← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Exclusive: The Jack Smith interview”
00:45:56
July 2, 2026; 5pm: Nicolle Wallace conducts an exclusive interview with Former Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Loading summary
Transcript115 lines
- [00:00]
A
You know what's worse than a long wait? Flipping through old magazines in a waiting room. Instead, I power up Champa casino slots, blackjack, solitaire, roulette, bingo and more. Boredom doesn't stand a chance. Take a few virtual apps with me. Let's Chumba play now@chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary. VGW Group voidware prohibited by law. See TNC's 21 plus sponsored by Jamba Casino Mississippi now presents the chart topping original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wall. This week, Princeton University professor and author Dr. Eddie Glogg. I'm always coming from the moral angle. The choices we make, the events of the day, the horrors that we have to report. Our response to it all has everything to do with what kind of people we are and who we aspire to be. The best people with Nicole Wallace. Listen now. For early access ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcasts. I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against President Trump. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican. No one, no one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did.
- [01:38]
B
Hi again, Everybody. It's now 5:00' clock here in Washington, D.C. this show, Deadline White House, debuted the day that Donald Trump fired Jim Comey. He fired him for refusing to look the other way in the Mike Flynn case, among other actions that Donald Trump viewed as annoying and disloyal. Since that first broadcast, we have endeavored to chronicle Donald Trump's vicious war against the rule of law in our country. And no one understands what Trump's attacks against the rule of law look like better than that man, former special counsel Jack Smith. So much of what we know about Donald Trump's efforts to undo his defeat in the 2020 presidential election against Joe Biden and his mishandling of some of the country's most sensitive national security secrets is because of the tireless work of Jack Smith and his team. More than anyone else in the country, he represented a threat to Donald Trump because he followed the facts and they led him deep inside Donald Trump's government and political coalition. The facts reveal crimes, and those crimes were serious enough to represent a very real risk of conviction at trial for Donald Trump. That's the standard to indict somebody and because of that fact, Donald Trump has called Jack Smith horrible things, a, quote, thug, a scoundrel, a criminal and a sick man. And we could actually go on and on, but we don't want to waste our time that way. Trump has threatened to prosecute him, and Jack Smith has made clear that he was just doing his job. He would do it all over again if given the chance. In his letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland delivering his final report, he writes this, quote, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable. While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters, the facts as we uncovered them in our investigation and as we set forth in my report matter. That's where we start the hour. Joining us for his first interview, former special counsel Jack Smith. Thank you so much for doing this.
- [03:54]
A
Thank you so much for having me.
- [03:55]
B
I asked you the soon you walked in and I'll ask you, how weird is it to view it as part of your service to tell the story of the investigations you led?
- [04:07]
A
Yeah, well, you know, I was a career prosecutor. I worked in the Justice Department and other prosecutors offices for near on 30 years. And I don't know if your viewers know this, but I work in Republican and Democratic administrations over and over. I was the Acting U.S. attorney in the first Trump administration in Nashville, Tennessee. And that administration appointed me to a position running a war crimes tribunal for the State Department. So I have investigated cases focusing on the facts and the law throughout my career. We did this case the same way, under the same standards. And the thing that's, I think, important for your viewers to know is those standards are not meant to change from one administration to the next. And in my experience until now, they haven't. And so I think we are facing an attack on the rule of law that is different in kind and scope to anything I've seen in my lifetime. And one of the reasons I wanted to be with you here today in advance of the Fourth of July, celebrating the birth of a country that we all love, is to celebrate the public servants who do this work, the people I spent my career working shoulder to shoulder width. I loved being a prosecutor. And part of it was I love being around these sort of people. And it angers me to see them victimized, to see Them demonized for doing their jobs. I think it's really important that we stand up for them and let them know that there are a lot of people out there who back them and who are with them. And that's not just the people who've been targeted and fired for no reason for doing their jobs. It's also the people still in the Justice Department today. There are a lot of good career prosecutors who right now are working under incredibly difficult circumstances, and they're still trying to do the right thing. And these are not self promoters. These are not people who are going to go out and, you know, crow about their achievements. We need to hold them up and celebrate them because they're part of what makes this country great.
- [06:11]
B
Some of the agents, FBI agents that work for you have been savaged by Donald Trump and Kash Patel. At least one agent talked about being fired while he was taking care of his very, very sick wife. What did you expect to happen to these agents, and do you regret putting any of them in that position?
- [06:37]
A
I feel terrible about what has happened to them. If there's one thing I have spent my time on since leaving, my work as special counsel is doing what I can to help and support them. The individual you're talking about, he was nursing his wife who was dying of cancer, and they fired him shortly after she died. I went to the funeral. That funeral was filled with heroes, public servants on both families. And I just can't believe that if people knew the character of these people I worked with, that they could ever stand for the demonizing that's happened to them. It's just beyond anything I can understand.
- [07:16]
B
And my sense from my limited exposure to people in DOJ and the FBI, from my time in government, is they don't really want to go do other things. They want this to be their life's work, protecting the country's national security. Will you talk a little bit about the price people have paid who have been purged for political purposes?
- [07:35]
A
Yeah, I mean, you know, a lot of the agents and prosecutors I've worked with, and to be clear, not just in special counsel's office, but throughout my career in a bunch of different positions I've had in the Justice 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 serving our country. And we've seen so many times in these retribution cases where prosecutors wouldn't be a part of it. You know, prosecutors in Minnesota who are like, I'm not going to invest the family member of a shooting victim. I'm not doing that. Prosecutors who wouldn't go through with retribution, prosecutions, and those people give up a lot. 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 you could do in private practice. They have to support their families. And one thing I have hope about is I think the traditions in the department, the people at Draw, are so strong that we're going to have to rehabilitate the department for sure. But there's a lot of people still there, still in place, wanting to do the right thing, wanting to follow the facts and the law, not be a part of any retribution campaign. And I think, for me, one of the things I see as I go around and talk to folks and I try to travel around the country a lot and see different people and talk to different perspectives about this, is that those people, it really matters to them if they know they're being supported. Part of this campaign is to make people feel isolated and feel like they don't have people backing them up. And so I just think it's really important. I want to express my support. I think everybody else should express their support. It's something with meaning. And it's also something that matters.
- [09:14]
B
I mean, Chris Wray was the director of the FBI. When the FBI agents that you're talking about went to work for you, he said nothing. Why?
- [09:22]
A
You know, I can't really comment on other people's choices. I would say, would it help? Well, I think my perspective on this is that in the moment we're in, which is a pretty dire moment, right, what we're facing, that we should be uplifting the people who are doing the right thing. And, you know, I'll give you an example from my life. I resigned as special counsel. I know I need to get a lawyer because the president has said he wants to jail me for doing my job. And so I retain lawyers Covington and Burling. As soon as that becomes public, the president and the Justice Department target that law firm. And they do it because they don't want me to have counsel. They don't want to have anyone represent me. And what happened next was the very day that happened to Cole, the lawyers at the firm called me up and said, jack, don't worry about it. We're there for you. They did not blink for a second. And as you know, that's very different than how some other law firms behaved. I think we should focus on things like that. In separating a firm like Covington and Burling from other ones that didn't show courage to come forward.
- [10:26]
B
Well. Right. The ones that fought also have batted a thousand in the courts. I think Judge Beryl Howell described those executive orders as giving her chills, chilling her to the bone. But some of the giant law firms that were so central in our politics in the first Trump term didn't just capitulate to Trump. They're now working for Trump's Justice Department, firms like Paul Weiss and others. What do you make of the damage they're doing to our democracy at a moment you describe as dire?
- [10:51]
A
Yeah, well, I think one of the problems. I mean, there's several layers. Right. One of the problems right today, besides the retribution prosecutions, is that the Justice Department can't do its job. Right. If you go to court.
- [11:04]
B
Explain that.
- [11:05]
A
Well, if you go to court and the judges don't trust you, you can't do the basic things that you need to do to represent the American people in court. And we have seen judges across the country say they can't trust prosecutors anymore. And that has such a cascading effect on any sort of case. And, you know, I can't count how many opinions, but one opinion like that in my career would have been seismic. People could not. Would not know what to do if a court said, trust that's been built over generations has been lost in days, and that's happening every day. And so regardless of what you think, politically, they're just not effective at doing their job anymore. They've jettisoned expertise. And so we have a situation where we've got rid of people who know how to protect our national security, and we think that that's somehow not going to have an effect on our national security. You know, an example I can give you, Brian Driscoll. I don't know if you know who he is. He was the.
- [12:05]
B
He made a great video at the beginning to kind of rally the troops that saved from the outside.
- [12:10]
A
Yeah, I mean, he's a folk hero in the FBI. If you were casting for a hero.
- [12:15]
B
Right.
- [12:16]
A
That's what they look like.
- [12:16]
B
Central casting.
- [12:17]
A
Casting. And just for your viewers, this is a guy, career agent, you know, mob investigator, SWAT team, hostage rescue, served overseas, Medal of Valor, bravery medals, all these things. And an expert in counterintelligence. They got rid of him because he stood up for agents who were being targeted improperly. You can't tell me. You cannot tell me our country is as safe as it was when people like that are being let go. And Fired for no reason.
- [12:48]
B
Well, the purge seems to have multiple tentacles. It's for FBI agents and prosecutors who worked on your two cases. And it's also for people who aren't doing the personal political bidding of the individuals there. I think Mr. Bove started that in the short time he was there. Kash Patel, based on news accounts, seems to be carrying that out for deeply personal conduct. What does that mean for the people who were there because it was their life's dream to do that work to protect the country? What are they doing instead?
- [13:15]
A
Yeah, I mean, it's very tough because, you know, the people we're talking about, these people I spent my career with, that I've so enjoyed their company and I have both respect and affection for. They're resilient people. Right. And they're not gonna quit at the first sign of resistance. And so, as I say, as many as these examples as we've seen, where people have just said, I'm not gonna be a part of that because of their integrity, because of their character, there are a lot of people still in place. And I wanna be clear. These are not people who are, like, throwing sand in the gears. They're just doing their job as they're supposed to do it, following the facts and the law.
- [13:49]
B
But is that because they haven't run into any friction from the politicization and the weaponization cases?
- [13:54]
A
Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, I think, you know, what I tell friends who are still in the Department is serve as long as you can, the Justice Department. Our country needs the Justice Department to do its job, and you should do it as long as you feel like you can. And obviously, if you're asked to do something that you know is wrong, then your number's up and you can't do it. I would also add, Nicole, I think one of the things that maybe isn't being talked about enough is the effect it is having on the Justice Department in the future. You know, this last year, I've done a lot of speaking at law schools and universities. And, you know, it used to be that getting a job in the U.S. attorney's Office of the Justice Department was, you know, one of the most sought after things you could possibly have. And great people who want to serve their communities and serve their countries, that was their dream. That was my dream as a young person. Those people, I can tell you, are. Are not as interested, and they're looking to do other things. And my concern is that that is, you know, the Justice Department works. I learned from mentors who, who came before me. And then I tried to do the same and teach those that followed me. When you break that chain, it's a real problem. And so I tell people when I go to these universities and to law schools, don't give up on it. Don't. Even if you don't like what's going on right now, there's a much longer path here and we need you if you want to serve. For you, I guess resilience, you're going to have to learn earlier in your career. But I don't want people to get away from service as a result of this because I think that's a knock on effect that will be much harder to solve than some of the things that we're seeing in the headlines every day.
- [15:37]
B
But I'm sure these people that listen to you speak, admire you and your career and the things you've been a part of. Do you think that this is a department that you could send someone to go, go work in and they could be asked to indict you?
- [15:49]
A
Oh, I think that could happen. But I also think in the Justice Department, even as we sit here right now, there are lots of people doing good work prosecuting violent crime, protecting their communities, doing the everyday work of being a prosecutor. And yes, it could happen. That could happen. And that would be unfortunate. And then you might have to step down. But I don't want to see people run from public service because of that possibility.
- [16:15]
B
Do you expect to be indicted?
- [16:18]
A
Listen, Donald Trump has made a bunch
- [16:21]
B
of statements before he said he would indict you. Yes.
- [16:23]
A
I'll tell you, Nicole, I honestly do not spend a lot of time thinking about the things he says about me and his threats about me. I'm real focused on the people who I worked with looking out for them. I'm real focused on how the Justice Department's going to be better going forward, things like that. In my situation, I did my job the right way. I had an all star team. I mean, Nicole, the agents on my case, if I were to walk you through all the awards they've won throughout generations of administrations, we would be here all night. These were superstars. And I'm much more concerned that those people get to serve in the department, get to serve in the Bureau again someday.
- [17:04]
B
What do you say about the facts that you developed that you see? I know you don't watch a ton of news, but you see enough to know that the basic principle of recidivism likely applies to the election case. The things that you charged are a Lot of the same kinds of stories we cover. What is the cost of someone not being held accountable for their crimes?
- [17:26]
A
Yeah. I mean, talk about the pardons of these people convicted for the violence on January 6th. Right. There's all sorts of costs. There's the obvious cost of just recidivism. These are people who committed their crimes in the name and in the interest of Donald Trump. And he's returned the favor. Right. By pardoning them. That sends one message to them. A message I'm equally concerned about is the message that it sends to law enforcement. Supporting law enforcement should not be a political issue. It should not be a Republican, Democrat, red blue thing. It should. And when I see people like Harry, Harry Dunn, who was here before, who put his life on the line to protect others, and seeing him be smeared and vilified, I don't understand that that is. And I think more people who understand the actual facts of that, I don't think most people are okay with that. It's deeply wrong. And I have a concern because we've seen that sort of thing in the incentives it's set up.
- [18:25]
B
What do you make of the fact. Do you support this theory that the pardons were step one, the slush fund is step two in sending a message to the violent insurrectionists that not only would they not be criminally accountable for their crimes, but they'd be paid for their service?
- [18:42]
A
Yeah, listen, I have no unique insight on that. I see the same things you see, regardless of whether it sets an incentive system that you're suggesting, it's just plain wrong. Right. I mean, our country is built on values. That's what binds us all together. And my view has always been that those values don't have anything to do with political parties. When I'm a prosecutor and I have to get credibility, build credibility with a judge or a witness or the jury. Right. It's not about politics. It's about truthfulness, integrity, being decent to each other, exhibiting kindness, judgment. I think those are the things that bind us together and those are the sort of things we should lean into. Like, I feel like personally, as divided as we are, if we lean into issues of integrity more, that that's the best hope to get people more back together than we are now.
- [19:41]
B
Do you think we still have a common definition of integrity?
- [19:45]
A
I think we do. But I also, for me personally, if I'm going to have that discussion, like I said, I travel around and I go to places where people don't expect me to be. I do events, athletic events, where I travel And I'll be in rural areas or different parts of our country, and people will come up and talk.
- [20:01]
B
Endurance sporting events, right?
- [20:03]
A
Yeah, I do ride bikes, things like that. But I go out in these places, and I talk to different people. People come up to me, and it's interesting because they don't expect me to be there. And I have to say, the vast majority of people are really appreciative of my service and the service of our team. But even when they're not, if you engage in a discussion with people and you're open to hearing them and not just kind of telling them what you think, I actually do think that people agree that integrity is a good thing.
- [20:31]
B
Do they believe that the crimes that. Do they. Do they believe the facts? I mean, do they ask you about the cases you brought and do they believe you?
- [20:38]
A
Well, it depends on who you're talking about. But often the people who are more skeptical know less about the facts. And I think one of the things that's hard for me in this process is, you know, I'm a facts guy. Facts matter really big on that. And, you know, when you go in a courtroom, that's all that matters, right? And so. And you know that you're gonna get your turn to present the facts, and then they can present theirs. And there's a process how we communicate with each other. Right now, it's very hard to do that and very foreign to someone like me who was raised as a prosecutor. Do your talking in courtroom, not on the courtroom steps. And I think that's harder because a lot of the people, I think, who have resistance to what we do, they're just not versed in the facts. And not everybody wants to read 100, whatever page report. I get it, but I think this goes to the DOJ going forward. My view is that going forward, I think we can't get away from the issues of integrity and doing things the right way in facts and law. But I also think people like me, who kind of were raised on that and know that we got to start listening more to people who know how to communicate and choose to communicate more in innovative ways. Because a lot of the people that I bump into and talk to, no one's tried to communicate with them. No one's tried to give them the facts in a way that's actually easy for them to digest. And so, you know, very foreign to a courtroom guy like me. But I think it's a step that we gotta be talking about.
- [22:07]
B
I mean, this was the challenge of the Mueller findings, right? You know, here it was. It kind of landed like a phone book. And that was just volume one. And no one explained it, and no one defended it. And Trump and his supporters were able to misrepresent it in a single news cycle. Was that on your mind as you did your work in these two cases?
- [22:28]
A
Honestly, no. My job was to do my job the right way. And when it came time to write a report, to write a report that summarized accurately what I did, I didn't really think about stuff like that. And I understand your point about Robert Mueller, but I think Robert Mueller is an American hero. I mean, how he conducted his life, serving our country in the military, service, throughout as the FBI, as a prosecutor. I mean, the story I like about Robert Mueller is this is a guy who did everything you could do as a lawyer. He's a partner at a big law firm making a million bucks or more. And he wants to go back and
- [23:03]
B
be a line prosecutor in San Francisco, right?
- [23:06]
A
No, he was in D.C. to be a homicide prosecutor. I mean, it's such a badass thing to do. I mean, in my world, that's really a cool thing. And so maybe, as you say, how that rolled out. He was working from a different era. And that's why I say we got to get better at that. But I don't want to lose the core of functioning with integrity and doing what's good for the country rather than what's good for you.
- [23:34]
B
We're going to ask you to stick around. We want to dive into some of the facts, at least the ones that are public, that we have to work with. And the cases that you brought. The election case. We shorthanded at the election case and the documents case deadline. White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [23:53]
A
Lots of places can expose you to identity theft. Oh, no. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own. If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, we alert you right away, all through text, phone, email, or the LifeLock app. Get the alerts that could make all the difference. Save up to 30% your first year@lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply. Yo, it's Jey Uso from WWE and I'm Jimmy Uso. Chumba Kasina and WWE are hyped for the biggest event of the summer. SummerSlam. I know, I can't wait. There's nothing better to do while we're waiting than playing Chumba Casino. Sign up today and you can win a VIP experience with Chumba Casino and with WWE for SummerSlam. So what are you waiting for? Play Chumbo Casino and enter for your chance to win. Let's Chumble. Only available in permitted states.
- [24:49]
B
No purchase necessary.
- [24:50]
A
See Terms and conditions for details. BGW Group Vote or prohibited by law at 21 sponsored by Chumba Casino. Listen to your favorite Ms. Now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoy new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline, White House and the Rachel Maddow Show.
- [25:03]
B
Every small D Democratic muscle that we have is flexing.
- [25:08]
A
Plus the Last Word with Lawrence o', Donnell, the Beat with Ari Melber, the Weeknight and more on the Go wherever you get your podc for ad free listening to all of your favorite shows. Subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [25:26]
B
We fight.
- [25:28]
A
We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you. Well, we won by sending a message to the senators and the congressmen. We won by sending a message to Pence. Okay, that if they don't do as they are, as their oath to do, if they don't uphold the Constitution, then we will remove them from office one way or another.
- [26:09]
B
I want to read a little bit from the indictment on the election case because I think all of us are trying to cover in real time an assault on. Well, let me ask you first, do you agree that we are covering in real time an assault on our elections, the upcoming ones?
- [26:21]
A
I'm very concerned of what's going to happen in the next election. Absolutely.
- [26:25]
B
Do you see, again, in things that are covered and things that are public, facing conduct ahead of the midterms that you investigated in the January 6th case?
- [26:36]
A
Well, I've been thinking about it more in terms of what needs to be done based on what we saw happen last time. And, you know, it's a different situation now based on, you know, the people who perpetrated January 6th, they probably learned from how they did that. My personal view is I think the state attorney generals have a tremendous role to play here. They can make sure the rule of law functions in their state. And I would also say that I think a thing that all of us can do is support election workers and election officials. The last time around, we saw that those people stood firm and they were in many cases. The difference, it's clear to me anyways, that what I've seen publicly, that those people are going to be put under great pressure. And my experience, not only just the special counsel, but, you know, I was the chief of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice for five years, had a number of cases with election officials. These are people also. They're not tooting their own horn. They're not self promoters. They just care about our democracy. We need to show them that we have their back. I think those two things are central to getting ready for the elections that are coming up.
- [27:49]
B
What is your advice to State Attorney Stonewall?
- [27:53]
A
I would be ready to litigate everything. I would brainstorm and I think they are. I get that sense, every possible permutation and don't let reason be a limitation. Imagine everything that could possibly be tried
- [28:08]
B
that Trump will do.
- [28:08]
A
Yeah. And I also think it's important for them to be proactive and initiate litigation where it's appropriate and where it would make sense to you if you have a sense or reason to believe that something's going to be done to interfere with people's right to vote and participate in democracy.
- [28:25]
B
The strength of the evidence that you and your investigators developed is at least as detailed in the report that was released. Seems to be that you were able to develop, and I'll say this as a non Lawyer, sort of the 360 evidence that you understood the state of mind. You had evidence that Trump knew he was lying. There were all sorts of interactions where he said to people, well, that national security issue will be dealt with by Joe Biden because I lost. He said to another aide who quote, I can't believe I lost to that guy. So you were able to establish, and I think the congressional committee established some of this as well, people that he acknowledged losing to. How much of the ability to hold people accountable is based on being able to see inside meetings and have witnesses that cooperate. And I guess I'm getting back to the pardon conversation we just have. I mean, how much do you think Trump has learned in terms of how to evade an indictment like the one you brought?
- [29:24]
A
Yeah, I think the one thing to start on this sort of topic is we did this case the way I've done cases throughout my career. Same investigative techniques, same use of the tools that a federal prosecutor has. And our proof was the same sort of proof you have in all sorts of cases, not just political corruption cases, but all sorts of cases I've done in my career. You prove what happened. You Prove the intent of the person. And you also are thoughtful about what's the defense going to be and can we disprove that? Because if you can't, then you can't prove. Prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. And we did that. We did that in this case. It wasn't unique in terms of how we did it. It was the same sort of processes
- [30:05]
B
you'd use in any case and around speech. One of the things that the right used to say before Trump came back into office was to champion First Amendment protected speech. One of the things that I understood better when I read this again to prepare to talk to you was that speech in furtherance of crimes is not protected. I mean, how much do you think people should just be monitoring and tracking the things people are saying out loud in terms of stealing the midterms?
- [30:34]
A
Yeah. I mean, and that's maybe a good point for your viewers is there is rock solid Supreme Court precedent that you cannot just use speech to commit a crime, fraud, particularly. There's a specific case on it. And so obviously, people have a First Amendment right. And I think we made clear in our indictment that we respect First Amendment rights. It's certainly important to me that we not charge a case that would, in essence, be violating someone's rights. But that doesn't mean that you can't commit crimes through words. Happens all the time. When a Ponzi scheme person is bilking someone out of their life savings, they're doing it with words. That's how that's done. All sorts of financial crimes, all sorts of corruption crimes. A bribe is usually communicated in words. That happens all the time. And in a lot of ways, this case was no different.
- [31:23]
B
I was also reminded that after the Supreme Court grants Donald Trump immunity, you file a superseding indictment, you're still ready to bring the case to trial, right?
- [31:34]
A
Yeah. Correct.
- [31:36]
B
Explain how you had to adjust and what that adjustment was.
- [31:38]
A
Sure. And we set this forth in our report. You know, we did what good prosecutors do and what you're supposed to do. We received a decision from the court. It wasn't the decision we wanted. We didn't agree with the reasoning of it, but in a society where you believe in the rule of law, you follow the court's decisions. And so we analyzed the decision, and we looked at what sort of evidence we could no longer use and what sort of evidence we could use. And because. And we set this forth in filings because in this particular case, a lot of the evidence was him in his role as a candidate. We felt we could go forward and we briefed this issue for the court, and obviously we never got to a conclusion where we could litigate the ultimate conclusion of that. But we would not have gone forward with the case unless I still felt we could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, just like we wouldn't have gone forward with the case in the first place if we couldn't. And I guess one point I would want to emphasize. There is, I think, a difference between the work we did and what you're seeing today is in our work, there was no predetermined outcome. When I took this job, I was perfectly happy to bring this case if the facts in law warranted it or not. And I've done that throughout my career. And it hasn't mattered what person's political party was to do that. That's how we went about our work. Completely apolitical politics did not play a role.
- [33:00]
B
Were you kind of hoping that the criminality wasn't as brazen as what you developed and uncovered?
- [33:05]
A
I don't think good prosecutors hope you follow the facts in the law. And one of the good principles that real prosecutors always follow is the facts matter. And you don't not go down an avenue because, oh, maybe some facts will come out that will hurt my case. You go and look all the facts you possibly can, as searching as you possibly can because you want to get it right. That contrasts to what we're seeing today, where there is a predetermined outcome, process doesn't matter, and we just have to find a way to get to that outcome. And if there's facts that don't fit that outcome, we don't recognize them. And if there's facts that make it not a crime, we just pretend those don't exist.
- [33:48]
B
I mean, a judge basically said that in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, said that he found that this was an instance where basically criminality was being reverse engineered all the way up to Todd Blanche. If a judge has found that, what do you think they're capable of with two more years?
- [34:04]
A
Well, as I said earlier, I. From my perspective, I've seen a number of cases. James Comey, Letitia James, Jerome Powell. I mean, right. There's not criminality here. I mean, seashells. I mean, so the only reasonable explanation is the president has it out for these people and he has people who. His former personal lawyers who are going to do what he says regardless of the facts or law. I mean, again, just to juxtapose it, I didn't have people on My team resigning because they refused to go along with the scheme to go after somebody. That was not what happened. You see that in all these cases. And just again, imagine if you would. I was appointed from outside the government. No political allegiance to anybody. And they were comfortable with Jack. Wherever you think the facts and law dictate, that's what we'll do, and that's what will happen. Can you imagine that happening now? If there was an allegation of corruption in this administration, them saying, let's appoint an outside independent person to make a call on this? I think we know it would never happen. And I think that's a real easy way to differentiate. Following process, following the facts.
- [35:23]
B
If you were. If you took the name of our country off it, and you were just examining the state of the rule of law in America, is it dead?
- [35:31]
A
I don't think so at all. And for the reasons I said earlier, there are legions of career prosecutors, people just like me, you just don't know their name, who want to do the right thing. They're in the Justice Department. They want to serve. We have a lot of challenges in front of us, and the rehabilitation of the department is not going to be any mean feat. You know, recovering character is a lot harder than gaining it in the first place, but I think we're totally capable of doing that. I'm completely optimistic.
- [36:04]
B
We're going to ask you to stick around. I want to ask you about the other case. I know you're a lot more limited on what you can say, but want to ask you about that on the other side. Thank you. We'll be right back.
- [36:16]
A
You know what's worse than a long wait? Flipping through old magazines in a waiting room. Instead, I power up Champa. Casino slots, blackjack, solitaire, roulette, bingo, and more. Boredom doesn't stand a chance. Take a few virtual laps with me. Let's Chumba play now@chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary VGW Group void where prohibited by law. CTNC's 21/plus sponsored by Chumba Casino. Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? How Andrew Tate Turned Misogyny into a Business Empire.
- [36:50]
B
So we know that, you know, in the weeks and months leading up to the election, you know, a number of prominent Trump supporters and figures within MAGA, Donald Trump Jr. Elon Musk, Tyler Carlson and others had kind of publicly defended Andrew Tate, described the case against him as a conspiracy, as a kind of hit job, and just generally supported him. So I think it was pretty clear to the Romanians that if Trump got in, they were not going to get a favorable reception from U.S. officials. On the subject of this case against the Tate brothers that's this week on
- [37:17]
A
why is this Happening? Search for why is this Happening? Wherever you're listening right now.
- [37:21]
B
And follow. We've talked about the dedicated public servants in the department and the FBI that worked on your cases. One of them you can't talk about. And that's all of the. And these are some of the ones that Trump has raged against most ferociously, and that is prosecutors and agents involved in the documents case. Just explain why you can't talk about that.
- [37:47]
A
Yeah. There's an order from the judge in Florida, Judge Cannon, that that report is under seal. And I don't want to do anything that could be misconstrued as me not following a court order. I'm a lawyer who follows court orders, and so I just don't want to do anything that would be remotely construed as not complying with her order.
- [38:06]
B
Let me just ask the things that you've said publicly about standing by the facts that you developed and standing by what you've put in your reports, you stand by Volum?
- [38:14]
A
Absolutely.
- [38:15]
B
And the men and women who worked on those cases have been targeted with some of the most vicious retribution and political attacks. Are they political actors?
- [38:25]
A
Absolutely.
- [38:26]
B
Not for the ones that are. I mean, have any of them survived the purge at the Bureau and the Department of Justice?
- [38:34]
A
I don't think that's really for me to say. I think the. I'm focused on the people I can help, and that's what I've been trying to do.
- [38:42]
B
All right. We don't want to jeopardize any of those individuals, and we don't want to put you in a bad spot with Judge Alan Cannon. Do you think there's any chance she ends up on the Supreme Court?
- [38:50]
A
I have no views on that whatsoever.
- [38:53]
B
We'll watch that with bated breath. I want to share some reporting from my friend Glenn Thresh at the New York Times, who's covered some of the folks that you've talked about and sort of come back to what's on the other side. Kash Patel summarily fired Chris Meyer and another top agent in the Washington, D.C. field office who had been targeted by the right, Walter Giardino. Mr. Patel did so after being told that the terminations were unlawful and that pushing out Mr. Giardina, who was caring for his dying wife, something you talked about, would be inexcusably cruel. According to a lawsuit filed by three FBI supervisors, also dismissed by Kash Patel, quote, we were always told that we would be taken care of and there would not be any retaliation for our assigned work. Mr. Giardina, 48, told his supervisors the day he was fired the circle of trust had been broken. I want to ask you about this concept of a circle of trust, because as we talked about with the pardons and the slush fund, Trump seems to be erecting a gambit. Is public facing a circle of trust with people who committed crimes for which they were convicted by juries of their peers, not just pardoning them, but giving them money. That circle of trust doesn't do anything for the public, for the public safety, for US national security. How do you begin to put back together a circle of trust between public servants who protected the country from threats?
- [40:13]
A
Yeah, I think for me, the biggest thing we can do, and it's challenging, is to get the facts out in ways that people can digest them. I think if you have a question of is a rioter who assaulted a police officer on January 6th a patriot, or is Harry Dunn a patriot? We win that argument every time if people have the facts. And I think it's hard. And, you know, as a prosecutor who worked in a courtroom and didn't really work in the media and didn't want to give a speech on the courthouse steps, I think we've now learned that you gotta be able to get people to understand the facts. We've got a great product in the work that we did as a special counsel, the work the Justice Department does every day. But the people who do it, who are really the reason you can trust it, they don't promote themselves. And so we need to get their stories out there. I think if that happens, the sort of trust in government, which is pretty hard to earn, you can do that. That's my experience as a trial lawyer. It's my experience in life when I interact with people in the world. And part of the reason I frankly wanted to talk to you today is to talk about these people because they're good people, and if you sat down with them for a coffee or a beer or a meal, you would like them and you would trust them and you would see the things that are being said about them are lies.
- [41:35]
B
And in my experience, which is dated, none of them are particularly political.
- [41:40]
A
I don't know the politics of any of these people. That's not something we talk about in the Justice Department.
- [41:46]
B
What does it do to the ability to imagine something on the other side that isn't a reaction to what's happening now. I mean, everyone from all the reporting that we, that we have access to is only doing the kind of work you're talking about. If they avoid being asked to do something that violates their oath or is unethical or is part of the retribution cases or is predicated on Trump's conspiracies. As we covered at the top of the hour, massive deployment of intelligence agents to go look at data in Georgia based on a lie. What happens on the other side to people that were involved in that misdirection of resources?
- [42:29]
A
Well, you know, one thing I don't like is this idea that everybody who did things we don't like, they're guilty of crimes, too, and we're going to prosecute them. It should be the facts in the law and you should look at, not, let's find this person and let's find if they. Let's target them and see if we can find a crime. That's what's happening now. I think it's really important that whoever leads the Justice Department after this rejects that sort of thinking. That doesn't mean that people who have committed crimes should get a free pass, and it's going to be difficult. I actually think the investigation of these things isn't hard. What's hard is getting people to understand it's been done in an objective way, explaining in a way that people can digest that things are done following the facts and law and don't involve politics. That's a challenge, doing the actual work. There's lots of people out there who've spent their careers like I have who are capable of doing that work. Not just cases in the political realm, but particularly cases also affecting our national security. I spend a lot of time worrying about that when I see some of the people who've been fired.
- [43:35]
B
When you feel optimistic about our ability to come through and about the caliber of the people who are inside the department, what do you think and do you feel is optimistic about a country that would reelect someone for whom the facts showed he'd committed multiple felonies?
- [43:55]
A
My view, Nicole, is our country's meant a lot of things at a lot of different times. And what generally happens is when something really bad happens, Watergate, for example, we respond and we get better as a result. I'm not saying the Justice Department has been perfect every day, but the people I worked with, I saw people trying to move things in the right direction. And I think it would be foolish to say we're not facing challenges right now, but when you face a challenge like we are today, you have a choice about the attitude you take towards it. Anyone can put anything on you, but you have a choice about the attitude you take. For me, and I think a lot of the people that I've worked with, our view is I want to behave now 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 time and say I did things right. I think a lot of people relate to that, and I think it's understandable. And I think if we start aligning actions with our beliefs, it's a huge, huge step. I think one of the things I've seen, which is the sort of journey I've been on is, you know, with me being targeted by the president, you get to find out who's who. Right? You get to find out who runs towards the fire, who kind of backs away. It's difficult in the moment, but I think for the future, that's going to be really helpful to know.
- [45:19]
B
Are you afraid to be speaking out?
- [45:22]
A
No, not at all. I am not going to be intimidated. And there's no way in the world. If the thought was to go after me so that I wouldn't speak up about the corruption that's happening or speak up to defend these agents and prosecutors, that is a grave miscalculation. There's no way I'm going to be intimidated.
- [45:41]
B
Would it help the Bureau and the Department of Justice if more of the leaders above the chain of command, above you, spoke out with the same messages, Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco?
- [45:52]
A
I'm not going to forecast what other people can do or tell other people how they should handle a particular situation. Everyone's got to make their own particular choice. My strong view is rather than sort of critiquing people who haven't done what we might like them to do, and good, high integrity people who serve the public spend their careers in public service. Let's focus on when we see somebody doing a good thing, we raise them up. I think that's a more productive way to face the challenge we're facing right now.
- [46:24]
B
My friend Esther Shaw says, stay in the light. I'll take that for an answer. We're going to sneak in one more break. We'll be right back. We're back with Jack Smith. I want to ask you about some of your earlier work at doj. You worked in Public Integrity, which somewhere someone has all of their office supplies, Right? And this week we reported that Donald Trump raked in $2 billion since returning to the White House. It's such a perversion of everything that's come before it. What do you make or what do you think when you think about the gutting of all of the prosecutors that used to investigate and prosecute those crimes?
- [47:01]
A
Yeah, I'm saddened by it because when I was at Public Integrity, when I was the chief of the section, and this was a section that was created in the wake of Watergate as one of the reforms after Watergate to deal with corruption in the government, we did good work, we did important work, we did nonpartisan work. And seeing that section gutted saddens me. But I have to say, at the same time, that started because the attorneys in that section stood up when the Adams case in New York, that they forced the dismissal of a completely legitimate case that the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York brought, and they tried to force Public Integrity to sort of lend their credibility to the dismissal. That's what I'm talking about, about people of integrity. You know, the Southern District prosecutors, I
- [47:47]
B
don't know, but they left. I mean, they're not in the department anymore.
- [47:50]
A
Right. But my point is there's people like that throughout the department, and there's people who are going to continue to stand up. I have a huge allegiance to them and I have a huge affection for them, and I know they're out there, and I just want to make sure they all hear us, because this is going to go on for a while. The path to victory here is not a short one. And I think the people in place who are doing their jobs, the people who stood up, we should celebrate them just like we're celebrating the Fourth of July. These are the people who make this country great. In my view.
- [48:20]
B
Is this the beginning of speaking out on their behalf more regularly, more frequently? Will you come back?
- [48:26]
A
You know, this is new for me, Nicole. We'll see. You know, I'm trying. You know, I was a prosecutor for 30 years, and I'm in a different world now. I started a law firm, as I think, you know, with our friend Tim Hafey. And I want to do whatever I can to be helpful right now, and I want to figure out what that is. I don't have an interest in 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 helpful, I'm going to do it, and that's going to guide me.
- [48:58]
B
We really appreciate you deciding to talk to us here today. We've covered you for a long time. We admire what looks like sort of standing strong in the face of withering attacks from the most powerful person in the country in our politics. And it's really a treat to get to talk about.
- [49:13]
A
Well, I really appreciate you having me. Thanks so much.
- [49:15]
B
Thank you for being here. If we ever get anything wrong, though, you know, send up a flare, let us know.
- [49:19]
A
Sounds good.
- [49:19]
B
Thank you so much for being here. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes tonight. We are grateful.
- [49:31]
A
You know what's worse than a long wait? Flipping through old magazines in a waiting room. Instead, I power up Champa Casino slots, Blackjack, solitaire, roulette, Mingo and more. Boredom doesn't stand a chance. Take a few virtual apps with me. Let's Chumba play now at chumbacasino.
- [49:50]
B
Com.
- [49:51]
A
No purchase necessary. VGW Group voidware prohibited by law. CTNC's 21 plus sponsored by Chumba Casino.