MS NOW EXCLUSIVE: Jack Smith breaks silence on Trump I FULL INTERVIEW

[0:03] I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against [0:09] President Trump. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President [0:16] Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based [0:22] on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a [0:29] Republican. No one, no one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that [0:37] he be held to account. So that is what I did. Hi again, everybody. It's now five o'clock here in [0:43] Washington, D.C. This show, Deadline White House, debuted the day that Donald Trump fired Jim Comey. [0:50] He fired him for refusing to look the other way in the Mike Flynn case, among other actions that [0:55] Donald Trump viewed as annoying and disloyal. Since that first broadcast, we have endeavored to [1:00] chronicle Donald Trump's vicious war against the rule of law in our country, and no one understands [1:09] what he's going to look like better than that man, former special counsel Jack Smith. [1:14] So much of what we know about Donald Trump's efforts to undo his defeat in the 2020 presidential [1:19] election against Joe Biden and his mishandling of some of the country's most sensitive national [1:25] security secrets is because of the tireless work of Jack Smith and his team. More than anyone else in [1:32] the country, he represented a threat to Donald Trump because he followed the facts, and they led him deep [1:37] inside Donald Trump's government and political coalition. The facts revealed crimes, and those [1:44] crimes were serious enough to represent a very real risk of conviction at trial for Donald Trump. [1:51] That's the standard to indict somebody. And because of that fact, Donald Trump has called Jack [1:57] Smith horrible things, a, quote, thug, a scoundrel, a criminal, and a sick man. And we could actually [2:04] go on and on, but we don't want to waste our time that way. Trump has threatened to prosecute him, [2:08] and Jack Smith has made clear that he was just doing his job. He would do it all over again if [2:14] given the chance. In his letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland delivering his final report, [2:19] he writes this, quote, [2:20] The claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the [2:26] Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable. While we were not able to [2:32] bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law [2:37] matters. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the [2:43] personal costs matters. The facts as we uncovered them in our investigation and as we set forth in [2:49] my report matter. That's where we start the hour. Joining us for his first interview, former special [2:55] counsel Jack Smith. Thank you so much for doing this. Thank you so much for having me. I asked you [2:59] this when you walked in, and I'll ask you, how weird is it to view it as part of your service, to tell [3:07] the story of the investigations you led? Yeah, well, you know, I was a career prosecutor. I worked in the [3:13] Justice Department and other prosecutors' offices for near on 30 years, and I don't know if your viewers [3:19] know this, but I work in Republican and Democratic administrations over and over. I was the acting U.S. [3:25] attorney in the first Trump administration in Nashville, Tennessee, and that administration [3:30] appointed me to a position running a war crimes tribunal for the State Department. So I have [3:36] investigated cases focusing on the facts and the law throughout my career. We did this case the same way [3:43] under the same standards. And, you know, the thing that's, I think, important for your viewers to know [3:48] is those standards are not meant to change from one administration to the next. And in my experience [3:53] until now, they haven't. And so, you know, I think we are facing an attack on the rule of law [4:00] that is different in kind and scope to anything I've seen in my lifetime. And one of the reasons I [4:07] wanted to be with you here today in advance of the Fourth of July, celebrating the birth of a country, [4:13] that we all love, is to celebrate the public servants who do this work, the people I spent [4:18] my career working shoulder to shoulder with. I loved being a prosecutor, and part of it was I [4:25] loved being around these sort of people. And it angers me to see them victimized, to see them [4:32] demonized for doing their jobs. I think it's really important that we stand up for them and let them know [4:39] that there are a lot of people out there who back them and who are with them. And that's not just the [4:45] people who've been targeted and fired for no reason for doing their jobs. It's also the people still in [4:50] the Justice Department today. There are a lot of good career prosecutors who right now are working under [4:57] incredibly difficult circumstances, and they're still trying to do the right thing. And these are not [5:03] self-promoters. These are not people who are going to go out and quarrel about their achievements. We [5:09] need to hold them up and celebrate them, because they're part of what makes this country great. [5:13] Some of the FBI agents that work for you have been savaged by Donald Trump and Kash Patel. At least [5:24] one agent talked about being fired while he was taking care of his very, very sick wife. What did [5:34] you expect to happen to these agents? And do you regret putting any of them in that position? [5:38] I feel terrible about what has happened to them. If there's one thing I've spent my time on [5:45] since leaving my work as special counsel, is doing what I can to help and support them. The individual [5:51] you're talking about, he was nursing his wife, who was dying of cancer, and they fired him shortly after [6:00] she died. I went to the funeral. That funeral was filled with heroes, public servants on both families. [6:07] And I just can't believe that if people knew the character of these people I worked with, [6:12] that they could ever stand for the demonizing that's happened to them. It's just beyond anything [6:17] I can understand. [6:18] And my sense from my limited exposure to people in DOJ and the FBI from my time in government is they [6:25] don't really want to go do other things. They want this to be their life's work, protecting the [6:30] country's national security. Will you talk a little bit about the price people have paid who have been [6:36] purged for political purposes? [6:37] Yeah, I mean, you know, a lot of the agents and prosecutors I've worked with, and to be clear, not just in the [6:43] special counsel's office, but throughout my career in a bunch of different positions I've had in the Justice [6:48] Department. This is the culmination of what they wanted to do. It's why they went to law school. And it's their way of [6:53] serving our country. And we've seen so many times in these retribution cases where prosecutors wouldn't be a [7:00] part of it. You know, prosecutors in Minnesota who are like, I'm not going to investigate the family member of a shooting [7:05] victim. I'm not doing that. Prosecutors who wouldn't go through with retribution prosecutions. And those people give up a lot. [7:15] This is their whole career. A lot of them, you know, this isn't a lucrative sort of profession for a lawyer in terms of what [7:20] you could do in private practice. They have to support their families. And one thing I have hope about is I think the [7:28] traditions in the department, the people that draw is so strong that we're going to have to rehabilitate the department for sure. [7:34] But there's a lot of people still there, still in place, wanting to do the right thing, wanting to follow [7:40] the facts in the law, not be a part of any retribution campaign. And I think for me, one of the things I see [7:48] as I go around and talk to folks, and I try to travel around the country a lot and see different people and [7:52] talk to different perspectives about this, is that those people, it really matters to them if they know [8:00] they're being supported. Part of this campaign is to make people feel like isolated and feel like they [8:06] don't have people backing them up. And so I just think it's really important. I want to express my [8:10] support. I think everybody else should express their support. It's not, it's something with meaning and [8:16] it's also something that matters. I mean, Chris Ray was the director of the FBI when the FBI agents that [8:21] you're talking about went to work for you. He said nothing. Why? You know, I can't really comment on [8:27] other people's choices. I would say... Would it help? Well, I think my perspective on this is that [8:32] in the moment we're in, which is a pretty dire moment, right, what we're facing, that we should [8:37] be uplifting the people who are doing the right thing. And, you know, I'll give you an example [8:41] from my life. I resign as special counsel. I know I need to get a lawyer because the president has said [8:48] he wants to jail me for doing my job. And so I retain lawyers Covington and Burling. As soon as that [8:55] becomes public, the president and the Justice Department target that law firm. And they do [9:00] it because they don't want me to have counsel. They don't want to have anyone represent me. [9:05] And what happened next was the very day that happened to Cole, the lawyers at the firm called [9:11] me up and said, Jack, don't worry about it. We're there for you. They did not blink for a second. [9:17] And as you know, that's very different than how some other law firms behaved. I think we should focus [9:23] on things like that and separating a firm like Covington and Burling from other ones that didn't show [9:28] courage to come forward. Well, right. The ones that fought also have batted a thousand in the courts. [9:33] I think Judge Beryl Howell described those executive orders as giving her chills, chilling her to the [9:37] bone. But some of the giant law firms that were so central in our politics in the first Trump term [9:43] didn't just capitulate to Trump. They're now working for Trump's Justice Department, firms like [9:48] Paul Weiss and others. What do you make of the damage they're doing to our democracy at a moment [9:52] you describe as dire? Yeah, well, I think one of the problems, I mean, there's several layers, [9:57] right? One of the problems right today, besides the retribution prosecutions, is that the Justice [10:04] Department can't do its job, right? If you go to court- Explain that. Well, if you go to court and [10:09] the judges don't trust you, you can't do the basic things that you need to do to represent the American [10:14] people in court. And we have seen judges across the country say they can't trust prosecutors anymore. [10:21] And that has such a cascading effect on any sort of case. And, you know, I can't count how many [10:28] opinions, but one opinion like that in my career would have been seismic. People could not, would not [10:35] know what to do if a court said, you know, trust that's been built over generations has been lost [10:40] in days, right? And that's happening every day. And so regardless of what you think politically, [10:45] they're just not effective at doing their job anymore. They've jettisoned expertise, right? [10:50] And so we have a situation where we've got rid of people who know how to protect our national [10:56] security. And we think that that's somehow not going to have an effect on our national security. [11:03] You know, an example I can give you, Brian Driscoll. I don't know if you know who he is. [11:07] He was the- He made a great video at the beginning to kind of rally the troops that seemed from the [11:13] outside. Yeah. I mean, he's a folk hero in the FBI. If you were casting for a hero, that's what they [11:19] look like, right? And just for your viewers, this is a guy, career agent, you know, mob investigator, [11:27] SWAT team, hostage rescue, served overseas, Medal of Value, or bravery medals, all these things, [11:33] and an expert in counterintelligence. They got rid of him because he stood up for agents who were [11:39] being targeted improperly. You can't tell me, you cannot tell me our country is as safe as it was [11:45] when people like that are being let go and fired for no reason. [11:51] Well, the purge seems to have multiple tentacles. It's for FBI agents and prosecutors who worked on [11:56] your two cases. It's also for people who aren't doing the personal political bidding of the [12:00] individuals there. I think Mr. Bove started that in the short time he was there. Kash Patel, [12:05] based on his account, seems to be carrying that out for deeply personal conduct. What does that mean [12:12] for the people who were there because it was their life's dream to do that work to protect [12:16] the country? What are they doing instead? Yeah, I mean, it's very tough because, you know, [12:21] the people we're talking about, these people I spent my career with that I've so enjoyed their [12:26] company and I have both respect and affection for, they're resilient people, right? And they're not [12:31] going to quit at this first sign of resistance. And so, as I say, as many as these examples that we've [12:36] seen where people have just said, I'm not going to be a part of that because of their integrity, [12:42] because of their character, there are a lot of people still in place. And I want to be clear, [12:46] these are not people who are like throwing sand in the gears. They're just doing their job as [12:50] they're supposed to do it, following the facts and the law. But is that because they haven't run [12:53] into any friction from the politicization and the weaponization cases? Yeah, I think that's right. [12:58] I mean, I think, you know, what I tell friends who are still in the department is serve as long as you [13:03] can. The Justice Department, our country needs the Justice Department to do its job. And you should [13:09] do it as long as you feel like you can. And obviously, if you're asked to do something that [13:13] you know is wrong, then your number's up and you can't do it. I would also add, Nicole, I think one [13:18] of the things that maybe isn't being talked about enough is the effect it is having on the Justice [13:24] Department in the future. You know, this last year, I've done a lot of speaking at law schools and [13:30] universities. And, you know, it used to be that getting a job in the U.S. Attorney's Office of [13:36] the Justice Department was, you know, one of the most sought after things you could possibly have. [13:41] And great people who want to serve their communities and serve their countries. That [13:45] was their dream. That was that was my dream as a as a as a young person. Those people, I can tell [13:50] you, are are not as interested and they're looking to do other things. And my concern is that that is, [13:57] you know, the Justice Department works. I learned from mentors who who came before me. And then I [14:03] tried to do the same and teach those that followed me. When you break that chain, it's a real problem. [14:08] And so I tell people when I go to these universities and into law schools, don't give up on it. Don't I [14:15] even if you don't like what's going on right now, there's a much longer path here. And we need you if [14:22] you want to serve for you. I guess resilience is going to have to learn more earlier in your career. [14:27] But I don't want people to to get away from service as a result of this, because I think that's a that's a [14:34] knock on effect. It'll be much harder to solve than some of the things that we're seeing in the headlines [14:38] every day. But I'm sure these people that listen to you speak admire you and your in your career and the [14:45] things you've been a part of. Do you think that this is a department that you could send someone to go work in [14:50] and they could be asked to indict you? Oh, I think that could happen. But I also think in the Justice Department, [14:56] even as we sit here right now, there are lots of people doing good work prosecuting violent crime, [15:02] protecting their communities, doing the everyday work of being a prosecutor. And yes, it could happen. [15:08] That could happen. And that would be unfortunate. And then you might have to step down. But I don't want [15:13] to see people run from public service because of that possibility. Do you expect to be indicted? [15:19] Listen, I Donald Trump has made a bunch of statements. He said he would indict you. Yes. [15:26] I'll tell you, Nicole, I honestly do not spend a lot of time thinking about the things he says about [15:31] me and his threats about me. I'm real focused on the people who I worked with looking out for them. [15:38] I'm real focused on how the Justice Department is going to be better going forward, things like that. [15:43] In my situation, I did my job the right way. I had an all star team. I mean, Nicole, [15:48] the agents on my case, if I were to walk you through all the awards they've won throughout, [15:55] you know, generations of administrations, we would be here all night. These are superstars. [15:59] And I'm much more concerned that those people [16:03] get to serve in the department, get to serve in the bureau again someday. [16:06] What do you say about the facts that you developed that you see? I know you don't watch a ton of news, [16:13] but you see enough to know that the basic principle of recidivism likely applies to the election case. [16:20] The things that you charged are a lot of the same kinds of stories we cover. What is the cost of [16:26] someone not being held accountable for their crimes? [16:28] Yeah. I mean, if you talk about the pardons of these people convicted for the violence on January 6th, [16:35] right? There's all sorts of costs. There's the obvious cost of just recidivism. These are people [16:41] who committed their crimes in the name and in the interest of Donald Trump, and he's returned the [16:45] favor, right, by pardoning them. That sends one message to them. A message I'm equally concerned about [16:53] is the message that it sends to law enforcement. Supporting law enforcement should not be a political [16:59] issue. It should not be a Republican, Democrat, red, blue thing. And when I see people like Harry, [17:05] Harry Dunn, who was here before, who put his life on the line to protect others and seeing him be [17:11] smeared and vilified, I don't understand that. That is, and I think more people who understand the [17:17] actual facts of that, I don't think most people are okay with that. It's deeply wrong. And I have a [17:23] concern because we've seen that sort of thing and the incentives it's set up. [17:28] What do you make of the fact, do you support this theory that the pardons were step one, [17:34] the slush fund is step two, and sending a message to the violent insurrectionists that not only would [17:39] they not be criminally accountable for their crimes, but they'd be paid for their service? [17:44] Yeah. Listen, I have no unique insight on that. I see the same things you see. [17:50] Regardless of whether it sets an incentive system that you're suggesting, it's just plain wrong, [17:58] right? I mean, our country is built on values. That's what binds us all together. And my view has [18:06] always been that those values don't have anything to do with political parties. When I'm a prosecutor [18:11] and I have to get credibility, build credibility with a judge or a witness or the jury, right? It's not [18:17] about politics. It's about truthfulness, integrity, being decent to each other, exhibiting kindness, [18:24] judgment. I think those are the things that bind us together. And those are the sort of things we [18:30] should lean into. Like, I feel like, personally, as divided as we are, if we lean into issues of [18:37] integrity more, that that's the best hope to get people more back together than we are now. [18:43] Do you think we still have a common definition of integrity? I think we do. But I also, [18:49] for me personally, if I'm going to have that discussion, like I said, I travel around and I [18:54] go to places where people don't expect me to be. I do events, athletic events where I travel, [19:00] and I'll be in rural areas or different parts of our country. And people will come up and talk. [19:04] During sporting events, right? Yeah, I ride bikes, things like that. But I go out in these places, [19:09] and I talk to different people. People come up to me, and it's interesting because they don't expect me [19:13] to be there. And I have to say, the vast majority of people are really appreciative of my service [19:20] and the service of our team. But even when they're not, if you engage in a discussion with people, [19:25] and you're open to hearing them and not just kind of telling them what you think, [19:30] I actually do think that people agree that integrity is a good thing. [19:34] Do they believe that the crimes that... Do they believe the facts? I mean, [19:38] do they ask you about the cases you brought, and do they believe you? [19:41] Well, it depends on who you're talking about, but often the people who are more skeptical [19:45] know less about the facts. And I think one of the things that's hard for me in this process is, [19:52] you know, I'm a facts guy. Facts matter. I'm really big on that. And, you know, when you go in a courtroom, [19:59] that's all that matters, right? Right. [20:01] And so, and you know that you're going to get your turn to present the facts, [20:05] and then they can present theirs, and there's a process. [20:08] How we communicate with each other right now, it's very hard to do that. It's very foreign to [20:12] someone like me, who was raised as a prosecutor. Do you talk in the courtroom, not on the courtroom [20:17] steps? And I think that's harder because a lot of the people, I think, who have resistance to what we [20:24] do. They're just not versed in the facts. And, you know, not everybody wants to read 100-whatever-page [20:29] report. I get it. But I think, you know, this goes to the DOJ going forward. My view is that going [20:37] forward, I think we can't get away from the issues of integrity and doing things the right way and [20:42] facts and law. But I also think people like me, who kind of were raised on that and know that, [20:48] we got to start listening more to people who know how to communicate and choose to communicate more [20:53] in innovative ways. Because a lot of the people that I bump into and talk to, no one's tried to [20:59] communicate with them. No one's tried to give them the facts in a way that's actually easy for them to [21:03] digest. And so, you know, very foreign to a courtroom guy like me. But I think it's a step that we got to [21:09] be talking about. I mean, this was the challenge of the Mueller findings, right? You know, here it was, [21:15] it kind of landed like a phone book, and that was just volume one. And no one explained it, [21:20] and no one defended it. And Trump and his supporters were able to misrepresent it in a [21:25] single news cycle. Was that on your mind as you did your work in these two cases? [21:30] Honestly, no. My job was to do my job the right way. And when it came time to write a report, [21:36] to write a report that summarized accurately what I did. I didn't really think about stuff like that. [21:42] And, you know, I understand your point about Robert Mueller, but I think Robert Mueller's [21:46] an American hero. I mean, how he conducted his life serving our country in the military, [21:51] service throughout as the FBI, as a prosecutor. I mean, the story I like about Robert Mueller is [21:58] this is a guy who did everything you could do as a lawyer. He's a partner at a big law firm, [22:02] making a million bucks or more. And he wants to go back and be a line prosecutor. [22:07] In San Francisco, right? [22:09] I know. He was in D.C. to be a homicide prosecutor. I mean, it's such a badass thing to do. I mean, [22:16] in my world, that's really a cool thing. And so, you know, maybe, as you say, like how that rolled [22:23] out, he was working from a different era. And that's why I say we got to get better at that. [22:28] But I don't want to lose the core of functioning with integrity and doing what's good for the country [22:34] rather than what's good for you. Do you agree that we are covering in real time an assault on our [22:38] elections the upcoming months? I'm very concerned of what's going to happen in the next election. [22:42] Absolutely. Do you see, again, in things that are covered and things that are public facing, [22:49] conduct ahead of the midterms that you investigated in the January 6th case? [22:54] Well, I've been thinking about it more in terms of what needs to be done based on what we saw happen [23:00] last time. And, you know, it's a different situation now based on, you know, the people [23:05] who perpetrated January 6th. They probably learned from how they did that. My personal view is I think [23:11] the state attorney generals have a tremendous role to play here. They can make sure the rule of law [23:17] functions in their state. And I would also say that I think a thing that all of us can do is support [23:24] election workers and election officials. The last time around, we saw that those people stood [23:30] a good firm. And they were, in many cases, the difference. It's clear to me, anyways, that what [23:36] I've seen publicly that those people are going to be put under great pressure. And my experience, [23:42] not only just the special counsel, but, you know, I was the chief of the public integrity section at [23:46] the Department of Justice for five years, had a number of cases with election officials. These are [23:52] people also, they're not tooting their own horn. They're not self promoters. They just care about our [23:57] democracy. We need to show them that we have their back. I think those two things are central [24:05] to getting ready for the elections that are coming up. What is your advice to state attorneys general? [24:11] I would be ready to litigate everything. I would brainstorm. And I think they are. I get that sense. [24:17] Every possible permutation. And don't let reason be a limitation. Imagine everything that could [24:25] possibly be tried. That Trump will do. Yeah. And I also think it's important for them to be proactive [24:32] and, you know, initiate litigation where it's appropriate and where it would make sense to you [24:36] if you have a sense or reason to believe that something's going to be done to interfere with [24:41] people's right to vote and participate in democracy. The strength of the evidence that you and your [24:47] investigators developed is, at least as detailed in the report that was released, seems to be that [24:55] you were able to develop, and I'll say this as a non-lawyer, sort of the 360 evidence, that you [25:01] understood the state of mind. You had evidence that Trump knew he was lying. There were all sorts of [25:05] interactions where he said to people, well, that national security issue will be dealt with by Joe [25:10] Biden because I lost. He said to another aide, quote, I can't believe I lost to that guy. So you were able to [25:16] establish, and I think the Congressional Committee established some of this as well, people that he [25:20] acknowledged losing to. How much of the ability to hold people accountable is based on being able to [25:30] see inside meetings and have witnesses that cooperate? And I guess I'm getting back to the [25:35] pardon conversation we just had. I mean, how much do you think Trump has learned in terms of how to evade [25:40] an indictment like the one you brought? Yeah. I think the one thing to start on this sort of topic [25:46] is we did this case the way I've done cases throughout my career, same investigative techniques, [25:52] same use of the tools that a federal prosecutor has, and our proof was the same sort of proof you [25:57] have in all sorts of cases, not just political corruption cases, but all sorts of cases I've [26:02] done in my career. You prove what happened, you prove the intent of the person, and you also are [26:10] thoughtful about what's the defense going to be, and can we disprove that? Because if you can't, [26:13] then you can't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. And we did that. We did that in this case. [26:19] It wasn't unique in terms of how we did it. It was the same sort of processes you'd use in any case. [26:24] And around speech, one of the things that the right used to say before Trump came back into [26:32] office was to champion First Amendment protected speech. One of the things that I understood better [26:37] when I read this again to prepare to talk to you was that speech in furtherance of crimes is not [26:44] protected. I mean, how much do you think people should just be monitoring and tracking the things [26:49] people are saying out loud in terms of stealing the midterms? Yeah. I mean, and that's maybe a good [26:54] point for your viewers is there is rock solid Supreme Court precedent that you cannot just use speech [27:00] to commit a crime, fraud particularly. There's a specific case on it. And so obviously people have [27:06] a First Amendment right. And I think we made clear in our indictment that we respect First Amendment [27:11] rights. It's certainly important to me that we not charge a case that would, in essence, [27:15] be violating someone's rights. But that doesn't mean that you can't commit crimes through words. [27:21] Happens all the time. When a Ponzi scheme person is bilking someone out of their life savings, [27:27] they're doing it with words. That's how that's done. All sorts of financial crimes, [27:31] all sorts of corruption crimes. A bribe is usually communicated in words. That happens all the time. [27:38] And in a lot of ways, this case was no different. I was also reminded that after the Supreme Court [27:44] grants Donald Trump immunity, you file a superseding indictment. You're still ready [27:50] to bring the case to trial, right? Yeah, correct. Explain how you had to adjust and what that adjustment [27:56] was. Sure. And we set this forth in our report. We did what good prosecutors do and what you're [28:03] supposed to do. We received a decision from the court. It wasn't the decision we wanted. We didn't [28:07] agree with the reasoning of it. But in a society where you believe in the rule of law, you follow [28:12] the court's decisions. And so we analyzed the decision and we looked at what sort of evidence [28:18] we could no longer use and what sort of evidence we could use. And we set this forth in filings because, [28:24] in this particular case, a lot of the evidence was him in his role as a candidate. [28:30] We felt we could go forward. And we briefed this issue for the court. And obviously, [28:34] we never got to a conclusion where we could litigate the ultimate conclusion of that. [28:39] But we would not have gone forward with the case unless I still felt we could prove it beyond a [28:44] reasonable doubt, just like we wouldn't have gone forward with the case in the first place if we [28:49] couldn't. And I guess one point I would want to emphasize there is, I think, a difference [28:54] between the work we did and what you're seeing today is, in our work, there was no predetermined [28:59] outcome. When I took this job, I was perfectly happy to bring this case if the facts and law warranted [29:05] it or not. And I've done that throughout my career. And it hasn't mattered what person's political party [29:11] was to do that. That's how we went about our work. Completely apolitical. Politics did not play a [29:17] role. Were you kind of hoping that the criminality wasn't as brazen as what you developed and uncovered? [29:23] I don't think good prosecutors hope you follow the facts in the law. And one of the good principles [29:30] that real prosecutors always follow is the facts matter. And you don't not go down an avenue because, [29:36] ooh, maybe some facts will come out that will hurt my case. You go and look at all the facts you [29:41] possibly can, as searching as you possibly can, because you want to get it right. That contrasts [29:48] what we're seeing today, where there is a predetermined outcome, process doesn't matter, [29:53] and we just have to find a way to get to that outcome. And if there's facts that don't fit that [29:57] outcome, we don't recognize them. And if there's facts that make it not a crime, we just pretend those [30:05] don't exist. I mean, a judge basically said that in the Kilmer Arrigo Garcia case, said that he found [30:11] that this was an instance where basically criminality was being reverse engineered all the way up to Todd [30:17] Blanche. If a judge has found that, what do you think they're capable of with two more years? [30:23] Well, as I said earlier, I, from my perspective, I've seen a number of cases, James Comey, Letitia [30:31] James, Jerome Powell. I mean, right? There's not criminality here. I mean, seashells. I mean, [30:39] so the only reasonable explanation is the president has it out for these people. And he has people who [30:48] former personal lawyers who are going to do what he says, regardless of the facts of law. I mean, [30:53] again, just to juxtapose it, I didn't have people on my team resigning because they refused to go [31:00] along with a scheme to go after somebody. That was not what happened. You see that in all these cases. [31:06] And just, again, imagine, if you would, like, I was appointed from outside the government, [31:12] no political allegiance to anybody. And they were comfortable with, Jack, wherever you think the [31:19] facts and law dictate, that's what we'll do. And that's what will happen. Can you imagine that [31:24] happening now, if there was an allegation of corruption in this administration, them saying, [31:29] let's appoint an outside independent person to make a call on this? I think we know it would never happen. [31:34] And I think that's a real easy way to differentiate following process, following the facts, having [31:40] independence. If you were, if you took the name of our country off it and you were just examining [31:46] the state of the rule of law in America, is it dead? I don't think so at all. And for the reasons I [31:51] said earlier, there are legions of career prosecutors, people just like me, you just don't know their name, [32:00] who are, want to do the right thing. They're in the Justice Department. They want to serve. [32:07] We have a lot of challenges in front of us. And the rehabilitation of the department is not going [32:10] to be any mean feat. You know, recovering character is a lot harder than gaining it in the first place. [32:17] But I think we're totally capable of doing that. I'm completely optimistic. [32:21] We've talked about the dedicated public servants in the department and the FBI that worked on your cases. [32:28] One of them you can't talk about. And that's all of these. And these are some of the ones that Trump [32:33] has raged against most ferociously. And that is the prosecutors and agents involved in the documents [32:39] case. Just explain why you can't talk about that. Yeah, there's an order from the judge in Florida, [32:44] Judge Cannon, that that report is under seal. And I don't want to do anything that could be [32:50] misconstrued as me not following court order. I'm a lawyer who follows court orders. And so I just don't [32:57] want to do anything that would be remotely construed as not complying with her order. [33:01] Let me just ask the things that you've said publicly about standing by the facts that you [33:05] developed and standing by what you've put in your reports. You stand by volume two? [33:09] Absolutely. And the men and women who worked on those cases [33:13] have been targeted with some of the most vicious retribution and political attacks. [33:18] Are they political actors? Absolutely not. [33:20] For the ones that are, I mean, have any of them survived the purge at the bureau and the [33:27] Department of Justice? I don't think that's really for me to say. I think I'm focused on the people [33:34] I can help. And that's what I've been trying to do. All right. We don't want to jeopardize any of [33:38] those individuals. And we don't want to put you in a bad spot with Judge Aileen Cannon. You think [33:42] there's any chance she ends up on the Supreme Court? I have no views on that whatsoever. [33:46] Well, we'll all watch that with bated breath. I want to share some reporting from my friend [33:53] Glenn Thrush at the New York Times, who's covered some of the folks that you've talked about, [33:58] and sort of come back to what's on the other side. [34:02] Kash Patel summarily fired Chris Meyer and another top agent in the Washington, D.C. field office, [34:07] who had been targeted by the right, Walter Giordina. Mr. Patel did so after being told that the [34:13] terminations were unlawful and that pushing out Mr. Giordina, who was caring for his dying wife, [34:18] something you talked about, would be inexcusably cruel, according to a lawsuit filed by three FBI [34:23] supervisors, also dismissed by Kash Patel. Quote, we were always told that we would be taken care of [34:28] and there would not be any retaliation for our assigned work. Mr. Giordina, 48, told his supervisors [34:33] the day he was fired, the circle of trust had been broken. I want to ask you about this concept of a [34:39] circle of trust because, as we talked about with the pardons and the slush fund, Trump seems to be [34:45] erecting, again, what is public facing, a circle of trust with people who committed crimes for which [34:50] they were convicted by juries of their peers, not just pardoning them but giving them money. [34:56] That circle of trust doesn't do anything for the public, for the public safety, for U.S. national [35:00] security. How do you begin to put back together a circle of trust between public servants who [35:05] protected the country from threats? Yeah, I think, for me, the biggest thing we can do, [35:11] and it's challenging, is to get the facts out in ways that people can digest them. I think, [35:17] if you have a question of, is a rioter who assaulted a police officer on January 6th a patriot, [35:25] or is Harry Dunn a patriot, we win that argument every time if people have the facts. [35:31] And I think it's hard and, you know, as a prosecutor who worked in a courtroom and didn't really, [35:36] work in the media and didn't, you know, want to give a speech on the courthouse steps, [35:41] I think we've now learned that you've got to be able to get people to understand the facts. We've got [35:47] a great product in the work that we did as a special counsel, the work the Justice Department [35:53] does every day. But the people who do it, who are really the reason you can trust it, [35:59] they don't promote themselves. And so we need to get their stories out there. I think if that happens, [36:03] the sort of trust in government, which is pretty hard to earn, you can do that. That's my experience [36:11] as a trial lawyer. It's my experience in life when I interact with people in the world. And part of the [36:16] reason I frankly wanted to talk to you today is to talk about these people, because they're good [36:20] people. And if you sat down with them for a coffee or a beer or a meal, you would like them, [36:25] and you would trust them, and you would see the things that are being said about them are lies. [36:29] And in my experience, which is dated, none of them are particularly political. [36:35] I don't know the politics of any of these people. That's not something we talk about [36:39] in the Justice Department. [36:39] What does it do to the ability to imagine something on the other side that isn't [36:47] a reaction to what's happening now? I mean, everyone from all the reporting that we have access to [36:54] is only doing the kind of work you're talking about if they avoid being asked to do something [36:58] that violates their oath or is unethical or is part of the retribution cases or is predicated on [37:06] Trump's conspiracies, as we covered at the top of the hour, a massive deployment of intelligence agents [37:12] to go look at data in Georgia based on a lie. What happens on the other side to people that were [37:20] involved in that misdirection of resources? [37:22] Well, you know, one thing I don't like is this idea that everybody who did things we don't like, [37:28] they're guilty of crimes too, and we're going to prosecute them. [37:31] It should be the facts and the law, and you should look at not, let's find this person [37:37] and let's find if they... let's target them and see if we can find a crime. That's what's happening now. [37:42] I think it's really important that whoever leads the Justice Department after this rejects that [37:48] sort of thinking. That doesn't mean that people who have committed crime should get a free pass, [37:53] and it's going to be difficult. I actually think the investigation of these things isn't hard. [37:57] What's hard is getting people to understand it's been done in an objective way, explaining in a way [38:04] that people can digest that things are done following the facts and law and don't involve [38:09] politics. That's a challenge. Doing the actual work, there's lots of people out there who've spent [38:15] their careers like I have, who are capable of doing that work. Not just cases in the political realm, [38:21] but particularly cases also affecting our national security. I spend a lot of time worrying about [38:27] that when I see some of the people who've been fired. When you feel optimistic about our ability [38:34] to come through and about the caliber of the people who are inside the department, what do you think and [38:40] do you feel as optimistic about a country that would reelect someone for whom the facts showed he'd [38:47] committed multiple felonies? My view, Nicole, is our country's been a lot of things at a lot of [38:54] different times. And what generally happens is when something really bad happens, Watergate, for example, [39:01] we respond and we get better as a result. I'm not saying the Justice Department has been perfect every [39:06] day, but the people I worked with, I saw people trying to move things in the right direction. [39:12] And I think it would be foolish to say we're not facing challenges right now, [39:17] but when you face a challenge like we are today, you have a choice about the attitude you take towards [39:23] it. Anyone can put anything on you, but you have a choice about the attitude you take. [39:28] For me, and I think a lot of the people that I've worked with, our view is I want to behave now [39:34] in a way that my kids will be proud. I want to act in a way that when I'm retired, I look back on this [39:39] time and say, I did things right. I think a lot of people relate to that. And I think it's understandable. [39:45] And I think if we start aligning actions with our beliefs, it's a huge, huge step. I think one of the [39:53] things I've seen, which is the sort of journey I've been on, is, you know, with me being targeted by [40:01] the president, you get to find out who's who, right? You get to find out who runs towards the [40:07] fire, who kind of backs away. It's difficult in the moment, but I think for the future, [40:13] that's going to be really helpful to know. Are you afraid to be speaking out? [40:17] No, not at all. I'm not. I am not going to be intimidated. And there's no way in the world, [40:22] if the thought was to go after me so that I wouldn't speak up about the corruption that's [40:28] happening or speak up to defend these agents and prosecutors, that is a grave miscalculation. [40:33] There is no way I'm going to be intimidated. Would it help the Bureau and the Department of Justice [40:39] if more of the leaders above the chain of command above you spoke out with the same messages, [40:44] Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco? I'm not going to forecast what other people can do or tell other [40:51] people how they should handle a particular situation. Everyone's got to make their own [40:54] particular choice. My strong view is rather than sort of critiquing people who haven't done what [41:02] we might like them to do and good, high-integrity people who serve the public, spend their careers [41:08] in public service. Let's focus on when we see somebody doing a good thing, we raise them up. [41:14] I think that's a more productive way to face the challenge we're facing right now. [41:18] I want to ask you about some of your earlier work at DOJ. You worked in public integrity, [41:22] which somewhere someone has all of their office supplies, right? And this week, [41:27] we reported that Donald Trump raked in $2 billion since returning to the White House. It's such a [41:32] perversion of everything that's come before it. What do you make or what do you think when you think [41:38] about the gutting of all of the prosecutors that used to investigate and prosecute those crimes? [41:43] Yeah, I'm saddened by it, because when I was at public integrity, when I was the chief of the [41:48] section, and this was a section that was created in the wake of Watergate as one of the reforms after [41:53] Watergate to deal with corruption in the government, we did good work. We did important work. We did [41:58] nonpartisan work. And seeing that section gutted saddens me. But I have to say, at the same time, [42:06] that started because the attorneys in that section stood up. When the Adams case in New York, [42:14] that they forced the dismissal of a completely legitimate case that the prosecutors in the [42:20] Southern District of New York brought, and they tried to force public integrity to sort of lend [42:24] their credibility to the dismissal. That's what I'm talking about, about people of integrity. [42:28] You know, the Southern District prosecutors, I don't know that. [42:30] But they left. I mean, they're not in the department anymore. [42:32] Right. But my point is, there's people like that throughout the department, [42:35] and there's people who are going to continue to stand up. I have a huge allegiance to them, [42:41] and I have a huge affection for them. And I know they're out there. And I just want to make sure [42:45] they all hear us, because this is going to go on for a while. The path to victory here is not a short [42:51] one. And I think the people in place who are doing their jobs, the people who stood up, we should [42:57] celebrate them, just like we're celebrating the Fourth of July. These are the people who make this country [43:01] great, in my view. Is this the beginning of speaking out on their behalf more regularly, [43:06] more frequently? Will you come back? You know, this is new for me, Nicole. [43:12] We'll see. You know, I'm trying, you know, as a prosecutor for 30 years, and I'm in a different [43:18] world now. I started a law firm, as I think you know, with our friend Tim Hafe. And I want to do [43:25] whatever I can to be helpful right now. And I want to figure out what that is. I don't have an interest in [43:32] being on TV to talk just so I can be on TV to talk. If there's a way that I feel like I can be [43:37] helpful, I'm going to do it. And that's going to guide me. We really appreciate you deciding to [43:43] talk to us here today. We've covered you for a long time. We admire what looks like sort of [43:48] standing strong in the face of withering attacks from the most powerful person in the country in [43:52] our politics. And it's really a treat to get to talk to you. Thank you. Well, I really appreciate [43:56] you having me. Thanks so much. Thank you for being here. If we ever get anything wrong, [43:59] though, you know, send up a flare. Let us know. Sounds good. Thank you so much for being here.