Hi. Welcome to another episode of Prosecuting Donald Trump. Today is Monday, October 23. I'm Andrew Weissman. I'm here with my fabulous co host, Mary McCord. We're going to cover so much that happened last week, but the main event is what happened in Georgia with Sidney Powell pleading guilty on day one and then on day two, Kenneth Chesborough pleading guilty. And we really want to spend some time talking about that. And we talked briefly beforehand, Mary, about that. Because we were prosecutors for so long. We want to make sure people understand why we are hesitant to make a lot of the conclusions that we're seeing in the coverage about it and to give people a sense of what's going on in our heads, give you tools, and then you can make your own judgment about what's going on. But that's going to be the main part of what we talk about.

Yeah. And just to remind everybody, sidney Powell and Kenneth Jesspro, both lawyers, both people who were associated with Trump and his campaign, and the efforts to not only bring lots of lawsuits challenging the results of the 2020 election, but also to come up with the fraudulent electorate scheme and, in the case of Sidney Powell, to actually seek to seize voting machines from Coffee County, Georgia, ostensibly to use these to substantiate her claims of a stolen election. Now, interestingly, over the weekend, mr. Trump has been putting out social media posts claiming that Sidney Powell was never his lawyer. So we'll talk a little bit about what that means and what we can expect for both the Fulton County case going forward and the federal January 6 related case.

Yeah, what's so fascinating about that attorney client piece is something that got very little news was that Judge McAfee, the state court judge just prior to Kenneth Chesborough pleading guilty, actually issued an opinion about the attorney client privilege, or should I say lack thereof, with respect to Kenneth Chesborough. So that'll be sort of an interesting data point in evaluating the recent hullabaloo about Donald Trump's statements about Sidney Powell.

That's right. And we'll also turn, of course, to the two quote unquote gag orders last week, judge Angoran in Manhattan sorry, Mary.

We'Ve been beaten to a pulp.

Yeah, I know we've been beaten down on gag orders. Right.

I want to say bail restriction.

Yeah. I still fundamentally reject it, but everyone else, that's like, the trigger words that they understand. So we're capitulating temporarily. Right. So Judge Anne Goren, of course, issued a $5,000 fine against Mr. Trump for violating his order. And Judge Tanya Chuckin in the District Court for the District of Columbia issued just an administrative stay on her order while Mr. Trump appeals. And we'll talk about that and what that means.

And then finally, we're just going to briefly note the government's brief has come in now in DC about Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity, and we're just going to flag that we're going to do a deeper dive. But that is such an important issue. It's not decided by the Supreme Court. It's the one thing, as we've talked about, that could potentially delay the March 4 DC. Trial. So we're going to just flag that for you. But let's jump right in because yes, this is one where I was just listening to so much news about, oh, look, they're two cooperators. This is so great. You know Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesborough Cooperating in Georgia. They could be cooperating. Now, in the federal case, what does this mean for Donald Trump? Do they have direct evidence? Do they have direct evidence against other people? And on air, I kept wait. So I think a good way to start this conversation is I'm going to go through in general what a cooperation agreement looks like, a cooperation agreement with respect to a charged defendant who pleads guilty, what that looks like sort of in a standard federal case.

And then, Mary, can I turn it over to you to maybe talk about how that compares to what's going on here? And then we can give our assessments of what do you make of all that? Does that make sense?

Yes.

Okay, so let's start with at the federal level, there is a wide variety of how cooperation agreements read, because there are many, many US. Attorneys offices around the country, I think 93, and there isn't sort of uniformity. But let me give you general outlines. Generally, somebody who has been charged with a crime, who wants to cooperate, they come into the government with their defense counsel, and they reveal over multiple sessions with the government information that they have and could offer. It's usually done with some limited protection for those discussions. But essentially, the government wants to not buy a pig and a poke. They want to understand if they are going to have somebody as a cooperator, what could they say? And also, do they think the person is being truthful and very often the person's not being truthful immediately? And it's a work in progress. I've been on the defense side of that as well. And that's sort of a standard part of the process. Then the person typically has to plead guilty to what they did. Sometimes it's all of what they did. Sometimes it's part of what they did. Different officers have different practices, but they plead guilty, and they then are not sentenced immediately.

They then testify if called at a trial. And before that, they are meeting with the government. They're being prepared. The government has a really good sense of what they know from all of the meetings before they've pled, and they're called as a witness. And this happens in enron. It happens in organized crime cases. It happened in the special counsel Mueller cases. And the person testifies at one, two, sometimes many, many trials. And then ultimately they're ready for sentencing. And at sentencing, the government stands there and says, this is all the bad that the person committed then did, and this is all the good and the good meaning this is all the ways that the person was helpful at trial. And the judge then decides how much credit the person should get based on their cooperation, their acceptance of responsibility. That's usually very much left for the judge. And some districts, by the way, the prosecutor recommends a sentence. Other districts they don't. But either way, the judge decides what they should get after all of that cooperation.

Oftentimes this will also include the prosecutor filing a letter to the judge showing the substantial assistance of the defendant in the case. And that's something that is necessary in order to depart sort of below not just the guidelines, but sometimes even what the statute might require. So that's a big part. What defendants in federal criminal cases are looking for the government to file that motion at the end of the period of cooperation, saying the defendant substantially assisted and therefore he should get a break in his sentence.

Okay. Insider tip. That's what's known as a five K letter. It refers to a sentencing guideline provision that allows the government to file this motion that allows the court to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Frankly, the court could depart anyway, right. But you will occasionally hear the term, oh, they filed a five K letter. Obviously, by the way, in this whole process, the defense gets to be heard, and the defense files things and talks about how great the person is, et cetera. And so usually a cooperator who has been a successful cooperator, who the judge believes has been truthful, gets a sentence that's below what the sentencing guidelines call for. The whole idea is that the person's getting a sentence that they otherwise are not entitled to or merited, given their crime because of the benefit they provided to the government. So you don't get that usually upfront. You get that at the time of sentencing, and there usually can be a substantial time between the guilty plea.

It can be years sometimes.

Yes, exactly. Yeah. So that's sort of the big picture of the federal system. And Mary, I thought it might be useful for you to describe what exactly was the agreement in the state system. And I don't mean that to say, like, the state system's good or bad, and the federal system's good or bad. It's mostly to understand what are the differences that we're seeing, because it will help, I think, people understand, at least on my part, why I'm reluctant to view these people as cooperators.

Yeah. So I think one of the major differences here that could be driving why these proceeded under a different path than what you just laid out, what's common in the federal system is because both defendants were able to plead under an agreement with the state that this would be under Georgia's first Offender Act. And it's not entirely clear to me, since I'm not an expert in Georgia procedure, whether these pleas might have been done. I mean, they clearly would have been done somewhat differently. But whether there would have gone to sentencing at the same day as the plea if these had not been under the Georgia First Offender Act. But just to back up for a minute, in both cases, sidney Powell and Kenneth Jessbrough both were again under the Georgia First Offender Act, which allows a defendant to plead guilty if it's their first offense they've ever been charged with or convicted of, plead guilty, be sentenced to a term in this case of probation. And then if they successfully complete that term of probation, they will actually be exonerated of guilt and their guilty plea will essentially be discharged so they no longer have a criminal conviction in addition to probation.

And again, we should have made this clear. Sidney Powell pled guilty to six misdemeanors. So even though she was charged with felonies, she was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanors. Kenneth Jesbrough pled guilty to a felony, but in both cases, the government agreed to and the judge sentenced to probationary sentences, so no jail time on the.

Same day as the plea on the.

Same day as the plea in the same proceeding. And these proceedings were only about 20 minutes long. Both did have two other significant provisions. And these are the provisions that I think so many people have been focusing on, that they will testify truthfully in any proceedings in which the state calls them, that they will provide additional documents at the state's request. Documents. And information that could be emails, not necessarily documents that they will give proffered statements of what they are offering up as the information that they have that the government could seek to call them to testify about and that they are not allowed to talk about the substance of the charges against them like the substance of what they would testify to or talk to any other defendants until the case is finished.

So, Mary, to me, the key here is not that you testify truthfully because frankly, anybody who is called to this stand has to testify truthfully in their penalties. If you don't. I think there's sort of two aspects to this. One is, because they are both now on probation, it is a condition of probation that they testify truthfully. So unlike other people who could be criminally prosecuted for perjury, if they testified falsely here, it can be a violation.

Of probation and that means they would lose their deal.

Yes, exactly. So there is this added pressure on them if they testify. And remember, it's only in state court that they're required to testify truthfully under this provision. And so the key to me is what exactly is in those statements that they gave that we don't know. And to me, that's the main issue because normally it's not just one statement, it's a whole range of things, and you've got to meet with a prosecutor over and over again at their discretion to prepare and be fully debriefed. And it would take quite some time to get all of that information. One short written statement wouldn't be enough. What I'm concerned about is you worry about what's the downside? Obviously, the upside is that they've given fulsome statements that expose all of the criminality. Then there's no issue. Then it's true that they're cooperators. But what I'm worried about is Sidney Powell could say, yes, I was breaking into these machines, and it's part of that scheme to break into machines, but I did it because I thought there was actual fraud in the election. I still think there's actual fraud in the election, but my bad was that I did it through the improper means, and she doesn't implicate anybody in sort of a larger scheme, the false elector scheme, any of the things that are the subject of, let's say, the DC January 6 case.

So that's why all of this back and forth recently about whether she was acting as a lawyer for Donald Trump or not seems a little bit of an aside to me, because it's only relevant if those conversations actually have incriminating value. In other words, what do we know about those conversations that could be helpful to any of the criminal cases? Would they be covered by privilege? Is she going to be providing information or somebody else providing information about those conversations? And obviously, if she's not acting as a lawyer, there can't be attorney client privilege. But even, by the way, if she was acting as a lawyer, the crime fraud exception could apply. And that's where Judge McAfee actually found with respect to Kenneth Chesborough. He wrote a decision that said, I'm not sure Kenneth Chesborough was acting as a lawyer in this capacity. But even if he were, I find that the Georgia state has established to the required level of proof, which, as you said, is relatively low, that there is the crime fraud exception.

Andrew I guess there's one way I'd look slightly different at that, is that I agree we don't know what's in that statement. We know that by the time the plea was taken, the statement had be given the recorded statement. I'm not talking the part I left out of this plea agreement is they're both required to issue apologies. Frankly, I think that could be just totally self serving on their part. I would not have included that. But at any rate, we're talking about the recorded proffers. We know that by the time the pleas were taken in court, those recorded proffers had been given because the Assistant District Attorney said so on the record. So they already know what's in there. But even if she didn't cover anything in her statement that would have to do with any sort of advice to Mr. Trump, let's say it was just all about coffee county. That doesn't mean that him now claiming that she was never his attorney couldn't come up in another fashion. In other words, the Georgia prosecutors aren't necessarily limited during trial in asking about conversations that she may have had with Trump or those who were close to Trump, even if it's outside the scope of her recorded statement.

And certainly Jack Smith is not limited in what he can ask if he were to call her as a witness or just to call other people who were privy to those conversations between Sidney Powell and Trump or people close to Trump who went ahead and said them to Trump. So I still think there's a lot of room for litigation here, because if Trump does seek to rely on advice of council defense, either from counsel from Sidney Powell, counsel from Kenneth Chespro, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, and in fact, that is something that's already been teed up in the January 6 federal case. The government has moved to require Trump to give notice if he's relying on a vows of counsel defenses so they can do things like exactly what we're talking about. Dig in to figure out who was actually acting as attorney, pursuant to what kind of agreement. Was there a retainer agreement? What does that paperwork look like, et cetera. They want to be able to dig into all of that. Trump has come back and said, well, we don't have to give you notices of our defenses this early. Two and a half months out of trial.

We understand there would be some things that you might need to know if we're raising advice to counsel, but at most we would do that right before trial. Actually, they say they want to wait until the government starts putting on evidence. So that's an area being litigated. And the point, I think, that you and I are in agreement on is that whatever Mr. Trump is saying right now in social media about whether Sidney Powell is or is not or was or was not his attorney, that's all stuff that can be litigated and will be litigated. If there's an effort know, kind of peek behind any type of attorney client privilege, I think.

Yeah. One other thing that we haven't really touched on, which gives me some pause as to whether there's full cooperation by Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesboro in light of these differences in terms of how the agreements work, where they've gotten a lot of the advantage of their agreement right now because they're getting no jail time.

Pleas.

But they do have to testify truthfully. So they're playing a dangerous game. If they were to go and lie is that it's so unusual to have state pleas when there's pending federal exposure. So both Kenneth Chesboro and Sidney Powell are widely reported to be unindicted co conspirators in the federal DC. Case. Any good defense lawyer and I've been a defense lawyer, I can't say I've been a very good defense lawyer is going to try to have a global resolution. Because if you were to say something in the state case that could be used by Jack Smith in the federal case, you're exposed and you have a.

Fifth Amendment right not to do that. Right. You have a Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself.

Yes. But now you've got an agreement that says you will testify at the state level. So you're going to kind of be betwixt in between because are you going to violate your obligation to testify truthfully? Are you going to argue, well, I'm going to testify truthfully except when I take the Fifth Amendment in the state.

Court, I don't see how their attorneys could have negotiated anything else without a global plea agreement.

Right, exactly.

Otherwise they would not be providing good representation to their clients.

And we know as of today, there is no global agreement. And the reason we know that is that one of the questions that the judge asked during the plea allocation is, have we set forth Ms. Powell? Have we set forth, Mr. Chesborough, all of the agreements that are leading to your pleading here? And they all said yes because you want a record of exactly why someone is pleading. You want to make sure there's nobody who comes in later and says, wait a second, I got all sorts of promises that weren't recounted in court. So we know that some part of this wasn't a federal agreement. And it's also the system is so different that I think it would be hard to see Jack Smith because of what we started out by talking about how the federal system works. I think it would just work very differently. And I just want to give one big picture thing and Mary, I don't know how you think of this, but I think if Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesborough are fully cooperating, let's assume the most optimistic. If they are, then I'm not sure I would do it. But I'm certainly not going to second guess the deal they got, which is no jail time.

I think the crimes they committed are incredibly serious. They go to the heart of our democracy. So you would think long and hard before reaching that plea disposition, but that's assuming they're fully cooperating. If they were not fully cooperating, if this was something where they are only giving sort of narrow slivers, then I have trouble with a resolution where people who did something that was this bad are not doing jail time. That's my normative assessment.

Yeah. And I think know, because they are not serving any jail time and at least in the case of Sidney Powell was given misdemeanors. I mean, it opens up an argument that these are not serious offenses, right. Because they pled them out to misdemeanors, at least in the case of Sidney Powell, and even with respect to Mr. Chesborough probationary sentences. And I agree with you I think these are incredibly serious crimes. In fact, I find their ability to take advantage of the first offender program a little offensive. I mean, it has carve outs for sexual crimes and crimes including elder abuse and assaults on police officers where you can't get first offender. But I feel like these two people, lawyers of all people committing incredible fraud here on the entire electorate of the United States it a little bit irks me that they get the benefit of a law that was clearly brought about to try to reduce sort of the carceral state and give people second chances. Oftentimes people who, because of their own personal circumstances, got involved with crimes maybe even early in their life. So that's a whole nother topic. Last thing I would just say before we move on is that to your point about worrying about how fulsome these proffers might be and how fully they're cooperating mr.

Chesboro, I went back and re listened to it after the government, meaning the state of Georgia, proffered the facts that they would have proved if they'd gone to trial. That judge then asked, Mr. Chesboro, do you agree that there's a factual basis for your plea? And he said, as to this charge, yes. Now, mind you, he pleaded guilty to one charge of the multiple charges he had been indicted with, and this was for conspiracy to commit a false filing, that being the false certificate of electors when they knew at the time that they were signing that certificate that, in fact, Mr. Trump had not won Georgia. And so it was false. And so he was clear he was not admitting to a Rico conspiracy. He was not admitting to anything else, at least based on his words. And his attorney has since then said that, and really has also said mr. Trump has nothing to worry about based on Mr. Chesboro's proffer. So he could be bluffing that's Mr. Chesboro's attorney about how fully Mr. Chesborough is cooperating. But both of those things raise some little red flags for me.

Yeah. And I do think just a point that you made, which is that it doesn't signal how significant these crimes are. That's not going to particularly help when you're thinking about the import of this case to the election to Donald Trump. It starts making it look more like the New York criminal case, for instance, the hush money case, where it's somehow not as important when this, I think, is the most important case. More prosecuting Donald Trump. Trump's new legal peril in just a moment.

Have you ever seen the House this dysfunctional? Rachel Maddow 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?

Monday's 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 Psaki at 08:00 p.m. Eastern, followed by The Rachel Maddow Show at 09:00 p.m. Eastern. Mondays on MSNBC. Get the best of MSNBC all in one place every day, each morning in your inbox with the MSNBC daily newsletter. Understand today's news. Sign up for Msnbcdaily@msnbc.com.

So there was actually more going on than just this, which is we have Judge Angoran actually issued a $5,000 fine. Now, what happened here is that he had ordered Donald Trump and his team to take down the post about his law clerk, and it was removed from social media, but it wasn't removed from the Trump website. So that was an oversight. Trump's team said it was inadvertent. I mean, let's assume it was inadvertent. It probably was, but it also shows they weren't careful. Yes, exactly right. It's just like Mary, you and I, if a judge ordered us to remove something, you'd figure out, where is it and how do we take all these steps? So this is like the bare minimum fine, in my view. But Judge Angorin did say in his written decision, essentially, you are on notice that the next time, I don't care whether it's intentional or not, this could lead to all sorts of sanctions, up to and including jail. At the same time, we also have in DC, the DC judge has, as you mentioned, stayed her decision because Donald Trump is appealing the decision, which is his right, and she's getting papers from both sides on whether that stay should essentially last for the whole length of the appeal or whether she's going to just say, no.

It's in effect right now. Regardless of if she says, I'm not going to say it, donald Trump could still ask for a stay from the Court of Appeals. I think the thing that's so notable to me is that right now, her decision is she has stated and over the weekend, Donald Trump has started to attack various people, including saying that Jack Smith is, quote, deranged, unquote. Now, if her order was in effect, that would be a violation. But it's interesting to me because it shows to me that he actually is careful and that he is watching to see what he can and cannot do. I'm going to be, like, out on a limb here. I actually think these orders will have an effect because even though the Trump card, pun intended, he likes to play is that I'm a victim and this is all the Biden administration, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. He doesn't want to go to jail.

He doesn't want to go. That's what I think that's right now, you might have thought that he wouldn't be doing it at all, even though the order was stayed. But I think you're right. He knows it was stayed. And just to make crystal clear, because I know we talked about this last week, this is just a stay of her limited, quote, unquote, gag. Order. This is not a stay of the case. The case moves forward. And I think it's because First Amendment rights are implicated here. I think Judge Chuck Can thought, you know what, I'll grant this administrative stay while you go up to appeal, meaning I could still decide later, like you said, whether to stay my order for the entire appeal, or I can just leave it for the circuit to make that decision. And they did file their notice of appeal. So this will be getting briefed in the appellate courts, and we'll have more discussion about this after we see that briefing.

Exactly. So, Mary, take it away on presidential immunity. I know that we got a filing from Jack Smith's office. You can be pretty sure the Solicitor General's office must have weighed in, because this is something that I think is pretty clearly going to end up in the Supreme Court. So what do we need to know? Understanding we're just doing a table setter on this, and we'll get into a deeper dive later.

So listeners may recall that a few weeks ago when we were up at NYU, we had the former dean and a constitutional law scholar, Trevor Morrison, join us. And that was before Trump had actually even filed his motion to dismiss the case, dismiss the entire case on the grounds of absolute presidential immunity. And at that point, we kind of speculated about what the arguments might look like. And I think it was either one or two days later trump actually filed his motion, which we talked about last week or the week before, in some detail, arguing about why his conduct could not be prosecuted because it was all part of his, essentially his official duties. The government has now filed its opposition and the government has come in. And we talked at some point, I think, both with Trevor Morrison and among ourselves Andrew, about a case called Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which involved civil immunity from civil litigation for a president based on conduct within the outer perimeter of their official responsibilities. Done while in the presidency. And that's sort of the law that we have out there. And we kind of all speculated that something kind of like that would get applied even to a criminal litigation.

But the government has come in strong and said, no. There is no place in the Constitution where any immunity is provided to the President, unlike, for example, speech or debate clause, which provides immunity in certain circumstances for members of Congress, immunity from criminal prosecution for things that they do that relates to their conduct on the House floor or going to and from the House floor. It's not found in the Constitution. And this law about immunity from civil liability that's based on different considerations that aren't as significant as criminal considerations, and there's just no such thing as absolute immunity. I thought some of the most, in many ways, persuasive and just sort of jaw. Dropping argument that the government made was when it was trying to express how defendant mr. Trump's argument would go too far. And it talks about in the defendant's view, the court should give the president absolute immunity from criminal prosecution as long as whatever their president is doing is in the form of a statement on a matter of public concern. Or a meeting with a member of the executive branch or correspondent with correspondence with a state official about a matter in which there's federal interest.

And remember, we talked about how Mr. Trump's attorneys had tried to take his conduct up to this incredibly high 35,000 foot level of generality and pretended like all he was doing was making phone calls and talking to state officials and talking to people and kind of left out the entire fraud aspect of it. But what the government comes back and says is the implications of defendant's unbounded immunity theory are startling. It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member. A president who instructs his FBI director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy? A president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics, or a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary? And I think that list of sort of hypotheticals, hopefully all hypothetical, is really sort of pretty illustrative of the breadth of Mr. Trump's argument. And so I look forward to seeing how this plays out. There's much, much more to this that we will spend a lot more time talking about on a future episode. But I don't know what struck you.

No.

I'm going to leave this for later with one quick observation, since I'm old, which is, I still remember the interview that Richard Nixon gave to David Frost after he stepped down, resigned from the presidency, where he basically said on air response to question, but if the president does it, it's legal, which is what.

The government is saying. Yeah. Yes, they're saying that's what the defense yeah, that's what Mr. Trump is saying.

Which their French is leta Simois, which was a phrase from a 17th 18th century French king, which is what we were trying to get away from. So that's just not the rule here. So I think this has no chance in hell that's my legal assessment at the district court level, where Judge Chuckin has already said that we don't have kings here and that presidents are not they're not above the know, but this opposite, he has a long road ahead in terms of the DC. Circuit and then potentially the Supreme Court. Mary so much more to cover. What I'm really fascinated to see is how the whole Sidney Powell Chesboro thing plays out, because even in my pessimistic view, they're playing with fire in terms of how they would navigate their testimony at any trial so that they're not found to have lied. So it is complicated, and there's definitely going to be more to this story. And I kind of hope I'm wrong and that they are fully cooperating and that they're in sort of that easy bucket. But we'll see.

We'll see whether Sidney Powell even gets called, because, honestly, this is a woman who talked about releasing the Kraken. I mean, this is a woman who got up and just lied blatantly to the American people. So the idea of putting her on the witness know, you and I've talked about, similarly about Rudy Giuliani. This is a person who lied, lied, lied. And it's tough as a prosecutor to put somebody on the stand who's engaged.

In so many I've put Sammy Gravano on the stand, and he participated in various murders. As the underboss of the Gambino family. He also admitted to committing perjury. So it's about how people explain themselves.

Yep.

Exactly. But obviously, it's not ideal. There's a lot of baggage. So much more to come. Love talking to you.

Yes.

See you soon.

Absolutely. Okay, bye.

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 prosecutingtrumquestions@nbcuni.com. Thanks so much for listening. We'll be back next week with much more. The senior producer for the show is Alicia Conley. Jessica Schrecker is a segment producer. Our technical director is Bryson Barnes. Cedric Wilson, Fernando Aruda and Harry Kilhane are our audio engineers. Jen Maris Perez is the associate producer. 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.

Protect our children from being indoctrinated.

Stop hurting kids with these politics. This is a story of a Texas town that became the frontline 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 crying in the hallway, and I think it was tears. Not out of sadness, not out of being just terrified. From the team that brought you southlake. This is a six part podcast series about faith, power, and what it means to protect children in an American suburb.

This was kind of sleeping giant.

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