Does the US need new laws to protect elections?

Summary

---

Americast – “Does the US Need New Laws to Protect Elections?”

BBC News | May 29, 2026
Hosts: Sarah Smith (BBC North America Editor), Justin Webb (BBC Radio 4), Guest: Andrew Weissman (former federal prosecutor, Mueller investigation senior team member)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Americast centers on one of America’s most pressing political dilemmas: Can – or should – new laws be created to hold politicians legally accountable for lying, especially when such falsehoods undermine democracy itself? Joined by influential legal mind Andrew Weissman, the hosts analyze whether criminalizing political lies can meaningfully safeguard US elections, or if such efforts risk deepening political divides and weaponizing the justice system.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Roots of Political Lying in America

• Historic Precedents: The show begins with references to past presidential lies (Nixon/Watergate, Clinton/Monica Lewinsky) and observes that spreading falsehoods “is becoming acceptable for politicians on both sides.” (Justin Webb, 01:08)
• Current State: The hosts note Donald Trump’s prolific use of misinformation, especially his repeated (and unsubstantiated) claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

2. The Mueller Investigation & its Aftermath (04:23–06:49)

• Mueller’s Findings: Sarah summarizes the significance and outcome of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. While Russian interference was proven, no direct criminal coordination with the Trump campaign was confirmed, leaving Trump embittered.

  “It was the attempt by former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian interference... In the end, what Mueller found was that there had been coordinated Russian interference in the election, but he wasn't able to substantiate that it had been coordinated with the Trump campaign.” (Sarah Smith, 04:23)

• Weaponizing Accusations: The episode includes a notable clip of Tulsi Gabbard accusing former President Obama of orchestrating a supposed “treasonous conspiracy” (06:04). The hosts use this to illustrate how accusations of criminality can “twist” in both partisan directions.

3. The Challenge of Legislating Against Lies (06:49–14:03)

• Trump’s “Big Lie”: The ongoing impact of Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was fraudulent is dissected, with Sarah explaining just how deeply corrosive that narrative has been for Americans’ faith in democracy.

  “But there's something deeply insidious about that lie about the 2020 election. It's what led to the January 6th riots, of course…” (Sarah Smith, 08:03)

• Nationalizing Elections: Trump’s push for federal control over elections is flagged as a major red flag by critics.

  “Donald Trump has talked several times about wanting to take this over, wanting the federal government... to run elections. And that really has worried a huge amount of people.” (Sarah Smith, 09:42)

• Falling Trust in Politics: Referencing Pew data, the hosts point to a measurable dip in trust in politicians’ honesty since 2025 (10:48).

4. Introducing Andrew Weissman’s Proposal (14:03–15:50)

• A Law Against Political Lying: Weissman argues for a law criminalizing “material lies” by office-holders—statements that are knowingly false and damage democracy.

  “When you have a material lie, not an opinion, not a mistake, but a material lie... and you could show that that is not true and the person knows it's not true, that it's criminalized.” (Andrew Weissman, 15:50)

---

Notable Quotes & Exchanges

Weissman’s Legal Framework

(On distinguishing “material lies”):

“I love that you are focusing on the fact that it is not specific to Donald Trump. It could implicate sort of what he does, but it really would apply to anyone who is in elected office.” (Andrew Weissman, 15:50)

(On enforcement and intent):

“So, having been a federal prosecutor for a very long time, what I would ask is one, is it, is it factually true or false?... The other is, is it intentionally false?” (Andrew Weissman, 16:58)

Risks of Weaponization

Sarah Smith’s Skepticism:

“...if you had legislation like you’re proposing, Andrew, is it not a weapon for a politicized administration... just to use this as another way of attacking opponents and perceived enemies?” (Sarah Smith, 18:07) Weissman’s Response: “There’s no question that if you create another potential tool for a corrupt administration… it can lie around like a Chekhovian gun... One is how you assess the current situation... if you think it's a pendulum swing and it's not that serious... then you might say it's not worth the risk… I have the view that... this is such a turnabout from what they thought the... ideals were that America was aiming for...” (Andrew Weissman, 19:24)

Difficulties of Proving Intent

“How do we know they don't believe that? I've spoken to people... who just know in my gut it [the election] must have been stolen... You can't say that person is a liar, can you, if they seem to be believing what they're saying?” (Sarah Smith, 21:40) Weissman on the prosecutorial burden:
“If you cannot show as a prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt that it's an intentional lie, then you have no business bringing the case…” (Andrew Weissman, 22:00)

Would the Law Actually Work?

• Hosts’ Skepticism: Webb and Smith repeatedly question the practicality, fairness, and possible partisan abuse of such a legal standard.
• Weissman’s International Example: He cites the prosecution of Bolsonaro in Brazil, where intentional election lies led to criminal conviction and disqualification from office (23:47).

  “If you don’t hold people to account and you don’t have even trials... the message to politicians is that they are immune from the legal system.” (Andrew Weissman, 24:20)

Impeachment: Is It Enough?

• Discussion underscores the blunt and ultimately ineffective role impeachment has played.

  “It has really not been [effective]... and it's hard to think of a more salient example... than where Congress were the victims and saw themselves firsthand what had happened...” (Andrew Weissman, 27:27) “Impeachment is, it's a blunt instrument and it doesn't properly work and it's too politicized, etc.” (Justin Webb, 29:22)

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:08–02:59: Framing the issue: lying in US politics past and present
• 04:23–05:34: Mueller’s Russia investigation and Trump’s reaction
• 06:04–06:31: Tulsi Gabbard’s “treason” conspiracy claim (audio clip)
• 08:03–08:55: The insidiousness of the “big lie”
• 09:16–09:42: Trump on nationalizing federal election control (audio clip)
• 10:48–11:38: Public’s loss in trust, Pew Research data
• 14:03–15:50: Introducing Andrew Weissman and his proposal
• 15:50–18:02: Defining and differentiating criminal falsehoods
• 18:07–19:24: Concerns about politicization and abuse
• 21:40–22:00: The difficulty of establishing intent
• 23:47–24:50: Brazil’s example: prosecuting political lies
• 25:40–27:27: Impeachment as a political tool, and its limitations
• 29:22: Summarizing the limitations of impeachment

---

Memorable Moments

• Sarah Smith, on the challenge for democracy:
  “There are so many ways in which the political stage, when Donald Trump has left it, it's going to be fascinating to see what kind of lasting imprint he has made on how politics is conducted, not just in America, but around the world.” (13:02)

• Andrew Weissman’s “Chekhovian gun”—a metaphor for legislative risk:
  “It can lie around like a Chekhovian gun, where it’s sort of there and you’re sort of waiting to see when someone’s going to pick it up and shoot somebody.” (19:24)

• Justin Webb’s reflection on legal processes and consequences:
  “In a sense, everyone fooled themselves into thinking that that lengthy legal process... was somehow going to do him down. Actually, it did the opposite.” (23:22)

---

Conclusion

The episode closes with both pragmatic and philosophical observations:

• Weissman’s legal solution is less about prosecuting Trump himself than about future-proofing democracy (“This is really trying to deal with the problem of Trumpism.” [27:14]).
• Impeachment, once conceived as democracy’s ultimate tool to rein in presidential misconduct, has shown itself too blunt and politicized to reliably protect the republic.
• The conversation highlights the complex trade-offs between legal deterrence and political abuse, the daunting challenge of proving intentional falsehood, and the evolving expectations of voters in a post-Trump landscape.

---

Overall, this episode offers a sharp, nuanced, and urgent debate about the intersection of law, political culture, and democracy—and asks listeners to consider whether changing the law can really change political reality.

Transcript

[Justin Webb]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk. I sold my car in Carvana last night.

[Sarah Smith]

Well, that's cool.

[Unknown Caller]

No, you don't understand. It went perfectly. Real offer down to the penny. They're picking it up tomorrow. Nothing went wrong.

[Carvana Ad Voice]

So what's the problem?

[Unknown Caller]

That is the problem. Nothing in my life goes as smoothly. I'm waiting for the catch.

[Carvana Ad Voice]

Maybe there's no catch.

[Unknown Caller]

That's exactly what a catch would want me to think.

[Carvana Ad Voice]

Wow. You need to relax.

[Unknown Caller]

I need to knock on wood. Do we have wood? Is this table wood?

[Carvana Ad Voice]

I think it's laminate.

[Unknown Caller]

Okay. Yeah, that's good. That's close enough.

[Carvana Ad Voice]

Car selling without a cat. Sell your car today on Carvana. Pick up fees may apply.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail]

[Carvana Ad Voice]

Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes.

[Justin Webb]

American presidents have always told lies. Think of Richard Nixon and Watergate. Think of Bill Clinton and sex. The current president says plenty of things well without evidence and plenty fear that it is becoming acceptable for politicians on both sides to spread falsehoods. So does it matter how much do Americans care? And is there a solution to that might hold lawmakers accountable for the lies that they tell in office? Welcome to AmericasT. AmericasT.

[BBC News Announcer]

AmericasT from BBC News.

[Donald Trump (clip)]

You hear that sound? Oh, I think when I hear that sound it reminds me of money.

[Justin Webb]

We didn't start this war, but under President Trump we are finishing it.

[Sarah Smith]

This is a big cover up and this administration is engaged in it. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.

[Andrew Weissman]

I have four words for you. Turn the volume up.

[Sarah Smith]

Hello, it's Sarah in the BBC's Washington bureau.

[Justin Webb]

And it's Justin in the worldwide headquarters of AmericasT in London, England. And I should say it is five past three in the afternoon here in London on Thursday and I Sarah, I'm going to be joined by the guest today, which is a real pleasure. He's actually going to be here. He's not here yet, but he is. Andrew Weissman. He played a very big part in Robert Mueller's investigation into the Russia interference in the 2016. 2016 election. He's got a new book out which has this really interesting argument which we are going to challenge him on, which suggests somehow that politicians could be held to account by law if their lies damage democracy. And when you look back, Sarah, at the various efforts that were made to hold Donald Trump to account by law in the run up to the 2024 election, I think it is fair to say that the jury is out on whether it works.

[Sarah Smith]

Yes, yes. And I'm just running through a sort of mental Rolodex now of all the politicians who could end up in trouble if lying in office and therefore potentially damaging democracy were to become a criminal offense. The courts could get very, very busy, and not just in the United States, I think.

[Justin Webb]

And the issue, I suppose the kind of. The broader issue is whether. Well, two things. Number one, whether law works or law fair, as it's sometimes called, called, can you. Should you, in a democracy be going after people in law? And there's a lively debate about that. And I say kind of flippantly that it didn't work with Donald Trump, but there are plenty of people who think it should have worked, of course, and also potentially might work in terms of impeachment, which is a slightly separate thing, but in terms of impeachment, that might still be to come over the next couple of years or so. But then the other thing is, how would you have a new law that really brought people to account? And that's one of the things that Andrew Weissman wants to talk about. And I was saying that he has experience in this area, so not only is a former federal prosecutor, but he did play a big part in the Robert Mueller investigation. I suppose we should kick off by reminding people about what that investigation was and why it was so important, so seminally important, although it didn't quite come up with the goods that many people hoped it would.

[Sarah Smith]

Yeah, it's what Donald Trump calls the Russia, Russia, Russia investigation. And he says that so often. That's what it's sort of now stuck in my head as. As well. It was the attempt by former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election when Donald Trump was first elected. It was controversial at the time. Donald Trump was absolutely furious that this investigation had been set up whilst he was in the White House. And he was also really, really worried that this could be the end of his presidency. He saw this as the equivalent of what happened to Richard Nixon or something, that this was going to really damage him, and he became obsessed by it. In the end, what Mueller found was that there had been coordinated Russian interference in the election, but he wasn't able to substantiate that it had been coordinated with the Trump campaign. But he also didn't completely clear them either. He said there were some questions around that and he hadn't been able to find the evidence. And so that has just eaten away at Donald Trump ever since. And Robert Mueller became a real hate figure of his. He died reasonably recently and it's not often you're shocked by a social media post by Donald Trump. But when he said, I'm glad he's dead on the same day that Robert Mueller died, that was pretty shocking.

[Justin Webb]

Yeah. And they've also twisted it round to kind of face in the opposite direction, haven't they? So last year, the now former Director of National Intelligence, this is Tulsi Gabbard, who's very recently stepped down, she made an extraordinary allegation about Barack Obama, didn't she? Not only Obama, actually several of his top officials as well. She said there was a treasonous conspiracy to highlight that Russian interference in 2016. Let's listen to what she alleged.

[BBC News Announcer]

When you look at the intent behind creating a fake manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were created by the intelligence community, the expressed intent and what followed afterward can only be described as a years long coup and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our republic, and an attempt to undermine President Trump's administration.

[Sarah Smith]

Well, that sounds a little bit like Tulsi Gabbard's thinking of something similar to what Andrew Weissman's gonna talk to us about, doesn't it? That basically trying to criminalize things that people did as a result of getting involved in politics here. So I mean, that is very, very interesting.

[Justin Webb]

But it's exactly why this stuff doesn't work, isn't it? I mean, we'll put this to Andrew, but it just seems to me on both sides, as soon as you go down this path, you're in trouble, aren't you?

[Sarah Smith]

Yeah, I think. Well, it's certainly going to get very, very complicated. But it's obvious to see why he's introducing this into the political discourse at the moment and why it's a particularly interesting idea because it's not just over the Mueller Russia investigation that there's issues around Donald Trump. There are lots and lot things he says that are not factually accurate that cannot be backed up by evidence that are what we would generally in common parliament say to be lies. Now, there are all sorts of them every day. Some of them are unimportant. Some of them are just boastful, for instance, and maybe they don't really harm the fabric of democracy. But then there are some that are deeply insidious. And the big lie, of course, which he continues to perpetuate, is that the 2020 election was stolen from him, that Joe Biden wasn't democratically elected, but there was a conspir to steal Trump votes and stop him returning to the White House. And a lot of people still believe it. That's a problem. People in public office, but also just members of the electorate. People who voted in 24, who'll be voting again in 2028, still believe that the system is fundamentally corrupt enough that the election could be stolen from Donald Trump. And investigations are still going on into that. We had an FBI raid of the election offices in Fulton county in Georgia just earlier this year, for instance, where they're still looking for evidence to try and prove that that crucial key state really voted for Donald Trump, despite the fact that the votes were counted three times, counted by hand, every single time it came up that Joe Biden was the person who had been returned by Georgia. But there's something deeply insidious about that lie about the 2020 election. It's what led to the January 6th riots, of course, in 2021. And it undermines the whole basis of if you've got a substantial number of voters who just don't believe that the process works.

[Justin Webb]

And of course, it doesn't stop with what he said about past elections. This is, in a sense, why all of this is so important, isn't it? It is what he might do now in terms of future elections, including the one that's coming up this year. And he has repeatedly called, hasn't he, for elections to be nationalized. What exactly does that mean? Here he is in the Oval Office just a few months ago.

[Donald Trump (clip)]

Take a look at Detroit. Take a look at Pennsylvania. Take a look at Philadelphia. You go take a look at Atlanta. Look at some of the places that horrible corruption on elections and the federal government should not allow that the federal government should get involved. These are agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can't count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over.

[Sarah Smith]

And I wonder, Justin, who he thinks that somebody else should be? Possibly the president of the United States States. What he means when he talks about federalizing the elections is that at the moment, all 50 states run their own elections and their own process for counting the votes. They're supervised state by state. And then of course, they all come in centrally and eventually the Electoral College decides who has won the presidency. Donald Trump has talked several times about wanting to take this over, wanting the federal government of which he is in charge to run elections. And that really has worried a huge amount of people that this is part of some kind of greater plan to, to try to alter the outcome of elections. Because you've got somebody here who is saying things that are not true about the 2020 election, undermining confidence in it, but also wanting to change a system at the same time so that what happened in 2020, that is Joe Biden getting elected or Donald Trump not getting elected, couldn't happen again. And that people are really, really worried that he's wanting to change the rules to favor himself or his favorite candidate and would come up with something that just that that wasn't true.

[Justin Webb]

Yeah. And it's worth saying people more broadly do think that honesty, ethics, the whole idea of politicians telling the truth has, has reduced. No surprise, I suppose, that they think that. But there was a Pew Research survey, wasn't there, relatively recently. So 56% of US adults now believing that the overall level of ethics and honesty in politics has fallen since 2025. So quite a bit precipitate fall, in a sense. And recently, and you've got that old thing, the Washington Post thing, and I know the Washington Post is, well, at least until Jeff Bezos took it over, isn't a great friend of Donald Trump. But they had this tally, didn't they? There's more than 30,000 tallied. And they. During the first term. Of all the false or misleading statements that Donald Trump personally has made.

[Sarah Smith]

Absolutely. And there are ones that are just demonstrably not true. But then there's, you know, there's other ones where you wonder, does Donald Trump believe it, even though there's no evidence to back it up. And that's where you get into some quite interesting territory around what we do and don't can and cannot say about him or indeed any other politician who we think is saying something that isn't true. So certainly we at the BBC will say some things are not true or are a lie. But we don't tend to call Donald Trump a liar because that means that we would. Yeah, we would have to understand what his intent was as well as what the facts are.

[Justin Webb]

And we would be in the business of calling other people liars as well. I mean, something I'm going to bring up with Andrew is Joe Biden. I mean, an absolutely plain case isn't There. Remember when he said that inflation had been 9% when he took office? And he repeated that claim again and again and again, and it was debunked again and again. Inflation was actually, I think, between 1 and 2% when he came into office. So are we to call Joe Biden a liar as well? I mean, where does it, I think almost in. In terms of political criticism and journalism, I'm not sure where labeling people in that way actually gets you, although it satisfies people when they hate a particular politician. It satisfies them and they kind of demand it, too. But I think there are reasons not to do it.

[Sarah Smith]

Yeah. And I feel like we say almost every week on Americas that Donald Trump has rewritten the rules and done everything differently, but we don't know whether other people can get away with the same things that he has. And this is probably yet one more case of that where I don't think there's. Even his most fervent supporters think that everything he says is absolutely accurate, but they're perfectly happy to have somebody who's using mistruths around the place to try and make their case. Will we then see that this is a new norm in politics that will spread internationally? Or when he goes and his particular individualistic way of doing things is gone from the stage, will we once again, as you say, revert to business as usual in a slightly different way, with a greater presumption that politicians are at least trying to tell you the truth? There are so many ways in which the political stage, when Donald Trump has left it, it's going to be fascinating to see what kind of lasting imprint he has made on how politics is conducted, not just in America, but around the world.

[Justin Webb]

Okay, that's a good moment at which to turn to our guest, who is the former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissman, author of Liars how to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America. It's a book out now, I think I'm writing on both sides of the Atlantic. And it looks at the dangers of politicians playing fast and loose with the truth, but of course, very much in the shadow of one particular politician. And it's a politician that Andrew Weissman has followed for some time because he is a podcaster as well. And one of the early aspects of me getting to know him, as it were, was on the airwaves when he was talking about the prosecution of Donald Trump. He had an entire set of podcasts based on those prosecutions of Donald Trump in the early days when it was thought that he might be prosecuted and might even go to jail long before the 2024 election. Anyhow, Andrew Weissman, so good to see you in person.

[Andrew Weissman]

It's great to be here. Yes, it is. I do so many podcasts where it's remote. It's really nice to be in the same room as somebody mentioning podcasts.

[Justin Webb]

I'm a real fanboy and I'm going to bring this out right at the beginning because I was a big fan of prosecuting Donald Trump. Not the actual doing of the prosecuting, you understand. Cause I work for the BBC. But your podcast that you did, prosecuting Donald Trump during all of those court cases that we talked about repeatedly on our podcast, you had so much detail and so much insight because of who you are and the stuff that you've done.

[Andrew Weissman]

Well, I had a great collaborator, Mary McCord, but both of us had worked for decades. The Department of Justice.

[Justin Webb]

What is the plan that you have? Because you come out in your book with a plan that I think will really interest people. It's a plan not just to stop Donald Trump, but it is a plan to stop anyone who wants to lie. What, anywhere in public office. Explain what you want.

[Andrew Weissman]

I love that you are focusing on the fact that it is not specific to Donald Trump. It could implicate sort of what he does, but it really would apply to anyone who is in elected office. And we have both a federal system and a state system. So it could apply to federal officials, presidents, Congress people, but also at the state level, governors and legislators at the within the 50 states of the United States. And in a nutshell, to cut to the chase, it is to when you have a material lie, not an opinion, not a mistake, but a material lie such as, and this is the example I use, that there was fraud in the election and I really won. And you could show that that is not true and the person knows it's not true, that it's criminalized.

[Justin Webb]

So how would you deal then with Joe Biden saying inflation was 9% when I came into office, when it wasn't, it was between 1 and 2%. Would he, would he have been prosecuted?

[Andrew Weissman]

So, having been a federal prosecutor for a very long time, what I would ask is one, is it, is it factually true or false? Just that sort of step one.

[Justin Webb]

Yeah.

[Andrew Weissman]

The other is, is it intentionally false? In other words, what did Joe Biden, whoever we're talking about, did they, what did they know at the time? And were they did, was it just a mistake, a slip of the tongue?

[Justin Webb]

Did he repeat it?

[Andrew Weissman]

Exactly. And so those kinds of things if. And then what's this argument for why he thought it was an okay thing to say he has to make this

[Justin Webb]

argument in a court.

[Andrew Weissman]

Well, if you were charged. And so one of the ways, though, to cabin this, so which I talk about is that you can imagine a law that in my view, sort of goes overboard. Our president has been reported to have made false statements about how he did as an undergraduate in school about the crowd size.

[Justin Webb]

Right. And you wouldn't do any of that.

[Andrew Weissman]

And those things do not have to be criminalized.

[Justin Webb]

Let me bring Sarah. Does that argument hold weight with you, Sarah?

[Sarah Smith]

It makes lots of sense, and I think a lot of us could apply some kind of common sense test as to whether or not Donald Trump lying about previous achievements really, really mattered, as opposed to, say, saying things are not true about the 2020 election fraud. But what we're witnessing happening in the United States at the moment is the politicization of all sorts of aspects of the justice system even before we've got a law like this coming in. For instance, the latest news at the moment is that the Department of Justice is investigating E. Jean Carroll, the woman who sued Donald Trump for sexual assault and defamation. And now his Justice Department appear to be going after her, saying that she committed perjury in some of the statements that she made. That case, it looks from the outside nakedly political, as do a number of the other criminal investigations that are being pursued by the DOJ at the moment, like against them. James Comey, for instance, the idea that he was threatening the president's life when he tweeted a picture of seashells that said 8647. If you had legislation like you're proposing, Andrew, is it not a weapon for a politicized administration like the one we've got in office at the moment, just to use this as another way of attacking opponents and perceived enemies?

[Andrew Weissman]

That's a great question. I actually address that because there's no question that if you create another potential tool for a corrupt administration, and again, I'm not speaking about just going forward in any sort of administration that it can lie around like a Chekhovian gun, where it's sort of there and you're sort of waiting to see when someone's going to pick it up and shoot somebody. And there are a number of responses to that. One is how you assess the current situation that we're in in the United States. If you think it's a pendulum swing and it's not that serious and it's not something that is a deep threat to democracy in the United States, then you might say it's not worth the risk, that there, there really are, there are too many downsides to this idea. But I don't have that view. I have the view that I think, certainly people, I think in Europe looking at the United States are somewhat shocked by what they had thought of the United States and the rule of law. Not that America's perfect in any way, shape or form, but that this is such a turnabout from what they thought the, what the ideals were that America was aiming for, even if they didn't always achieve it.

[Sarah Smith]

Just before you joined us, Justin and I were talking about the difference between the way the BBC reports some of this exactly around the 2020 election, which we often call the idea that it was stolen a lie, or the big lie as it's known in America. We don't generally call Donald Trump a liar when he is talking about that because that involves a whole extra step of understanding their motivation, their level of understanding, their level of knowledge, just as you have been explaining. But that's also quite a diffic. Difficult thing to prove, isn't it? I mean, you quite correctly say it's used as a litmus test for people joining the Cabinet or whatever. Donald Trump wants them to go out there and say the 2020 election was stolen. How do we know they don't believe that? I've spoken to people who've said, yeah, no evidence was produced in any of those court cases, but that's because they weren't looking for it properly. I just know in my gut it must have been stolen because Joe Biden was a terrible candidate. Donald Trump was a fantastic candidate. This is what people truly believe. There's no way Joe Biden could have have beaten him. Therefore, I do believe it was stolen. You can't say that person is a liar, can you? If they seem to be believing what they're saying, no.

[Andrew Weissman]

Just to be clear, that is an issue. What you're putting your finger on is an issue that criminal prosecutors have to deal with all the time. I've also been a defense lawyer, so I'm very aware. If you cannot show as a prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt that it's an intentional lie, then you have no business bringing the case. And a jury, either you don't bring the case or you're going to lose the case if you do bring it. But there are ways to prove that. And that is where, as I mentioned, we have laws that say it's a crime to lie to Congress. It's a crime to lie to a federal prosecutor or the FBI. What we're talking about and what I address is saying something that is deliberately false.

[Justin Webb]

Can I bring up a kind of wider. So you're claiming it would work. We're a little bit skeptical, and I'm thinking particularly of how you'd prove it in the case of Joe Biden, where there will be plenty who say that he did lie, but there'd be plenty who say that he didn't. And it just seems to me to be unwieldy, to put it mildly, to. To get to a court case. But I suppose the other argument is that it doesn't work. And in a sense, you had that wonderful podcast prosecuting Donald Trump that I used to listen to while I was walking my dog. And again and again, I think, oh, my goodness, this is really coming to something. And I used to say on our podcast on AmericasT, we used to say, Sarah and I used to have these long discussions about, is he going to go to jail? Does he need. Will he need to have Secret Service people with him in jail? How does that work? Can you go for office? And in a sense, everyone fooled themselves into thinking that that lengthy legal process involving several cases was somehow going to do him down. Actually, it did the opposite.

[Andrew Weissman]

I'm not enough of a sort of political analyst to know that I try to stay in my lane. But I guess I would give you a counter example of prosecutions of political leaders that I think are healthy and necessary as a deterrent. So Bolsonaro was in Brazil, In Brazil, who is somebody I talk about the many similarities that there are to his conduct found by different courts to our current president. He was criminally prosecuted for his participation in an insurrection. And before that, he was barred from running for office because of his false statements about the election. And it was necessary under Brazilian law to prove that they were intentionally false, that these were not things, that is, to Sarah's point, that were honestly held beliefs. And the judges had to address that in their decision about why they thought there was sufficient proof that this was intentional. And I think if you don't hold people to account and you don't have even trials, which in the United States, as you mentioned, we had one state court trial, but the key trials, particularly the one about insurrection in Washington, D.C. that never saw the light of day, the message to politicians is that they are immune from the legal system. And I think that that is something that we are living through right now, is that sense of no checks and balances. Which is such an integral part to the structure or the intended structure of the United States.

[Justin Webb]

Let me finish, if I can, with this final thought about the political side of prosecution, which is impeachment and which Donald Trump has faced. And of course he was impeached in the House of Representatives, but then goes through the Senate. The Senate have to convict and they didn't convict on either of the two occasions. He could be impeached again, couldn't he? It's entirely possible, particularly if the Democrats win the House back in the midterms. And it is then the job of the Senate, isn't it, to decide what to do. And it would have been the right thing to do if they felt strongly enough about it. And I can't remember the exact voting, but you think of January 2021, when they had an opportunity, January 6th had happened. They impeached him in the House, didn't they? It went to the Senate and quite a few Republican senators did say, okay, enough, he should be barred from office because that's the effect, isn't it, of a conviction? Yes, would have. But they didn't go through with it. And in a sense, that was America's opportunity. And the right opportunity, the right place, the right time. And because they didn't do it, I just wonder whether for Donald Trump and for anyone in that position, the, the moment has passed.

[Andrew Weissman]

Well, what I'm talking about is really looking forward to future conduct as opposed to looking back.

[Justin Webb]

Yeah. Your law isn't going to apply to Donald Trump, is it?

[Andrew Weissman]

Yeah, exactly. That's, that's essentially exactly right. I'm going to talk about that. This is really trying to deal with the problem of, Of Trumpism. Exactly.

[Justin Webb]

I mean, that's really it, isn't it? It's the post Trump world that you're trying to address, aren't you?

[Andrew Weissman]

Absolutely. That is 100 right. One thing to note is the. What you have recounted, many people, including me, think that that is why impeachment is something that, well, it was envisaged by the Founders, the people who wrote the Constitution, that that would be an effective mechanism to be a check on the presidency. It has really not been. And it's hard to think of a more salient example of having an impeachment than where Congress were the victims and saw themselves firsthand what had happened. And yet even there, there wasn't a conviction in that case. And it's notable to me to have a slightly different take, is that Mitch McConnell, who was the leader in the Senate at the time when he said I'm not voting for it. What he said is there are criminal laws to deal with this. So he was saying sort of passing the buck, but he was saying, no, it isn't an impeachment issue. Part of that, to be fair, is because of the timing of when it came up was at the very end of Donald Trump's first term in office. So that there was a sense of, you know, is this really the right time? But he also thought that this is something that the criminal laws could deal with. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States dealt with that in a, in its immunity decision, which is a whole can of worms that we will not open. But I think it's a useful point to remember in thinking about how impeachment works and doesn't work or doesn't work.

[Justin Webb]

That's the point, isn't it? Sarah, should we leave it there?

[BBC News Announcer]

Yeah.

[Sarah Smith]

Fascinating, though, Andrew, thank you so much for coming in to talk to us about that. They brought up a lot of issues that really do need a lot of thought. I think so. So we're really, really pleased to hear from you about that.

[Justin Webb]

Yeah. And actually on that impeachment point, because there's a point that's going to come up again and again if the Democrats do do well in the midterms and there's pressure from their own base to go for another impeachment. And what we're hearing very clearly from Andrew, and you hear it from others, too, don't you, is that impeachment is, it's a blunt instrument and it doesn't properly work and it's too politicized, et cetera. But anyway, Andrew, real pleasure to talk to you. Thanks a lot for coming in.

[Andrew Weissman]

Thank you.

[Sarah Smith]

Okay, Justin, we can't leave without this. Just before we go.

[Andrew Weissman]

I pledge allegiance to the United States of Americast.

[Sarah Smith]

Now, great thing that we do love, but not as much as we love all the messages that have been coming in from you as we build our own United States of AmericasT, the map of all of our listeners that we want to cover all 50 states and remember to take part in this. You don't have to live in one of those states. Maybe you visited, you might have family there, any kind of niche connection that you have to one of the 50 states. We love them and do please keep sending them in. Here's this week's entry.

[Tom (Listener)]

Hey, AmericasT team, my name's Tom and I'm a pretty new listener from the state of Delaware. I work in tech, so a lot of my jobs have been remote and I quickly realized that I'm usually going to be the only person from Delaware at these companies. But those companies all know where Delaware is because they're all incorporated here. Delaware is a pretty business friendly state, which is probably something your listeners may already know about Delaware. But something they may not know is we make spacesuits. The suits astronauts wore on the moon in the 60s and 70s were made here and we're still making suits today that astronauts use for spacewalks on the International Space Station. As a sci fi and a space geek, I was surprised to learn that maybe you and your listeners will be too.

[Justin Webb]

Well, I certainly was. Didn't know that about the spacesuits at all. I certainly did know that about the companies because in a way that's why Delaware's famous, isn't it? Because any company anywhere says incorporated in Delaware and there are various tax advantages that they have, et cetera. The reason I know Delaware as well, though, Sarah, I don't know about you, is Rehoboth beach. This wonderful, wonderful. That's a rather old fashioned beach resort with amusement arcades and things that we used to take the kids to and it's a relatively easy drive from Washington

[Sarah Smith]

D.C. yeah, and it's a good fun beach. It's been reinvented actually as a gay destination with quite exotic nightlife these days as well. So you can get up to all sorts of things in Rehoboth these days. But now that we know where to get a spacesuit, I mean that's. It's so interesting, isn't it? Things you would never ever think about. I have never lain awake at night wondering where spacesuits are manufactured, but I'm fascinated to have learned it.

[Justin Webb]

There are loads of attractions in Rehoboth, including plenty that we didn't know about. And thanks hugely to Tom for getting in touch. And if you have a similar story to tell, or indeed a different story to tell, a completely different story to tell about any other state, do get in touch. It's very easy to do. Americastbc.co.uk or the WhatsApp [phone] be part of the United States of AmericasT.

[Sarah Smith]

Bye Bye Bye.

[TikTok Ad Voice]

Wallet. Feeling extra light after the holidays? Yeah, same. But recovery starts right now with TikTok slash and free. Here's how it works. Pick the products you want in TikTok shop, share the link and watch the price drop all the way to zero. No tricks, no catch, just free stuff with free shipping. Download TikTok search free and start slashing today.

[Andrew Weissman]

Yes you can. A five minute quick and easy calorie burning workout. Give it a try.

[Justin Webb]

Come join our sweat sesh on TikTok. Want to keep up with everything trendy? From breaking news to shareable jokes, pop culture bites to viral food spots, it's all on TikTok. Download TikTok now to explore.

[Bus Driver Safety PSA Voice]

I drive my bus in a busy city. That's why road safety is so important to me. I know that I must slow down and be extra careful when I make a wide turn. Buses need more room than cars. Everyone can help keep our roads safe. Next time you're driving, remember to give buses plenty of time and space to finish turning before driving ahead. Let's all plan to share the road safely. Learn how to at www.sharetheroadsafely.gov Is there

[Carvana Ad Voice]

a backlash to AI brewing? I'm Asma Khalid. I host the Global Story podcast from the BBC. We've all been told that artificial intelligence was our great societal hope. But this week the Pope issued his first big manifesto, and in it he called to disarm AI. This comes after American college students booed commencement speakers who touted artificial intelligence. What do these signs of resistance mean? Listen to the global story on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.