that last night, Judge Chuckin reinstated her so-called gag order. I say so-called because if you're listening to this podcast, Mary and I don't like calling it a gag order, but we've been beaten to a pulp. That's right. And we say gag order. Yes. But we'll get into her reasoning and her lifting the temporary stay, and then this issue is going to go to the Court of Appeals in DC. Then we have a really great guest who listeners to this podcast know, and that's Trevor Morrison, the former Dean here at NYU, a constitutional law scholar. We're going to take a deeper dive into the former President's arguments that he's covered by presidential immunity, these are arguments that are now briefed to the district court in DC. That's the one case where the charges really relate to conduct he took as President, and so he has raised this issue. But we'll get into that. And it's one of the things, Mary, I don't know about you, but that's the thing I always feel like this is what the podcast is built for because we really have enough time to talk about- Absolutely.

-and not just our expertise to bring on people who really can give people a really good sense of what are the law issues here that people are confronting?

That's right. And this is really a continuation of the conversation that we started with Trevor Morrison back when we did a live recording at NYU. And that was before the motion to dismiss the indictment on presidential immunity grounds had been filed. Now it's fully brief, so we are really in a good position to get into detail about it. But let's start with this upcoming testimony from the Trump family just to level set where we are in.

That case. I love it when you speak DC.

Yeah, level set. Right, table set, level set, wave tabs, all those DC government shorthand phrases. This is the case, of course, that's been ongoing now for several weeks before Judge N. Gorun in Manhattan. It's a civil fraud case where the judge before the trial ever started had already issued his decision on liability to all of the defendants. Those are individuals and Trump organization and entity defendants about a pattern or practice of fraudulent documents and business practices. But the trial has taken place in order to determine individual liability on other counts that do require specific intent and materiality, et cetera. And perhaps in some ways, more importantly, what would be the amount of discouragement of gains that the Trump organization and all of its entities were able to obtain by the alleged overvaluing. And I guess I shouldn't say alleged because at least the judge found for purposes of liability on count one that there was overvaluation of assets for purposes of obtaining favorable insurance rates, favorable bank loans, etc. So this case has been going on now for a few weeks. We talked last week about Michael Cohen's testimony, and Andrew was actually in court to see part of that.

And we expect the family members to testify. They're being called as witnesses. And so Andrew, what do you think we're going to hear from them?

I'm going to duck that for a moment and say I just want to make sure people know there's a reason that the state can call all of these people. Remember that Donald Trump and the two sons are actually defendants in this case. But because it's a civil case, not a criminal case, the state, as the plaintiff, is entitled to call the defendants to the stand. The same thing would be true. The defense can call various people to the stand, including people who work for the state if they thought it had relevant evidence that isn't allowed in a criminal case. In a criminal case, a defendant, a criminal defendant has an absolute right to assert the fifth to not be called as a witness by the prosecution. That's why this is a very different type of procedural posture. It is also fairly common to want to call your adversary and to question them because you might think, as the plaintiff, that the defense isn't terribly credible or you can cross-examine them in certain ways that would help prove up your case. What do I think they're going to say? I think with respect to Donald Trump, we'll see what he says next week, but I think he's going to deny everything.

But he gets to be crossed on documents and prior statements he made. And unlike in a press conference, he has to answer the questions and he has to respond. He obviously can assert the Fifth Amendment, but I don't suspect he will.

Let's just pause there for a second since you just explained the difference between a civil and criminal trial, he could assert it even in a civil trial if he thinks he has a reasonable belief that his response to a question could inculpate him and that there is a reasonable likelihood that he might be prosecuted for it. So just because it's civil doesn't mean you can't assert the fifth. But there's a test for that. You can't just say fifth, fifth, fifth to everything like he's done in some previous occasions. You have to be able to establish that your response is reasonably likely to expose you to criminal liability, and there's actually a realistic possibility that the government would.

Charge you. So I think that with respect to the children, I do think that they may try to say that they relied on accountants, relied on lawyers, or they just didn't know anything at all about what was going on. So for instance, I believe Eric Trump has said in the past publicly like he wasn't really involved, which means it'll be hard for him to say that there wasn't any fraud going on because he won't really know. If he didn't know anything about the business, then he can't really say that there was or was not fraud. He can just say, I didn't really know about this. Other people may be able to say, Well, I did know about it, but there wasn't any fraud. So I would think they're all going to deny the claims. But the issue is that there's a lot to cross-examine them on. That is why, if you are the state, you're calling them and you have to assume that they're calling them for that reason.

Right. And part of the reason they'll be a lot to cross-examine on is at least it's my understanding that each one of them had not insignificant roles to play in various different loan applications or representations of the value of different Trump properties both in New York as well as Mar-Lago, as well as the old post office in Washington, D. C, which he turned into his hotel, which is now no longer his hotel. For example, I believe Donald Trump Jr. And Eric Trump each signed various statements of financial condition. These statements themselves are in many ways the heart of the case because if these overvalued the assets, then the question is why? What was that based on? I believe Ivanca Trump was very involved in the post office acquisition and turning that into Trump Hotels. So that's why obviously the attorney general wants to call them as witnesses because they have first-hand, recipient knowledge of these things, but also why there'll be a paper trail that can be used in cross-examination.

Two quick things. It's worth remembering that Ivanca Trump originally was a defendant, but because of a statute of limitations issue, she is no longer a defendant, meaning that there was no action that she participated in within a certain period of time by which a case has to be brought. So she may have relevant evidence, but she's no longer a defendant in the case. That does mean she doesn't have a strong interest. And then let me just give you a quick insider tip as to one reason you would want to call these people. If you're the state and you think that you have a judge who's going to find them incredible, that there's testimony that you think the judge is going to say, I didn't believe them, it's really useful for appeal to have the judge making factual findings of his own assessment of the witnesses on the stand where he says, I listened to the testimony. I heard them live, and I believed X, but I didn't believe Y. Now, why is that important? Because on appeal, the person who wants to say, Well, the judge got it wrong, it's very hard for an appellate court to second-guess those credibility calls because it's just a written paper trail.

And so on appeal, the courts generally have a very favorable standard of deferring to those factual judgments by the trial court, precisely because it's the trial court who actually heard the witnesses.

And observed their demeanor. Right? I was able to actually assess personally by watching them testify whether the judge thinks that they're credible. Exactly. And that's why there's so much deference. The appellate judges, they don't see that at all. Like you said, they just see.

A transcript. Exactly. So that's a good procedural reason why the state might be doing this. Mary, let's move on to the really breaking news from last night, which is Judge Chuckin, as people will recall, issued a partial gag order, partial restriction on what Donald Trump could say. But she stayed that to hear from both sides about whether it should be stayed, in her view, pending appeal. And so she got papers from both sides and last night issued a decision that it would not be stayed any longer to put it back into effect. I think there's two things I just wanted to quickly say and then turn over to you, Mary, which is one, she pointed out two types of statements that Donald Trump made while this was stayed, meaning that it wasn't in effect. One was the former President attacking the administration, attacking the current president and saying this is all biased and just check in one out of her way to say that's going to be totally allowed under the decision she issued that those kinds of generalized attacks are totally fine. But she also referenced an attack on Mark Meadows, which the former President made when the news came out that he apparently was immunized by the federal prosecutors in and had testified in the grand jury and had testified that he told the former President that he lost the election.

And there was a generalized attack but on him, targeting him. Judge Chuckin went out of her way to say that's an example of what you cannot do once this order is back in effect. And just an hour or two after her decision, the former President did something very similar with respect to Bill Barr, who clearly is a potential witness because he has testified within the January sixth Committee hearings and been on TV repeatedly talking about his conversations with the former President that are relevant to the January sixth case. So it'll be interesting to see whether those lead to some order or whether they're too close in time because we don't know if the former President knew at the time that he issued those about the gag order now being put back in place. But where we go now is there will be an argument in the DC Circuit on appeal by Donald Trump as to challenging the gag order. And presumably, also he can ask the DC Circuit for a stay of the gag order. But I don't know, Mary, what you think both of the gag order and whether you think that the DC Circuit would stay it.

Yeah. I mean, he already has. At the point of time when he filed his appeal of Judge Chuckin's order, he also sought an administrative stay if Judge Chuckin were to deny the lengthy stay and then a false stay to go for the entire length of the appeal until the appeal is completely decided. And so right now, there is no stay. But the next thing that will happen is the circuit will take up that motion for an administrative stay, again, long enough for them to decide whether to actually stay the gag order for the entire length of appeal. I know this probably seems really confusing, so many levels of stays, but that's just the way it operates so that in a case where there really is a reason to have something stayed, that there's multiple ways to have that happen while the appellate court makes its decision. But I think Judge Chuckin last night, she wrote a nine-page opinion about why she was denying this motion for a stay that would go the length of the appeal. And most of her ruling was based on the fact that it is not likely to succeed on the merits, in her opinion.

And she, I think, pointedly responded to the arguments that had been made by Mr. Trump and particularly his First Amendment arguments and said, I considered all of those things. You remember this lengthy hearing where we talked about First Amendment arguments when we talked about them sometimes as a criminal defendant, your First Amendment rights can be infringed when there is a significant government interest, such as the administration of justice and not doing something that could potentially intimidate or harass witnesses or cause them not to provide truthful testimony. And she mentioned both targeting of potential witnesses in a negative way that might make them fearful to testify truthfully. But she also mentioned targeting them in a positive way that might dangle this idea of you'll get favorable treatment from me if I get elected President again, if you testify favorably to me. And we've certainly seen that happen in.

The past. Harry, what do you think about the Bill Barr statements that were made shortly after the stay was put back in place? And I guess I have two questions for you. One is, do you think it violated the order, assuming he knew about it? And two, do you think she'll do anything about it, in other words, determined whether he knew about the order at the time that he issued the statements about Bill Barr.

Yeah. So this social media post starts by saying, I called Bill Barr, dumb, weak, slow-moving, lethargic, gutless, and lazy, a rhino who couldn't do the job, etc, and goes on from there. Judge Chuckin does take pains in her opinion to say, I reject the claim that my order saying you can't target potential witnesses or the prosecutors or their staff or court staff, I don't think targeting is vague. It's all context-based and things that are attacking a witness, again, either with disparaging and almost threatening comments or overly positive comments, almost trying to coerce them into saying something positive. She said, In context, targeting is not vague, and I would, in any event, always have a hearing and allow the sides to be heard before I would determine whether there was a violation of this order. So I think right there, first of all, she's making clear. She's never going to just say, You violated the order. Here's your penalty, without hearing from the parties. And of course, that's what we would expect because that's what due process is about. And I think she figures that can address any issues there might be with any vaguely, which again, she says this isn't vague.

With respect to the Bill Barr comment, I do think there's probably a pretty significant question whether Mr. Trump was aware that she had reinstated her gag order at the time he made those statements because from the time that a judge orders something till it becomes public, it gets posted on the electronic system called Pacer, and it's accessible to the public. And then who knows when it actually was communicated to Mr. Trump? I think there's at least a decent likelihood he was unaware of it because I actually don't think he probably would have posted that if he was aware of it, given that he seems to have been aware of the gag order, non-gag order in the past, although put aside to the fact he does seem to keep violating Judge Ngoran's order. At any rate, I think that might depend on whether the government moves to have the court make a decision about that. And if the government does not, she may raise it on her own if there's a hearing scheduled soon. But I don't particularly expect that. I guess we'll see.

Yeah. One thing that's worth noting is there was a glitch in something called Pacer. Pacer is the system that the court uses and the parties use to submit things electronically. Last night, one of the things that people should know is we all got a notice on Pacer that the stay was lifted and the order went into place. But it said there is an attached order, but no one could see it because Pacer was down. Right. It's not totally clear what exactly the order was going to be and what it was going to say about what he could or could not do. Right. So there may be a real substantial issue about how close in time it was in terms of what he said. But we now know right now there is no stay until the DC Circuit rules on this. So he now does have restrictions. It'll be interesting to see during this interim period what, if anything, he does. Really quick point just for people to keep track of before we turn to our very, very special guest, which is something that's going on this week in Florida, in case we haven't covered enough jurisdictions.

In Florida, on November first, there is going to be a bit of an argument that the parties have with respect to the trial date, because essentially, Donald Trump is making the argument that discovery has been slow, that the classified documents haven't been produced in a timely way, that the government has disputed that. And so the judge there, Judge Cannon, has asked to hear from the parties about the discovery schedule. And basically, the government is saying this is a backdoor way for Donald Trump to try and push that trial off. Final note on that case is a new prosecutor has filed a notice of appearance in that case, David Raskin. He is a long-time federal prosecutor. The most relevant thing about him is that he is a very, very experienced trial lawyer in national security matters. He has most recently prosecuted successfully illegal retention of classified documents case. That involves a woman named Kendra Kingsberry.

A former FBI intelligence analyst.

And she was sentenced to 46 months in prison. So I think what that really adds to the team is somebody with a lot of experience in these cases, but particularly trying these cases. And so that is a really useful development if you're the government in terms of beefing up the staff, preparing for trial.

Now, that case did involve a guilty plea. I just went, listeners to know. But he has tried cases. Yes, absolutely.

Exactly. He is now in the Midwest, but he came from the Southern district of New York and did lots of national security matters. More prosecuting Donald Trump of presidents and kings in just a moment. Chen Saki.

Have you ever seen the House this dysfunctional?

Rachel Mattto. If winning the.

Election is his plan to stay out.

Of prison.

What happens in.

That election.

If and when he.

Does not.

Win it? Mondays, back to back. Talk about the stakes of this back and forth given Trump's behavior.

What do.

You make of the.

Statement.

From.

Hamas?

Why they're doing it? What do you think it means? Inside with Jen Saki at 8:00 PM Eastern, followed by the Rachel Mattows Show at 9:00 PM Eastern, Mondays on MSNBC. There comes a point when a singular event shapes our future, broadens our perspective and marks a crossroad in our cultural landscape.

The Turning Point, an original documentary series from MSNBC Films and executive producer Trevor Noah that explores these watershed moments for the biggest issues of our time and asks how we got here and where we go next. The Turning Point documentary series on MSNBC and streaming on Peacock. Okay, the main events. So Trevor Morrison, welcome back.

Thank you.

I'm glad to be back. There is a briefing now in the DC case, the so-called January sixth case before Judge Chuckin, where the former President has said that he is immune because he cannot be criminally charged as he has been because it relates to conduct that he took while he was in office. He makes a second argument, which is that this is conduct for which he has been tried in the Senate and acquitted in the Senate. Essentially, he's trying to say it's like a criminal defendant who has been acquitted in an Article 3 criminal case, and so double jeopardy should attach, meaning you can't be tried twice. Those are teeing up the issues. The government obviously has now put in a briefing. I think maybe the first thing to do is take the first issue before we get to the double jeopardy issue, which I have to say just on a non-legal basis, just looking at it as an average citizen seemed like nuts to me. Because if you were to have that apply, every president would want to be impeached constantly for any conduct they could possibly be criminally charged with later, hoping to have a political solution to ever being charged criminally.

But let's leave that aside for a moment. What did you make of the defense argument here? And it might be worth maybe also teasing out what you think are particularly noteworthy points they were trying to make to the judge, knowing that this is likely to be heard by other courts meeting the Supreme Court.

Sure. It is hard to imagine that Judge Chatkin will be the last judge in this litigation to opine on that question. This immunity question seems destined for the DC Circuit, and I wouldn't be surprised if it even ended up being taken up by the Supreme Court. What is the argument? In the first instance, Trump's lawyers are arguing that absolute presidential immunity, which is a recognized doctrine when it comes to immunity from civil suit, applies also in the criminal context. Now, this is an immunity that Supreme Court recognized in the Nixon versus Fitzgerald case from after Nixon's time as President, but relating to an immunity that the court agreed he had from a civil suit for money damages connected to conduct that he was alleged to have undertaken while he was in office relating to the firing of a federal employee.

And as part of his official acts within the outer perimeter of his official acts, not something completely unrelated to his role as President, right?

Well, that's right. That's maybe the critical point, which is, although we call this immunity absolute presidential immunity to distinguish it from the more pervasive form of officer immunity that's known as qualified officer immunity. So there is a substantive difference in scope. Absolute doesn't mean literally absolute. The Supreme Court, even in recognizing it in Nixon versus Fitzgerald and in later cases, has said that the immunity extends to the outer perimeter of the President's official responsibilities and duties. Now, the court has emphasized time and again that the presidency is a unique office with uniquely broad responsibilities and duties, and therefore this immunity is going to cover a whole lot of conduct undertaken by a President during his presidency. But the very notion of there being an outer boundary means there has to be something on the other side of it. There has to be acts that a President could undertake while in office that are better understood to be personal as opposed to presidential, or as has been argued in some of the parallel litigation here, may be better understood as the President acting as a candidate in an election as opposed to acting as the President to the United States.

There may be some overlap there, but there's a possibility of distinguishing them too. He has to argue not only that there is immunity, but that the conduct that is the focus of the charges against him brought by the special counsel is conduct that falls within the scope of that immunity. Therefore, the government can contest that on either two points. Is there even this absolute immunity when it comes to criminal cases as opposed to civil? Then do these actions fall within the scope of that?

Trevor, can I ask you just in the Fitzgerald case, dealing with civil liability, that was a case that was brought when Nixon was no longer in office. We're dealing with the court saying, You know what? We're going to find this even though he is no longer the President of the United States. Correct. It's not just temporary immunity for while somebody is in office. It actually extends to when the President is no longer the President.

Is that right? That's exactly right. The court was concerned that if it only recognized a temporary immunity, that is, you couldn't sue the President civilly while he was in office, that the prospect of being sued after leaving office for things that the President had to do as a matter of his official responsibilities could have a chilling effect on the way the President conducted his official business as President. One way of putting this is I think there are two things potentially to be concerned about here. One is distracting the President from doing his job by having to attend to litigation in the moment while he's in office. Another is the prospect of civil litigation and civil liability later for doing things that were within the scope of his office, causing him to conduct his work as President differently because of the fear of that potentially frivolous litigation later. The court was attending to both. There's a separate question about presidents being amenable to civil or criminal action while they're in office. That doesn't arise here, obviously, because it's post the Trump presidency. That by itself wouldn't defeat the assertion of immunity, though, because as you say, in the Fitzgerald case itself, the court recognized the immunity after the fact.

One of the things when you mentioned the position, at least that the Department of Justice has taken, the Office of Legal Counsel has taken the position that a president, while they are sitting president, is not abatable to criminal prosecutions, but has always taken the position that something could happen after his presidency. And I think that's one of the arguments also that the government is using in this current briefing to say it's always been understood, not only under the impeachment clause that we're going to talk about, of course, but also just under every interpretation, it's never been understood that a president after they're no longer president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution. And they take a stand that Nixon v. Fitzgerald doesn't actually apply. Isn't that right, Trevor?

Yeah. One area of complication here is that if there is Nixon versus Fitzgerald immunity here, it's supposed to be immunity not just from ultimate criminal liability, but from having to face the litigation at all. At least that's the civil version of it. It's immunity from suit. The criminal analog, if it exists, would be immunity from having to face the criminal charges. You could imagine a circumstance where the special counsel says this conduct is a crime, and it can't therefore fall within the scope of his official duties. The former president says the opposite. It's definitely within the scope of my duties, and that makes it very ambiguous whether it's a crime. But because it's within the scope of my official responsibilities, I shouldn't have to say anything more than that. Some of this is about the threshold issue.

That essentially is the argument now. That is where we're at. I think one thing that's worth repeating is that this is so important because if Mr. Trump were to prevail in this argument, let any intermediate court, the government would take this up to the Supreme Court, I think. And if he's to lose in any lower court, he will probably take it up. I think this will go to the Supreme Court. But if he were to ultimately prevail on the Supreme Court, that is the end of this prosecution by Jack Smith for the January sixth related cases with respect to Mr. Trump. It's over, done, caput. So I think this is for all the marbles here. And I think one of the things that's also really interesting about Mr. Trump's position, getting back to the intro that Andrew teed up is he takes the position that, Look, I can only be prosecuted if I have not been acquitted. In other words, if I've been convicted during the impeachment process. And then he also harkens back to Hamilton's Federalist Papers and the justice story and things they've seen, I thought his read is completely contrary to my read, for example.

And if we just look at the impeachment clause of the Constitution, it says, Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. So in other words, only thing that you can do when you're impeached is be disqualified from office, kicked out office, and ineligible hold. It then goes on to say, But the party convicted shall nevertheless, and I think the word nevertheless is so key here, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. There's nothing about that as I read it that says you can only be subject to criminal indictment and trial if you have been convicted.

Yeah, I actually think that both of these arguments are approaching frivolous. I think they won't detain the judge for long. My guess is that they would command between zero and one vote on the Supreme Court even if those issues get there. The issue of Nixon versus Fitzgerald immunity is a much trickier one. As you note, Mary, the stakes of it could not be higher.

I think that this also brings up something that the government mentions numerous times in its brief, which is that presidents are not kings. Correct. And that the idea of absolute immunity was essentially no absolute immunity appears in the Constitution. It wasn't baked in. And the founders were fleeing the idea of having that type of absolute immunity. And that's a theme throughout their brief. And of course, it's something that Judge Chuck and herself in a different case, the Trump v. Thompson case, where Trump sought to block the disclosure of presidential records to the House Select Committee, as she said herself, presidents are not kings.

Trevor, I have two concluding thoughts or questions for you, really are of a pleasure. One is, how do you think this argument will ultimately fail in the Supreme Court? Not so much the reasoning, but the ultimate outcome. And the second is, do you think there are enough votes on the Supreme Court to stay the March fourth trial if this doesn't get litigated so quickly that the court is ready to rule on this and they think that they need to actually put the trial off. Those are two ways in which there could be a real derailment of Judge Shutkin trying to get this trial completed before the general election.

Predictions. I need to admit that I have a horrific track record on predicting the Supreme Court. I assured my father-in-law that there's no way in the world the court would take Bush versus Gore. I'm not sure that I've lived that one down yet. On your first question on the merits, I don't think that there are sufficient votes on the Supreme Court, but I'm also, I suppose, just channeling what I think my own view is. I don't think that the law would support a claim that whatever immunity Trump enjoys, that it extends to all of the allegations against him in this complaint. As you say, there are a number of different ways that could go. The government's A argument, their principal argument in the brief, is that Nixon versus Fitzgerald is only about civil litigation. There is no Nixon versus Fitzgerald or comparable immunity at all on the criminal side. That's an argument that could be made. I don't think that that's the best view of the law overall. I would be a little bit surprised if the government were to win that sweeping. I think it's more likely that some amount of immunity, whether it travels under the same Nixon versus Fitzgerald banner or some other, is recognized, but that the judges from Judge Tuchkin all up through appeals all the way to the Supreme Court conclude that at least not all of the things that Trump is alleged to have done fall within the scope of that immunity properly understood.

Now, will the trial be stayed if those answers haven't finally been given by that time? That's a hard call to make. My guess is that Judge Judkin in the first instance and the DC Circuit in the second instance will be powerfully motivated to act very, very quickly on the understanding and recognition of the enormous stakes here present really on all sides. There is an assertion of presidential prerogative here that needs to be taken maximally, seriously, even if one is inclined to think that Trump is way overclaiming about its scope. There is the utmost interest of the people of the United States in seeing upheld the criminal laws and ensuring that this is not a monarchy, but a constitutional democracy. Those values on both sides could be undermined, I think, if it's impossible to have a trial here in time. It's possible for the to act quickly enough not to have to derail the trial, and I hope that they will.

Trevor, thank you so much. One of the things we've tried to do in this podcast is have enough time to get through issues, but this is one where it's complicated. There are lots and lots of permutations, and it is so useful to have your expertise in this area. Thanks so much for joining us.

It's great to be with you. Thanks so much.

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. The senior producer for this show is Alicia Connolly. Jessica Schrecker and Ivy Green are segment producers. Our technical director is Bryce and Barnes. Paul Robert Mautzey is the Audio Engineer. Chen Maris Perez is the associate producer. Ayesha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC Audio. 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.

Protect our children from being indoctrinated.

Stop hurting kids with these politics. This is the story of a Texas town that became the front line of a culture war. A younger teaching generation has been pushing that our kids can be any gender they want to be. And an English teacher caught in the middle.

I broke.

Down running in the whole day.

I think it was tears, not out of.

Sadness, not out of.

Being.

Mad. Just terrifying. From the team that brought youout to the South Lake, this is a six-part podcast series about faith, power, and what it means to protect children in an.

American suburb. This was a sleeping giant.

From NBC News studios, this is grapevine. All episodes available now wherever you get your podcasts.