Carol Lennig (2:59)

As I said to my colleagues here at msnbc, this bouncing ball is like the fastest bouncing ball ever. We've been monitoring this ever since we reported that a senior supervisor concluded there was no probable cause to bring this case to a grand jury, one of the lowest thresholds the Department of Justice has to meet. And instead, Lindsey Halligan, the interim US Attorney we heard today had presented the the evidence that she believes could lead to indicting Letitia James today in a courtroom in Alexandria. We now have multiple sources telling us that Halligan presented this evidence. And we are now waiting, as are our prosecutors in the Eastern District, to hear if the grand jury has decided to agree with those charges of mortgage fraud involving the New York Attorney General.

Nicole Wallace (3:54)

Carol, if you don't know the answers to any of these questions, just brush me off here. But do we believe, as with last time, Lindsey Halligan defied the prosecutorial judgment of prosecutors in that office and instead went with Donald Trump's social media directives? Do we believe that she again went alone into the grand jury to present whatever evidence she thinks she has?

Carol Lennig (4:19)

An awesome question, Nicole. From one court nerd to another, it's a great question, and the answer is complicated. We have a source who says that she made this presentation alone. We have others who say that there was another assistant U.S. attorney in the room, but not necessarily presenting. So I say that with a little bit of a caveat. You asked earlier if she was essentially defying the office. Remember, this case was in Norfolk. That is where the home is. That is at the center. Letitia James niece's home is in Norfolk, and that's where this case was based. But when that supervisor looked at all the facts and said, I don't think there's probable cause, and I'm going to let the U.S. attorney know that Lindsey Halligan made a change of plans and presented in Alexandria. It has been really interesting to watch how much this case has moved. Remember, a U.S. attorney was essentially forced to resign under pressure. Eric Siebert, when he also concluded on September 19 that there was not sufficient evidence to bring this case. Another supervisor we were reported then in Norfolk said, this is not a worthy case. It's not a righteous case. The facts do not stack up for claiming that Letitia James had any criminal intent to defraud a mortgage broker, a bank, or say anything inaccurate in her loan applications for her niece's home. And now we have the interim U.S. attorney chosen by Donald Trump when he was pressing for this prosecution is actually pressing forward and doing just exactly what Donald Trump asked.

Nicole Wallace (6:06)

What is the likelihood of hearing one way or another in the next hour? I mean, are these decisions that are made the day or in the hours after the evidence is presented also a good question.

Carol Lennig (6:25)

The returns are normally, forgive me for lapsing into grand jury speak. Grand jury decisions are typically in this courthouse in Alexandria, returned to the court clerk around 4 o' clock or sometime after that period. You'll remember when former FBI Director James Comey was indicted. The returns in the same courtroom came back in the five o' clock hour. So. So we'll see.

Nicole Wallace (6:55)

Carol, one of the arguments that Pat Fitzgerald made, Jim Comey's defense attorney, an iconic figure, as you know better than anybody in legal circles and sort of a hero of sdny, was that Halligan was not, you know, was not a legally appointed or a legally acting U.S. attorney. Has that question been resolved or adjudicated?

Carol Lennig (7:22)

No. You know, Pat Fitzgerald raised it the other day in the Comey hearing, the first appearance for the former FBI director on charges of lying to Congress and obstruction. And it is something I know lawyers all over this territory, shall we say, are watching keenly because the interim appointment is a karate chop to a case. If the defense is successful in making the claim, the case gets tossed. And that may work for Pat Fitzgerald and it may also work for Letitia James, defense lawyer Abbe Lowell. If Halligan was the person who signed this indictment, I mean, those are legal matters to be wrangled with by a court. But I know it is one of the most devastating attacks that the defense could make on this case because the whole thing could be thrown out solely on that basis.

Nicole Wallace (8:21)

Carol, let me ask you, and if you need to go and do more reporting, you just tell me. The case was examined by Trump appointees. He's been there nine months. And so people who agree with Donald Trump and who are sympathetic to his deep emotional whatever we're talking about and desire for revenge, wherever that is born out of. These are Team Trump people. These are political appointees who looked at the case and said there is not enough evidence to prevail in court. Will you take us through the facts as you understand them and through the eyes of the Trump ally prosecutor who said there's no case here?

Carol Lennig (9:01)

Of course. So I think at the base, what's really important for viewers to keep in mind is that the Justice Department over the last eight decades has had an extremely rigorous standard for when they try to even ask a grand jury to. Whenever they present evidence to a grand jury and say, we think this is worth possible charges, what do you think the rigorous standard is? Do we believe we'll be able to sustain a conviction? Do we believe this is important in the public interest to bring this case? And another critical element, especially in the allegations that swirled around Letitia James, is the issue of intent. Was there criminal intent to defraud a bank? And the evidence thus far that we have reviewed and that her defense lawyer has presented publicly and to Attorney General Pam Bondi is as follows, that there was a form, a power of attorney form, in which inaccurately, there was a block checked, a box checked essentially, that indicated this was a primary residence. Letitia James was helping her niece buy a home in Norfolk, Virginia, and that box was a mistake, allegedly. According to her defense lawyer, additional documentation in the course of financing this home shows Letitia James in her own writing saying, this will not be my primary home. This is not my primary residence. This is my niece's home. And I'm paraphrasing a little, but I think in all caps, she essentially said, not my primary residence. In another part of the bank application, Letitia James again marked no when asked in her own check writing, is this going to be your primary residence? So one fatal problem with this case, as the evidence we've reviewed is, and I'm not a lawyer, but I know this much, it's going to be hard to show that Letitia James intended to defraud anyone if she went out of her way to say, this is not my primary residence.

Nicole Wallace (11:20)

Yeah. And of all people, to understand the oomph of an all caps communication, you'd think Donald Trump himself would recognize that. Carol Lennig, this is your exclusive reporting. You and our colleague Kendallanian. Congratulations on the scoop. We're going to let you go and keep us updated on this story. As you know, we'll be here for another for two hours, so let us know if anything develops. And thank you so much.

Carol Lennig (11:44)

Of course.

Nicole Wallace (11:45)

Andrew Weissman, I'm coming straight to you. I mean, this is not how it's supposed to work. Right. Crimes are investigated by investigators who then bring them to prosecutors who then make these difficult assessments of whether or not there's enough evidence to indict and prevail in a courthouse. This seems to be going the opposite direction. And I know the adaptive mind likes to say, well, no jury will convict, but that's not really the point today, is it?

Andrew Weissman (12:16)

Right. That's right. I'm Going to give some embroidery just because I'm a legal nerd on the sort of incredible reporting. And the synopsis from Carol, one is we will know whether there's an indictment because the return, the sort of voting, once it has happened, the handing up of that indictment, if it is voted, will be done in open court. It has to be legally. And so it's not something that we will be sort of surprised by, you know, weeks or months later, is something that they will see actually being handed up. And so we should, we should be expecting that if they manage to get the vote in terms of the way things are supposed to happen, there is a Department of justice rule that clearly is being violated, in my view, certainly in the James Comey case. And based on the reporting from Carol Ledig in this case as well, when a prosecutor goes to the grand jury, it is true that all that you need to show to the grand jury is that you have probable cause. Think of that as maybe 20% chance. It's a low standard. And all you have to do is meet that threshold and you only have to get a majority of the grand jurors. So that's 12 out of 23, usually to agree. But DOJ, the Department of justice, has a rule, and it's a really important rule, which is that you do not present a case to the grand jury and indict somebody unless you are like a good faith, reasonable belief based on the facts that you can win at trial. In other words, that you are going to be able to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason for that rule is precisely so you don't have the James Comey situation, and now the Letitia James situation if she is indicted, where you have this period where you're subjecting somebody to an indictment. But it is so clear in everything we know to date about the evidence in both the Comey case and the Letitia Jane's case, that they will never be able to meet. That. That is why you're seeing career people say no. And you actually, in the case of Vintage Siebert, it was not a career person. It was a Trump appointee who said no. And that's because that's how you're built. You're built at the Department of Justice that you were supposed to base on the facts and the law. And so what we're unfortunately going to see is the courts and juries pushing back, but we do not have any resistance within the White House. And we certainly don't see it at the Department of Justice, at the leadership level where they should be imposing their own rule in these cases.

Nicole Wallace (15:22)

Andrew Weissman, what is a declination memo? And when they're drafted and it's made public that they exist, how can they be used by a victim or a target of a malicious prosecution?

Andrew Weissman (15:38)

Great question. So one of the things that you do when you're at the department is if you're going to go forward or if you're not going to go forward, you write that up. And so if you go forward, you write a prosecution memo and you lay out all of the pros and cons, the law and the facts and the same thing. If you are not going to go forward, you'd write a declination memo and you'd write out what the legal problems are, what the factual problems are, why it is that you think you should not go forward. Those memos are the kind of thing that Pat Fitzgerald, the lawyer who you referenced, Nicole, revered lawyer, highly respected at the department and elsewhere, former U.S. attorney in Chicago. That is something that he is clearly going to seek. And he referenced yesterday in the arraignment of James Comey, because that is a lawyer who's going to say that this is vindictive prosecution. That is a legal doctrine for you were singled out based on either a statutory or constitutional basis that you have been targeted. Obviously, this is a poster child for targeting. I mean, if it's not here, when and what you are going to ask for if you're a defense counsel is discovery on that. I am confident that the Department of Justice is going to fight that like crazy because that discovery could be highly embarrassing to the department and to the White House. But that declination memo will be part of the discovery that they asked for. In addition, they will ask for all of the communications between the White House and Mr. Siebert and Ms. Halligan and anyone else about James Comey or in this case, if Letitia James is indicted with respect to her. And even though vindictive prosecution motions are very, very hard to win, we've already seen Embrago Garcia have a ruling in his favor granting him discovery. And I think we'll see the same thing happen in the James Comey case. I think we will certainly see that if Letitia James is indicted, I think we'll see that there as well. Because it's not rocket science to say what do James Comey and Letitia James have in common and why would they be targeted when there is reporting, including publica, that there are current people in Donald Trump's cabinet who have the Same or similar mortgage issue. So this is the antithesis of the rule of law and it really strongly suggests targeting, which goes to the heart of vindictive prosecution.

Nicole Wallace (18:33)

Director Brennan, I want to bring you in on this. You are a perceived political enemy of Donald Trump. You have been targeted with threats of prosecution. I believe they believe that you are under investigation. I think last time we talked, some of that was unclear. Tell me how this news lands that a grand jury is hearing evidence that a Trump appointed prosecutor didn't think met the lowest threshold of bringing a case against Tish James.

John Brennan (19:06)

First of all, Nicole, I love listening to Andrew Weissman speak about the law. He does it so well and very informative. And as Andrew knows well, a grand jury hears the representation from, in this case, Lindsey Halligan, as far as the, the alleged facts, it's a one sided representation of the facts.

Nicole Wallace (19:27)

Right.

John Brennan (19:27)

And quite frankly, I don't have confidence that all of the facts are being laid out in front of the grand jury. It's unsurprising given that we know that Donald Trump has been determined to carry out this revenge tour, identifying individuals and very publicly directing the Attorney General and others to bring charges. And the fact that you had these professional staff members of the U.S. attorney's office refused to bring those charges because there wasn't the evidentiary basis to do so, and then resigned because they didn't want to tarnish their integrity as well as their ethical requirements. And the fact that he had to bring in his personal lawyer from the White House to do this, I think it just demonstrates that there's been a real corruption and perversion of the process here. So it's many respects unsurprising. It is definitely disheartening in terms of what has happened. And just watching the Attorney General's testimony in front of the Senate the other day, it just demonstrates that she has total disrespect for any type of congressional oversight. It was the most disrespectful testimony that I've ever seen. And unfortunately, the Department of Justice has now been put like putty in Donald Trump's hands. So, again, I think Jim Comey has very good legal representation, the best that is available. I'm sure Letitia James is going to also have that legal representation. So I'm hoping that justice will prevail and that even if grand jury charges are brought against Letitia James like they were against James Comey, the truth will ultimately come out and these individuals will be acquitted, exonerated. But the damage that is being done to our system to The Department of Justice, I think, is just, you know, almost limitless in terms of that damage that is being done. And as well as the. It's not inconvenient for people who are being, you know, charged. It is really quite damaging as far as, you know, time, expenses, reputation, other types of things. But I think this is what Donald Trump wants to achieve. He was lashing back at individuals that he perceives to have harmed him in one way or another.

Nicole Wallace (21:32)

I mean, Mark, you and Director Brennan and Andrew Weissman are all frequent targets of attacks and threats from Donald Trump himself in social media posts and in speeches and other places. And I know there's in this moment, a real desire by a lot of people. I said this before. The adaptive brain tries to solve for whatever the trauma is. And so people say. Jim Comey said it on my show after the shell incident. He said, well, I have faith that the judicial branch of government will adhere to the facts and the truth. And when he was indicted, he said in a video, you know, let's go to trial. That's not the point.

Carol Lennig (22:14)

Right.

Nicole Wallace (22:14)

That's not the point. I think that is correct. But there are a lot of awful things that happen when you are falsely indicted or indicted based on evidence that your own office says is not adequate to prevail at a trial. The reason that DOJ rule exists isn't just to save time and energy and stay focused on cases where the facts. I think DOJ prosecutors have a near 100% conviction rate for cases they bring to trial, and that's by design. What do you think of this moment where Trump, with the help of Pam Bondi, seems to be ticking down a list whether where their own people are telling them there is not evidence, there is not a case where in the case of Comey, Bill Barr wrote in his book about how the whole department thought there wasn't a case against him. John Durham writes in his report and repeats in testimony and was interviewed by the office that Lindsey Halligan now runs that there's no case there. And yet here we are.

Mark Elias (23:12)

Yeah. So I would encourage everyone to stop talking about what the DOJ rules are or how prosecutors are built. And I love Andrew Weissman. And he has a hearing. That was yesterday. That was eight months ago. That was a year ago. That is not the world in which we currently live. The rule at the Department of Justice right now is that whoever the president of the United States wants indicted gets indicted, or at least they try. The rule as we sit here today is that the evidence is not what's going to drive prosecutorial decisions. That's just where we are. We are not on the verge of a constitutional crisis. We're not looking out in the distance at prosecutions. We are in the middle of it. And we are less than a year into this administration. And so when I hear that you have the U.S. attorney, the acting U.S. attorney put in place by Donald Trump as his personal lawyer, it is not an affront to the Department of Justice. It is the Department of Justice. I mean, Pam Bondi is the attorney general. The lawyers who are still in that office, they are sitting in an office headed by Mitchell. They have not resigned. They've not moved on. They are working in that system. And we all just need to be.

Nicole Wallace (24:31)

Really clear, working in the office that indicted Jim Comey over Eric Siebert, who's basically sort of Republican royalty in Virginia. He laughed, but they stayed correct.

Mark Elias (24:43)

And I just think, like, it is really hard for people to recognize that the system of justice that we had is over, is over. It is.

John Heilman (24:51)

It is not.

Mark Elias (24:52)

The system we currently have. The system we have now is intended to punish people on that list by putting a cloud over them, by indicting them if they can, putting them through financial and emotional difficult times and ruin if possible. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say this. I think that these indictments will be dismissed. I think that Donald Trump knows they'll be dismissed and he is okay with them being dismissed for procedural reasons of prosecution because it allows him to then say that the system was rigged against him, that some Trump hating judge dismissed the case. And that will just perpetuate him further and further down that list.

Nicole Wallace (25:38)

All right, no one's going anywhere. We're going to stay on top of this story. That grand jury in Virginia could reach a decision, as Andrew and Carol have said, any moment. And we will know about it because as Andrew points out is public. But when we come back, there's brand new reporting on another part of this story. The Wall Street Journal has new reporting that shows how Donald Trump directed the work of the Justice Department by Truth Social Post explicitly. Plus, new friction today in Donald Trump's deportation campaign. What prominent faith leaders are now saying and experiencing firsthand. And later, you might never guess who says the White House actually or who the Congress might actually should actually be in session right now so they can disclose the Epstein files, an unlikely voice of reason. We'll bring you all those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. We're back With Andrew Weissman, Director Brennan. Mark Elias is here. How could this get any better? We've been joined at the table by Buck News senior political columnist, MSNBC national affairs analyst John Heilman, who was invited to the A block. But I don't know. Traffic, traffic, traffic.

John Heilman (26:48)

I have gotten. It's been so many years since I lived in Brooklyn that I have totally lost any sense of how long it takes to get in New York City from Brooklyn. And I'm in Brooklyn. I was coming from Brooklyn.

Nicole Wallace (26:57)

I didn't mean to put you on.

Carol Lennig (26:58)

I mean, I guess I did mean.

Nicole Wallace (26:59)

I'm just saying I did mean to pitch.

Mark Elias (27:00)

So the truth is, I walked in just before you started, and I.

Andrew Weissman (27:03)

Which was late for you, which was.

Mark Elias (27:05)

Late for me, and I was told that Heilman wasn't even in the building. And I was like, wow, that's when you know you've arrived, which is sort.

Nicole Wallace (27:11)

Of the way he roles. But, yeah, I used to live in. Anyway.

John Heilman (27:14)

I used to live in Brooklyn. I had it down. I was so calibrated to arriving just as the show started.

Nicole Wallace (27:19)

It was a long way of saying, we welcome your thoughts on today's breaking news. I mean, we shall not become numb. But this is the second name on Trump's enemies list to be indicted in so many weeks.

John Heilman (27:31)

Yes. From the moment that Donald Trump wrote that thing to Pam Bondi, whether it was really meant to be public or whether it was supposed to be a private text message, we love that came out. I assume all three of those people that he named specifically and said they're all guilty as hell. I think they're all going to get indicted out of ships, or at least.

Mark Elias (27:44)

There'Ll be an effort to indict them. We don't know whether Justice James is being indicted, Right?

John Heilman (27:48)

Yes. But, you know, we know what the grand juries, you know, we know grand juries often.

Nicole Wallace (27:55)

Well, as Director Brennan said, they don't hear. It's not a trial. They don't hear both sides.

John Heilman (27:58)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And with grand jury, there is a reason why people use that famous phrase of you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, which it's not. It doesn't have the reasonable doubt standard. There's all that stuff. It's not that hard to get an indictment as proven by the fact that a woman who'd never tried a case was able to get an indictment from a grand jury against Comey, you know.

Mark Elias (28:16)

And the Eastern District of Virginia, which, you know, as reporting showed is in Alexandria. It is known to be.

Nicole Wallace (28:23)

Hang on. I'm sorry to interrupt you, Letitia. New York Attorney General Letitia James has been indicted. Andrew Weissman, your reaction?

Andrew Weissman (28:35)

I think that I want to sort of address the people who might look at this and say this is sort of tit for tat, that you see that in the Democratic administration. You see them going after Republicans and this is Republicans going after Democrats. This is where one, even if two wrongs don't make a right, even if that were true, but this is where facts matter. In the Letitia James case that she brought in New York, there was a trial. Facts were adduced. We all could look at those facts. And Donald Trump had a chance, an opportunity to due process and to hear all of that here, the process by which this has been undertaken, like the process that was undertaken with respect to James Comey tells you that career people and even Trump appointed people did not think that there was evidence, there were not facts that justified this. And I think a perfect symbol of the fact that this is different, that what we're seeing is different. It is not normal. It is not everyone does. It is to take a look at Abby Lowell. Abby Lowell is the defense lawyer for Letitia James. He was also the defense lawyer for Hunter Biden. In the Biden administration. The Department of Justice actually charged and convicted the sitting president's son. And Abby Lowell represented him and defended him and lost that trial.

Nicole Wallace (30:29)

Yeah.

Andrew Weissman (30:30)

And he is now defending Letitia James. And to me, when people say it's tit for tat, it's like, no. In prior administrations and by the way, Republican and Democratic administrations, under normal times, which I agree with Mark, are gone. Under normal times in those administrations, there is no politics that is supposed to be considered. I'm not saying it's never considered. And there aren't. There's aberrations.

Nicole Wallace (30:59)

No, it's that.

Andrew Weissman (31:00)

That is. That's not how you're built.

Carol Lennig (31:02)

Right.

Nicole Wallace (31:03)

Right. Andrew, let me bring Caroline back in. Carol Enig broke the news today exclusively that a grand jury was hearing evidence against Tish James. We have now heard the news that New York Attorney General Letitia James has been indicted. Carol Lennock.

Carol Lennig (31:21)

Yeah. A few minutes ago we confirmed that she was indicted by a grand jury in Alexandria of at least one count of bank fraud. Nicole. And the return was rather speedy. 4 o' clock was when the grand grand jury was supposed to come back out and present their information to Halligan. There was a four person in the courtroom along with Halligan, and they released their decision I will tell you, there's one other really interesting element to this that I'm hearing from sources, which is that this grand jury made its decision and listened to the presentation on its very first day in the box. In other words, grand juries sit sometimes for weeks and weeks. This grand jury was impaneled today, and this was their first case and their first decision.

Nicole Wallace (32:15)

Carol, any reaction from any of the resigned or fired U.S. attorneys in the Virginia offices that had looked at these cases and been pressured before Lindsey Halligan's appointment to bring them and refused?

Carol Lennig (32:35)

Well, in the, you know, 10 minutes since I was last with you, in the 10 minutes before we were reporting, I have not spoken with some of those folks, but I have, I can tell you from previous conversations that they were bracing for this. Letitia James herself, I understand from sources, was fully expecting that she would be indicted again, keeping in mind that the. The standard for indicting someone is the probability that there may be a crime that was committed. And it's a very low standard, but she was expecting this embracing for it herself. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia, some of them driven out by their decision not to bring this case, some of them resigning in disgust about other cases that Donald Trump is pressing and insisting upon. He wants to get to all the hits in his enemies list. Those people have been really tortured about all of this because for them, not only is this not a righteous case, not only is this not a justified case, but for them, it does not even meet the bare minimum for the evidence that has to be presented at trial to sustain a conviction.

Nicole Wallace (33:53)

Carol, just talk a little bit about the legacy of this office. This is an office that, other than sdny, I believe, brings the bulk of terrorism and national security cases. It has a. Regardless of whether the person who's president is a Democratic politician or Republican politician, this office is pretty storied. It is now forever tainted as the office that Trump's handpicked under qualified prosecutors bring political prosecutions.

Carol Lennig (34:23)

This office had a lot of respect among US Attorneys offices in the country for exactly the reason that in the wake of 9 11, it became the home of very thorough, rigorous and relentless terror prosecutions. It became the home of moving quickly and speedily, but also focusing on the toughest cases, the ones that protect national security, both from international terrorism, from domestic terrorism. It became this place often described as the rocket docket, because there was no flinching, no waiting. You know, prosecutors had a joke of, look, I go to the defense and I say, we're going to indict you. On Monday, if you don't come in and plead and Friday passes and they indict on Monday. It had a very unflinching quality about it, but it is part of the behemoth of the Department of Justice. And I think it's so important that you focus on this. NicoleThe Legacy, the Department of Justice's manual for prosecutors, its advice to them is do not bring a case out of pettiness. Do not bring a case out of political or partisan goals. Do not bring a case because you feel some animus to this individual. Bring a case after you rigorously assess the facts, are sure that they are solid and true, and believe that this is in the public interest to bring this case. You know, there is a joke now going around in Washington, D.C. that if Letitia James can be charged with bank fraud, pretty much anybody could because we fill out financial forms all the time where someone checks the wrong box. We don't know all the facts in Letitia James case, but the ones we have in front of us certainly, and the ones that prosecutors in this office assessed multiple times did not seem like a very strong or righteous case.

Nicole Wallace (36:29)

Well, and Carol, to your point, we don't have all the facts, but Trump's own appointees inside the Department of Justice did. And until Lindsey Halligan got there, Trump's own political appointees to these offices didn't believe there was a case against Letitia James.

Carol Lennig (36:42)

That's right. And my understanding is that Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch, while certainly very fierce supporters of the president, privately had concerns about this case, privately understood where Eric Siebert was coming from and wanted to try to keep that U.S. attorney in place and understood his reservations.

Nicole Wallace (37:08)

Director Brennan, let me bring you in on this and let me try to honor Mark Elias note about anchoring the news in the moment in which we are not in the moment we remember being you're on this list, is your life different knowing that without any facts, with Trump being there an entire first term raging against you and carrying out the revenge, he could, I think he took your security clearances away by 2017 or 18. That, that this isn't a moment where our country is led by a party in the White House, at the Department of Justice or in Congress or in the media, which is, I think, where Andrew's note about tit for tat being out there. And I appreciate nipping disinformation in the bud as much as anyone, but there isn't a two sides frame that you can put this story in Maga Republicans refuse to indict Jim Comey. MAGA Republicans refuse to indict Tish James today. Jim Comey has been arraigned and 40 minutes ago Tish James was indicted. Where are we, Monica?

John Brennan (38:18)

I think this is just one feature that we have seen over the last nine months in terms of the collapse of the America that we knew. When I look at the footage of ICE raids throughout the country, the deployment of US Military, the actions against law firms, universities, other types of organizations that Donald Trump doesn't like, and then going after his critics, I agree with Mark when he said that Donald Trump probably doesn't care. He probably would like people to get convicted, but he knows he can't control that. What he would like though, is to have the word indicted next to individuals names and he knows that he has a Department of justice that he can exploit and manipulate and he has an Attorney General who's willing to do the bidding. I'm old enough to remember the days of Watergate when we had an Attorney General Elliot Richardson, and a deputy Bill Ruckelhead, who resigned rather than do what President Nixon wanted to do. We are not in that era anymore. We don't have individuals who are willing to stand up to what clearly is an autocratic authoritarian effort on the part of the Trump administration. Not just Trump, it's the Stephen Millers and others who are very mean spirited, very vengeful, very nasty, many respects, trying to hurt and damage people across the board. Whether or not you're undocumented individual who's been here for 30 years and is raised a family and has a job, or you're a former national security professional who's worked over three decades to try to keep this country safe. If you're not on the Trump team, then you are potentially a target. And I think, as Carol mentioned, the way that they're going out now and trolling and looking for ways to be able to indict people or bring charges against people really is something that should worry every American. And the fact that the Republicans in Congress are allowing this to happen, that I find is the most appalling part. Until they grow some in Congress and really say enough is enough, I think we're going to continue to see these abuses of power, which is what it is.

Nicole Wallace (40:25)

When I said where are we? I didn't expect we'd be where Director Brennan says gross on but that is exactly where we are. And I think that there is quiet reluctance to question why the people still in positions to sound the alarms aren't sounding them Loudly.

Mark Elias (40:47)

Yeah. It's one of the great tragedies of this time is how few people are willing to step forward and say clearly, loudly and unequivocally that what is happening is wrong and what is happening right now is authoritarianism. I want to give a little bit, bit of color to the Eastern District of Virginia because I have a slightly less rose colored glasses version of it. As someone who has been a lawyer on the defense side and never been a prosecutor, the Eastern District of Virginia became the Eastern District of Virginia in part because it was the rocket docket, which was a benefit to prosecutors.

Nicole Wallace (41:20)

Explain what that means. Rocket docket means things move more quickly.

Mark Elias (41:23)

The cases move very quickly. The judges insist that cases move very quickly with which, frankly, if you are representing a criminal defendant, is not usually to your benefit. So it was viewed as a pro prosecution jurisdiction from the standpoint of the judges. It is also viewed as a pro prosecution jurisdiction from the standpoint of jurors and grand jurors. Right. Like this is a jury pool and a grand jury pool that unlike the District of Columbia right across the river, where those cases, cases candidly could have also been indicted, those terrorism cases, the sense was that the judges were more sympathetic to defendants and the jurors might be more sympathetic. So I think it's no surprise that we are seeing the Department of Justice go to the Eastern District of Virginia to indict cases where they possibly can, because it is viewed as a pro prosecution office, a pro prosecution bench and a pro prosecution jury pool. And I, I expect that as we move forward with Donald Trump's revenge tour or vengeance tour or authoritarian tour, we're going to see the selection of jurisdictions where he thinks and his Department of Justice think they have a better chance. You mentioned John Durham. John Durham brought a case in the District of Columbia and got laughed out of court. It was dismissed very, very quickly. So what was the next case they brought, they brought in the Eastern District of Virginia. Now, that also led to, to an acquittal. But I think it is no surprise that we are seeing these cases in that particular courthouse.

Nicole Wallace (42:55)

John Hellman, the political reality here is that this is very unpopular. I mean, Steve Bannon is probably, I don't even know the adjective to use to describe his joy. Very, very happy, I'm sure. But this does not help Donald Trump at a moment, profound political weakness. The shutdown is understood by the American people largely as being about health care. And they believe the Democrats are the ones fighting for health care. The tariffs are viewed as being depressive to People's buying power. And Trump would tell you they're his idea and his idea only. He alone made tariffs immigration. The idea of people here illegally not being allowed to stay is far more popular than Donald Trump. Trump's immigration policies and Donald Trump's handprints on immigration in this moment and political prosecutions have about a 20 to 30% approval rating. So this is another politically depressive action dominating the news. What do you make of the fact that they are proceeding down a path where just about everything they're doing is politically unpopular?

Carol Lennig (44:06)

Well.

John Heilman (44:08)

I make of it that, to start with, that a number of those things that you talked about, Nicole, are both unpopular and hugely salient with voters. I would say in particular, the health care issues that are driving up costs at the same time as inflation's already going up. You look at what Trump campaigned on, bringing down prices. He's failed. The tariffs have driven up prices, and now they want to take away the Obamacare subsidies that are going to drive up up insurance rates. I mean, people are going to leave their homes. That is the recipe for a blue wave in 2026. You couldn't walk faster. You could run more quickly. What you want to do is, hey, let's create a blue wave. Democratic Party's at about a 30% approval rating, but let's. What are we going to do to help Democrats run the table, including in a bunch of, like, uncompetitive districts and uncompetitive normally. Right. Red states. Let's just jack prices up on the most essential things. Let's not fix the problem that we identified. And then on most new stuff that really matters to people, like health care, that touches every American life. Let's jack those prices up, too. I mean, they are running into a buzzsaw. Donald Trump's not running into that buzz saw. He does not want Republicans to lose control of Congress for reasons that we've discussed on the show a lot. But we often conflate because the president's approval rating really matters in midterm elections. It always has. We conflate that as if to say that there were kind of of like all on the same team. They're not on the same team.

Nicole Wallace (45:33)

No one's on. He's not on anyone's team.

John Heilman (45:35)

He's not on anybody's team. And he also. He's not on the ballot. He's not on the ballot in 2026. So that doesn't mean that he's not still trying to cover his ass in various ways politically. But he does do things. He's playing this different game. And the game that he's playing seems to be about things that are not about, you know, if you could cancel the 2026 elections, you're not worried so much about whether you do unpopular things on the way to the 2026 elections, which is why these questions about. About invoking the Insurrection act and militarizing the American streets and how do you change the electorate and redistricting and challenging the census and all of that stuff that's dry. Like, how do you explain that's his midterm doing unpopular things? You explain doing unpopular things because you think that maybe you're not going to have an election at all, or you're going to have an election in which you get to control the electorate to the extent that the normal laws of political physics don't play out in these marginal districts because you've redistricted, you've got claimed Republican seats, you put military on the street in purple states to scare people away from polling places. All kinds of stuff you could do to either alter the election or cancel it altogether. That's if you start to think through what could possibly explain doing all these politically unpopular things. The only logical answer is the election. Donald Trump believes one way or the other is not going to be on the level. And I think that's what you have to think about here. I'm glad to hear Director Brennan said the thing that I really thought was important, which is that he talked about how it's appalling that Republicans are not setting up Donald Trump as opposed to saying it's surprising. And this is something we were talking about a second ago, man to Mark Elias, the parallel point to what Mark made about how there's the old world, the system of justice that obtained previously, and we're now in this new world, the old world. Politics is one where you can be surprised about Republicans. Not, dude, it's been 10 years.

Carol Lennig (47:19)

10 years now.

John Heilman (47:20)

They have never stood up to Donald Trump on almost anything. And let's not forget he instigated an insurrection and they got back on board, nominated him and are more loyal to him today than they were before that day. Anybody who has any hope that Republicans en masse or even in small courageous chunks are going to suddenly look up and go, no, we've had too much. Donald Trump can't do this. I'm gonna stand up to Donald Trump. I mean, dude, whatever you're smoking, I want some. Because you're totally diluted. I'm not saying you.

Nicole Wallace (47:56)

No, no, no.

John Heilman (47:57)

That expectation still get used to the new reality. They are not going to challenge him on anything that matters.

Nicole Wallace (48:05)

I can't remember now if you said this on TV or in the break, but you castigated me for asking estimates to give you anything right now. No, no, no, it's right. It's the right point. Why don't they care about counterterrorism capabilities being eliminated from the FBI? Because they are. It's not about what they once believed. They are now anti protecting the country from terrorism because they haven't opposed efforts to strip our capabilities.

John Heilman (48:30)

You're not Republicans anymore.

Nicole Wallace (48:31)

We're talking about redistricting. This is your battlefield. Tell me what's happening.

Mark Elias (48:37)

Yeah, look, I mean, John is 100% right. I mean, we're gonna have election. The question is whether they are fair and free. And Donald Trump's entire strategy is that we don't have fair and free elections. And the most, the one that seems to have captured the imagination of the American people is redistricting. And right now as we sit here, there is a hearing going on in Texas over whether or not this map that they passed will be in place. And if it is, that's five seats. If it's not, that is not five seats. But there's going to be a case in the U.S. supreme Court that's argued in October in a few weeks about whether the Voting Rights act continues. And if that gets struck down, you will see Republicans be pushed to redistrict there. And we are watching. There are eight lawsuits that my law firm has had to intervene in to defend voters because this Department of Justice is trying to get access to their most sensitive voter voting data. Why is it that the Department of Justice wants access to everyone's sensitive voting data if not to interfere again in the 20. And I agree with you, John, and J.B. pritzker, the governor of Illinois, said this. Why are the troops on the city, on the streets of the cities?

John Heilman (49:48)

To get people used to the idea of troops beyond the city and to scare the crap out of the kind of people who would normally vote for Democrats.

Nicole Wallace (49:55)

Well, and to bring us back to the indictments of Jim Comey and Tish James to hinder people who are prominent figures that uphold the rule of law. Andrew Weissberg.

Andrew Weissman (50:09)

To keep this lens broad, when you think about what happened today and you marry it with what John and Mark are talking about. If you think about a system of checks and balances, obviously we've talked about Republicans in Congress, that's a lost cause. We have lower courts and we have a Very inconsistent pattern from the Supreme Court. At best. What we are seeing is that the check that used to exist within the executive branch of career people, of civil servants, of professionalism, is being stripped away at the highest levels. That means that we are seeing it in the Justice Department. That is what we are seeing today. We are seeing it, and most scarily in connection with the military. We're seeing it in healthcare with Robert Kennedy Jr. Where science is no longer what governs science. And that issue of not having sort of checks and balances and not having the people within the executive branch to hold the administration to the facts and the law and to norms and to professionalism is completely eroded. And so you end up with John being able to talk about what will happen with the military taking the streets and saying, normally you would say, well, Mark Milley and Esper are going to stand up, right? And they don't, because they're not there. And so it is not going to come from headset. You are not going to have, you know, Robert Kennedy speaking up for science. You're going to have a complete eradication of the sort of normal checks and balances that were essential to this country working.

Nicole Wallace (52:14)

Well, Director Brennan, it comes down to what I think was, in Trump's view, the original sin, which was the intelligence assessment that Russia had interfered in the United States election, an opinion that Marco Rubio says he investigated more comprehensively than anyone, claiming that the Senate's investigation, the bipartisan investigation that he led and signed, was the most comprehensive in finding that Russia had indeed interfered in the 2016 election. And it's, in fact, the Rubio investigation that affirms the predicate for investigating Trump's campaign's ties to Russia, the thing that they hang over your head as being the reason they would like to investigate you.

John Brennan (53:00)

Well, Donald Trump is always most threatened by facts, and that's why he does his utmost to try to change those facts. He will continue to do that. It is incontrovertible that Russia intervened in the 2016 election. They continue to intervene in elections. My responsibility as director of CIA at the time, along with Jim Comey and others, was to expose that Russian interference. And that intelligence community assessment that we did was focused on that. There was no allegation inside of that about the cooperation that the Trump administration or Trump campaign officials might have given to the Russians. So as national security professionals, we were focused on that. But again, this is something that Donald Trump refuses to just get over and move forward on. It really is a shame with all the things that this country has to deal with both domestically and internationally. He continues to try to relitigate something from nearly a decade ago. But that's Donald Trump. He is never going to change his stripes. Absolutely not.

Nicole Wallace (53:59)

And I guess the tragedy of the hour is that he's changing the country's stripes. This is always awkward when I do it on live tv, but I know you all signed up for one hour. We're going to ask you to stay for the second. We're going to sneak in a break. We're going to stay on top of this story on this breaking news that New York Attorney General Letitia James has been indicted. The next hour, DAYLINE White House starts after quick break. We'll all be back.

Zynn Nicotine Pouches Advertiser (54:28)

If you're a smoker or dipper ready to make a change, you really only need one good reason. But with Zyn Nicotine Pouches, you'll discover many good reasons. Zyn is America's number one nicotine pouch brand. Plus, Zyn offers a robust rewards program. There are lots of options when it comes to nicotine satisfaction, but there's only one Zyn. Check out Zyn.com find to find Zyn at a store near you. Warning, this product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.