← The Beat with Ari Melber
The Beat with Ari Melber
FBI Vet Comey in Court For Charges Trump Demanded
00:41:23
Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to Congress in 2020. MSNBC's Ari Melber reports and is joined by former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann.
Loading summary
Transcript59 lines
- [00:00]
Rob Lowe
Hey everybody, it's Rob Lowe here. If you haven't heard. I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe, please and listen wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:35]
NetCredit Advertiser
Netcredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit when other lenders say no. Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner banks and serviced by NetCredit. Applications subject to review and approval. Learn more at netcredit.com partners NetCredit Credit.
- [00:49]
Ari Melber
To the People welcome to the Beat. I'm Ari Melber and we are following what it looks like when Donald Trump calls in an indictment, which he publicly did, a Nixonian admission that he wanted someone he opposes or doesn't like to be charged. James Comey. That individual has been charged and today it turns to court. It's really happening. The former FBI director appeared in court for the first time since the DOJ indictment. So this is the beginning of the case. This is the beginning, if you will, of the process that leads to a trial if the case holds and isn't tossed before then. He pled not guilty today to the charges of lying to Congress back in 2020 around issues that stem all the way back to Trump's first term. It's a pivotal moment in how this DOJ has continued to bend to things that we know from the public record. Its own prosecutors and internal staff appointed by Trump thought were wrong, bending to things that they didn't want to do, sometimes having to change staff. Trump ousting the prosecutor there in order to get what he sees as his revenge. Indictments. Now, Comey's long been the subject of clashing with Trump all the way back to how he did what he and others saw as his job. And remember, these issues have long already been investigated. They've been reviewed by the DOJ's internal process. They were reviewed by a prosecutor handpicked by Trump, John Durham and other reviews. None of this, whatever one thinks of it, has ever been seen by any other prior process to involve any, any misconduct of a criminal nature by James Comey. And yet that is what Trump demanded be charged and what got charged. So we take a look back at a history that goes all the Way to Trump's first presidential campaign. The FBI director told Congress he is investigating whether there was any coordination between people associated with the Trump campaign and the Russians. The FBI. James Comey has been fired. Look, I, I've seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes led to the indictment of dozens of people. The head of Trump's campaign was a grave counterintelligence threat. Former CIA director John Brennan and former FBI director James Comey are under criminal.
- [03:01]
Andrew Weissman
Investigation for in the Trump era, I've.
- [03:03]
Ari Melber
Been investigated a lot, audited a lot, and so it's not my first rodeo. Former FBI Director James Comey has just been indicted on two counts. There are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees. The last statement there was Comey's video presentation, a kind of video public accounting for what he says are the costs of opposing Donald Trump. And let's call it like it is, let's be straight. James Comey has been controversial on the left, right and center for a bunch of stuff, but nobody who honestly has reviewed him or criticized him, and he has been criticized for his leadership, for his approach the FBI on this and other newscasts, but nobody who seriously looked at this thought there were crimes there. Remember, there's no new evidence that we've seen yet. If they have new criminal evidence, we'll report on it. But all of this goes back to him testifying to Congress about prior activities regarding talking to the press. Press releases, press leaks. Right, an authorized statement versus a leak. But none of that has ever led, as I remind you, to anything that anyone thought was a crime, including Donald Trump's hand picked prosecutor, John Durham. So it's important to keep that in mind because whatever Comey's popularity, all of the evidence that we have in public suggest this is the old stuff that, that even Trump's people didn't think amounted to evidence to charge that now is being charged because the President phoned it in, possibly unlawfully, possibly illegally. Indictment related to that history was not brought in the normal course by the normal prosecutor. One prosecutor ousted, another brought in. And before she had what any lawyer would tell you is enough time to go through the facts and the evidence and the case and the witnesses. She just rushed in for a deadline and charged it. And no one else would sign their name next to what she put the Times reports to prosecutors. North Carolina now been assigned to the case because she had, quote, a hard time getting anyone in her new office to Help think about what the Times is reporting. Her new office is in the Trump administration. These are all Trump people, but many of them say it's not a real case. You might violate your legal duties to pursue it, or they don't want to be a part of a clunker that could turn into a loser. She did not speak in court today. She was reportedly in her chair nodding when a junior prosecutor represented the department. She was the only prosecutor to sign the indictment. I'm going to remind you of that, like I said there. And the indictment itself doesn't have a lot of evidence. It's two pages. It's about congressional testimony. Comey's team is out there going on offense today. And with all due respect, they have a legal team, several DOJ lawyers with far more experience than the new prosecutor that Trump called in. They say they haven't even been given real specifics on the charges, that they are going at the whole case seeking its dismissal, and they're going to use Trump's words against him, saying that they have evidence to prove. And these aren't just any random defense lawyers. These are some very skilled, decorated DOJ veterans, one who worked as a Republican, Fitzgerald, investigating high level matters. They say they can prove. They think that it's a, quote, vindictive and selective prosecution. They also say this new handpicked prosecutor might have problems of validity. The government doesn't have a lot of details, but they claim they need more time to introduce what they call classified evidence. The judge already on this first day leading the trial, quote, skeptical of the claim that the nature of this. Remember, we're talking about public testimony, about issues that have been discussed for years. If this weren't so important, some people might say, I'm a little tired of stories about the Clintons and James Comey. But of course, this is Trump's revenge tour. This is what he wants everyone to focus on. And the judge is skeptical that there's going to be new classified evidence. The Times said it kind of projected an air of polite impatience on the first day of Trump team's effort to prosecute the former FBI director. Quote, this does not appear to me to be an overly complicated case. The judge added, again striking at the obvious there isn't a ton of new evidence against the director. What there is is old evidence that was previously dismissed, found lacking by perfectly motivated Trump appointees who, had they had the case before, would have presumably been willing to bring it. Indeed, they take an oath to bring cases that are supported by the evidence. Now, a new prosecutor lonely in her office, doing Trump's bidding. And today, seemingly outgunned by some of the more experienced counsel against her, is going to try to take the director to trial. That trial, if there is no intervening event, will be set for January. We're joined by Andrew Weissman, former FBI general counsel, and Mueller pro prosecutor. Welcome.
- [08:03]
Andrew Weissman
Nice to be here.
- [08:05]
Ari Melber
Let's start with the little bit of new we did hear for the first time from a judge assessing what is a very thin slice of this because we're not at trial. What did you make of the judge's reception today?
- [08:19]
Andrew Weissman
Well, what he was responding to was the first of what I believe will be many efforts by the government to slow the case down. They were clearly not doing what normally a prosecutor does, which is like, we're ready for trial, let's go, let's set a date. Remember, this is the so called rocket docket. And so the government said, judge, you should delay the trial because it's complex. Under something called the speedy trial rules, if you could declare something complex, the government's given more time. A false statement case, which is two counts, is very unlikely to be a complex case. And that's what the judge is reacting to. But the news here, the sort of the import of it is the government is going to be, and I think this is going to be the first of many efforts by them to slow the case down. They don't have a winning hand that any day that the case is not dismissed or they do not lose the case at trial is a good day for the government. This is an unusual position for the government to be in. And it was, I thought they looked very weak today in a false statement case, showing up and saying, judge, please delay the case because it's complex. I mean, that was facially not terribly plausible.
- [09:38]
Ari Melber
Right? You're saying that alone makes them look bad. And on simple cases, this is clearly a simple case. It's not a RICO case. It's not a bunch of organizational evidence. It's a couple of discrete facts, as the judge said. And as you know, having been a prosecutor, Andrew, there's a bit of what they sometimes call the Lauryn Hill rule where confident prosecutors say, ready or not, here I come. You can't hide. And you're telling us we're getting the opposite from the Trump prosecutor saying, I need more time, I'm basically not ready. And maybe they are a little bit afraid. They're the ones hiding from what this could ultimately look like. With that in mind, you can say, okay, Weitzman said this the news anchor said that. What about more Republican veterans of the DOJ? Here was new from Andrew McCarthy, well known, I'd say, pretty conservative prosecutor type. But here's what he said. I don't believe they have a case.
- [10:34]
Andrew Weissman
Bill, based on what we've seen in the indictment and what we know from the public reporting.
- [10:40]
Ari Melber
But now we're going to find out.
- [10:42]
Andrew Weissman
I just think that factually they have a very difficult time making this case.
- [10:47]
Ari Melber
Andrew.
- [10:49]
Andrew Weissman
I agree. And I point out just another aspect of the weakness, which is one of the things that they said to the court, the government did, is another reason to delay this case is because there's going to be so much classified information and we're going to need to do litigation under what's called the SEPA statute, which governs how to deal with classified documents. Again, that remains to be seen, but that does not seem to be the case here, that this is going to be a case that involves lots of classified documents. So between the statement about please exclude speedy trial time and give us more time because it's complex and the government saying, oh, there's lots of classified documents. So that's going to involve this complicated process about how to deal with classified documents. Those are both weak statements. And it's understandable because the trial team, as you noted, are not the trial team that had been on the case investigating it. They are brought in from outside. So they clearly are not ready. But that is so unusual. I want to make sure people understand the government. When you indict a case, you need to be ready. Your only responsible response to the court is when you set the trial date, we will be ready. Otherwise, don't bring the case. And so it was really quite a weak showing on their part.
- [12:16]
Ari Melber
In Watergate, Nixon ultimately turned over tapes which showed him in his own voice admitting to abusing government power and the FBI towards his political ends. And that, along with other things, ended his presidency. Donald Trump has done that on the same issue, misusing DOJ FBI to go after opponents in public. And that could also doom this case. I want to read from the New York Times account again, saying Trump's attacks on Comey may undermine the case, while vindictive prosecution motions it says are notoriously difficult to win. The president's voluble vitriol and his incessant need to be on the attack could provide defense lawyers with an avenue to protect the very people he most wants to punish. Your legal outlook on that, everyone can discuss why it's bad for democracy and the rule of law. It's Very Putin esque to be ordering in hits on people, legal hits, but on the law. You, I'm sure, have faced down those kind of pretrial motions in different circumstances. I'm sure you've usually said in your role, obviously, but different than this case, hey, let's get to trial, stop attacking the government. That's what we usually hear from prosecutors. And as mentioned, those, those arguments don't always prevail. Your thoughts on the strength of that argument here and how the judge might see it?
- [13:38]
Andrew Weissman
Sure. Well, a vindictive prosecution motion generally fails. It is very, very hard to meet the legal standard. But if there is any case that appears to warrant a vindictive prosecution argument, this is the poster child for what appears to be a solid, a really rock solid vindictive prosecution case. Where I think this is going is the government is going to make a motion saying, as they said today, that this is a vindictive and selective prosecution and they want discovery. That's going to be key. They want the discovery to help prove that case. By the way, Abrego Garcia has made the same motion and he was granted discovery. When Judge Crenshaw, Tennessee said, yes, you have made a prima facie sort of, you've made enough of a showing of vindictiveness. And I think that's where you're going to see the yes.
- [14:36]
Ari Melber
When you say discovery, you mean they could get inside the Trump DOJ files.
- [14:42]
Andrew Weissman
Exactly. And that is exactly where the battle will be because we know that the government from many other cases in Trump 2.0 does not want to disclose this. And so I think there's going to be a sort of battle royal on the issue of not just the documents that are the career people in the Eastern District of Virginia who said there's not enough evidence. The defense is going to want that, but they're going to want the communications with the White House which they will say we're ordering them to go forward no matter what. And that's where I think there's going to be. I think the government's going to do is not turn those over. I think they're going to try and appeal that. They're kind of trying to use that to delay the case. It'll be yet another way for the government to try and delay going to trial. Just remember, Ari, that is so unusual. The government, if you think someone's guilty, is not sitting there thinking, let me think of three ways not to go to trial. They should be. That's usually what the defense wants.
- [15:48]
Ari Melber
No, I mean, for anyone who's ever watched somebody fake getting into a fight that they don't want to get into? It's giving Hold Me Back. Rather than legally a peaceful court fight, obviously, but legally saying no, they're ready to go. And you're pointing out again multiple avenues that Comey team can exploit in this case. Andrew's agreed to stay. We're going to add another legal heavy hitter, the former head of the criminal division, Leslie Caldwell, when we all return together in 90 seconds.
- [16:20]
Rob Lowe
Hey, everybody, it's Rob Lowe here, if you haven't heard. I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe, please and listen. Wherever you get your podcasts.
- [16:56]
NetCredit Advertiser
Netcredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit. When other lenders say no.
- [17:02]
Ari Melber
Apply.
- [17:03]
NetCredit Advertiser
Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. If approved applications are typically funded the next business day or sooner. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner banks and serviced by Netcredit application subject.
- [17:15]
Andrew Weissman
To review and approval.
- [17:16]
NetCredit Advertiser
Learn more@netcredit.com partner netcredit credit to the.
- [17:21]
Ari Melber
People Imagine relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected, and each one more expensive and more complicated than the last. It can be pretty stressful. Now imagine Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever need and are all connected on one platform. Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software that can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up today@odoo.com that's O-O-O.com we're back with Leslie Caldwell, the former head of the DOJ Criminal Division and longtime prosecutor. Former FBI general counsel Andrew Weissman still with us. Leslie, you probably have not seen a case quite like this, even though you've overseen so many high profile cases. When you see a former FBI director in going to trial like this, after the President called for the case, what runs through your mind and what, what did you learn from the what was a brief hearing today?
- [18:31]
Leslie Caldwell
So I think everything that I thought when the case was indicted in a very hasty manner by a prosecutor who obviously knew nothing about the facts and a grand jury that barely voted an indictment this just reinforced that this case is like none other. I've never heard of a case where the president basically ordered the Attorney General to indict a case.
- [18:58]
Ari Melber
You never saw anything like that?
- [18:59]
Leslie Caldwell
Nothing. I've never even seen a case where the President was even in the mix of deciding whether a case would be brought or not, or even was aware of certain details of investigations. So this is completely unprecedented. And, you know, we'll see what happens. I think that it's hard to imagine that they actually have a real case, given the history of the case and the circumstances leading up to the indictment. And as you know, the prosecutors are going to actually do the case, are being parachuted in from another district and have no, no experience with the case at all.
- [19:29]
Ari Melber
So I know you to be such a straight shooter. Let's talk about James Comey a little bit. Because being controversial, being unpopular, being someone who many people thought didn't do his job perfectly, I think that's well established. People have views about how he led. Is supposed to have zero to do with the criminal standard for indictment. Right. I mean, Trump seems to be blatantly admitting and capitalizing on the idea. And Jared Kushner had said previously, oh, well, a lot of people don't like this guy. Like, that makes him a, quote, good target.
- [20:04]
Leslie Caldwell
Yeah, that's completely wrong. And that's not how the federal criminal justice system either works or should work. But they're doing that now. But that's nothing that's ever been done before. So blatantly. And I'm not saying there's never been any bias in prosecution, but. But I'm certainly saying that there's never been a situation where the President of the United States is saying, nobody likes this guy. He's a bad guy, he's a dirty cop. Some of the other comments.
- [20:27]
Ari Melber
Right. Dirty cop making.
- [20:30]
Leslie Caldwell
I've never seen anything even remotely like that. And, you know, when you're a prosecutor, you tend to form opinions about whether you like the people you're targeting or you don't like them. And sometimes you actually do like them. But that's not at all an appropriate consideration in deciding whether to bring a case.
- [20:47]
Ari Melber
You think this case goes to trial?
- [20:49]
Leslie Caldwell
I think there's a pretty good chance. I agree with what Andrew was saying earlier about the vindictive prosecution motion is probably best. The best possible facts for the defense team, given the extreme difference between this and any other vindictive prosecution case. And even the Abrego Garcia case that Andrew referenced is not as extreme as this. It's Extreme in different ways, but. So I think they could prevail on that motion. But I do think they will go to trial and hopefully they'll go to trial sooner rather than later if they're actually going to go.
- [21:24]
Ari Melber
And you've seen a lot of cases. Based on the current information we have, you think defendant James Comey can beat this case?
- [21:30]
Leslie Caldwell
Yes, based on what we know now, I think he will.
- [21:34]
Ari Melber
Andrew, I have the interim question to get to with you. But first, any response you want to the points Ms. Caldwell raised?
- [21:43]
Andrew Weissman
I just want to make sure people know that when Leslie says this, she has served under Republican and Democratic administration. She was head of the Enron task force under the Bush administration. And so when she's saying this hasn't happened before, that is in a bipartisan way, that is not how the Department of Justice operates. It's nothing that Leslie or I have ever seen. The idea of removing your own U.S. attorney, overruling the career people and putting somebody in an indicting within one day and then showing up in court and basically coming up with every excuse, including, you know, almost to use hyperbole, the dog ate my homework to try and delay the case. It really signals complete abuse of the Department of Justice and the criminal justice system to use as a weapon. And again, it's just topsy turvy in terms of what you would expect. It's the defendant who never wants to go to trial and the government who wants to get the person to trial.
- [22:47]
Ari Melber
Yeah, all important points for both you and again, we're at this point, it's past the breaking point on the DOJ side in the military, we may still be following court rulings to figure out where are the new lines for troops in the streets. And folks can make up their mind about that. But on this legal side, it's broken. I want to put up just the faces of the many people. Anyone can debate any individual case, but here we are inside the first year of the term and you got the indictment of Comey, the search of John Bolton, charging a mayor, then dropping the case hastily, which again speaks to what we were talking about, whether the Comey case even goes to trial. Charging a congresswoman, that case is open. And a bunch of other folks facing threats and probes. It's not normal. And we're past that breaking point. Andrew, to make a mildly nerdy joke or reference, most people don't want to talk about the interim succession rules inside the federal government or the doj. I know you to be legally nerdy enough that it might hold some interest for you. And like other arcane issues in law school, it don't matter until it do. So the Times is reporting and Comey's lawyers are bearing down on this, whether they actually have a type of more technical legal issue here. We talked about the big stuff, but the AG can install someone as a, quote, interim prosecutor, but only for 120 days, the Times notes, after that expires, I think we have this. Yep. The law says a federal court can then decide who serves as interim. That's of course a judge, not necessarily the DOJ. The prosecutor is removed, already served a 120 day term. That's the person who was ousted under this unusual series of events. Andrew. And so the time says the questions whether the Trump administration even had the authority to make what they're calling a second interim appointment, as I mentioned, arcane, dry, boring, unless the Comey lawyers think it helps them strike a blow here. Can you, can you explain this to us in plain English and could it matter?
- [24:49]
Andrew Weissman
It could matter. So there's both the legal rule and there's the remedy. And this is something that's going on around the country where you have the president trying to avoid having to have the U.S. attorney be confirmed by the Senate, which is what is required, and instead trying to install people over and over again in these interim ways. And many, many courts have said you cannot do that. It's going up to the court of appeals to decide that. But that's the issue. Can you sort of avoid Congress instead of, and just appoint whoever you want for as long as you want against the congressional scheme? That's the, the issue of what does the law say? The issue is the remedy. And a lot of times the courts have said, well, the remedy is not dismissal of an indictment. Right. The remedy might be removal of the U.S. attorney. The U.S. attorney can't oversee a case. But here, dismiss an indictment.
- [25:48]
Ari Melber
I'll let you finish. But here there were so few prosecutors willing to do these charges that it, it might relate.
- [25:56]
Andrew Weissman
Exactly. So that is the best argument for Comey to say, you know what, but here this person was indispensable to having it go forward. This isn't just a figurehead of a US Attorney, but the worker bees are all proper and doing their work. And so why should the defendant go free here? She was integral to having it go forward. And we know that because the career people and the, the former Trump appointee who was in that office was saying no. So the best argument is if they win the legal piece, they then have to say, well, the remedy really should be dismissal of the indictment because it wouldn't have happened without her. So that is an argument they will make. That is the kind of thing, though, that will definitely be heard by a court of appeals, if not the Supreme Court, because of the dramatic resolution that they want, which is the dismissal of an indictment, understandably. Let's remove it from the James Comey case. Dismissal of charges against a defendant is a serious matter. Imagine if you had a defendant who had committed murder. This feels like a technicality that in terms of whether you should dismiss based on this basis. On the other hand, if you do have the president, if a court finds violated the law here and trying to circumvent near the Senate, there really can be consequences, and maybe there should. But this is a difficult call where you really have to think about it unrelated to the James Comey facts, because as Leslie said, and I agree this is based on what we know to date, this case should never have been brought and is sort of heading to an acquittal.
- [27:38]
Ari Melber
Yeah. Andrew Wiseman, Leslie Caldwell, on the beginning of the road to the possible trial of James Comey. Thank you. Big news night, obviously, Coming up tonight, we have a fact check on election lies. The National Guard troops now going from red states to blue. What's up with that? And some Republicans worried about democracy, joined by a chorus of voices. The Treasury Department has said they want to put Trump's face on a special $1 coin to celebrate. Celebrate America's 250th birthday. Here's the mockup of the coin they released. Yeah. America 1776-2026. Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? We have troops in the streets of America in multiple places. And we as a country have to face what's happening. If it's in your city, you probably already have seen it and you have your own views of it. If it's somewhere else. As we know, politics can be local and people may be tuning it out, but we know Texas National Guard members have now crossed state lines questioning our federal system where we have different state powers and federalism, they're over in Illinois. There are plans to get troops in Chicago. There are lawsuits trying to stop this and limit it. And it's not just those type of Guard troops. The president using ICE and other federal agents to push the limits in Chicago and other places. And what we're seeing includes patrolling odd places. You're looking at this river patrol of federal ICE agents in Chicago, which is not exactly right near the Mexican border, to Say the least. There are scenes of agents using smoke grenades, countering protests. We've been showing you that one incident caught on camera just last month, where agents fired pepper balls at a pasture. You can see the video there. That's when it first happened. The pastor, we can report, is now suing ICE for multiple human rights, First Amendment constitutional violations, a pattern of extreme brutality, and arguing that this isn't just patrolling the streets for safety, which, of course, federal agents are generally allowed to do, but rather an effort to, quote, silence the press and civilians. Trump is on the attack against the Democratic governor there and the Chicago mayor, who've objected to exactly this type of use of force. The governor responding, look, he's a coward. He says a lot of things to the camera. He likes to pretend to be a tough guy. Come and get me. Come and get me. He's demented, literally unhinged. And this is somebody who's so insecure that he lashes out, pretending that he can come arrest people for no reason at all. He can't. He isn't going to do it. Taco Trump always chickens out. Democrats, you see there, hitting hard. And that's not just language, although it was tough language calling him demented, it is also substance, because the governor is doing what some Democrats previously have been accused of falling short on, facing the threat or deployment of what you see on your screen and hitting back in every possible way, publicly, verbally, politically, and in the courts. That is what Democrats now say might be necessary to push back on the federal powers you see in these multiple places. As for the general public, even in an environment where it seems some speech is chilled, the vast majority here, 58% against these kind of deployments, especially when there's no apparent threat. So what do you do with a legal problem like this? We have a special guest next. I'm having a real struggle right now with the National Guard being deployed. Is this deployment of the National Guard a part of an emerging best practice that I just don't get yet? Yet Republicans pressing Trump officials there over the use of the troops that we've seen. Former federal prosecutor congressional counsel John Flannery joins us. John, your view on these troops in the streets?
- [32:02]
John Flannery
I think we speak too politely, as the last speaker did, because what we do is we ignore the fact that this is Trump scapegoating people, lying about it so that he can control Democratic cities for whatever purpose and as part of his march to monarchy. The answer is clear, which is the courts have understood this. The courts are pushing back, but also our leaders Are. It's a wonder to me that there aren't more. The governor of Illinois, the people in Oregon, the people in California, D.C. has been a disappointment to me that they didn't resist more. And if we don't resist, the question that was asked of Benjamin Franklin was, do you have a republic? And he said, if you can keep it. And in order to keep it, we have to fight because it's worth something. It's critical to our freedom, it's critical to our right to vote. And we have a tragedy of historic proportions in terms of the lack of constitutional basis or the law with Trump. So, for example, he tells us, go on, look on, look on YouTube, see what's going on in this city. So, like you and others, I've done that. And when you look, what you see is provocation by the people that Trump is bringing into these cities, into Portland and into Chicago. And what he's doing is he's throwing at them tear gas, he's flashing grenades on the ground, he's hitting them with pepper, and then they're hoping to provoke them to react. And when they don't, they don't know what to do. The courts also chilled that, particularly in Portland. So what we have is we have a trend here in every respect of our government to follow the 2025 plan, including the control of the military domestically, which is a violation of what Thomas Jefferson once said, which was he was against a standing army because he had Great Britain as an example of that. And we see that they're targeting people without any basis in law, including the governor of Illinois, without stating any law he could be violating when we have troops there who are violating local laws, are not there by authority of law. And we hope that tomorrow the judge in Illinois will make a decision that says just that, just what the Portland people said. Because you can't have a situation in which Posse Comitatus is outlawed because we're not allowed to do law enforcement with military domestically. There are exceptions, but those exceptions do not apply here. There is no rebellion except in the mind, the mind of Trump.
- [34:48]
Ari Melber
What do you think of the legal strategy thus far? Some of these governors are doing everything in their power. We heard the strong words in the lawsuits from the Illinois governor.
- [34:58]
John Flannery
I think that that's what they should do. I think we should do more. The thing that troubles me is why do we hear from a governor and a mayor and not the entire congressional delegation, at least of the Democrats and some Republicans? Why do we not hear from the senators? Why are these people not out there fighting. People like me go to no king rallies and speak. These people have a larger platform. They have larger voices. They have power and they're not using it. Are they cowardly? Are they afraid in the finest hour of what can be, their courage and performance. They're running for the hills. They're playing with their rosary bees. They're not fighting for our republic. This is a very sad statement that our political class would rather hold onto their seat instead of fight for our country.
- [35:42]
Ari Melber
Yeah. Important and clearly put. Councillor John Flannery, thanks for making the time tonight. We appreciate you. We're going to fit in a break when we come back. We have an election breakdown for you tonight. As the lies keep circulating, facing basic facts about elections has become a growing problem in our politics today. You know, the first election of this century was very close. After pitched battle, you probably remember both sides accepted the results, the facts of those numbers and ultimately the peaceful transfer of power overseen by outgoing VP Al Gore, who was ahead of Bush by half a point in the popular vote, but ultimately narrowly lost the Electoral College by one state, Florida, after a partial recount. That result was closer than, say, last year's election, which is a point Kamala Harris misstated on her tour for a new book about the campaign.
- [36:48]
Andrew Weissman
It was the tightest, closest presidential election.
- [36:59]
Ari Melber
Fact check, it was not. 2000 was closer by the total vote and the Electoral College. One state and the Electoral College is how the president is selected under law. Now, if Harris is trying to make a broader electoral argument that she thinks her performance was comparatively strong this century and that made it a kind of a tight race, that argument comes up pretty short, trailing by a point and a half is pretty close. And it does show she had much of the electorate behind her last year. But if you get into comparing races this century compared to Democratic nominees, Harris fared worse than most presidential races in this century. Here are the numbers. Democratic nominees for president have done better than Harris. 2024 in each of these races here, quite simple. Three were wins and the other two were Democratic nominees who didn't just come in close. They actually got more votes in total than the Republican nominee, but lost the Electoral College in America's arcane system. So no, it was far from the closest election this century.
- [38:17]
Andrew Weissman
It was the tightest, closest presidential election.
- [38:27]
Ari Melber
False and misleading claims about elections matter. And by definition, if you care about facts, that's true, regardless of who's saying it, regardless of who you voted for, regardless of whether you might like or agree with someone. The way to patrol facts is to protect facts. And as a candidate who understandably wants to reflect on the year and pump up supporters and burnish the campaign, you have to in our system, try to do that without misstating the results. Now this matters. Harris has repeated this one. So apparently she needs the fact check and hopefully can address it. Now. Her 2024 opponent went much farther after his 2020 loss to the Biden Harris ticket. Of course, Trump lied not only about the margin, but the entire results he denied. He even lost. His aides and allies lied so much. Remember, they ended up settling huge defamation cases about their election. Lies more than the margin. They fed a lie with major consequences that falsely claimed Trump didn't lose. Fact check. Trump lost the 2020 race as an outgoing president. He also went beyond words about the race to actions feeding the lie. Remember, while we're on the topic, Donald Trump pushed his aides and lawyers and ultimately huge groups of his supporters in plots based on that lie. And they went forward with these things we've shown you. They tried to lie to Congress. They tried to submit electors lying about the loss. And ultimately, if you go all the way down to that red arrow labeled Sabotage Jan.6, the lie led to the effort for the now convicted sedition crimes that Trump later embraced by freeing the violent convicts from prison this year. Those Trump lies, of course, led to the only insurrection in American history. That's more than lies and words. It's a whole different level of crime. So while all such misstatements and lies should be confronted, for those of us who care, I'll tell you this. We have elections and that's all the fighting and sometimes we even have recounts and lawsuits like I mentioned. But when it's done, if we are going to hold the rule of law, we need everyone, candidates on all sides, supporters on all sides, to face the facts in the Trump case. We need a system that deals with that. That's why some very big outlets paid hundreds of millions of dollars because they were caught in defamation. They settled those cases. They were afraid of losing a trial. And we need to do this across the board. And if that sounds old fashioned or quaint, great. I think a lot of people would take the 2000 recount and the peaceful resolution thereof as the old fashioned way to do this particular conflict than what we have seen lately. At the end of the day, the numbers don't lie. We'll be right back.
- [41:47]
Ted Danson
Hey everybody, Ted Danson here to tell you about my podcast with my longtime friend and sometimes co host Woody Harrelson. It's called where everybody knows your name and we're back for another season. I'm so excited to be joined this season by friends like John Mulaney, David Spade, Sarah Silverman, Ed Helms and many more. You don't want to miss it. Listen to where everybody knows your name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson sometimes, wherever you get your podcasts, Netcredit.
- [42:17]
NetCredit Advertiser
Is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit when other lenders say no. Apply in minutes and get a decision as soon as the same day. Loans offered by Netcredit or lending partner banks and serviced by NetCredit. Application subject to review and approval. Learn more@netcredit.com partner NetCredit Credit to the.
- [42:32]
Udemy Advertiser
People not sure if you have the experience to start your dream job. Good news these days it's the skills that count. Udemy can help you get those in demand. Skills. Want to be an AI mastermind? Learn with us Game developer. We've got you covered. AWS Certified Cloud Practitioner. We can help you prep. You'll learn from real world experts who love what they do so that you can love what you do. Go to udemy.com for the skills to get you started and get set for your dream job.
- [43:07]
Ari Melber
Breaking news out of the White House. The President was seen with Marco Rubio today with a note that seemed to suggest there could be some news afoot. And now we have this statement from the President announcing Israel and Hamas. He says if, quote, both signed off on the first phase of our peace plan, all hostages will be released soon. Israel will withdraw their troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps towards a strong, durable and everlasting peace. This is a brand new statement from the President. The background was this scene at the White House where Rubio handed Trump a note during a roundtable event. And it could be seen that it seemed to refer to a peace deal being very close. Hamas had recently previewed the possibility of accepting aspects of this. We're joined by foreign policy expert David Rothkopf, who gets about 70 seconds to respond to this announcement. Sir.
- [43:57]
David Rothkopf
Well, you know, any movement towards peace is a good movement. We need to take this with a grain of salt. We have to see it signed. It's for phase one of a ceasefire. Would probably have Israel pull back to about half of the the area of Gaza it occupies. You'd probably see the release initially of 20 hostages. That would be the living hostages. They will wait a little bit until the situation settles down to bring back the bodies of the others that will be in exchange for some Palestinian prisoners. But there is a question, and that is what comes next? Will the ceasefire hold? Will they be able to make further progress? But for now, certainly given the ghastly toll this has taken, almost 70,000 lives, even any kind of pause is progress. And getting those hostages home after two years, just over two years, is something that everybody, regardless of who they are, has to feel good about.
- [45:04]
Ari Melber
David Rothkopf responding to the breaking news. Thank you.
- [45:07]
Ted Danson
Hey, everybody, Ted Danson here to tell you about my podcast with my longtime friend and sometimes co host Woody Harrelson. It's called where everybody knows your name. And we're back for another season. I'm so excited to be joined this season by friends like John Mulaney, David Spade, Sarah Silverman, Ed Helms and many more. You don't want to miss it. Listen to where everybody knows your name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson. Sometimes, wherever you get your podcasts.