Logo
    Search

    Podcast Summary

    • Trump's Legal Challenges: Speech Restrictions, Judge Recusals, and Federal JurisdictionTrump faces multiple legal battles, including attempts to restrict his speech, demands for judge recusals, and efforts to remove cases to federal jurisdiction. The latest developments include filings in DC indictment case and a hearing in Georgia over Jeffrey Clark case.

      Former President Donald Trump is facing multiple legal challenges, including attempts to restrict his speech, demands for recusal of judges, and efforts to remove cases to federal jurisdiction. The latest developments include filings in the District of Columbia indictment case and a hearing in Georgia regarding the removal of a case involving Jeffrey Clark, a former senior official at the Justice Department. Trump's team has argued that judges may be biased against him, but the judges have yet to rule on these motions. These legal battles add to the ongoing investigations against Trump and continue to shape the political landscape.

    • Discussion on legal restrictions for attorneys and extrajudicial statements in criminal casesLegal restrictions prevent attorneys and parties from making extrajudicial statements related to ongoing criminal cases to maintain court proceedings' integrity. Violations can lead to political amplification.

      During the discussion, the speakers touched upon the legal restrictions placed on attorneys and parties involved in criminal cases, specifically in relation to extrajudicial statements made outside of court. These statements, according to the speakers, are not to be related to the case at hand and can lead to political discourse due to the public nature of filings. In the ongoing case involving Donald Trump's indictments, the government has requested restrictions on what Trump's lawyers can say outside of court, which some call a gag order but is more accurately described as a rule to prevent extrajudicial statements. The speakers noted that Trump's lawyers have previously violated this rule but stopped after being reminded of it. The rule is intended to maintain the integrity of the court proceedings, but in practice, it can lead to political amplification through filings and public statements. Ultimately, the discussion focused more on the implications for Trump than the attorneys themselves.

    • Government seeks to limit Trump's public statements in ongoing criminal caseThe government is requesting a court order to limit Trump's public statements in his criminal case to prevent intimidation of witnesses, jurors, and court personnel.

      The government is seeking to limit Donald Trump's public statements regarding the ongoing criminal case against him, arguing that these statements could potentially intimidate witnesses, jurors, and court personnel. The government's motion emphasizes Trump's history of making disparaging and inflammatory statements about individuals involved in the case, which have led to threats and harassment against them. The proposed order would restrict Trump's statements only to those regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of witnesses, as well as any disparaging or intimidating comments about witnesses, attorneys, court personnel, or potential jurors. The order would not prohibit Trump from quoting or referencing public court records or proclaiming his innocence. The government's approach aims to be narrow and focused on maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

    • Balancing free speech and orderly proceedings in Trump caseJudge must decide if gag order infringes on Trump's First Amendment rights while ensuring orderly proceedings

      The ongoing legal proceedings against Donald Trump involve complex issues surrounding free speech and potential gag orders. The government's motion for a gag order is not a slam dunk, as it must balance the need for orderly proceedings against the former president's First Amendment rights. The judge will need to consider the extent of the restrictions and whether they infringe on Trump's freedom to speak. The defense, for its part, has filed a motion to recuse Judge Chutkin, citing perceived bias. These motions are still being considered in the case. Overall, the legal process is ongoing and involves a delicate balancing act between various constitutional rights and the need for orderly proceedings.

    • Trump's team files recusal motion against judge based on past statementsTrump's attacks on the judiciary and timing of the motion raise concerns about the public's perception of the impartiality of the proceedings, potentially eroding faith in governmental institutions and democracy

      The ongoing legal battle between Donald Trump and the judiciary revolves around the appearance of fairness and potential bias, rather than actual unfairness. Trump's team has filed a recusal motion against Judge Canan in Florida based on her past statements regarding Trump's potential indictment. This motion comes amidst Trump's long-standing attacks on the judiciary, raising concerns about the public's perception of the legitimacy of the proceedings. The belated nature of the motion adds to the perception of gamesmanship. The core issue is whether the public will view these proceedings as politically motivated or impartial. Trump's consistent attacks on the judiciary and the timing of the motion further erode faith in governmental institutions and democracy. The focus on appearances, rather than actual bias, highlights the complex relationship between politics and the legal system.

    • Judge Sullivan emphasizes individual responsibility in Capitol riots trialsJudge Sullivan insists defendants made conscious decisions to riot, despite Trump's influence claims. Possible bias concerns from Trump's involvement may not lead to recusal, per legal precedent.

      During the trial of those involved in the Capitol riots, Judge Sullivan is addressing arguments for leniency based on defendants being influenced by former President Trump and his claims of a fraudulent election. She is responding by emphasizing that individuals have free will and made conscious decisions to engage in violent acts. A more complex issue arises when Judge Sullivan made a comment about Trump's involvement, which the defense argues could lead to an appearance of bias. However, legal precedent, such as the Lottecki case, suggests that this standard might not apply since she gained the information outside of the judicial proceeding. The government has also presented numerous cases where recusal was denied despite egregious facts. Ultimately, the standard for recusal is that the judge's impartiality could not be maintained due to deep-seated favoritism or antagonism towards the defendant or the appearance of such.

    • Legal Proceedings for Meadows and Clark: Understanding the 'Color of Office'Former White House officials Meadows and Clark face charges related to Capitol insurrection. They argue their actions were taken under 'color of office', but proving a valid federal defense may be difficult without their testimony.

      The ongoing legal proceedings involving former White House officials Mark Meadows and Jeff Clark, who are facing charges related to the Capitol insurrection, highlight the complexities of the concept of acting under "color of office." The former president's involvement in these cases adds an extra layer of complexity, as many commentators have noted that even if these officials were recused, similar arguments about their impartiality would likely be raised. Regarding the removal proceedings, Clark, who is currently not appearing for his hearing, must prove that his alleged actions were taken under his former office at the Department of Justice and that he has a valid federal defense. While Clark has submitted an affidavit from a former Attorney General, the application of this argument to the current situation may be debatable. Both Meadows and Clark are making a strong argument for the first prong of the test, which pertains to the color of office, but the second prong, which requires them to prove a valid federal defense, may be more challenging without their testimony.

    • Accountability for Actions Taken Under Color of OfficeEmployees and corporations can be held accountable for illegal actions taken within their employment scope, but a valid defense may not be available if not authorized by higher-ranking officials.

      Corporations and employees can be held accountable for actions taken within the scope of their employment, even if those actions are illegal. This concept, known as "color of office," was discussed in relation to the case of Jeff Clark, who falsely represented himself as a Department of Justice official in an attempt to cover up fraud. The legal analysis suggests that while Clark's actions were within the scope of his employment, he may not have a valid defense for prong 2 because the president and other high-ranking officials did not authorize his actions. The court also raised the question of whether the statute applies to former federal officials, and the speaker expressed their belief that it does, but acknowledged the ambiguity of the language in the statute. Ultimately, the 11th Circuit has the power to decide the case based on their interpretation of the law, regardless of the parties' arguments.

    • The role of a government attorney involves unique considerations and obligationsGovernment attorneys assess merits of arguments and decide when to concede, allowing amicus briefs for opposing views, adding complexity to legal proceedings

      The role of a government attorney, such as those at the Department of Justice, involves a unique perspective and obligation. While a zealous advocate for a private client may argue every point, a government attorney must assess the merits of each argument and decide when to concede. This can lead to the government conceding an argument and allowing an amicus brief to be filed to represent the opposing viewpoint. During the discussion, it was highlighted that Fani Willis was arguing that Jeffrey Clark did not have the authority to intervene in election-related cases as he was not in a role with supervision over such matters. Despite some validity to Edwin Meese's response, the case remains interesting and challenging due to the first prong of the investigation. Overall, the role of a government attorney adds complexity to legal proceedings and requires a unique approach.

    • Meet the Team Behind MSNBC's 'Prosecuting Donald Trump' PodcastA team of experienced professionals, including Bryson Barnes, Cedric Wilson, Jen Maris Perez, Ayesha Turner, and Rebecca Cutler, ensure the production and success of MSNBC's 'Prosecuting Donald Trump' podcast.

      The MSNBC podcast "Prosecuting Donald Trump" is led by a team of experienced professionals. Bryson Barnes serves as the technical director, ensuring the technical aspects of the podcast run smoothly. Cedric Wilson is the audio engineer, responsible for the podcast's sound quality. Jen Maris Perez is the associate producer, managing day-to-day operations. Ayesha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC audio, overseeing the entire audio division. Lastly, Rebecca Cutler is the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC, guiding the overall direction of the podcast and the network. To stay updated with the series, search for "Prosecuting Donald Trump" on your favorite podcast platform and follow along.

    Recent Episodes from Prosecuting Donald Trump

    Immunity Fallout

    Immunity Fallout

    As last week’s historic Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity continues to be absorbed in the public sphere, the majority’s expansive view of what is considered exempt from prosecution comes into stark relief. Given their unique perspectives, veteran prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord explore the knock-on effects the ruling will have on Donald Trump’s ongoing cases in Florida, New York and D.C.

    Note: Listeners can send questions to: ProsecutingTrumpQuestions@nbcuni.com

    ‘Textual Backflips’

    ‘Textual Backflips’

    As the fallout from the momentous Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity continues to reverberate, MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord offer some updates, then turn to another significant ruling from the High Court out on Friday: Fisher v. U.S. At issue was whether the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding could be applied to Capitol rioters in the wake of their actions on January 6th. Despite the ruling in favor of the defendant, their guest Ryan Goodman of Just Security confirms the limited impact this decision will have on those charged for their role in the chaos of January 6th, and on Donald Trump’s election interference case in D.C.

    Further reading: Here is the analysis Ryan, Mary and Andrew wrote regarding the Fischer decision for Just Security: The Limited Effects of Fischer: DOJ Data Reveals Supreme Court’s Narrowing of Jan. 6th Obstruction Charges Will Have Minimal Impact.

    The Immunity Decision

    The Immunity Decision

    The consequential question before the Supreme Court on the limit and scope of presidential immunity has been decided, in three essential buckets. Veteran prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord decipher the ramifications for the former president, for the January 6th case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, and for the broad constitutional authority of the presidency itself. And they are joined by Trevor Morrison, NYU law professor and Dean Emeritus, to discern the finer points of the decision and the warnings cast in dissents by both Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson.

    ‘A Dessert Topping and a Floor Wax’

    ‘A Dessert Topping and a Floor Wax’

    There has been a slew of hearings before Judge Aileen Cannon in the Florida documents case over the past few days, and veteran prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord examine why some of these seem like unnecessary delays. Then, why Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg is asking for the limited gag order to continue in New York as Donald Trump awaits sentencing. And lastly, Mary and Andrew game out some scenarios as we hurry up and wait for the Supreme Court to decide on presidential immunity.

    Also, an exciting announcement! On Saturday, September 7th, MSNBC will be hosting a live event in Brooklyn called “MSNBC Live: Democracy 2024”. It will be your chance to hear thought-provoking conversations about the most pressing issues of our time, and to do so in person with some of your favorite MSNBC hosts. You can also take part in a sit-down dinner for an insider’s view of the upcoming election. Visit https://www.msnbc.com/DEMOCRACY2024 to learn more.

    Trigger Avenue

    Trigger Avenue

    This week, MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord dive deep into several pending motions, including Jack Smith’s pre-trial motion to modify Trump's conditions of release in the Florida documents case, which would effectively impose a gag order, just under a different legal principle. Plus: Trump’s push to end the post-trial gag order in New York. And what's at issue in the suppression motion also filed in Florida that Judge Cannon will hear next Tuesday. Last up: a preview of Fischer v. United States, a pending Supreme Court case that could have a trickle-down effect on Trump’s DC case.

    Note: Listeners can send questions to: ProsecutingTrumpQuestions@nbcuni.com

    Post-Trial and Pre-Trial

    Post-Trial and Pre-Trial

    Former President Trump awaits his sentencing in New York, but he wants the gag order lifted in the meantime. Is that typical? Veteran prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord break down that motion, and the mechanics of sentencing in the lead up to July 11th. They also highlight Attorney General Merrick Garland’s recent op-ed calling for an end to escalated assaults on our judicial system in the wake of Trump’s verdict in Manhattan. Last up, Andrew and Mary scrutinize Judge Cannon’s schedule revisions for several motions in Florida documents case, and analyze the significance of Georgia racketeering case being stayed pending appeal.

    Further reading: Here is Attorney General Merrick Garland’s OpEd in the Washington Post that Andrew and Mary spoke about: Opinion- Merrick Garland: Unfounded attacks on the Justice Department must end

    Note: Listeners can send questions to: ProsecutingTrumpQuestions@nbcuni.com

    BONUS: Season 2 of “Rachel Maddow Presents: Ultra”

    BONUS: Season 2 of “Rachel Maddow Presents: Ultra”

    As a bonus for listeners, we’re sharing a special preview of the second season of the award-winning original series, “Rachel Maddow Presents: Ultra.” In the chart-topping second season, Rachel Maddow returns to uncover the shocking history of the ultra-right’s reach into American politics. Listen to the entire first episode now, and follow the show to get the whole series: https://link.chtbl.com/rmpust_fdlw. You can also subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access to every episode the Friday before it drops, and ad-free listening to all episodes of Ultra seasons one and two.

    The Disinformation Campaign

    The Disinformation Campaign

    It’s been less than a week since the jury reached a verdict in Donald Trump’s criminal trial and the political spin on the result is dizzying. MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord seek to debunk several claims entered into the public discourse, especially around the Department of Justice being involved in a state case and that the trial was somehow ‘rigged’. They also address some breaking news out of Wisconsin, where Kenneth Chesebro, Jim Troupis and Michael Roman were criminally charged in that state's  fake elector scheme. Then, Andrew and Mary review the latest in Florida after Special Counsel Jack Smith refiled his motion to bar Trump from making statements that endanger law enforcement.

    Note: Listeners can send questions to: ProsecutingTrumpQuestions@nbcuni.com

    BONUS: Witness to History

    BONUS: Witness to History

    In a new special, Andrew Weissmann, Rachel Maddow and our team give an intimate and personal look inside the Trump courtroom. They tell some never-before-heard stories about what it was like to witness, firsthand, some of the most explosive moments of the trial. In addition to Rachel and Andrew, you'll hear from Joy Reid, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Hayes, Katie Phang, Lisa Rubin, Yasmin Vossoughian, and Laura Jarrett. Together, they share what it was like to witness history from the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse.

    Related Episodes

    It's Not About Sex

    It's Not About Sex

    We head into the “eye of the storm” as MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord explore the nature of Stormy Daniel’s testimony in depth, and why her credibility is less at issue than that of others who facilitated the hush payments to her. Then, they turn their prosecutorial expertise to understanding why the defense’s mistrial motion was denied by Judge Merchan. And lastly, Andrew and Mary detail what to glean from Judge Cannon’s indefinite postponement of the classified documents trial in Florida.

    $148 million

    $148 million

    A federal jury in Georgia ordered Rudy Giuliani to pay $148 million in damages to two election workers who sued him for defamation. Can ‘America’s Mayor’ survive a penalty of that size? Michael Gottlieb, the lawyer representing the election workers, joins MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord to break down the jury’s decision. Plus, Andrew and Mary discuss former president Trump’s immunity appeal in the DC case, including why the federal judge overseeing the case agreed to pause all proceedings. 

    The Presidency Before the Supreme Court

    The Presidency Before the Supreme Court

    Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, which will have implications beyond whether he is shielded from criminal prosecution in the January 6th case. MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord go deep on what arguments to pay attention to. This, as the New York trial wraps up a week of testimony from former AMI CEO David Pecker. And an analysis of the latest indictment related to election interference in the 2020 election, this time from Arizona.