A (1:53)

All right, so I have spent the last several days trying to figure out the answer to exactly this question because. So the sequence of events matters here. The background is that the U.S. attorney in Virginia, the acting or interim U.S. attorney Eric Siebert, was assigned this case, which is figure out what you can indict Jim Comey for. And please indict Letitia James for mortgage fraud. And he comes back sometime last week and says, you know, there's no case against Jim Comey or Letitia James. And Trump is very angry about this and tweets that there needs to be justice now. There needs to be action.

C (2:44)

Now, for context, that tweet was also, it was unclear whether it was like, supposed to be a DM to Pam Bondi. Is that the one you're talking about?

A (2:53)

Yeah, but there was more than one. We Need justice now was a separate tweet, right? Yeah, it may have been one of them. May have been supposed to be a DM to Pam Bondi. By the way, query whether the President and the Attorney General should be communicating by truth social DMs, but that's another matter. And so Eric Siebert gets removed as U.S. attorney and replaced with yet another Trump personal lawyer aid, somebody with zero prosecutorial experience, Lindsey Halligan. So Lindsay Halligan is in that job for exactly one reason, which is that her predecessor refused to move ahead with cases against either Letitia James or Jim Comey. There's also an Adam Schiff issue, but for some reason, his name is. It's a less immediate question. So with Letitia James, there is time to spare because the alleged mortgage fraud. And by the way, Letitia James is clearly innocent of mortgage fraud. So when I say the alleged mortgage fraud, it's not. Because it's not like when you say it when Luigion, Luigi Manioni is an alleged murderer. Right. Like, she did not commit murder. Murder either. She did not commit mortgage fraud. But the, the conduct in question was from 2023. So the statute of limitations has some time. The last time Jim testified before a congressional committee was five years ago this coming Tuesday, which means there is a tick, tick, ticking clock. If you don't get this done by Tuesday, you are not realistically going to bring at least a coherent case against Jim. So there is a big, big rush and Lindsay Halligan gets put in this job on Monday, I believe. And today there is a news story that a from MSNBC that an indictment is forthcoming. Now, let's be clear about what that means. That doesn't mean an indictment will be handed up. It means they are going to a grand jury with an indictment. As we have seen recently, grand juries will not, in fact, indict a ham sandwich. And a lot of grand juries have been saying no to this Justice Department because it is, frankly, lawless. And grand juries have a way of seeing through that. So don't be too surprised if what happens in this case is that they go to A grand jury. And the grand jury says, put it where the moon don't shine. There are a few things they have done that to protect themselves against that. The first is that they appear to be bringing this case not in either Washington, where the testimony took place, or in Alexandria, where. Which would be. So Jim testified by zoom because it was the pandemic, and so he was in Virginia, but they appear to be bringing it either in either Richmond or Norfolk, which, as best as I can tell, is a way of getting away from as far away from a D.C. jury pool as possible. The second thing is that it's easier to get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich in a white collar matter. Right. If you say that somebody lied to a congressional committee and you present only the information that contradicts their testimony, not any of the information that supports it, you may be able to get a grand jury to indict. So I think they're gonna. They're clearly planning to try. That's why they leaked this today. And this is the prerequisite for Lindsay Halligan getting this job. And she will not keep it if she doesn't do this. So that's what they're trying to do.

C (7:20)

Can you explain when you say, you know they're going to indict him and they're going to present the evidence, your, your point is, is that he did this testimony and you, you think that what they're trying to do is get it under the wire of the statute of limitations running out. I saw this in the reporting that they're saying he lied during that testimony. Can you just lay out what is the lie he is supposed to have told?

A (7:44)

No. So first of all, they are going to claim that he lied in that testimony. And I literally, as I said, trying to figure out what the issue would be for the last several days, and I've, with my colleague Anna Bauer, have gone through that testimony very carefully, as well as the underlying documents that it refers to. And I would urge people, look, we don't know what's going to be in this indictment yet. My guess is it's going to be a lot of conspiracy theory, a la Tulsi Gabbert about the Russia hoax, and then a claim that, all right, this is going to get stupid and complicated really fast.

C (8:32)

Okay, but maybe before it gets stupid and complicated, do you want to say what he was testifying about?

A (8:36)

Maybe just that's where it gets stupid and complicated.

C (8:40)

It's like, we can't avoid stupid and complicated.

A (8:42)

No, no, no. This is from Here on in, if you want to talk about what's going to be in this indictment, we're getting into the land of stupid and complicated. So he was hauled up there by Lindsey Graham and the Judiciary Committee to talk about the Russia investigation. And most of the testimony is, you know, Republicans yelling at him about Carter Page and the Russia collusion hoax. And so most of it is not possible to be false. It's they're asking, you know, did you really think this? And he kind of says what he thought or what his opinion was. How would you rank rate the Crossfire Hurricane investigation in terms of being done.

B (9:30)

Thoroughly by the book, an investigation the.

A (9:34)

FBI should be proud of? I'm not sure I can apply a number scale, but I would say in the main it was done by the book, it was appropriate, and it was essential that it be done.

B (9:45)

Okay, so you're proud of it?

A (9:48)

Overall, I'm proud of the work. There are parts of it that are concerning which I'm sure we'll talk about. But overall, I'm proud of the work. There are a few things that could, if you are an unethical prosecutor, give rise to a question. And let's tick through them. So the first is back in 2017, he testified that he had never authorized anybody to leak information anonymously on his behalf. Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?

C (10:32)

Never.

A (10:33)

Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? No. He was asked if he stood by that testimony by Senator Cruz and he said, yes, absolutely.

B (10:51)

On May 3, 2017, in this committee.

A (10:55)

Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, quote, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation, of the Clinton investigation? You responded under oath, quote, never. He then asked you, quote, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration? You responded again under oath. No, I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017. I'm Alastair Campbell from the Rest is Politics.

B (11:30)

Anish Kumar here from pod Save the.

A (11:32)

UK and Cristiana Figueiras from outrage and Optimism. Rising inequality, conflict, climate disaster is very hard to find reasons to be hopeful about the future.

B (11:40)

That's why we're teaming up this September during the 80th General assembly of the.

A (11:45)

United nations, along with political currency POD Save the World, the Weak, Junior and more.

B (11:50)

We'll discuss the stories that give us hope and answer the question, how does hope turn into action?

A (11:56)

Look out for the Be Hope takeover this September.

B (12:00)

Hello, it's Dan and Andy here from no Such Thing as a Fish, your favorite new podcast that you haven't heard yet. That's right, we are a podcast that's been going 10 years. And each week we bring four of the best facts we've heard that week to the table to blow each other's minds as well as yours. Here's a fact, Dan, did you know that the people of Iceland can use 95% of a COD? Okay, they're just working on that last 5%. If you want to find out how they do that, why they do that, and why we're talking about that, check out no Such Thing as a Fish wherever you get your podcasts. Now, I should say, despite my fact having COD in it, this is not a podcast about fish. It's about everything. I just happened to pick one of the worst and most confusing facts possible, Tara.

A (12:42)

And so he thereby incorporated by reference testimony from eight years ago. Now we're not even talking about five years ago now it's like nine years ago. Did you ever authorize anybody to leak information anonymously on your behalf? And there are various piles of documents that Kash Patel has made available to the right wing press through Chuck Grassley that purport to show that this is not true. I have spent more quality time with these documents, which tend to involve friends of mine. Some of them are about my friend Dan Richmond, who's a professor at Columbia. Some of them are about the former general counsel at the FBI, Jim Baker, who worked for Lawfare for a while. These are just loser, loser cases. They were declined by Bill Barr's Justice Department. They were closed under the last Trump administration. But one possibility is that they've reopened one or more of them and they've. They're moving them to indictment in six days. So a second possibility is, I told you we're in the realm of complicated and stupid, but I'm following you, is that they've got. They're going after what, if you've been lucky enough to avoid, you've never heard of and is called the Durham Annex. And the Durham Annex is this document that was part of the John Durham Report that was never released publicly until Chuck Grassley dumped it publicly a month ago or so. And it purports to. Well, it is an investigative document that recounts how the FBI handled a fake Set of emails that came in. They were basically Russian disinformation that sought to show that, that Hillary Clinton and the Soros foundation were plotting to use the Russia stuff to distract attention from her emails. And the FBI had to spend a lot of time getting, dealing with this and Comey actually, personally, it was a sufficiently big deal that it actually played a role in why Jim did not involve the Justice Department and Loretta lynch in closing the investigation and why he did it himself. So it's a big deal. But at some point in this hearing, Lindsey Graham asks him in this very fast way about a particular document that was sent to him in September of 2016. And Jim says it doesn't ring a bell. I don't recall that. September 7, 2016, the US intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral of FBI to FBI Director James Comey. You don't remember getting that or being taught? That doesn't bells with me.

B (16:07)

Okay.

A (16:08)

And this is being used to say that he was denying knowledge of any of this information about this, what became the Durham Annex. It is certainly not that for reasons that I describe in the piece that I just put out, but one possibility is that it's that there are a few other possibilities. They are all as stupid and improbable as that. And they all rely on the fact that something that he said in testimony five years ago about something that happened four years before that was not merely false, but intentionally false and, you know, designed to mislead Congress or cover up the fact that there was some kind of hoax going on. I very. Look, Jim is a friend of mine and I, somebody I care about. And it's, you know, always painful to see somebody in that position, you know, being dragged into the criminal process separately from that. This is an outrageous behavior, you know, to, to, for the President to reach down, having been recommended that there is no case, fire the relevant prosecutors, replace them with somebody who is completely unqualified. This is an insurance lawyer who has never been involved in, you know, in prosecuting anything, who then within a few days tries to make a complicated white collar criminal case against somebody who is, you know, you know, whatever you say about Jim Comey. And there are lots of reasons why lots of people dislike him and, you know, blame him for all kinds of things. He's never been accused of not being an honest person. And, you know, the idea that he lied to Congress is just, pardon me, horseshit. And by the way, you know, and I, I just want to say, I'm just speaking here myself. I'm not part of his legal team. And I'm not, you know, in no way speaking for him, but, you know, he's got very good lawyers. Look for them to respond very aggressively. You know, if I were them, I would invoke the Speedy Trial act and demand, you know, a trial tomorrow if this indictment goes forward. When the criminal process is abused like this, and this is as dramatic an abuse of the criminal process as, I mean, the Letitia James case might be just as bad and an Adam Schiff case might be just as bad. But this is by far the worst that we have seen since the beginning of the Trump administration. This is where you have to really invoke your rights and including your rights to everything the criminal justice system promises you.

C (19:33)

Let me ask you what might be a dumb question, but it was something that I have wondered for a while, which is why is Trump so angry at James Comey? Like Leticia James prosecuted him chiff, you know, led the impeachment effort. So like those, at least do you understand why he wants retribution against them? I mean, you know, when you talk about people not liking Comey, half the country, to the extent that they don't like him, it's because they think he is responsible for Trump being elected. And is it because it's like. But what is Trump's beef with Comey?

A (20:17)

Well, so look, I don't, unlike George Conway, I don't spend a lot of time in Trump's head and I consider that a self care matter. And there are a few things. First of all, Trump's hatred for Comey is extreme. I mean, he doesn't just go after Comey, he goes after his daughter. He goes after, he goes after his daughter when doing so will exacerbate the, you know, his daughter prosecuted Ghislaine Mask Maxwell. And so, you know, it is going to, it makes Trump look terrible to go after Maureen Comey and yet he does it anyway because in the first year of your presidency, you have to fire a Comey. So I can only speculate what the reasons are, but there are a few. First of all, Comey's actions in the first year of the first five months of Trump's presidency triggered the appointment of Bob Mueller.

C (21:25)

Right.

A (21:25)

And that the Mueller investigation eight two years of Trump's first term and has left the indelible impression that more than 50% of Americans believe that Trump has an untoward solicitude for Russia and Vladimir Putin and that there's something wrong with that relationship. And by the way, that's because there is and it's true. And Jim Comey and the much, much maligned Peter strzok and Andy McCabe and that team investigated the Russia matter. The, the untoward relationship between people associated with Donald Trump, including people on the campaign and his businesses and the Russian Federation. And that led to the appointment of a special prosecutor who produced a 400 page report that details that relationship, which remains unexplained, which remains profoundly disturbing, and which explains a lot of Trump's current behaviors in Alaska and with respect to Ukraine. And so Trump feels, I believe, a legitimacy crisis that has to do with Russia. And that has its roots in two Republican former FBI directors. One's named Bob Mueller and one is named Jim Comey. Now, one of them is infirm and in a nursing home, and the other is charismatic and well spoken and has a lot of people at the FBI who love him very dearly. And that I think that combination is toxic and really bothers Trump. The other reason I think is really pedestrian, which is that Comey's taller than Trump and he's kind of effortlessly masculine. And I think that just bothers the shit out of Trump.

C (23:48)

James Comey is very tall. That is absolutely true.

A (23:52)

He is really, really tall. And as a short person who has had to sit with him on stage, that's upsetting. And so I share Trump's sense of, like, it's, it's a drag that the guy is so tall. I don't, I'm not willing to tear.

C (24:10)

The country up over, probably shouldn't be indicted for it. I think we could all agree with that. Okay, Ben, is there anything else that people should know? I gotta say, I, I have. This is my, my fourth, the fourth thing I have taped today. I feel like the pace of. We can't call it authoritarian creep anymore because it's not creeping. It is moving very quickly. It all feels like too much to. And in some ways too, like, the only thing I can think about Trump is that he's either feeling himself for some reason, but he is moving to accelerate all of this. He knows he is under scrutiny. He knows he just tweeted out to Pam Bondi, which under any normal circumstance I think would be impeachable, where he said, go prosecute my enemies. Hurry up. What are you doing? And made it clear that's what nominating this person would be about. So in, in, on regular planet Earth, in regular America, all of this would be impeachable. All of this would be 25th amendment territory. But what are we to make of just what is happening right now?

A (25:17)

Okay, so let me, let me give the good news first. Jim Comey, Adam Schiff, Leticia James are in a position to defend themselves. Jim is represented by two of the very finest lawyers in America. He's going to be fine. And I don't believe you could assemble a jury. I don't know what the shit is in this, but you know the line from the usual suspects, you charge me with this shit and I'll beat it. And that's what's going to happen. I mean, they can, if they can manage to bring a case, they are not going to manage to make it stick. Because it's not because there's some trick, right, or there's some loophole. It's because the fundamental premise is, is going to be false. So that's the first thing. And by the way, I've looked at the Letitia James case. I haven't looked at the Adam Schiff matter because I actually don't, I don't take that. I looked at the Letitia James one because it seemed to be moving. She did not commit mortgage fraud. So you, you can charge her with mortgage fraud, but she is not going to get convicted of mortgage fraud. She, this is not about actually imprisoning Jim Comey or Letitia James or Adam Schiff. This is about intimidating other people. And so the critical thing here is don't be intimidated. Go out there and do the things that you were going to do anyway. That's really important because this is about intimidating Sarah Longwell. It's about intimidating the person who's watching this who wants to be politically involved and is afraid of spending eight years. This is about testimony that took place eight years ago, reiterated five years ago. Right. This is also about convincing everybody that the Russia investigation was, was the so called Russia collusion hoax and revamping that history, rewriting that history. And so the most important thing you can do is not be intimidated and not ever forget that there's a reason why he has a legitimacy crisis over the Russia investigation. And because it's true and because it remains unexplained and it has a huge amount of explanatory power as to his behavior. And just remember that. And whenever somebody says to you, what is this about? Why is he going after Jim Comey? It's because Jim Comey announced the Russia investigation and refused to bury it to make Donald Trump happy.

C (28:20)

Okay, Ben Wittes, thank you for jumping on. I texted you 5 minutes before you did this and just, you know, jumping on and explaining it to us because that was a lot to unpack.

A (28:30)

Go to Lawfare and you can read my detailed pre analysis of an indictment that doesn't exist yet. But it's. I. I spent a lot of time on it and you might find it useful.

C (28:43)

I skimmed it just before we jumped on Everybody Go to Lawfare. It's the best stuff. Subscribe to Lawfare. Whatever it is you can do to get engaged more with Lawfare, you should do it. Everybody over there is super smart and super cool, committed. All right, Ben, thank you so much. Thanks to all of you. You're a great American. We'll catch you guys soon. We'll keep you updated on what's happening here. Bye. Bye.

A (29:05)

I'm Alastair Campbell from the Rest Is.

B (29:07)

Politics, Nish Kumar here from Pod Save.

A (29:09)

The UK and Cristiana Figueres from Outrage and Optimism. Rising inequality, conflict, climate disaster is very hard to find reasons to be hopeful about the future.

B (29:18)

That's why we're teaming up this September during the 80th General Assembly assembly of.

A (29:22)

The United nations, along with political currency pod Save the World, the Week Junior and more.

B (29:28)

We'll discuss the stories that give us hope and answer the question, how does hope turn into action?

A (29:33)

Look out for the B Hope takeover this September.

B (29:38)

Hello, it's Dan and Andy here from no Such Thing as a Fish, your favorite new podcast that you haven't heard yet. That's right, we are a podcast that's been going 10 years, and each week we bring four of the best facts we've heard that week to the table to blow each other's minds as well as yours. Here's a fact, Dan, did you know that the people of Iceland can use 95% of a COD? Okay, they're just working on that last 5%. If you want to find out how they do that, why they do that, and why we're talking about that, check out no Such Thing as a Fish wherever you get your podcasts. Now, I should say, despite my fact having cod in it, this is not a podcast about fish. It's about everything. I just happened to pick one of the worst and most confusing facts possible. Ta ra.