← The Beat with Ari Melber
The Beat with Ari Melber
James Comey Indicted by Trump DOJ
00:45:18
The Trump justice department has indicted former FBI Director James Comey. MSNBC’s Ari Melber reports on the latest developments.
Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:00]
A
Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in.
- [00:16]
B
Your beautiful new home.
- [00:17]
A
With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more@drhorton.com d Dr. Horton, America's builder and Equal Housing Opportunity Builder Finding the.
- [00:32]
B
Music you love shouldn't be hard. That's why Pandora makes it easy to explore all your favorites and discover new artists and genres you'll love. Enjoy a personalized listening experience simply by selecting any song or album and we'll make a station crafted just for you. Best of all, you can listen for free, download Pandora on the Apple App Store or Google Play and start hearing the soundtrack to your life. Welcome to the beat everyone. I'm Ari Melber. There's a lot going on. We have updates on Jimmy Kimmel continuing to ride this big wave, beating back the Trump censorship crackdown. We begin with Trump DOJs in crisis, though, and remember much of what Donald Trump says and admits in public involves Watergate level confessions. If they were only in private. And he has turned that into something of a kind of political propaganda art because what he has already admitted is a scandal for the DOJ in pursuing his perceived foes. Now we have more detail about the doj. Faced with a crisis of Trump's own making after their own career, prosecutors did not find evidence to indict Jim Comey. They are still considering whether to indict James Comey, of course, the former FBI director. And there's new details about all of this. The Washington Post reports prosecutors have already presented the new U.S. attorney with a written record about why there was not evidence to charge Comey in the first place, meaning they already looked into this and there isn't a case now that could come back to haunt this Trump White House if they force a case which their own review found wasn't valid. Trump's most loyal allies also expressing some doubts. The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump pushed the attorney general to bring the charges against Comey and that, according to the Journal reporting, whatever you think of Ms. Bondi and her conservative history as a legal matter, to the extent that she may be looking at actual evidence or whether the case is winnable, quote, she's expressed reservations about the Comey case. This is a scandal from the DOJ to the White House. And while I know we live in a time where Donald Trump pretends everything's going exactly as he planned or just throws different words out and is accompanying with other distractions. We have indications that he knows this is bad and it looks bad because he is misleading about or at least disagreeing with what voluminous reporting and his own posts online have showed. Listen to him hours ago I think I'd be allowed to get involved if I want, but I don't really choose to do so. I can only say that Comey's a bad person. Fact check false on the involvement Donald Trump is involved. That's according to his own words, prior stated through his voice, through his mouth and recently posted online. He is involved. When you are the leader of an organization, let alone the entire United States government and you publicly say, directed at an employee like Bondi that she should go after probe or get the indictments done of Comey and Schiff and others, you're involved. I obviously so he's denying it now today because the heat is on and it looks bad. The second part of what he said that Comey's a bad person. I don't have a fact check on that. In politics, people are free to express themselves their opinions of others. Comey has said negative things about Trump. Trump's saying negative things about him. That's both well within their free speech rights. So part two, their debate, Part one false the president stating blatantly false denials. The Times also reporting separate from his public post that Trump was demanding bonding move faster in indicting opponents. Now the DOJ also has a legal timeline which again, if you live in a world where you say, okay, Ari, I guess Trump will just do what he wants. Well, when it comes to what he says and certain things, sure he'll try it. When it comes to actually having a case that sticks, that doesn't get tossed out or disqualified immediately, law and rules still matter. And Trump's DOJ knows that. Because if they want to use the claim or what many lawyers say is a pretext, a kind of legal lie about why they're going after Comey not because Trump asked for it, but because of his congressional testimony, there is a sharp deadline for that next week, after which they can't bring a case related to that issue that expires Tuesday, five years to the day after Comey gave the testimony that they are now scrutinizing. But you can't just look at this in the isolation of Comey or Trump's misleading denial today, which contradicts his own recent claims in public. Take a look at the wider perspective here. We've updated a chart that could come out of any tin pot, banana republic, autocratic agenda because as you see from the upper left, you have members of the opposition party indicted. That case goes on the second one against the mayor. The charges were already dropped. Again, as I say, a reminder that if you just throw complete baseless charges at the wal, they won't last. Mr. Comey in the middle was already interviewed on a different case, the Seashells issue. If you remember that MAGA era thing, they were making a big deal out of a social media post he did of Seashells that they said was a type of threat. That was why he was interviewed by the Secret Service. He's obviously being also pursued on this other matter as they review the testimony I mentioned. If you look in the lower right, John Bolton, a lifelong Bush neocon conservative, he was considered too controversial and conservative to get confirmed in a prior administration, served under Trump. But now he's also on that critic's enemies list along with many other people here that Trump has publicly agitated to probe or indict. This is not lawful. If they prove that the cases were only brought or indicted because Trump personally demanded it. That's selective prosecution. It's not legal in America. Judges will continue to toss it. There's also reporting that he has his sights on the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, who's also in that chart I showed you. You may remember she brought a civil fraud case against Trump. And legally, I can tell you it wasn't a perfect case. Didn't involve ever trying to jail Trump. It was civil in nature. And the system grinded forward. People heard evidence he lost the first round but got some better treatment on appeal over the size of the fine. That's how things work in America. And plenty of people in business or politics could end up in a civil case facing fines. But in response to that, again, this would be illegal if they indict her only for this reason. There is firm reporting in the financial press that they're still at the federal level pursuing her with one of the most controversial and latently partisan figures in the Trump administration. One Democrat says this is an unlawful revenge tour. He's doing it every single day.
- [07:26]
A
And I mean, it grows and grows, right? I mean, his.
- [07:28]
B
He's on a revenge tour right now.
- [07:30]
A
And there's no question about that, whether.
- [07:32]
B
It'S obviously at the DOJ with Comey.
- [07:34]
A
With Attorney General James, what he tried.
- [07:36]
B
To do with Jimmy Kimmel, it's constant. We've always known that Donald Trump wanted to do all this because he said so, because he admitted it. He said it before he ever came into office. It was considered one of those breaches in the first presidential campaign of Donald Trump when he said to Hillary Clinton's face, quote, you'd be in jail if I were president. I'm going to go after my opponents. This is how he campaigned. And in the first term, he tried to do some of this. Although, if you think back and remember, there was nothing like the chart I just showed you. There was nothing like this breadth. And so if you say, well, is the frog slowly boiling? Does the lobster know that it's in hot water? And all the other autocratic food analogies we might make, not to make you hungry, if you're watching on the east coast approaching dinner, well, I can tell you, legally, the frog is already boiled. The indictments have already begun. The idea of pursuing Mr. Comey again, based on what publicly we're told is a case that Trump's own DOJ this year found baseless, is not a new breach. It is a continuation of the banana republic indictments that we have seen and that grind forward. The frog is dead. What do we do about it? I want to bring in former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance and Maya Wiley, former SDNY civil prosecutor and president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Joyce, I make that point tonight because we always strive, in fairness, to look at open cases with an open mind. But this is, according to a lot of the evidence we have, not a very open case. Joyce, it's a case that the DOJ already closed. In effect, I'm using these words loosely, not technically, because of insufficient evidence, according to the best reporting we have. How should that affect our understanding of what I call the dead frog? The fact that we are in a period of what looked like improper cases?
- [09:38]
C
You know, Ari, during the first Trump administration, you and I used to talk a lot about Trump's conduct that we would categorize as lawful but awful. Now we're in unlawful territory. That's the shift that we're experiencing. Just whatever we are nine months into this administration. And so when prosecutors have a case, particularly a complicated, difficult case, that they're going to decline prosecution in, most offices require them to write a memo documenting that declination, so that if there's ever a question down the road, somebody can go back and say, this was the fault, this was the evidence that they didn't have, or perhaps they didn't think a crime had been committed. Whatever the reason, it sounds to me, and we don't know we're basing this on reporting, but it sounds like prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia wrote a memo declining to prosecute the case, not just because they didn't think they could get a conviction at trial, because they but because they didn't believe they had enough evidence to obtain an indictment, a much lower burden of proof. And so that, I think, is why we're hearing reports of Pam Bondi's hesitation. She's got experienced career prosecutors saying there's no case here and to go ahead in that setting would clearly be unlawful.
- [10:58]
B
Maya?
- [11:00]
D
Well, yes, and let's remember that we're talking about people that Donald Trump himself appointed. So these weren't people that he originally said could not be trusted or were somehow biased against him or his administration. These are his picks saying, we don't think we have enough evidence. And as Joyce said, even for indictment. But I would take it one step further because, yes, Donald Trump promised retribution when he ran for office. Remember that both Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, for that matter, refused to actually say that they wouldn't do his bidding when it came to retribution when they were in their confirmation hearings. So they never said they wouldn't. But I think even more importantly, what is the work that this kind of weaponization of government is trying to do? Because he also today just signed append an extraordinarily dangerous and propagandistic. I say that out loud. It's propaganda executive order that is literally calling lawful organizing and protests something that should be investigated and treated as domestic terrorism. And that that is really part and parcel to what weaponizing the Department of Justice and its criminalization of his foes is for. It's whether they get James Comey or not, whether they indict him or not, whether he's convicted or not. Part of the work here that they are trying to do quite effect administrative not effectively as an administration is scare people out of doing what they have a lawful right to do, which is to disagree with this administration and with Donald Trump.
- [12:41]
B
Here's what the National Review headline says, Trump DOJ poised to indict Comey over 2016 moves that helped Trump win, which is by Andrew McCarthy, former prosecutor. Obviously, it's one of those headlines that really resonates. You're going to indict Comey over the things that helped him win. And then the enemies list, so to speak, the headshots I'm going to put up. Again, when you look at this, Maya, what do you see?
- [13:17]
D
I see the weaponization of government against people you disagree with. I see several people who were doing the jobs that they were allowed to do stating facts as they saw them, expressing opinions. And I see a very diverse group of people who don't even necessarily agree with one another. So this goes back to my point about why do you go after these people? I mean, Monica Legyver, by the Monica, the congresswoman, Monica McIver, the congresswoman from Newark, was literally trying to do oversight to look at conditions in a detention facility. That's accountability. That's actually part of her job as a member of Congress. I say that because every single thing we're seeing really is saying, don't do anything I don't like or you will pay a price. And it is not only to silence powerful people, it is to silence all of us, and that's why we can't have it.
- [14:16]
B
And Joyce, do you see any link here between what you described as potentially unlawful prosecution, if it's proven to be selective prosecution, and there's no case there? That's one of the legal limits. And this blatant crackdown on the First Amendment. People who minimize Donald Trump or don't take him literally are finding that the second term is literal and measurably more extreme than the first term, partly because so many of the guardrails have been systematically decimated by this same literal anti democracy agenda.
- [14:53]
C
So, Ari, it all looks like it's part of this same trajectory Donald Trump is on, this effort to suppress any kind of opposition to what he's doing. You know, that picture that you put up and that Maya spoke so eloquently about also looked to me like that was evidence that Donald Trump has seized the reins of the Justice Department and is using the awesome powers of government that have been entrusted to him to serve the people. And in order to quell dissent, he's using it for petty political purposes. And that's not what our criminal justice system is supposed to be. So on all fronts, anyone who opposes Donald Trump is under attack and he's trying to send out messages. Maya points out, this is a diverse group of opponents. No matter who you are, and I think ultimately, whether you're powerful or whether you're someone out protesting in the streets, you, Donald Trump wants you to be afraid to argue back against him, which of course makes it incumbent upon all of us to exercise our First Amendment rights and speak out. We have a right to criticize this administration like we had a right to criticize the administrations before it. We need to use it so we don't lose it.
- [16:07]
B
Yeah, Joyce Vance and Maya Wiley on exactly what we see there. Very important thanks to both of you. Tonight we have new reporting on the secrecy around Epstein. As for Jimmy Kimmel's return, riding a big wave, he came out swinging again. We're going to show you that and why south park is going at not only Trump, but FCC chair Brendan Carr when we're back in 90 seconds.
- [16:33]
E
Hey there, it's Kelly Ripa.
- [16:35]
B
And if you've been listening to my.
- [16:36]
C
Podcast, we are knee deep in season three.
- [16:39]
B
And if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations take place when the cameras aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office, or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx? Nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera. And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk off camera with Kelly Rabba now. Wherever you get your podcasts, sometimes an.
- [17:16]
A
Identity threat is a ring of professional hackers. And sometimes it's an overworked accountant who.
- [17:22]
B
Forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details. I need a coffee.
- [17:26]
A
And you need Lifelock.
- [17:27]
B
Because your info is in endless places.
- [17:30]
A
It only takes one mistake to expose.
- [17:32]
B
You to identity theft.
- [17:33]
A
Lifelock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second.
- [17:36]
B
If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back.
- [17:40]
A
Save up to 40% your first year at lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.
- [17:45]
C
Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight today@Greenlight.com podcast.
- [18:14]
B
This incredible week we've lived through with the return of Jimmy Kimmel after a sustained federal government effort to not only kick him off the air, but really cancel his whole show has been extraordinary. We've been tracking late night even more than usual. Kimmel, on his second night since the return, responded to President Trump, who, rather than de escalate, is vowing to continue the censorship agenda, threatening to shake down Disney, threatening to sue them over their editorial decisions, which would be a very likely losing case. Here was Kimmel just last night, moments after we taped our show last night, the mad Red Hatter wrote, I can't believe ABC Fake news gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. You can't believe they gave me my job back. I can't believe we gave you your job back. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 million. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers. Only Donald Trump would try to prove he wasn't threatening ABC by threatening abc. The punchline is the truth. Remember, this thing has backfired so much on Donald Trump, drawing out all kinds of rebuttals, including from some Republicans, that he is both denying it. As we showed you recently, he admitted a censorship agenda, then blatantly misled about it and said it was just a Kimmel ratings problem, then doubled down on the censorship with this threat, oh, I'll sue you over this if you don't do what I want. So Kimmel's referencing all that and basically saying, just look at him to understand what he's doing. And none of this, of course, is going to stop Kimmel. Whatever you think of him, I've said before, supporting the First Amendment rights of all of us is different than agreeing with everyone. You don't have to think he's funny. You don't even have to like his style of politics. But he is certainly getting the better of Donald Trump in reality, staying on the air and often in the war of words. They both are, of course, longtime entertainers. They've both been on TV a long time, roasting Trump over the very thing that he cares so much about, the ratings. This was his big closer. Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad ratings. And he does know bad ratings. He has some of the worst ratings any president has ever had. So on behalf of all of us, welcome to the crappy ratings club. Mr. President, a little self deprecation while saying the ratings that count, what the public thinks of Donald Trump are still, of course, relevant to a second term. That in this early era, which sometimes would be a honeymoon, is anything but, you can see him completely underwater. People do not approve of the Trump presidency. And remember, as we've said, he did win 49% or so popular vote last year. So he has by any measure gone from that to underwater, which means people who voted for him don't approve of this, to say nothing of so many others. As for Kimmel's, victory lap, his ratings were bonkers. Usually he does just under 2 million on a on a normal weeknight. Well, Tripling that at 6 + million in live coverage and that is even with about a fifth of affiliates. Not Aaron Kimmel. Sorry to do the math. But even larger is the 20 million views he additionally got online with YouTube. A younger audience flocking to what Kimmel had to say. And remember, that doesn't mean everyone agrees with what he had to say. It just means people were understandably curious to hear from this famous comic who was briefly pushed off the air by your government. And that interest and this cultural conversation is a reminder of something we've discussed and covered so much that culture matters. Our politics today is very culturally engaged. And the First Amendment does not play favorites. It protects dumb jokes and smart jokes, political jokes and silly jokes, serious statements and all kinds of expression. Some people like to talk. I'm one of them. Some people like to write. Some people nowadays express their ideas through pictures, memes and emojis. The First Amendment basically protects all peaceful, expressive speech, even if your sitting president wish it did not. And that brings me to something that is on the sillier side. May not be your style of humor, but millions of people love south park. And it is still under the umbrella of the same parent company that has ousted COLBERT and gutted 60 Minutes. But apparently something that you can't say on 60 Minutes, Trump criticism to some degree you might still get away with on south park, where their newest episode dabbles in many of these issues, including going at the president and his censorship, FCC and this MAGA war on your free speech. If it's offensive, you probably need to speak with the fcc. The fcc, yeah, they're dealing with all the offensive stuff now. Here, let me connect you an offensive government app. I better go speak with the president right away. Will the head of the FCC be okay? Dr. If you continue to interfere, I will make things very difficult for you. We can do this the easy way or we can do it the hard way. That's a top Trump official making a threat. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. There it's a mockery of J.D. vance, the Vice president, speaking to the FCC chair. Is that just silly hyperbolic language in a cartoon or is it what Trump's FCC chair literally said, trying to kick Kimmel off because they can't take a joke and they don't respect the First Amendment? It's as serious as a South park episode. We're going to get into it With Al Sharpton and Margaret Carlson. Next. I talk about Trump more than anything because he's a bully. I don't like bullies. I played the clarinet in high school. Okay. Donald Trump is an old fashioned, 80s movie style bully. Rooting for this bully. I don't care what side you're on. It's like rooting for Biff from Back to the Future. And this is who people are cheering for. I don't know about you. I'm with Marty McFly. We're back with MSNBC's Al Sharpton and Semaphore's Margaret Carlson. Rev, what are we learning here?
- [25:01]
F
I think that Kimmel is right. As you know, I've fought with Donald Trump 35 years here in New York. If you stand up to him, he's a bully. He'll back down or he'll find another way. Whatever happened to the invasion with the National Guard and the military into Chicago once the governor prickster and the mayor stood up. I'm going to Memphis. We haven't even gotten to Memphis yet. So you have to look at what he bursts out with and then look at what he does. Vladimir Putin played him like a guy. That's CONNOR Somebody on 42nd street with three card Monty. So, I mean, he is not as smart as he comes off. When Putin can wrap you around the finger, go home and escalate the war in Ukraine and he doesn't even have the nerve. Well, he says, I'm disappointed in Vladimir. He just slapped you in front of the whole world. So he is absolutely a bully. And I think Kimball brought him to the mat and won that Margaret Kimmel.
- [26:04]
B
Has tapped a nonpartisan or at least bipartisan wave that's very different from some of the daily MAGA skirmishes. And then while the business started worrying, Disney worrying about, oh, the government and losing money, they ended up worried about losing money from consumers. Today your outlet has the report about shareholders for Disney. Another angle, including some that are apparently concerned about free speech, saying they want answers. They might want to get into the evidence of the government interactions that they might have been a violation of the duties of the board. So the pressure keeps coming on Disney for cracking down on free speech. Yeah.
- [26:40]
E
Turns out Mickey's not on his side in addition to so many other people. And it took a comedian, you know, to break it open. You know, the idea that you can go out there and just say whatever you want, torture the Constitution into your will. Your will. I think it's just been a crack in that now and that he won't Even though he says he's now going to sue ABC and get more money out of them, he sees the opportunity now to do another George Stephanopoulos a shakedown. But I actually think ABC now has learned they're not going to be so easy to shake down. And now Disney is not gonna be so easy because Roberta Kaplan, who won for E. Jean Carroll, is organizing the Disney shareholders to fight back. And, you know, I mean, Kimmel just whomped him. I mean, he defeated him bigly with those huge ratings. You know, Trump should take two Tylenol and call a doctor in the morning.
- [27:42]
B
Does that work? Does Tylenol work?
- [27:44]
E
Yeah, you know, not if you're pregnant, Ari.
- [27:47]
B
I'll keep that in mind. You know, with politics, rev, a lot of times it's the topic. And back in the simpler pre maga era, you could have Republicans want to run on the deficit, Democrats want to run on healthcare. The topic matters. Well, Trump, who sort of tries to eat up so much energy, as we know, they picked this topic and it has backfired, and that's a little different. I want to show Joe Rogan, who basically backed Trump, had him in a big, positive interview last year, he is against this 100%. Take a look. I definitely don't think that the government should be involved ever in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue. The companies, if they're being pressured by the government. So if that's real and if people on the right are like, yeah, go get them. Oh, my God, you're crazy. You're crazy for supporting this because this will be used on you. Rogan, who's pretty independent, saying to people that are, to him more fellow travelers on the right, he's saying, based on Trump's government censorship, these folks on the right, he's saying are crazy.
- [28:59]
F
I think that Rogan is right in the sense that. And listen to the end of what he said. He is smart enough to say that if we do this and get away with it, then what stops a Democrat from coming in next and doing the same thing? So Rogan is not as much defending Jimmy Kimmel, who he may have defended. I don't know. He's defending that they will do this to me. They would do this to any other talk show host, podcast, or comedian. You are setting up a what Donald Trump is not come to terms with and his followers is they're setting a precedent that they will not be able to live by, and it's dangerous for everyone. I would have the same position if Joe Biden was doing it and he didn't. This precedent cannot be established that you can cherry pick who you like to have waves airwaves available to them through the fcc. Dangerous.
- [30:01]
B
Can I add a detail? The whole conversation here is around this step. FCC Chairman Carr, so gloriously mocked by south park and Trump using these ABC old broadcast rules. But what Rogan understands, what is true is there's no limit to that. Okay? We're here talking on tv. You can say, oh, Ari, Rev and Margot, you guys are on tv. You're talking about. You care about tv. Let's put TV to the side. If you go to countries where the government controls speech, we have examples. They don't stop at tv, they don't stop at magazines. Go to North Korea and try Googling, right? Try finding the Rogan podcast. If he's critical of, of the Dear Leader, you won't find it.
- [30:49]
A
That's right.
- [30:50]
F
And that's what we're dealing with. Because once you open that door, they go through it as far as they want to and whoever comes next. And that's why. And I'm not one that knows Joe Rogan well, probably not a fan of his politics, but he's right. This opens a door that no one can close when they want to, and they need to close it now. Which is why it was important that Kimmel comes back within, what, 48 hours, 72 hours, with millions of people, 20 million online and YouTube, 6 million. Because it shows the public is interested, not necessarily in Jimmy Kimmel as fans, but in what he's got to say because he has a right to say it.
- [31:35]
E
Trump can't see it tomorrow. He's childish in that way. He's got power now. It's really working for him. And he probably plans on running again. He just can't contemplate that future like a child can't. So he just goes on for today. He just wants it to work today. He's not worried about the future. And, you know, Joe Rogan has shown a little bit of reasonableness, much more than some of these other talk show people. And the idea that Trump doesn't realize was, did he ever learn about East Germany and the happiness, that happiness after that wall went down. And the people interviewed said, some of them, I can joke again.
- [32:24]
B
You're asking if Donald Trump knows a lot about the history of the Iron Curtain.
- [32:28]
E
Yeah, I am. I know, I know.
- [32:30]
B
But you're speaking to the arts, Margaret. And again, we make these categories, these distinctions at our own peril. Does John Oliver do Comedy or does he do very incisive coverage of government and policy issues with jokes? Right. Do we do the news or do we hear from artists? You just said something very profound, which is that people who know history understand that it didn't seem stop at just, oh, we're going to shut up the politicos. You know, you could joke, oh, we're going to shut up the lawyers. And some people would go, okay, well, for a little while, that'd be fine. No, we're actually going to get in and we're going to shut up the artists. And your children are going to have rules over which plays they can perform. To live in that type of society, Margaret, is not about left or right. It is about just oppression.
- [33:12]
F
He took over the Kennedy Center. He took over the Kennedy Center. We don't have to guess what he do the Kennedy center. He's taken over, which is the arts and what he's doing there. So there is no limit there. It's like we said when I was growing up in church as a boy, preaching. He's begging you to take him out of his misery. The misery of how he's going to democratize this country, and it's our responsibility to heal them.
- [33:38]
E
I'm waiting for him to take over the Washington Commanders. He wants a football team. You just know it, don't you?
- [33:45]
F
So he can change the name back.
- [33:46]
E
To the Washington Trumps or something.
- [33:49]
B
Well, and at this rate, again, it's not hyperbole. He's trying to take stakes.
- [33:52]
F
Absolutely.
- [33:53]
B
In companies that are of a larger market value than a whole team.
- [33:56]
C
Yeah.
- [33:57]
E
And something that appeals to his ego. He's a showman. Sports teams are what really wealthy people buy. Look at all the owners who, you know, they get bored with their corporations and boy, let's get a. Let's get a football team.
- [34:12]
B
Yeah. And as. As. As Kimmel alluded to, and Rev said, when you have a bully who's yelling, you have to decide, are you going to back down and you're going to speak up. And in closing, I do want to mention what. Of course. Asap. Rocky said. Pretty Flacco. Yeah. Please, pretty Flaco, shout out to asap. The loudest guy in the room, usually the weakest. Them quiet dudes just need better speakers.
- [34:36]
E
Well, I was a quiet dude. Sorry, Reverend.
- [34:39]
F
Well, I was loud, but I also could back it up.
- [34:43]
B
All right, that's what's up. I want to thank Reverend Al Sharpton and Margaret Carlson to remind everyone, in terms of backing it up, you can always catch Rev doing that with facts and incisive commentaries on Politics Nation weekends right here at 5pm Eastern. We have the future of TikTok hanging in the balance in the government. We got that. Coming up, an interesting update. If you're not interested, your kids might be. And the White House scramble over Epstein's secrecy tonight drew my breath. The Fantasy Footballers are on Sirius xm. It's about time you won your league.
- [35:17]
A
And we're here to help.
- [35:19]
B
Becoming a fantasy football champion begins now. And the biggest fantasy football podcast has the insight you need. Listen to the Fantasy Footballers Podcast right now on the Serious XM app.
- [35:31]
A
Fantasy football is fun. Winning is even more fun. And our listeners do both.
- [35:35]
B
Listen to the Fantasy Footballers Podcast right now on the Sirius XM app. Just search Fantasy Footballers did you know.
- [35:43]
C
39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving. Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving reports. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teens safe. Sign up for Greenlight infinity@Greenlight.com podcast ever felt defeated by cravings? You're not alone. Henry Meds is here to help support your weight management journey.
- [36:19]
B
Since I joined four months ago, I've lost £25 and it has changed my life.
- [36:26]
C
Henry meds personalized compounded GLP1 meds shipped to your door. Take back control with treatments designed to reduce appetite. Schedule a free online evaluation with a licensed provider@henrymeds.com audio and get $100 off your first month. Results may vary. Not all patients are eligible. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Consult a healthcare provider to determine if treatment is right for you.
- [36:45]
B
Donald Trump's Epstein scandal won't go away. The Wall Street Journal, owned by the Murdaughs, reports Trump has, quote, grouse to AIDS. People don't understand. Palm beach in the 90s was a different time. As part of their coverage of his Epstein secrecy, a comment that many found quite concerning. That was a period when, of course, Trump and Epstein were known to be associates. They took private plane rides. They were seen at parties, videoed like this Trump worrying, quote, some of his friends might be in the Epstein files and that they could be, quote, doctored to hurt him, which some view as a implication that he thinks they already hurt him with or without doctoring. The White House has officials discussing scenarios for releasing or not releasing info, trying to determine how they would affect Trump's political vulnerabilities. A kind of a garden variety statement until you question, well, how much is he in the files? Because he's already linked to Trump, Epstein in public. We've seen that. So what else would be in there now? Again, without seeing the files? We don't know. The journals reported that Trump did approve the FBI statement that there would be no, quote, client lists in existence, which, of course, was one of the many things that Trump's government has done to only add fuel to a fire. They helped start by demanding last year that they were going to release all the things they're now hiding. FBI Director Patel discussed it with Trump, The Journal reports that is of great intrigue in Washington if it suggests that he is quarterbacking all these plays that have still blown up in his face. Not only that, at a time when we're discussing whether government officials are honest under oath. I want to show you what Patel told Congress. Take a look.
- [38:29]
A
Did you ever tell Donald Trump his.
- [38:31]
B
Name is in the files? I have never spoken to President Trump about the Epstein files. Sounds like a pretty strong denial. But a lawyer would tell you, you could go back and try to say, well, we discussed something other than the, quote, files. We discussed other aspects of the Epstein history. Either way, it seems like there's some daylight between that recent claim and the Journal's reporting. There's also the pressure campaign. The White House telling Republicans in late August and early September in the House that voting to release the episting files would be viewed as unfriendly and they wouldn't forget it. Now a newly elected House member incoming is the Arizona Democrat who just won a special election, which right now, if the tabulation doesn't change, would be the final vote to get those files released and would be another loss for Trump on his effort to keep them secret. We'll be right back with news on TikTok. We have major breaking legal news. The Trump Justice Department has now indicted former FBI Director James Comey. This is in Virginia by a grand jury tonight. He is charged with two criminal counts. MSNBC reporting those charges. ABC News reporting the two counts are false statements and obstruction of justice. We do not have the actual indictment paper yet. And this is a developing breaking story. It also comes after reports of unusual and extreme pressure from the president on that department's office. Basically after the acting U.S. attorney for that same district departed. And allegedly there is internal memoranda that doubted whether this new indictment of James Comey should even go forward. Prosecutors reportedly finding there was insufficient evidence. But now, former FBI Director Comey indicted tonight, capping a many year saga of his criticism and clashes with President Trump and questions hanging over the validity of this kind of case. I'm joined by MSNBC justice correspondent Ken Delaney. Ken?
- [40:46]
A
Ari, good to be with you. So the indictment, we just got word that it happened, it was handed down by this grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia after the case was presented to the grand jury for several hours this afternoon, we are told. And the two counts, as you mentioned, making false statements and obstruction of justice, we don't have the details, so we don't know if it's as we have assumed that it would be connected to the statement that James Comey made to the Senate five years ago that was closing in on the statute of limitations lapsing on Tuesday. That was a statement where he was asked whether he had authorized leaks to the media and he said he did not. And there was an account given by his deputy, Andrew McCabe, that differed from that. This has been known for years, by the way, and explored in an inspector general report, among other things. And we are reporting that career prosecutors in that office did not believe there was enough evidence to proceed with this case. And they even wrote a memo to the acting U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, saying as much and saying that not only do they not think they could get a conviction beyond reasonable doubt from a jury, but they said that there wasn't probable cause to move forward with the case, which is the standard for a grand jury indictment. But obviously this grand jury found otherwise. Of course, as our viewers probably know, the grand jury process is essentially a tool of prosecutors. Grand juries do not hear from the defense. They don't hear from the defendant. They hear only what the prosecutors want them to hear. And so, you know, there's an old saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. And in this case, they've indicted the former FBI director on false statement charges that a lot of people think are specious.
- [42:32]
B
This is an extraordinarily unusual process that led up to this. The President of the United States publicly calling for the Comey indictment by name, interfering or meddling. It could be a case for selective prosecution. But you need more evidence. We need to learn more. But the breaking news tonight, two counts, false statements and obstruction. And the unusual lead up, where does that put this case? What footing Is it on going forward, given that extraordinary intervention by Donald Trump and him all but admitting that he wanted this done, that he wanted this against what he views as a foe, separate from perhaps the legal evidence?
- [43:09]
A
Oh, extraordinary is a good word for it, Ari. It's unprecedented. We've never seen this before in post Watergate American history and probably pre Watergate American history, a president publicly calling for his Justice Department to charge particular individuals. That's what happened. And then this particular individual, James Comey, was charged. And it happened after the U.S. attorney in this district, who had been appointed by Donald Trump and who we have reported was raising questions about this case, was forced out of office by Donald Trump. So the stage is set here for a federal judge to take a look at this and say that this was not appropriate. But you're right, that's an argument, a legal argument that James Comey's lawyers will have to make to the judge that draws the case, and they'll have to present evidence. And a lot, I think, will depend on the strength of the evidence in this indictment. Because, as you know, vindictive prosecution is one matter that's not something that goes before the jury. If the case is strong enough, oftentimes that can be overcome, because essentially, if the evidence is there, the mindset of the prosecutor is less important. In this case, we believe the evidence is safe, thin, and there's ample evidence that Donald Trump orchestrated this matter.
- [44:22]
B
Right.
- [44:22]
A
By replacing the U.S. attorney and whether it was called lobbying his attorney general.
- [44:26]
B
Yeah. And as you say, pressure on the attorney general and changing the person in charge of an office that, according to reporting, had recently come to the opposite conclusion. There wasn't a case. Ken, reporting on a major development. Please stay with us. I want to bring in former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance, who has overseen exactly such an office for the Department of Justice. Your response to this news tonight?
- [44:50]
C
Well, of course, I think people are stunned given the president's involvement in this case and Ken's reporting that senior prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia felt the case shouldn't go forward. But, Ari, we haven't seen the indictment yet. There is some reporting that it's a two count indictment. It will be important to see the substance of those charges before we evaluate them and of course, to see the opening moves that Comey's legal team makes in response to this.
- [45:21]
B
When you look at the legal team's opening response, where would they want to start? Walk us through that process. And given the primacy of former FBI Chief Comey, who ultimately testified basically about Donald Trump's, efforts to then take what he called more direct control or possible interference with law enforcement, with the FBI that he ran. Now he's on the other end of that arm, the DOJ and the FBI. What would be the first steps we're going to see next from his side?
- [45:54]
C
So, full disclosure, I've never been a criminal defense lawyer, but I've worked with plenty of them. And I think that they'll look both at the substance of the case. They'll want to understand what the charges are. They'll want to get discussions, discovery. A very important issue when you've got prosecutions involving false statements and obstruction is that the statements that a defendant is charged with making have to be material. That means they have to be important to the outcome of the proceeding that they were made during. So there will be that focus. They'll get discovery pretty early in this case. The Eastern District of Virginia is a rocket docket. Things move very quickly there. So they'll be looking for that information.
- [46:36]
B
And as you're saying that I'm going to tell pardon my interruption, Joyce, I'm going to tell viewers we just saw a few people run out of that very courthouse. We can't say from witnessing it whether they're running for this or a different case. Of course, I don't know yet. But you are seeing some activity there that is later than normal hours. They're approaching the 7pm hour and we are awaiting, of course, getting the paper. If there's an indictment that's a government process, it'll be released according to normal course. So we're seeing some flurry of activity there. Joyce, please continue your point.
- [47:06]
C
Yes, that suggests that the clerk's office has just docketed something that was of interest to people. He may not have accessed it on the government's PACER system. We'll see if that was the indictment itself. The other thing that the defense will be interested in in in this case, of course, will be pursuing what you and I talked about earlier, this idea that there might be motions to dismiss any prosecution because of selective and vindictive prosecution. Those should likely play out before a trial would be set in in this case. Those will be among the sorts of preliminary motions that whichever judge this is assigned to will consider.
- [47:47]
B
We have a brand new statement posted online from the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. As recently as today, there were reports that she was also doubtful about this case. Well, she doesn't mention it by name. I'll read exactly what you see here. No one is above the law. Today's indictment reflects DOJ's commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American public. That is how she puts it. Again, the effort on and the attention on misleading that rising according to the DOJ indictment to what they're going to argue is a criminal level. A false statements charge which Joyce Vance, you were just explaining, requires meeting a certain bar of materiality. We don't have the indictment yet, but the reporting prior was that this was reference to Comey answering a question about the general news and leaks policy at DOJ and basically whether he was fully briefed on Clinton related matters. With our final 30 seconds, your final thoughts?
- [48:45]
C
Well, look, I think this is a good moment for us to all before we jump to conclusions. Wait to see the indictment. Wait to see the response from Jim Comey's team. There are still barriers in the criminal justice system that prevent miscarriage of justice. A grand jury has decided that they will issue an indictment here apparently. But there are other issues going forward, including a judge and a jury. Let's let the system work like it's intended to.
- [49:13]
B
Right. We're going to get a hold of the paper. We're going to be following this. But it is an extraordinary news event to have the former FBI director indicted, especially under these terms. Thank you, Joyce. Thanks for watching. Hey, this is Jeff Lewis from Radio Andy live and uncensored. Catch me talking with my friends about my latest obsessions, relationship issues and bodily ailments. With that kind of drama that seems to follow me, you never know what's going to happen. You can listen to Jeff Lewis live at home or anywhere you are.
- [49:39]
C
Download the SiriusXM app for over 425 channels of AD, free music, sports, entertainment and more.
- [49:47]
B
Subscribe now and get 3 months free offer details apply.