Talking Feds – "Comey Before the Storm"
Host: Harry Litman
Guests: Jonathan Alter, Paul Fishman, Mimi Rocco
Date: September 29, 2025
Episode Overview
This episode analyzes a seismic week for American democracy and the rule of law. The roundtable dives into former President Donald Trump’s decision to fire his own hand-picked U.S. Attorney for refusing to prosecute enemies without evidence, the subsequent installation of an unqualified loyalist, and the unprecedented indictment of former FBI director Jim Comey. The panel examines the ramifications for DOJ integrity, the perils of political prosecutions, a corruption scandal involving immigration czar Tom Homan, and the unexpected reversal of Jimmy Kimmel’s cancellation—all through the lens of a “break glass” moment for the country.
Key Discussion Points and Insights
1. The Comey Indictment: Breaking a Democratic Taboo
[05:12 – 13:57]
- Harry Littman frames Trump’s orchestration of Comey’s indictment as “the most crass, unjust and deplorable action this Department of Justice has taken,” and a confirmation that, “the rule of law is dead in the federal government and that Trump killed it.”
- Jonathan Alter draws a straight line from Trump’s long-standing rhetoric about “retribution”:
"He calls it justice, but he's entitled to retribution...and Jim Comey is just the first guy, in my view." [05:38]
He situates Comey as a totemic target for Trump:
"...for the way Donald Trump thinks...it is extraordinary betrayal for him by somebody who he thought would actually have his back..." [06:32] - Mimi Rocco clarifies Trump's shift from incendiary rhetoric to effective action:
“One of the reasons this is...such a Rubicon cross...is because he was able to accomplish that for the first time.” [07:35] She underscores the danger of executive interference overriding prosecutorial independence.
- Paul Fishman calibrates the metaphor, saying it’s not entirely “crossing the Rubicon”—because historical precedent (Nixon) shows such perversions can be reversed:
"So even Caesar could have reversed course...and this also is not irreversible for all the things that we have been hearing." [10:01] He also makes clear: "What Trump did was criminal. What Comey did was not criminal." [10:27] He notes even pro-Trump analysts (Andrew McCarthy) admit the case has no merit.
2. Can This Abuse Be Prosecuted or Only Impeached?
[13:57 – 16:53]
- The panel discusses whether Trump's act is a “crime” or principally “an impeachable offense.”
- Paul Fishman notes:
“The Supreme Court... actually said in their opinion in the horrible immunity case...the only remedy was impeachment. Right. And for impeachment, the high crimes and misdemeanors and abuse of power that have often been part of counts of impeachment, this fits into that very, very easily.” [16:06]
- Harry Littman and others lament that technical legality is beside the point—the conduct’s corruption is glaring.
3. Career Prosecutors Warned: Will Their Objections Matter?
[16:53 – 19:49]
- Mimi Rocco asserts the career prosecutors’ memo rejecting the case is likely relevant in forthcoming motion practice:
“...we have never, ever seen this set of facts before. We have never seen the head of the government, the president of the United States, calling for the prosecution...And then the career prosecutor saying, no, there isn’t an actual meritorious case here...and then that being overruled by the political loyalist installed by the president.” [17:37] She predicts strong vindictive prosecution and outrageous government conduct motions from Comey’s defense.
4. How Should Comey’s Team Respond?
[19:49 – 24:04]
- Jonathan Alter and Paul Fishman discuss the rapid path to trial in the “Rocket Docket” (Eastern District of Virginia).
- Comey is signaling he wants a trial to clear his name.
- Defense will likely file for a “bill of particulars” to force prosecutors to specify what false statement or obstruction is actually alleged.
- This process could expose the case’s emptiness or create helpful records for Comey.
5. Trump’s Political Calculus and the Value of Resistance
[24:04 – 29:13]
- Paul Fishman argues Trump is immune to humiliation, but not to sustained resistance:
“He cannot be humiliated. That just is not anything that will ever happen because he has no sense of shame...but he can be dissuaded by his transactional nature into backing off.” [24:27] Prior episodes (law firms, Kimmel, universities) show he sometimes relents after repeated legal and public defeats.
- Jonathan Alter cautions it can take multiple failures for Trump to back down, and resistance—especially from surprising quarters—is crucial.
- Mimi Rocco and Harry Littman note the American Bar Association and parts of the legal profession are beginning to mount a response, but bipartisan pushback is needed for real impact.
6. The Challenge of Mass Resignations at DOJ
[33:13 – 36:35]
- The panel debates whether mass resignations by career federal prosecutors would slow the march of politicized prosecutions—or only degrade DOJ further.
- Jonathan Alter observes:
“The Trump world gives a rat’s ass if people resign en masse. They just don't care.”
- Paul Fishman warns that the replacement of experienced prosecutors with loyalists could cripple the DOJ’s capacity to prosecute real crime (organized crime, terrorism), not just Trump vendettas.
7. The Homan Bribery Scandal: Did DOJ Bury the Case?
[36:35 – 47:25]
- Panelists discuss reports that tough-talking immigration czar Tom Homan accepted $50,000 cash in an FBI sting—yet the case was dropped by top DOJ officials.
- Harry Littman:
“The prospect that they actually shut it down in a regular meritorious way, how do you evaluate that? Is that clearly a lie?” [36:35]
- Mimi Rocco:
“Bribery prosecutions are incredibly challenging now. But...here, it’s so obvious. I mean, literally did the thing that we all joke about...” [38:11]
“Would most law-abiding citizens out there take a bag of $50,000, you know, because somebody offers it to them?...It’s not normal behavior.” [45:25] - Jonathan Alter points out the cultural shift that such conduct is not even disqualifying anymore, compared to recent decades:
“Somebody’s going to be in...Donald Trump’s first administration, and the administration learns...the person they want...was in the parking lot...takes a bag of $50,000 in cash. That would've been a disqualifier...like until like last week.” [41:33]
- Paul Fishman (on whether this sticks to Trump):
“Nothing does, again, except Epstein and tariffs...These, you know, scandals we’ve learned from long experience do not.” [43:21]
8. The Jimmy Kimmel Reversal: Small Victory for Pushback
[49:18 – 53:48]
- Paul Fishman analyzes the dynamics that led Disney/ABC to restore Kimmel, highlighting reputational and financial pressure from multiple stakeholders.
- Mimi Rocco and Jonathan Alter emphasize the lesson: resistance works best when coming from unexpected voices (e.g., Joe Rogan, Ted Cruz), not just liberal holdouts.
- The panel reflects on the crucial role of comedy in resisting authoritarianism:
“There's a whole history...of comedy being a spectacularly successful tool in undermining the regime in a lot of ways.” — Jonathan Alter [52:32]
- Paul Fishman draws the parallel to Russia, warning that silencing comedians is a red flag for autocracy’s arrival.
9. Final Segment: The Curious Statue
[54:31 – 54:53]
- The panel jokingly speculates on the fate of a statue featuring Trump and Epstein.
- Paul Fishman: “Smithsonian basement awaiting Democratic President Maxwell.”
- Mimi Rocco: “Not in enough places.”
- Jonathan Alter: “Moving to Mar a Lago.”
- Harry Littman: “Bottom of the Potomac.”
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- Harry Littman:
“A fucking prosecution ordered by the president against a political enemy in the absence of proof—other than, you know, kidnapping someone in the middle of the night and taking them to Gitmo or whatever, it gets no worse than that for me.” [15:23]
- Paul Fishman:
“What Trump did was criminal. What Comey did was not criminal.” [10:27]
- Mimi Rocco:
“Whether it’s across the Rubicon or not, we can all agree that we have never, ever seen this set of facts before...We have never seen the head of the government...calling for the prosecution...and then the career prosecutor saying, no, there isn’t an actual meritorious case here.” [17:37]
- Jonathan Alter:
“He cannot be humiliated. That just is not anything that will ever happen because he has no sense of shame...but he can be dissuaded by his transactional nature into backing off.” [24:27]
- Paul Fishman (on Homan):
“Even at the worst of the corruption in Chicago, if it involved cash, there was a problem because people have not been using cash for anything except illegitimate purposes for a very long time...We're now going on 50 or 60 years where the word cash equals something very bad that just happened.” [42:50]
- Jonathan Alter (On the Kimmel Segment):
“If you haven't seen the clip...of Robert De Niro's impression of the chair of the FCC extorting Jimmy Kimmel on the air...It's a pretty good watch.” [52:07]
Timestamps for Important Segments
- [05:12] – Opening: The Comey indictment as a watershed moment
- [13:57] – Is this criminal, impeachable, or both?
- [16:53] – Will career prosecutors’ dissent factor into the case?
- [19:49] – Defense strategy: Vindictive prosecution, Rocket Docket
- [24:04] – Does Trump ever experience accountability?
- [29:13] – Legal profession, ABA, and bipartisan resistance
- [33:13] – Would mass DOJ resignations have an impact?
- [36:35] – Homan scandal: Corruption investigation and DOJ cover-up
- [41:33] – Changing standards for public conduct
- [49:18] – Kimmel reinstatement: When pushback works
- [52:32] – The role of comedy in resisting authoritarianism
- [54:31] – The Epstein statue joke: ending with dark humor
Overall Tone and Takeaway
The panel voices deep alarm at the breakdown of legal safeguards and democratic norms, mixing legal analysis, dark humor, and uneasy historical analogies. The consensus: while individual episodes of corruption may fade from popular memory, resistance—especially across partisan and professional lines—is paramount. The podcast closes with a wry sense that things have changed, but not irreversibly, provided society pushes back hard enough.
This summary covers all substantive content and key moments in the episode while retaining the analytical and sometimes sardonic flavor of the original conversation.