Fresh Air (NPR)

Episode: Implications Of The DOJ Targeting The President’s Critics
Date: October 1, 2025
Host: Tonya Mosley
Guest: Barbara McQuaid, former US Attorney, Professor at University of Michigan Law School
Theme: Examining the erosion of Justice Department norms and democratic safeguards as the Trump administration targets political critics with federal prosecution.

Episode Overview

In this urgent and wide-ranging episode, Tonya Mosley speaks with legal scholar Barbara McQuaid about the Trump administration’s campaign to use the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute prominent critics and political adversaries—including billionaire philanthropist George Soros, former FBI Director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The conversation explores how these aggressive tactics undermine long-standing legal norms, the rule of law, and America’s balance of power, echoing post-Watergate reforms and warning of their unraveling.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The DOJ as a Tool Against Political Opponents

• Mosley introduces the issue: The Justice Department has ordered prosecutors in several states to draft plans to investigate George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, and last week, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted after career prosecutors declined to pursue the case (00:24).
• President Trump’s public attitude: He refers to his targets as “corrupt radical left Democrats,” suggesting there may be more prosecutions coming, framing them as payback for supposed past politicization of the Justice Department (01:45).

2. Weaponization of Federal Prosecution

• Attorney General Pam Bondi’s FOX News appearance frames the sweeping investigations as “ending weaponization,” saying, “everything is on the table” and explicitly lists targeting current and former officials, and political donors opposed to Trump (03:11–04:08).
  • Quote: “We will investigate you and we will end the weaponization. No longer will there be a two-tier system of justice.” — Pam Bondi (03:45)
• Barbara McQuaid’s response:
  • “It is so profoundly wrong, and it makes me not only upset and angry, but very sad... since Watergate, it has been crystal clear that prosecutors may never consider partisan politics in making a charging decision. Pam Bondi is turning that on its head.” (04:31)

3. Pretext for Investigations: Conspiracy Theories and Predication

• Mosley questions the legitimacy of the Soros investigation, noting that the DOJ appears to be pursuing charges based on long-running conspiracy theories (05:38).

• McQuaid explains DOJ guidelines:

  • Cites Robert Jackson’s 1940 speech: “the importance of not targeting individual tools, but of targeting crimes.” (06:35)
  • Discusses the FBI’s Domestic Investigations Operations Guide (the “DIAG”)—there must be factual predication, not just a desire to “dig up dirt” on individuals (06:35–09:17).
  • Quote: “If you instead choose a person and then try to dig up whatever dirt you can on them, that is the opposite of the way the tool is supposed to work.” — McQuaid (06:57)

• Historical Comparison: McQuaid recounts refusing to open investigations based on unsubstantiated dirt from political campaign supporters (09:44).

  • Relates to Trump’s past behavior—only wanting a “public announcement” of investigations, as in the Zelensky call and the “just say there was fraud” episode (09:44–11:08).

4. The Comey Indictment: Process and Substance

• Unprecedented process breakdown:

  • Prosecutors declined; U.S. Attorney Eric Siebert was forced out and replaced by a Trump loyalist, Lindsey Halligan, who single-handedly both presented and signed the indictment—highly unusual (11:26).
  • Quote: “During the eight years I served as a U.S. attorney, do you know how many indictments I signed? Zero.” — McQuaid (12:42)

• Legal confusion at the heart of the case:

  • Senator Ted Cruz’s mix-up between “Clinton administration” and “Clinton investigation” led to vague, arguably defective charges due to statute of limitations (13:19–15:23).
  • McQuaid explains the legal concept of “variance”—when the charge and what’s proved at trial don’t align (16:17).

• Comey's response:

  • Quote: “My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump... We will not live on our knees. And you shouldn’t either... But I’m not afraid. I hope you’re not either... Vote like your beloved country depends upon it, which it does. My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'm innocent. So let's have a trial and keep the faith.” — James Comey (18:12)

• Process as Punishment: The strain of indictment, costs, and targeting of family members (19:02–19:33).

  • “This to me feels like an abuse... just because you have the power to do something doesn’t mean it is wise to do so.” — McQuaid (19:33)

5. Precedent and Post-Watergate Reforms

• McQuaid recaps Watergate’s lessons:
  • Firewalls between DOJ and White House to prevent political targeting.
  • Introduction of protocols—prohibited factors for prosecution decisions (race, religion, political association), limits on the President’s surveillance powers (25:01–29:12).
  • Quote: “What's never supposed to happen is the President directing who should be charged or not charged. That is a post Watergate norm.” — McQuaid (25:55)

6. State-Federal Power and Chilling Effect

• Mosley asks about Letitia James case: After securing a civil fraud victory against Trump, James faces DOJ criminal investigation and prosecutors refusing the case were fired.

  • McQuaid worries about the “disturbing use of federal power to squash state and local power”, violating federalism and the 10th Amendment (30:40–32:47).

• Chilling Effect:

  • Prosecutions and investigations of state officials for challenging the president may deter others from acting, undermining state accountability mechanisms (33:00).
  • Quote: “You see your colleagues around the country not just criticized, but targeted for criminal investigation and in the case of Jim Comey, indicted. Wow, that makes you think twice, right?” — McQuaid (33:00)

7. Probes Into Adam Schiff and Mortgage Fraud Allegations

• Reviewing the merits:
  • Most mortgage fraud cases begin with a bank referral about specific irregularities, not retroactive political targeting (34:40–36:13).
  • Process seems “reverse-engineered”—starting with the enemy, then looking for something to charge.
  • Proving “willfulness” and intent in such cases is a very high bar, difficult when senators commonly own homes in both their districts and D.C. (36:28–37:55).

8. Revisiting DOJ Norms: The Comey/Clinton Precedent

• McQuaid reflects on Comey’s 2016 press announcements about the Hillary Clinton email investigation as a breach of DOJ norms, but distinguishes between that and today’s deliberate criminalization of opponents (38:52–43:10).

9. Trump’s Public Rhetoric as a Shield and Legal Liability

• Potential motion for selective prosecution: Trump's explicit threats and insults provide clear evidence of political motive for these prosecutions (43:10–45:33).
  • Quote: “All these things about Comey being a scumball or a slime ball… could be strong evidence for that other element of intent.” — McQuaid (44:52)

10. Preparing Law Students for Eroding Norms

• McQuaid’s teaching: Legal and ethical obligations endure, regardless of political reality. She challenges students to distinguish what is legal, ethical, and appropriate in a democracy (45:51–47:09).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Pam Bondi on targets for DOJ investigation:

  “Everything is on the table. We will investigate you and we will end the weaponization.” (03:45)

• Barbara McQuaid:

  “Since Watergate, it has been crystal clear that prosecutors may never consider partisan politics in making a charging decision. And it seems that Pam Bondi is turning that on its head.” (04:31)

• On proper predication:

  “If you instead choose a person and then try to dig up whatever dirt you can on them, that is the opposite of the way the tool is supposed to work.” (06:57)

  “What it seems to me he [Trump] really wants is: let's just announce this thing because that will dirty them up.” (10:46)

• On the unique handling of the Comey indictment:

  “During the eight years I served as a U.S. attorney, do you know how many indictments I signed? Zero.” (12:42)

• James Comey's statement:

  "We will not live on our knees. And you shouldn't either... I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'm innocent. So let's have a trial and keep the faith." (18:12)

• On firing prosecutors:

  “It’s not uncommon for somebody to be told you must resign... it’s a face-saving way out to resign.” (23:57)

• On balance of power:

  “This is a violation of our constitutional separation of powers, not just among the three federal branches of government, but between the allocation of power, between the federal government and state governments.” (32:02)

• On the chilling effect:

  “You see your colleagues around the country not just criticized, but targeted for criminal investigation and in the case of Jim Comey, indicted. Wow, that makes you think twice, right?” (33:00)

• On Trump’s public statements as legal evidence:

  “All these things about Comey being a scumball or a slime ball… could be strong evidence for that other element of intent.” (44:52)

• On teaching the next generation of lawyers:

  “Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.” (46:14)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:24–02:19] — Framing the DOJ’s escalation against critics; Trump’s rationale and targeting
• [03:11–04:08] — Pam Bondi’s FOX News statement outlining broad targets
• [04:31–06:35] — McQuaid on the collapse of impartial prosecution norms
• [06:35–09:44] — Why factual predication matters; conspiracy theories as the new pretext
• [11:26–12:52] — The Comey indictment: process anomalies
• [13:19–16:17] — Indictment technicalities: variance, confusion over charges, statute of limitations
• [18:12–19:02] — Comey’s Instagram response: defiance and faith in the courts
• [25:01–29:12] — Watergate’s legacy and reforms protecting DOJ independence
• [30:40–33:00] — State-federal conflicts and the danger to state accountability
• [38:52–43:10] — Recap of past DOJ norm violations and how current abuses are different
• [43:28–45:33] — Trump’s statements as evidence for selective prosecution motions
• [45:51–47:09] — Educating law students: standing for ethics amid political turmoil

Conclusion

This episode offers a sobering, detailed view of how central pillars of American justice are at risk—from weaponized prosecutions to the destruction of impartiality and the chilling of dissent at every level. As legal scholar Barbara McQuaid warns, it’s not just about the targets in the headlines; it’s about democracy eroding “bit by bit in ways we’ve seen elsewhere in the world.”