Federal Indictment Watch
38:10 Share

Hello and welcome to another episode of Prosecuting Donald Trump. Well, we are on indictment watch again. We've been on indictment watch with respect to the Manhattan rag case, and we're now on indictment watch with respect to

the federal classified documents or so-called Mar-a-Lago case. I'm here with Mary McCord and we suspect this week, if not next week, is going to be a long week and Mary and I will have the pleasure of talking with each other and with all of you probably quite frequently. So hi, Mary, how are you doing?

Good morning, Andrew. Last week you were traveling. This week I'm traveling. So with my luck, the last time I traveled, there was an Alvin Bragg indictment. So we'll see what happens this week. So you're the jinx or the lucky charm, whichever way it works. Yeah. I was very lucky. I was in Europe last week, as you know, and I think it was great that Jack Smith held off just because of my vacation plans. That's right. I'm hoping if I'm going to make anything out of this trip, but you know, we'll see.

Okay. Well, let's get started. We're going to talk about sort of what Mary and I are looking for, like what will be sort of when this indictment drops. And notice I say when, not if. I was going to say, you skipped if. You went straight to when. Right to when. And we're going to talk about what each of us would be sort of interested in observing. And some of this will be sort of inside baseball. And then we're going to talk about just some mechanical issues of

What could be going on right now? How this grand jury presentation ends? What sort of typically is done? And then finally, we're going to talk about whether we think there's any prospect of a plea deal and what that would look like. But Mary, why don't we start with when this indictment drops, what are you going to be most interested in if you picked one or two things that you're going to be interested in reading about? Sure.

Sure. You know, we've talked so much really in many ways ever since the execution of the search warrant about what the charges might be. And we've certainly talked about two real categories of charges, I'd say. One is the mishandling of classified or not classified necessarily, but national defense information. And that's an important distinction there.

And the second is obstruction of justice. So on the first, mishandling of classified information or mishandling of national defense information, we've been focused a lot of the discussion on a statute that's codified at 18 U.S. Code 793. And that really applies to both states.

retaining national defense information after you've been instructed and directed to return it. And that's the main thing we've been talking about, right? Because if it was unclear whether Trump himself took part in

the removal of classified or national defense information from the White House and bringing it to Mar-a-Lago. If that was unclear, what did seem clear based on the publicly revealed information is that he was aware that he was retaining it at Mar-a-Lago even after the archives first revealed

ask for him to return it. And after a grand jury, ask him to return it through the issuance of a grand jury subpoena after the Department of Justice, ask him to return it that he was retaining it. I think what's going to be interesting to see in any charges that might be brought is are there also charges related to unlawfully taking the information to begin with, which would again depend on his knowledge and intent to pack up and move

national defense information from the White House to Mar-a-Lago? And are there any charges related to disseminating national defense information or even disseminating classified information in particular categories? And there are a couple of statutes that apply. And some of that comes into play because

There's been various different reporting over the last several weeks about, you know, first him potentially leaving this available in his office at Mar-a-Lago and sometimes showing it to people who might come to visit. And more recently, there's been the revelations last week that at his golf club at Bedminster, he referred to

a highly classified document about Iran when he was talking to two people working on the autobiography of Mark Meadows and that he suggested that he sure would like to share that document with them, but he couldn't do that because

it was classified. So, you know, we'll see whether there's enough evidence that Jack Smith and his team have put together to support these other types of mishandling of classified information, the dissemination of it or even the original taking of it. But do you have any other things in mind when it comes to mishandling? Yeah, I do. With respect to dissemination,

people might be asking, who cares? Does it make the charges any different? I mean, it is another type of felony. And the answer to, is it more serious, is yes. The unlawful taking or the unlawful retention has the risk of improper dissemination. And that's serious. And it's prosecuted all the time. And by the

By the way, there's somebody who was just last week was sentenced to three years in prison for this, where it was the unlawful taking and retention of documents. So it's prosecuted all the time. Trump will be treated just like anyone else. But dissemination is the risk coming to fruition. That is, you know, from a...

from an IC, sort of an intelligence community perspective, that's what you're most worried about. So the reason it'll be interesting, I agree with you that are we seeing dissemination is it makes it that much worse, particularly from a sentencing perspective. You can imagine that the government's going to, if they get a conviction, is going to be talking about that. One thing I wanted to flag for people is this issue of impartiality.

improperly taking stuff from the White House. Because a lot of people on cable news and others just sort of say, "Oh, well, he illegally took stuff." But that's not really the main and easiest charge. I agree with you, is the illegal retention at Mar-a-Lago.

perhaps elsewhere, perhaps Bedminster. The reason that illegal taking is a harder charge is it's a much narrower window. It is possible that he has a defense to, he didn't know what was being boxed up, although he has made statements that make that a harder claim. But also he was the president at that time. So he could say, well, I'm in

entitled at that time to move it from place A to B. It wasn't illegally retained until I was no longer the president. So there's just a complicated series of possible defenses. So I agree with you. It'll be really interesting to see whether illegal taking is charged because it suggests that there's absolutely

evidence that we don't know about as to what his scheme was at the time that he was still president as he was leaving the White House. I think the other thing I'm going to be interested in is

one, whether they're conspirators, whether they're other people who are charged, such as Mr. Nauda, sort of a low-level person who appears to have helped move boxes and maybe a conspirator with respect to obstruction of justice. So that'll be an interesting aspect. And the conspiracy charge and the

potential unlawful taking charge also relate to something that Mary and I have talked about, which is where's the proper venue? Like, I have no doubt that this case is going to be charged in Washington, D.C., but one of the issues I'm sort of interested in is what is going to be the factual evidence of what happened

in Washington, D.C., to make sure that Donald Trump isn't going to have some kind of valid argument or defense to the case not being properly venued there. Because if you're Donald Trump, he is going to try and have the case, if it is in D.C., somehow transferred under a forum non-conspiracy.

convenience argument or just sort of improper venue to have it transferred to Florida because he thinks he'll have a better jury pool, which is potentially true. So I'll be interested in that. And obviously the final thing I'll look for is who's the assigned judge, because I think that's going to be really critical to

to whether that judge is going to be moving the case along quickly. As Mary, you and I have talked about, I think that both the prosecutor and the judge are going to be potentially really interested in getting this to trial so that the American public understands

has the information about whether a jury has determined this happened or didn't happen. And I know that Donald Trump doesn't look at it this way, but he's entitled to have his name cleared in his day in court because he should be able to say, well, it didn't happen or it did happen and it should all get cleared up so that the electorate

knows the information prior to voting. Right. And, you know, we talked a few weeks ago about how the guarantee to a speedy trial, the constitutional speedy trial guarantee is not just there for the benefit of the defendant. In this case, if Donald Trump is charged for the very reasons you just indicated so that they can clear their name quickly and not have charges hanging over their head. But it also is there for the benefit of society and the public interest in having the

important cases resolved in a timely fashion and not have the timeline manipulated by a charged defendant. So for all of those reasons, I think most judges will be trying to move things along pretty quickly. You know, as we were just talking a minute ago about the different types of mishandling of national defense information,

that might be at play here and what we're going to be looking for. I just wanted to point out two things. One is even though the same statute applies to taking, retention, and dissemination,

they still could be separate counts in an indictment. So if you have multiple means of committing an offense that fall under different ways they can be committed in the statute, that could be three separate charges, right? Or it could be even more. If there were multiple instances of dissemination, you could have multiple charges based on each incident of dissemination.

And the other thing, and I think we've talked about this briefly and touched on it, and maybe we're going to get into it a little bit more, Andrew, is I keep saying national defense information or classified information. And that's because this particular statute that we're... It's a mouthful. It's a mouthful, yeah. So this particular statute we're talking about, 18 U.S. Code 793, doesn't use the word classified information. It uses the term national defense information, which in most cases...

Is classified information the information at issue when the government charges? And as you indicated, many, many people have been charged with unlawful retention as well as takings as well as dissemination. And usually the information is classified, but it wouldn't have to be. Being classified does not prevent.

prove that it's national defense information for purposes of the statute. That would have to get proved at trial. And what it really requires, according to case law, is that the government prove that it's information that relates to the national defense that could be military related or other types of national defense information. And also that it's been closely held and protected by the government and not, you know, widely made available, which is where classification usually kind of hits that criteria because if it's classified.

Exactly. It's obviously closely held. And then in some cases, it's also been held to be required that the government would have to show that it would harm national security if it were disclosed to those unauthorized to receive it. Although usually, frankly, once you meet those other criteria, that's going to be pretty easy to

Proofs, particularly if it is classified because the classification process itself is the government saying that the information in this document or in this digital file or what have you is so sensitive that it would cause harm or serious harm or exceptionally grave harm, depending on what level we're talking about of classification to the national security if it were disclosed.

We tend to kind of like shortcut national defense information or NDI by using the term classified, but it is different. Now there's a separate statute that could be at play here

potentially if there was dissemination, if there was sharing of information with somebody else. That statute actually does use the term classified information. Exactly. It relates to specific classified information that has to do with communication intelligence systems, which also could be at play here. Mary, I bet that this is total speculation, but I bet that that gets charged. I'll tell you my thinking.

I totally agree with you that they'll definitely be the NDI type charges. But I could see Jack being, "You know what? It's just a bunch of hogwash that this was declassified in his head."

And if he wants to hop on the stand and testify to that, great. Be my guest. I mean, the best thing for this case will be Donald Trump testifying in the same reason that he didn't testify in the E. Jean Carroll case. So I see Jack going, you know what?

we're just going to go with the facts that we know and we can prove, which is, you know what? If they have, for instance, dissemination of classified information, if they have the proof for that, that he showed it to aides and visitors, I think he's just going to go ahead and charge it and be like, you know what? If you've got witnesses like yourself or Kash Patel who want to testify that it was declassified in your head,

Be my guest. You're going to have to take the stand and you're going to have to be cross-examined and we'll let a jury decide whether that establishes reasonable doubt on that charge. Because I just see them going with what they know the facts are, which is that that is an implausible charge.

I think that that's a great point because if it's just an NDI defense, he doesn't really have to say anything about this. I automatically declassified. But on the other hand, it also means that that's not an easy out for him on a NDI offense. So yeah, it's a great point. Exactly. There are a number of other things to look out for. I think that the obstruction charge

Because this will most likely be what's called a speaking indictment, just a little aside here, when Mary and I have done cases where an indictment only needs to track the statutory language and it can be very bare bones and it doesn't really say anything, it just tells you what statutes have been charged and it lays out the language. Most times for a case like this, you have a speaking indictment where it tells the whole story.

almost all of the big cases that I've done, whether it's Enron or organized crime cases or special counsel Mueller cases, there were speaking indictments to sort of tell the story. I think that the obstruction charge could be exceedingly ugly in terms of the facts. There could be

sort of chapter and verse about lying to the archives, lying to the Department of Justice, lying to his own lawyers. I mean, it really could tell quite a difficult story. There are a number of reasons for that, which is both educating the public to the righteousness of the case. It also has a subtle way of explaining why Donald Trump is being charged, but not Mike Pence or

potentially, since we don't know the outcome, the investigation of the current president might end very differently than this one because of the nature of the obstructive conduct.

Yes, that's right. And we know from last week that the Department of Justice has written a letter to Mike Pence's counsel saying they've closed that investigation and won't be bringing any charges. And some people might be thinking, is that an ordinary thing? It certainly is not the case that every time that the Department of Justice does an investigation and decides not to bring charges, that they write a letter to their target and their attorneys. But when you have something that was so

public and open and an announcement not only of an investigation, but

Well, in this one, I guess it was not the appointment of a special counsel. That was with respect to Biden. But definitely an announcement of an investigation. I think they felt like it was important to make a statement about it being closed without charges. And so I was not surprised to see that. And I wasn't surprised to see it's closed without charges for all the reasons that you've just been indicating. There's no suggestion in the publicly reported information that there was

you know, concealment or lying or lack of cooperation or anything like that in high contrast to what we're seeing with respect to Donald Trump. And that's another area where some of the recent reporting really contributes to that. You know, we talked a couple of weeks ago, I think maybe we even called our episode something about Evan Corcoran's notes, but-

We know that one of his attorneys had 50 pages, we had heard, of notes from his interactions with Donald Trump, Evan Corcoran being the attorney who was responsible for going down to Mar-a-Lago, searching for documents that would be responsive to the grand jury subpoena.

packaging those up and delivering them to the Department of Justice on June the 3rd, and also delivering to the Department of Justice a letter signed by another Trump attorney, Christina Bob, that said a diligent search had been conducted and all responsive documents were being provided. Oops. Now we know. Oops. Yes, oops. Yes, yes. Not only, of course, were not all documents provided as the search warrant that was executed later revealed,

But we now have seen reporting that it wasn't just notes of Evan Corcoran, but

an actual sort of dictated voice message that he himself dictated into his cell phone, I guess, on a long trip that goes into pretty significant detail, it sounds like, from the reporting about his interactions with Donald Trump. Could be devastating. Yes. So, Mary, one thing that struck me and you reminded me of it when you talked about the letter in

involving Mike Pence is just think about the difference between how the Department of Justice and Merrick Garland handled that declination where basically because it was public, you issue this letter to the target saying we're closing the investigation. Obviously that person can then

make that letter public. And they could use it to essentially undo the aspersions of the public investigation. That's why you give a letter saying, "This has been closed. It's not going to go forward." Think about that versus the exact same thing with respect to Hillary Clinton, but James Comey

famously held two press conferences without the Attorney General's approval, just as the FBI director talking about not even a decision, just his recommendation that it be closed, but then going on and on about how sloppy and deplorable her handling was, which, by the way, you could have said the same thing with respect to Mike Pence, or not the same, but a similar thing. But, you know, obviously, it's

It's sloppy, but that's not the role of a prosecutor or the FBI to give your opinions. And I just, to me, one is how the department is supposed to behave and the other is how the department shouldn't behave. And I just thought it was just seeing a real sort of learning lesson for the public about the way you're supposed to handle clients

closing of the investigation without charges. And I just think that is a feather in the cap of Merrick Garland's and an example of what you want to see the department doing. Yeah, totally agree.

It's not the opportunity to go on your bandwagon and say the bad things about what you don't like about the person. You've made a decision. You're not prosecuting. That's it. And you can put anything about that decision. That's right. Yeah. You know what? If we were in the department, you and I wanted to talk privately about what we thought, that's fine. That's not our role is when we're in the department to start denigrating somebody. Not while you're in office. Yeah. Anyway. Anyway.

Enough of my high horse on that. More of Prosecuting Donald Trump, Federal Indictment Watch, in just a moment. So, Mary, one of the things that I think people might be interested in is sort of like how the grand jury process typically works at this stage. And this is obviously a long-term investigation. And

I've done a whole bunch of these in my career because I know most prosecutors don't. Most prosecutors, you have very short cases and you might do a presentation to a grand jury in one sitting at maybe two sittings, but it can be super short. I mean, it could take a half hour. It could take a couple hours. But, you know, in organized crime cases or in Enron or in the special counsel investigation, we had grand juries that sat for up to

three years because they were called special grand juries and they could sit for up to three years. And grand jurors and the grand jury know so much about the case. So typically in that kind of long-term setting, before you present charges, there's

sort of a summing up and reminding of the evidence that the grand jurors heard so that you're going over what are the proposed charges, what is the sort of evidence that goes to each of the elements. You read the jury instructions. They know

what the elements are. And then you ask them about, you know, do they have any questions, et cetera. Of course, there are a whole bunch of legal admonitions you give them that, which is what you say is not evidence. If you say something that's different than their recollection, it's their recollection that covers. And then the grand jurors go ahead and if they have no more questions and they deliberate and that deliberation happens with no one in the room, a

other than the grand jurors, not a court reporter, not a prosecutor. And they could reach a decision quickly, not quickly. They could come back and have questions, ask to hear something differently. In the federal system, unlike New York, they can rely on hearsay and all sorts of evidence that's not sort of direct evidence. In my view, that's sort of the typical process I engaged in. I don't know, Mary, if you had a different perspective

way that you used to go about doing this.

One thing, Andrew, in just hearing you describe that is for the general listener, it's really not at all unlike a closing argument in a regular jury trial. And reporters report about closing arguments in high-profile cases all the time. They'll report about what the prosecutor argued in terms of here are the charges, here are the elements of each offense, here's the evidence. Remember you heard from witness X and he told you X, Y, Z. Remember you saw document Y and

from that you learned, you know, X, Y, Z, and they just sum up everything. And it's very much the same in front of the grand jury, except that there's no defense counsel to give a defense closing argument. The closing argument just comes from the prosecutor. And like you said, just like a regular jury after a jury trial, the grand jury then deliberates in secret with no prosecutor there, no reporter. But what is different is they can say, you know what?

Here are the charges we're comfortable with. On this charge, we'd kind of like to hear some more evidence on this. Maybe we think the evidence of one of the elements of the crime may be willfulness. We think we're a little, you know, we'd like to hear from so-and-so witness. Is that somebody we, you know, prosecute you'd consider subpoenaing? They can do that.

That's, of course, not something that a regular jury can do. They can't say at the end of the trial, hey, you know, we think the prosecutor, we'd like to hear from another witness. Could you call one? You know, no, the prosecutor got their shot and they don't get another chance to add evidence. But in the grand jury, it works differently. And so one thing we're hearing about some rumors that the grand jury is coming back this week, I think on Wednesday. You know, the question is, are they coming back for a summation?

Are they coming back for more witnesses? Have they even already potentially had a summation from the prosecutor and maybe indicated there's some things they wanted to spend some time looking at or additional evidence they'd like to hear? And potentially the prosecutors are presenting that. Now, I'm just speculating and I'm just not even speculating because I'm not really suggesting it's one way or the other. Just want listeners to know there's lots of things that could be happening. And

It could be more witnesses because the grand jury had more they wanted to hear from, or it could be that this is going to be a time for a summation and maybe them to deliberate. The other thing I'd indicate, because you suggested they get instructed about their recollection controlling, and that's true, but they can also look at the evidence if they want, because evidence that's come in through subpoena, for example, those are

subpoenas that were issued under the authority of that grand jury and so they can say we want to look at these documents you know let's assume that evan corcoran's notes came in they say we want to look at evan corcoran's notes before we make decisions they can ask for that too so in a case where you as you said andrew like many cases you've done and cases i've done as well and people who worked for me have done where the investigation has gone on for many months or even years you know

That's a lot for them to remember. So it can take them some time to then go back over. And even though this case hasn't been years, there's been a lot, I think, put in front of them. And so this is an important step in the process. Yeah, absolutely. I used to do

this thing where before I asked the grand jurors to vote, we used to bring in all of the evidence to the grand jury room. So they actually had all of it at their disposal and we sort of walked them through where it was and they had binders and they would know exactly where to look. And then in their deliberations, they were free to do whatever they wanted with it, whether

to read it to each other, to look at it, not look at it, etc. I have to say, I strongly suspect, I will speculate that all of that's been done already and that

If there are going to be charges this week, that we're really at the phase where the prosecutors are hearing from the defense lawyers that maybe Attorney General Garland's hearing an appeal of it, but they're sort of ready to go with the grand jury and that they know what the charges are, they know what the evidence is, and they're just waiting to sort of call for the final vote. But again, I could be wrong.

Yeah. Well, you know, that's a great segue, though, because we know that defense counsel did write a letter to Attorney General Garland saying, essentially, we demand to talk to you about the unfairness that our client has been receiving in this case. And so this could be the time where, you know, these appeals are being made. And that's the perfect segue to our last topic. You know, is there any chance of working out some sort of

Settlement of this and by settlement of a criminal case that usually means some sort of plea arrangement and, you know, certainly in many, many cases involving mishandling of property.

national defense information, those cases have resolved through pleas, including in pretty significant cases or high-profile cases such as that involving General David Petraeus. That resolved in a plea agreement, and other similar cases have resolved in pleas. So, Andrew, none of the people who have pled guilty to crimes like this in the past

is in my mind comparable to Donald Trump. What do you think about, will there even be discussions about a plea? Will Donald Trump even consider them? Will Jack Smith or the attorney general even consider it in a case like this? So I have two thoughts on that. One is that I was part of a group at Just Security that went through all of the prior DOJ cases involving

improper illegal retention of documents, some of which also included obstructive conduct. It's an excellent resource, by the way, everyone. I was looking at it myself multiple times. Excellent resource. I actually thought the table of prior cases was so important because that's what the rule of law is about, which is treating equals equally. The point is that many people

have been charged in situations far less egregious than Donald Trump. But to your point, Mary, about sentencing and sort of what the ultimate outcome is, there is an unfortunate precedent in the department where very senior people have been charged and prosecuted

but have gotten very, in my view, lenient plea deals if they plead guilty. So David Petraeus is a good example. I was at the FBI when that happened. I was not at the FBI when that was solved in a plea. I wouldn't have had the final say anyway, but I thought that was a very inappropriate charge. He was given a misdemeanor, but he illegally...

took documents, he illegally retained documents, he illegally disseminated documents to a biographer, and the documents were classified, and he lied to the FBI about it when he was interviewed. So there was a lot to be said in terms of what he did. But he pleaded, and he obviously also had to step down. He was the then CIA director. So there were...

other factors there. There were consequences, right? Exactly. And he obviously pled to a misdemeanor, but he didn't do jail time. Sandy Berger's another case, John Deutsch. I mean, unfortunately, it's a little topsy-turvy. There's junior people who did things that were less bad who got prison.

prison time. More time. So I do think whether you like or dislike the Petraeus precedent or the Sandy Berger precedent, it's precedent. So that for the Attorney General and Jack Smith, it is something they have to weigh in deciding what's an appropriate offer if they're going to make one to the former president.

Because you have to make sure that you're treating people comparably. I tend to agree with you, Mary, that depending on what the facts are, that this situation's worse than the ones that I just talked about. All that being said, I can sort of cut to the chase here because no matter what they offer, I just don't see Donald Trump

admitting his guilt through his own words and taking a plea where he has to say, "I did something wrong." From a political point of view, his stock and trade is complete denial of reality and facts and saying it's a witch hunt. I just don't think even if they offered him a misdemeanor, which I don't think they should, but even if they did, I don't see Donald Trump admitting

under oath that he did anything wrong and engaged in obstruction, it just isn't part of his nature and it's going to hurt him politically. Yeah, I agree. I mean, for him, everything is perfect, right? Everything he's ever done is perfect. So I think it would just be exceedingly difficult for him to be able to go ever into a court and admit to a judge that he willfully and intentionally did anything that was in violation of the law.

Now, that actually I hadn't really even thought about this until you were just articulating that, Andrew, and I think this is unlikely, too. But just for listeners benefit, there is another type of plea called an Alford plea where a defendant says, you know, I am not going to go in there and admit that I did something wrong, but I will admit that the government has enough evidence to convict me and therefore enter a plea.

And the government doesn't really like to take those because part of a plea agreement is somebody is accepting. Yes, it's very disfavored. Somebody is accepting responsibility. And when you do an Alford plea, you're not accepting responsibility. I mean, you're explicitly not accepting responsibility. All you're saying is government has enough evidence to prove it and I'm not going to make them go to trial. I'm just going to say, okay, I plead guilty. Do you think, Mary, that there's any chance in God's green earth that the government would

offer no an outfit plate yeah no okay okay because here of all times and places that's right that's right i mean the whole point here is accountability and fairness and due price and everything but like what would have been the point just to say we amassed enough evidence to convict and he can sit there and continue to deny that he did anything wrong i just don't see that happening

So bottom line is I'm with you. I think that if his attorneys come to the government, say we, our client is interested in talking about this, then I think the government will make some sort of offer. I'm not even sure they'll make one without that because I think they're engaging in the same, you know, calculus we are that the likelihood is, is so unbelievably low. And I think they would also worry about gamesmanship with that too, right? Because that would derail bringing the indictment and then you'd set a date. And if,

Donald Trump comes in and, you know, reneges there, then you're back to having to now indict and arraign and start that process. So I don't know. There are some downsides. So having been a defense lawyer and also dealt with a lot of defense lawyers, one of the things that experienced defense lawyers will do is they will try and find out from the government what they'd be willing to offer because they want to be able to go to their client and say, look, I

I need to tell you what the risks are here. You could go to trial. This is what I think will happen at trial. And this is the offer they're willing to make. Maybe we can whittle that down a little bit, but it's a way of carrying out your duties. Exactly. That's right. So that...

A lot of times there's that discussion and defense counsel is doing it to get as much information as they can to give the client as many options so that they sort of decide knowingly, as much as they can knowingly, what they can do. So I could see those discussions happening, but not because Donald Trump's willing to take it, but because defense counsel is trying to do their job. Yeah.

So Mary, I am confident this is what I would say is the beginning of this discussion. It'll be interesting to see having flagged all these issues that we're going to be looking for. You know, you and I are probably salivating to start reading this and analyzing which of these things comes to fruition and the sort of pros and cons of the

prosecutorial choices that we see in the language. We're just going to have to wait and see. We're just going to have to be patient, Andrew. I hate that. So, Mary, stay tuned. I hate to say this. We're going to probably be interrupting you during your vacation for more on Donald Trump. Talk to you very soon. Absolutely.

Thanks so much for listening. We'll be back next week, if not sooner, with much more. 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 with questions at prosecutingtrumpquestions, NBCUNI.com. The senior producer for the show is Alicia Conley.

Jessica Schrecker is a segment producer. Our technical director is Bryson Barnes. Jim Maris Perez is the associate producer. Aisha Turner is an executive producer. 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 or subscribe to the series.

Hi everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening, author and philosopher Daniel Chandler on the roots of a just society. I think that those genuinely big fundamental questions about whether liberal democracy will survive, what the shape of our society should be, feel like they're genuinely back on the agenda. I think it feels like we're at a real, you know, an inflection point or a turning point in the history of liberal democracy. That's this week on Why Is This Happening. Search for Why Is This Happening wherever you're listening right now and follow.