Transcription
[Music] Welcome to How to Fix It. I'm John Avalon, author, journalist, historian, and the purpose of this podcast is finding solutions to the problems we face. Not just endlessly fixating on the problems, but the problems are piling high at the Justice Department. This week, in recent days, with the indictment of a former director of the FBI, longtime US attorney James Comey, which seems like a new low in the politicization of justice and the persecution of Donald Trump's enemies.
Joining me to talk about it is my buddy Ellie Honig of CNN fame, also author of the new book *When You Come at the King*. He has chronicled the political uh there. Oh, look at you with the product placement there. Very nice. They won't let me leave without it. Yeah. Always be selling, as they say. Uh Ellie, uh just when you thought things couldn't get worse, there's the the seller has a basement, doesn't it? You know, it first of all, great to see you, John. Great to chat with you. And you're the perfect guy for this issue in this moment. Um in the book, you know what I do is I go back through and I have a chapter and I talk to people firsthand people, three dozen people, prosecutors, defense lawyers, but Watergate all the way up through Jack Smith's case. And if you look back to the chapter, the third to last chapter, which is about the Mueller case and talking about like it's it's remarkable to look at how different Trump 2.0 is from Trump 1.0. Starting with the fact there will be no Mueller, there will be no inward-looking anything in this investigation. And also, if you you remember my first book was about Bill Bar, negative piece about Bill Bar called *Hatchet Man*. And one of Bill Bar's few redeeming qualities is when Trump would take to social media and say, "I want to see my enemies indicted. I want to see Barack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe, you name it." Bar just ignored him. He just like the way you would ignore a toddler having a tantrum and it would pass. Now they're doing it. Now it's real. And and that's a big difference. That is a big difference.
You know, I Ellie, there's a a quote from Hannah Arent that I've been thinking a lot about generally, but espe this situation specifically when uh they effectively forced out a sitting US attorney who wouldn't apparently do the dirty work and uh Pam Bondi and and co- replace her with someone who seems all too willing to persecute the enemies. Here's what they the quote Hener said. Totalitarianism and I wanted to say she's speaking about totalitarianism, but the idea still applies. Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first rate talents regardless of their sympathies with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty. We are seeing that personnel is everything. Um again look look back at the first Trump administration. And you had Bill Barr, who I was very critical of and stand by all that, but he had a line that he wouldn't cross and eventually, you know, ended up leaving Trump in bad graces because of that. You had Mattis and Kelly and Millie a and some gatekeepers and now there is no place for them. Look at what happened in this case. The the US attorney um who was an experienced conservative guy who was there because of Trump refused to do it, refused to bring this case and so Trump got rid of him and brought in this Lindseay Halligan who has no prosecutorial experience. and the first thing she does is okay this case essentially. So yeah, I think there's something to that. I think Trump understands that the number one thing you need to do what you want to install your agenda is to have the people who will do whatever you want in place and and this is why in some ways the original sin is the Senate confirmation of people like Cash Patel of people like Pete Heget. Um and and it relates to DOJ. You're dealing with a specific culture that's been uprooted from from that perspective, right? The firing of an existing USA replacement with a lackey who'll do whatever you say. How dangerous is this indictment and how flimsy is this indictment?
Well, let's start with the flimsy side. I mean, the thing is like the indictment itself is is threadbear. There's nothing. It's hard to even know what the allegation is. All you know is they say Comey said Comey testified he never authorized a leak and that was a lie. You you can't tell anything more than that. And an indictment doesn't have to lay out the whole case, but it has to at least give the defendant a reasonable opportunity to know what he's charged with to defend himself. Now, the prosecutors will have to disclose more information about their charges pretty quickly, but at the moment, we don't even know exactly which leak they're talking about, which authorized leaker, could be Andy McCabe, could be Daniel Richmond. There's other there there's various candidates and that will impact what we perceive as the strength of the case. Bigger picture though, what we're seeing is the complete just just evisceration of this wall that has long existed between the White House and the political operation of the executive branch and the Justice Department's prosecutorial function. Now, I don't suggest that DOJ can or should just operate on its own island. They are part of the executive branch. They do have politically accountable leaders, the AG, the US attorneys. But when politicians, when the president gets involved in dictating who gets charged and who doesn't, prosecutorial decisions, then we have crossed a line. And that's something that both parties for for decades, I talk about this in the book. Um, presidents don't always love it. Presidents would like to have more control over prosecutors, but even going back to Nixon, they've always understood that there has to be some independent prosecutorial function. Um, but that's changing now very quickly.
But and and I think the word the verb changing maybe too or you know it may be too a little passive there, right? I mean Elliot Richardson quits. Yeah. When when Nixon tells him to do his dirty work. Um, now you have prosecutors being fired and replaced with lackeyis who make Robert Bourke look like, you know, a giant of jurist juristprudence, right? I'm glad you raised that example because I want to talk about that for a second. Um, yes. Elliot Richardson quits, William Ruckles house quits rather than firing Archable Cox, right? This is the Saturday night massacre. I talked to two of the prosecutors who were on the team. But I actually argue in the book that Robert Bourke is misremembered because Bourke is typically remembered the way you said, John, is the the bad guy, the willing executioner who came in and fired Cox. But if you dig in, both Richardson and Ruckles House years later said, "We begged him to do that. We told him, you don't quit because we need someone to stop the bleeding. We need a tourniquet here." And now they screwed him because they kind of led him down this primrose path. He was bitter because it was used against him when he was up for the Supreme Court in ' 87. Well, by the way, obviously, I mean, the fact that Reagan appointed him when he was the henchman in the Saturday Night Mass, whatever institutional defense you want to do, he did the thing that they quit before he did. And then to me, it's always been like, how did Reagan nominate? I mean, whatever genius of conservative juristp prudence, it's leading with your chin, not to make a joke about his chinsling. That's a question. That's a question for Reagan. But you know both guys who quit supported him later and also he because he came in he came in he dispatches Archable Cox but then he stands up to Nixon and he says you have to appoint a new independent prosecutor and that's a big part of the reason why a couple weeks later we get Leon Jorski which leads to the the making of the case. Leon Jorski good that and that that is a that is really important context. Your book is about the special prosecutor. Um but to your point we are um you know that that looks like a quaint instrument of restraint. Yeah. Right. I mean what we're viewing now I mean we could talk about whatever is happening to John Bolton but now we are seeing that the the uh the promises to persecute Donald Trump's enemies which he he said was going to stop quote unquote he felt persecuted not prosecuted. I'd take issue with that all day long. But now this is just a revenge bender that's going to leave destruction in its wake to our constitution and to the justice department. So I don't want to sound alarmist here, but I don't want to be polyianish either. How bad is what's being broken?
Oh, this is one of the core tenets of our government. I mean, you have to have an independent justice department. Now, I don't again, I don't argue that DOJ should be able to do whatever it wants and that everyone at DOJ is automatically, you know, a white knight who who who only knows virtue. Um, it is a political creation. It is a part of our executive branch. There needs to be political accountability. But you know what's interesting? There's no law per se saying DOJ must be separate and independent from the White House, from the president. I mean, if you went to court and said, "I want to sue because I think DOJ is no longer independent," you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. This is more along the lines of a longestablished um foundational norm and tradition that both parties have long observed and respected and and part of the book is about ways that that has been chipped away over the years. But whether it's Nixon or Clinton and they're not all equal, but Nixon or Clinton or Trump won or Biden, they've all chipped away at that wall in various ways, but now here comes Trump 2.0 and it's over. He just dynamites it. Um so, but this is one of those things that's like not really enforceable. I mean, yes, Jim Comey can go into court and argue that he's being selectively prosecuted, and I think he's going to win on that. I think I mean, given the things Trump has said and posted on social media publicly, he makes the case for him. But it's not like, well, my Fourth Amendment constitutional right is being violated. My First Amendment constitutional right is being violated. It's just really like good government that we've long recognized that is now totally scrapped. That's something worth um not glossing past. I mean we we we we we have a written constitution but there is an unwritten part of the constitution which is rooted in concepts of honor, decency and common sense as as the founders intended and as everyone has recognized and you know the rest of the quote Rome wasn't built in a day was it burnt in one and Trump is burning something and and and and I want to talk to you about how to how to fix it because to your point there's no reason to think it's going to stop here, right? I mean, FBI shows outside John Bolton's house. Uh, you've got Tish James next on the list. I mean, God, Trump basically by mistake published a DM demand to his AG that in any other environment would be seen as a smoking gun for abuse of executive power. And now it just seems like something that happened two Fridays ago and who can remember or care, right? So, I I do think more people will get indicted on the hit list. He gave us a hit list. He listed it in that, you know, I know there's speculation if it's a DM that he inadvertently posted. It has hallmarks of both. Um, Bolton, I'm going to hold my hold hold off on because I want to see that indictment. It look, there's no question Trump hates Bolton. It would delight in seeing him in cuffs. But given the reporting that I'm seeing and it's still early, he may have done something that needs to be addressed. So, let's I'm going to wait until I pass judgment on that one. But look, I've looked at the allegations against Leticia James. know, I've been a critic, a sharp critic of Leticia James. Um, but this mortgage fraud case is bogus. It's bonkers. I mean, basically, in one spot, she bought this home in Virginia. In some one power of attorney form, it says that that will be her primary home, but every other document says it will not be. It will be her secondary home. At one point, there's an email where she says, "This will not be my primary home." So, it's like you've done a mortgage. There's 20 million paper pages in it. Um, that's not intentional fraud. What kind of fraud would that be? So, I want to see if she Well, and and isn't it eerily similar with what they're charging the member of the Federal Reserve with? Also, yeah, but her Lisa Cook, her conduct seems a little more deliberate and a little less explainable than Leticia James' as Leticia James seems to be genuinely a one page of error. Lisa Cook did it in a more systematic way. And there's there's a little more inconsistency there. But the point is, the reason that they're on to these people is they have this guy, Bill Py, who's another Trump loyalist. He donated over a million dollars um to Trump's various political outlets, who is now the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Ordinarily, you'd go, "What what the heck is that? Who cares?" But it's become it's it sort of has echoes of the IRS scandal. Um where during the Obama era, without the president being involved, there's a big difference. But the Obama during the Obama administration, IRS officials were picking out files to audit based on ideology. Not entire mostly conservative. Not entirely, but mostly conservative. Now you have this guy. Yeah, I think you want to be careful about the characterization. Okay, tell me. Um, well, I mean, you know, I remember covering that at the time. There were questions about people abusing nonprofit status, but it was not just for, you know, conservative outlets. It was done in the context of Tea Party, but it was about people forming a lot of bogus political entities and basically pleasing them. and and that seemed like an enforcement mechanism, but it's it was characterized at the time as persecution. And I think that that was um yeah, that was Yeah, that's a good nuance. Um but this PY guy appears to be just like pulling files of people they want out, you know, Lisa Cook, we want we don't want her on the Fed board because she's not voting for lower interest rates. Someone take a look, you know, I mean, it's not it can't be a coincidence he's just churning out these referrals um on all I mean, why did why did Billy Long, the newly appointed head of the IRS, quit all of a sudden, right? I mean, that's a good question, too. So, um, yeah. I mean, look, it's I I do expect to see more of this and I there's not a great way to stop it during the Trump administration other than these people going to court and winning. But I don't know if Trump care. Do you think Trump cares? Like, if the Comey case, first of all, the Comey case has been assigned to a Biden appointed judge. Now, I don't subscribe to the view that whatever, you know, whatever president appointed you, you're in the bag. I was hoping it would go to a Republicanappointed judge because I believe that the selective prosecution defense will succeed and will knock this out. But I believe I'm not make, you know, this is my inclination before trial. And now, you know, whatever happens, Trump's going to say, "Ah, this Biden appointed liberal blah blah blah." But if it was a Bush judge or or a Trump one judge, it would be much harder to make that claim. And I it's kind of a just it's for it's fortune or misfortune. It's just random luck. But I was hoping it would be a Republican appointee for that reason. I I don't want him to be able to say there's a fix. But yeah, but that said, you know, look, man, how many Trump and and Republicanapp appointed judges did we point to when the election lie was being knocked down left and right in 60 courts and and the Trump, you know, crew just didn't, you know, refute logic. It's impervious to logic. Y right. and and but this is incredibly dangerous it seems to me for the for the defense of the rule of law um the degradation of the rule of law because there are two ways to go after this right one is that you get an equal and opposite reaction and Republicans will scream bloody murder but they started it right or you get someone in who tries to strengthen the institutions that's far better for our country and the question is how do you do it if some of if it's unwritten, if it's just rooted in common decency and common sense and a sense of character and you've seen so many people, including the guy you worked with, Todd Blanch, and I want to know more about this, just it's that combination of cowardice and careerism that ends up enabling, you know, the destruction of of of things that have upheld our democracy that have been hard one. How do you understand that? How do you fix it?
Part of the pitch in my book at the end is basically directed to whoever is the next pre whoever's the 48th president of the United States. God knows who that person will be. And basically the pitch is when you take office you will find that a lot of guard rails have been destroyed. uh not just this whole notion of independent counsel, special counsel and independent justice department, but um inspectors general and independent quasi, you know, agencies, the FTC and the FCC and uh you know, the M merit Systems Protection Board and restrictions on profit making while you're in off all that stuff is gone. And it's going to be mighty tempting for you, President 48, to look around and go, "Yeah, who really wants that stuff?" Like, I don't it's be better for me to just leave it dead. But my argument in this book is if you look back at the history, you see that this has been a highly imperfect institution. Every one of these cases has warts and has missteps. But it's so vital that we have a independent DOJ and some substantial mechanism to investigate a president and to hold a president criminally accountable. And so I I don't have much of a better pitch other than it's necessary and good government. I can't if the next president is as self-interested as Trump, I I'm not going to be able to change that person's mind. Obviously not. But I guess I'm not what what I'm suggesting is as the founders understood that you needed a system that could withstand uh you know people that don't hold themselves to the highest standards. We've done pretty well uh o over the but the entire point of the system the the founder structured was how do you stop a tyrant right who's democratically elected. And so what I'm suggesting is maybe that there are things that were norms that need to be strengthened. Maybe, you know, the the justice department should be officially independent from the executive. Um what are some of the laws and proposals or reforms that could be put in place because this way lies fire and ashes.
Yeah. So this is the last two chapters of the book and I lay out a way a proposal and I pulled this both from scholarly articles, law review articles, but also from talking to all the people I talked to, Watergate prosecutors, presidential defense lawyers, you name it. I said when you know they all operated under slightly different rules. There were several eras, but I said, "What rules, what laws, what aspects of the system worked for you? What aspects sort of tripped you up?" And what I propose is essentially a we need a semi-permanent special counsel's office within the justice department. It actually could, you know, could be located there's a public integrity section. A person who would have to be presidentially nominated, Senate confirmed. That would give you some level of political accountability and should weed out ultraartisans. a set year of terms could be five or 10 years that carries across administrations with high level protections against firing because you know the FBI director is supposed to be 10 years but Trump just fired Comey and would have fired Chris Ray but Chris Ray saw that coming and so he quit um who was his own appointee of course so you know it's not impervious to somebody who's just absolutely determined to to Godzilla it just you know burn it down and and stomp on it but it would hold up in a way that I think is sturdier than just the way special counsel now is just sort of at the whim of the AG and it's case by case. If we had a more permanent institution with a degree of independence but also accountability. So there's no perfect system. There are criticisms of the system that I I put up there but it would definitely be a more sturdy system than what we have now.
This show is sponsored by Cornbread Hemp. I'm sure a lot of you are looking for natural ways to relieve aches and stress and discomfort. And who isn't looking for a little more peace of mind in our dystopian times? So, we got some good news. These CBD gummies from Cornbread Hemp are formulated to work with your body, not against it. Cornbread hemps CBD gummies are made to help you feel better. Whether it's stress, discomfort, just need a little more relaxation on demand. Now, I full disclosure have not historically been a big CBD guy. But these are federally legal, and I stress federally legal, way to unwind that doesn't involve bourbon. So, I'm recommending to friends who are trying to drink less because, oh boy, it really starts to catch up with you as you get older. Cornbread hemp only uses the best part of the hemp plant, the flour, for the purest and most potent CBD. All products are third party lab tested and USDA organic to ensure safety and purity. And right now, How to Fix It listeners can save 30% on their first order. Just head to cornbreadmp.com/fixit and use the code fixit all caps at checkout. That's cornbread.com/fixit and use the code fix it.
There's no perfect system because we're humans, right? I mean, the question is how how do you create a system that restrains abuse? And part of the problem with what you're suggesting uh in in a macro sense about the 48th president is that a lot of the criticisms of Biden in the rearview mirror was that Merrick Garland uh was too establishment and institutionally minded to take take the actions necessary to deal with an attempt to overturn an election by a sitting president and his and his lackey. and that that attempt that he was so concerned rightfully with u making sure that the institution was strengthened that he didn't deal with the existential danger that then got us in this position. You and I are lock step on this and John we cover this together. I mean I was shouting from as were you from the rooftops from you know within a couple weeks of of Garland taking office in early 21 that he is not focused on the top here. He had this bogus line of we're going to build our way up. That's how you build cases. facts and law, blah, blah, blah. But as I and other other former prosecutors said, that's not what you do when you have evidence that the guy at the top. If when I was doing mob cases, if I had evidence on a capo or or an underboss, I wouldn't go, "Okay, but hold on. Let me stop. Let me go down to the guys on the corners and then work." I mean, no, you go as high as, you know, the highest point of available entry is where you go. And I get into this in the book, the the Jack Smith chapter in this book opens with the line, Jack Smith never had a chance. By the time Merrick Garland finally appointed him, November of 2022, two years just about had passed. He had less than two year just about two years left to get this case, two cases, Mara Lago and January 6, investigated, deal with the obvious looming immunity issue charged and tried before the 2024 election. There was never any way he was going to do that. So, a lot of blame lays at Merrick Garland's feet. You remember there was these Garland defenders who were like, "You guys don't know what you're talking about. He's a stealth ninja. You don't know what he's doing behind." It's like, "Yeah, you do. Cuz you'd be hearing about subpoenas every day. You'd be seeing all sorts of action." Instead, it's just like evidence. Yeah. I mean, look, it's important that they get the riers and the guys in face paint and horns and stuff, but that's all they did for two for two years, a year and a half. And we there's now been reporting from the Washington Post, New York Times, from Evan Perez at CNN. Every person who knows this, who has now reported, and I think Carol Lenig has a book coming up that I believe is going to say the same thing that Garland, as you said, John, wanted no part of it, was hoping it would just sort of slide away out of memory and he wouldn't ever have to wrestle with this bear, but but it didn't work out that way. I I think that just makes the point though that simply trying to reestablish the institutions isn't sufficient. We need active reforms that Yeah, I think that's right. And it's not just the people. I mean, how do you Todd Blanch, you worked with him for many years. How do you understand his transformation into Hatchet Man to use your Yeah.
So Todd, you know, look, I publicly defended Todd when he was representing Trump in the Hush Money criminal case and I was Maggie Haberman wrote a piece. She she I went on record and I said something like, "Since when did we prosecutors become pearl clutchers about a criminal defense lawyer defending a criminal defendant?" Like, we all know criminal defense lawyers. There's nothing that's their job. and Todd didn't do anything illegal or unethical in that case. He did a good job. He he defended his client. Um, now that he's in this position of power, all of those he he doesn't he he's stomping on these principles of of neutral independent justice. I mean, the Eric Adams case actually happened a little before Todd arrived, but the way they let Eric Adams off the hook in exchange for basically a political promise. Um, the way they've refused to open an investigation of the Signal scandal, the way they've seemingly, we don't know all the facts, but seemingly sort of shuffled the Tom Hman acceptance of $50,000 off without a thorough investigation. the way that they're, you know, uh, uh, saying they're going to investigate the the people who heckled Donald Trump at a seafood restaurant for racketeering. You know, it's like Todd has lost his he has lost his compass and and I I don't have a better estimate. Do you think he always had it in him or is this just someone drunk on power on like a partisan, you know, coming increasingly hyperartisan? I don't I really don't know. I mean, look, this has been a ticket to, you know, I mean, look, Todd took a gamble and I give him credit when he took that Trump representation. Nobody wanted it. Everyone was too scared that they would be drumed out of the largely liberal New York media circle. And Todd did it and he he rolled the dice and he won. He said, "I see. I I might get myself a golden ticket." I mean, and he right. He did. So, yeah. I I I can't get so great. But again, it's only it's only worth a damn if people enforce the law, both the spirit and the letter. And and otherwise, you know, you know, you get your party to to the destruction of the system.
What do you think of the law firms uh that took the knee to Donald Trump and how that's looking in the rearview mirror cuz they were offer oh just a couple of pro bono for anti-semitism and defending vets? No problem. I was critical of those law firms and universities from the start unequivocally. And I I think that's absolutely right. Um first of all, I'm sure that I said many, you know, five times on air, every one of these law firms or colleges who fights and goes to court will win. and they all have so far because it's so obviously I mean the reason Trump targeted these law firms again give Trump credit there's no pretext involved he's not trying to be polite if you look at those executive orders on the law firms Wilmer Cington all down the line he just says Cington you're representing Jack Smith screw you Wilmer you I forget which is which, you know, you hired someone who worked on Bob Mueller's team here's your punishment it's overtly retributive that colleges are a little pretextual and that they're all under the guise of fighting anti-semitism I mean, look, I I I would like to see colleges do better at fighting anti-semitism, but but telling Harvard you have to hire an outside auditor to come in and survey your entire student body and faculty's ideological and political views and then we'll tell you if it's okay, that has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Cutting off funding for medical research has nothing to do with anti-semitism. So, I've said this as a a Jewish person. Like, don't use that as a pretext for what you're really trying to do here. I No, thank you on that. Yeah. Well, they are.
Let's let's talk about the assaults on on media uh and and free speech going after news organizations, suits against the New York Times, against the Wall Street Journal, threats of suits against any other entity, and apparently media capture right now um of sort of, you know, administration allies, you know, getting ideological enforcers and expanding their purview. Um first of all, let's just deal with the the the lawsuits themselves. Uh obviously many of them get thrown out of court but they have a chilling effect especially when you see people settling right I mean the to me the most ridiculous of the lawsuits was the one against 60 Minutes was that that's CBS right um and I mean the claim was you have wronged me by taking an interview with my opponent Kla Harris editing it in a way that I believe was more favorable for her. First of all I don't believe you have a defamation. Defamation means there's false information that was damaging to you and they knew it was false. I don't think you can say they made a person I don't like that I'm adverse to look better than they should have. I don't believe that's even a defamation like definitionally beyond that editing down a clip. I mean you're not going to you can't get paid for that. So I think they absolutely bent the knee. Um I think you know all the lawsuits have different merits or demerits. I think what Trump has realized is sort of um a soft underbelly here, which is some of these corporations are going to do the bottom line calculus that it's cheaper to just pay up than to go to a trial to drag this out to pick a fight with the president just pay him like what did they pay 10 million 12 whatever it was like that's probably just in ABC paid 16 which he keeps bringing up with just right just in terms of of the bottom line it probably makes sense. I don't have their books, but if you were just a robot saying, "What's the best for our bottom line?" That's probably the right move. And Trump, I think, recognized that. And then he holds them all up and they look like victories. And they are because these for him because these people bailed, right? But it's a missiondriven business. And if you do take the knee, then then you're you're compromised. And it's never the end. Yep. Exactly. It's it's never the end. So, look, I applaud, you know, so far Wall Street Journal has has stood up in in the suit over over the Epstein reporting. And we'll see if they collapse. You know, the thing Trump never doesn't seem to calculate here is in all these defamation cases, if they get past motion to dismiss, you're into discovery. He's if if the if that Wall Street Journal case, I mean, if if the Wall Street Journal does not win on a motion to dismiss, Trump's getting deposed under oath. What about his relationship with Jeffrey Epste? Like, he's walking into this. Yeah. But never going that far. It's about the threat. It's the threat is part of the dance. It's part of the transaction, the transactional nature of the relationships. But that's what makes it so uniquely dangerous because if if you're a smaller news organization, you can't afford the threat if if you're independent and you know and and do you understand the free speech rhetoric just as we saw the rhetoric of I'm you know, we're never going to politicize our enemies. I mean u as just at this point unfortunately revealed to be self-serving BS from a partisan perspective. I was hope yes. I mean, is there a worst free speech administration in history? On I'm not qualified to go back more than a few administrations, but I was hopeful since the Adams administration. Let's start it with Jefferson. Um, I was hopeful that they would make good on this. Look, because I do think that there is, you know, our universities are overwhelmingly lean left, more so than the American populace. Um, but you can't you can't enforce that. You can't enforce political thought. You can't it's up to them. It's not up to you to come in and say, "I want an audit of your university and we're going to if if you lean left here, we're going to push you this way." Like, that's just not the role of the government. That's antithetical to the First Amendment. So, I think many or most or all of these decisions are viewpoint and contentdriven, and that's exactly what the First Amendment is concerned with. Um, you know, Trump said the other day, it's just one of these things where he's talking offhand, but he says, "I think that criticizing the president, giving negative coverage to the president is really illegal." It's really legal. It's the most legal form of speech. You are political speech is the most highly protected form of first amendment speech. And who's the leader, you know, the president's most powerful person in the country? So, I I do not think they've been evenhanded in any uh respect with respect to the to the First Amendment applications.
On the final point, you know, uh, inside various newsrooms, including one that you and I, uh, you know, both worked at at the time, there were long-standing debates about whether you should cover Trump like any other candidate. This is after January 6th. Um, the people who argued you should felt it was sort of a high mind guarantee of being centrist, which is something I hold very dear, right? I I I'm a card carrying centrist. I think you need I know your resume. But the other argument is it ignores context that is crucial to understanding what we're reaping now by what we sowed then. Well, let me talk let me give that the my view as a legal you know what I do here legal analysis. For me, the best thing I can do is bring my experience to bear. And there's some things that I can explain what this means, what happens next. There's some things that that proceed according to normal established rule rules, procedures, norms. But I also think it's part of my job, as we just did, to say this is unlike anything we've this is outside the established norms. This is outside the rules. We've not seen this before. We've never before seen a president openly or as far as we know even behind closed doors say, "You go prosecute this person because I'm against them politically. I believe they're against me politically. So I think the best way I can handle that is explaining to our viewers when something you know there's times when I say this it may seem crazy but it's not unusual or it's happened it happened before but there's also times when I think it's necessary to say this is brand new and sometimes the answer is we don't know what happens next. So um that's that's how I approach it. I don't think there's an easy silver bull solution to any of this, but um I I think you have to take case by case and you know I look I also don't want to be the boy who cried wolf like I that's never my style. I don't think everything is an emergency but I do think we are seeing look it's been do you think this is an emergency? I do see I wrote my piece for New York magazine essentially begins like DOJ has crossed the line now. The White House has crossed the line and I I do think this is this is one where I where I'm going to wave a flag. Yes. And you think it's likely to get worse for at least three years and then we'll have a chance at some I think so. I don't know what will what will stop it? I mean, a series of court defeats. Does Trump care? Does he really care if the case against Comey gets I think he just wanted to get the cuffs on him, you know? I mean, I don't know that he'll literally be cuffed, but you know, get his shot in and then if he loses, he blames the judge and whatever. But I Trump does not have normal in litigation incentives financially or otherwise. He likes the fight. He likes the point of it. Yeah.
Well, when when you, you know, we'll end on this. When you take someone who is a lawyer or JD Vance, the vice president, who approvingly quoted or misqued uh Andrew Jackson saying, "I've read the justice's opinion. Now I invite him to defend enforce it." What does that tell you about what's coming and what is the legal backs stop? Sounds like a lot of this is just rooted in uh decency and character and integrity. In the absence of that, you've got the rule, not the rule of law, you've got the law of rules. I mean, our courts do not have an independent enforcement mechanism. That quote apparently is somewhat apocryphal, but um yeah, but but the point stands. I mean, it's like our monetary system. It's like it's based on belief, right? Like there's no inherent value to a dollar bill. We just believe that it has some value. So, um I do think, you know, look, they've come right up to the line of defying the courts. Not I don't quite think that they've definitely defied the spirit back in the immigration cases, but they've just played games right up to the point of defying an actual court order or a tangible court order in a concrete way. And if they do that, I will be ready to throw the flag as well. I've already thrown the flag of they're they're playing games here, but that's, you know, I'll come back if that happens and because I will be I will I will be calling that one out. We've got more than three years. All right, Alihonik, my friend, good to see you. Congratulations on the new book. And I appreciate the reference to Omar Litter in the little in the top. Omar Omar said it best. It goes back to Mackie, but no one said it like Omar. You know that. Now what's that like [Music]