← The Beat with Ari Melber
The Beat with Ari Melber
Trump Legal Vet Cobb on Trump DOJ Charges
00:41:14
The Trump Justice Department has indicted New York Attorney General Leticia James, the top law enforcement official in New York. It follows the DOJ’s controversial indictment of Trump critic James Comey. MSNBC’s Ari Melber reports.
Loading summary
Transcript83 lines
- [00:01]
A
Hey, this is Jeff Lewis from Radio.
- [00:03]
B
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.
- [00:13]
C
You can listen to Jeff Lewis live at home or anywhere you are. Download the SiriusXM app for over 425 channels of ad free music, sports, entertainment and more. Subscribe now and get 3 months free offer details apply.
- [00:32]
D
If you're a smoker or dipper ready to make a change, you really only need one good reason. But with Zyn nicotine pouches, you'll discover many good reasons. Zyn is America's number one nicotine pouch brand. Plus, Zyn offers a robust rewards program. There are lots of options when it comes to nicotine satisfaction, but there's only one Zyn. Check out Zyn.com find to find Zyn at a store near you.
- [00:57]
B
Warning.
- [00:57]
D
This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
- [01:02]
B
Good evening. Welcome to the Beat. I'm Ari Melber. We're tracking this breaking news. The Trump Justice Department has now secured a new indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James, a top law enforcement official in New York State. Trump had personally marked her as a target or political enemy for this very indictment, which is now reality. She previously took his company to court in a civil case, a type of enforcement that doesn't carry a possible criminal charge or jail time. And in that civil case, it was about Trump's business practices, one of the things that earned his ire. The new James indictment comes, of course, right after the DOJ's controversial indictment of Trump critic James Comey. Both cases do begin with the legally uphill battle of the president's call for these very charges that could even doom them if judges find it to be an illegal selective prosecution. In another unusual twist, both are being brought in Virginia by the exact same newly installed Trump loyalist attorney, Lindsey Halligan. She replaced the Trump prosecutor there who was not bringing either of these cases. A very noticeable gap, and we'll get into that tonight. She could not get any other lawyer to join her unusual indictment against Comey. And today she was back presenting this case to the grand jury alone again. Now, this new case is unusual. It effectively tries to drum up a mortgage fraud case against James for one of her homes. Legal experts also note that, like Comey, the case is saddled with this unusual cloud from Trump's incriminating call to indict these very people he views as foes. We've highlighted the names. As you can now see, two of the three indicted. Halligan has done that just within weeks of this September 20th post. And a word about this post, it is damning for Trump. It admits the plot and it would at least complicate the legal case, the standing of whether judges find it to be valid before any such indictments were filed. In other words, what you see on your screen, what went across the whole Internet is actually against Donald Trump's interest to have his enemies listen be pursued. And in his mind, effectively pursued would mean that it passes those early hurdles. I'm mentioning that it doesn't look suspicious to a judge. So it was against his interest that this list, this post went public in the first place. And there's new reporting today suggesting he knew it looked bad and didn't want this suspicious prosecution demand to his attorney General Pambani to go public. And yet the reason we know about it, if you're saying, okay, it wasn't supposed to be public, he didn't want it to be public, but it was. How did that happen? Which is very relevant to the news tonight. Well, Donald Trump made a major blunder, a kind of an IT or tech blunder because he took what was meant to be a written secret order for AG Pam Bondi, and we're talking about Watergate level evidence here, and he accidentally put it on the Internet, literally. That is what he did, according to sources who spoke to Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, which broke this story just today. And it further undercuts the new case against James tonight because again, it suggests this is some kind of baseless vendetta rather than prosecutors finding the crime. Here's that Journal piece. They report Trump actually, quote, meant to send a private message to Bondi urging her to prosecute Comey and those other targets. This is the Journal reporting. Those targets, as you know tonight, include the now indicted Letitia James. So plain English, Trump was trying to secretly order Bondi to do these kind of indictments. And even Donald Trump, with whatever he thinks he can get away with, knows that even right now, as some of the courts let him do certain things, admitting that you have an improper enemies list or that these cases are going nowhere but for you, demanding it is bad for you, bad for those cases. So he tried to address her in private, which some people noted when the Post first came out. It seemed odd because as he would in a private meeting or message, this post online said Pam Colon, I've reviewed over 30 and he mentions all the references to the same Old story as last time. All talk, no action, nothing's being done. What about Comey, Schiff, Letitia, reference to James indicted today. They're all guilty as hell, he wrote, but nothing is going to be done. Trump was trying to message, as he calls her Pam in secret, but he was then surprised to learn it was public. The Journal reports Bondi also contacted the White House with major concerns about all this spilling out. That now public post is the kind of evidence that Comey's team says they will cite to have the whole case tossed. And that defense or argument will be available to James, who's speaking out about this. The doj, clearly roiled by what is a publicly exposed, very possibly illegal effort by a president to call in and have opponents jailed, regardless of evidence, regardless of if his own aides already and old lawyers already in the DOJ said there was no case there, regardless of all of that. This type of approach, politicizing the FBI abusing power, is what got Nixon ousted. And as a legal matter, what is happening tonight builds the basis to impeach a president. As for the enemy's list that we are seeing here, two of those three in this post have already been swiftly indicted since late September on these charges that are so flimsy, career prosecutors oppose them. And Trump's DOJ is using a range of criminal legal actions against what you see here. Let's show this to you in full because it's a lot. Six of Trump's perceived foes, all facing major DOJ legal criminal powers, home searches, subpoenas, indictments. In the case of Mayor Baraka, an indictment that was so thin the charges were quickly dropped. The case fell apart. But all of this is steamrolling these critics at this early stage. Indeed, one of the individuals you see on the upper right, the very first member of Congress indicted under what now looks like a streak. Congresswoman McIver joins us later tonight, as does a former lawyer for President Trump, Ty Cobb. He's been speaking out about the legal dangers here. So in a way, the Nixonian enemies list is public. And Trump's demands also went public, even if by his own blunder, according to the Journal reporting and his attorney general, or as he calls her, we've now learned, Pam in private. Remember, she vowed very recently under oath there would never be such an enemy's list.
- [08:05]
E
I'm questioning you right now about whether you will enforce an enemy's list that.
- [08:09]
B
He announced publicly on television.
- [08:11]
C
Oh, Senator, I'm sorry. There will never be an enemies list within the Department of Justice.
- [08:19]
B
That'S what she said under oath. Because Pam Bondi, like Donald Trump himself in that recent post, knows there is still a bridge too far. There are still things that'll get you in hot water. There are things that could get your law license revoked. There are things that sooner or later could be impeached or worse if our constitutional system holds. And yes, we all understand their efforts to break it. But she said, quote, under oath, they'll never be an enemy's list. Well, Attorney General Bondi, we have your enemies list. Your boss, who you apparently called the White House about, so concerned about his poor phone or tech habits, he leaked it on himself. And you and your team are doing his bidding. And we have to deal with what it means in this country when an enemy's list is being pursued like this. Just James denies all wrongdoing in the new case. She will have a court appearance October 24th. I'm joined by a former federal prosecutor, Ankush Corduri, who's covered this with Politico. Your view on this tonight?
- [09:19]
A
I mean, look, you're right. There's an enemy's list. It was made public. Letitia James is on it. Here we have this case. I have to say, as a fraud prosecutor, former. This is what I used to do for a living. Based on the publicly reported facts around this case, this seems like a really terrible prosecution with very little chance of a conviction, assuming it even gets to trial. There's the vindictive prosecution argument that's going to be flagged. The appointment, the question about whether Lindsey Halligan's appointment is even valid. I mean, this case has many problems. But, you know, it's like as you said, I mean, it is disturbing that this is actually happening. And despite the fact that Pam Bondi said what she said during her confirmation hearing, I mean, we all saw her truly unhinged performance this week before the Senate. She is fully an instrument of Trump's bidding. So she will do what he wants unless she can somehow internally push back. And he seems to now have fully assimilated the Justice Department as an instrument of his own political aims.
- [10:22]
B
And the question then becomes, what does the DOJ and the country do about that? What do you think of the Journal reporting, which suggests that as I emphasize, Donald Trump makes a show of getting away with all kinds of things. He certainly is known for his range of rhetoric, but he didn't want this public. None other than Stephen Colbert was mocking the way that you would start a tweet because they didn't know at the time what it Was you start a tweet to the country addressed Pam. That itself was this little odd. Now, the Journal reporting from multiple sources is it's because it wasn't supposed to be public at all. It was a secret order.
- [10:58]
A
Yeah. So I have two reactions. One is I find it strange that even in private, Trump refers to Adam Schiff as Adam Schifty Schiff. That's like a lot of extra letters to be typing in a DM that seem to be needless in that context. But two, the question, obvious question, is what's in the messages that we don't see, that we haven't seen? And that is going to be the subject, I presume, of motions by Comey and Letitia James saying, here's this message and we deserve to see whether there are even more of these that would taint this case and support a claim of vindictive prosecution.
- [11:38]
B
And Congress does oversight. I mean, there's been many battles about secrecy and valid secrecy for a president. Most people, I think, understand why on serious matters, the president's entitled to that. But there is no endless secular secrecy. Nixon certainly didn't have it. If it involves criminal plots, abuse of power, should Congress on a substantive level, or if you want to be political and say when, if the Democrats were to retake Congress, be looking into whether there's other unlawful orders. I mean, we have the misuse of the military on the table. We've got these prosecutions on the table, as you said. What don't we know?
- [12:13]
A
Oh, absolutely. I mean, actually, you know, I think not to get too many steps ahead, but, you know, we have some people who are positioning themselves to be the 20, 28 contenders. I think anyone who wants to succeed Donald Trump, anyone is going to need a credible plan for how to address what is currently happening in the form of accountability and real serious options for accountability. Even assuming that Trump pardons everyone on his way out the door. No, I mean, what we're seeing in real time here is just an ever increasing list of things worthy of investigation. If, and I presume when the time.
- [12:50]
B
Comes, I want to put the original post back up. The one as mentioned. It's addressed to Pam. The Journal says it was supposed to be a secret post. It's got two names there that have now been indicted. Comey, Letitia James, as of tonight, the third name Adam Shift, and he includes an attack or a nickname. There is the, is the one left. And we know this was now an order that the DOJ is clearly trying to, to pursue. We have brand new response Tonight from Schiff. Briefly. Let's take a listen.
- [13:23]
F
That is just how upside down this is. This has become an injustice department at the very top levels.
- [13:31]
B
That's brand new Ankush. I'll let you respond to that. As well as the more specific legal problems facing what has been an unusual staffing plan. In this, in this U.S. attorney's office that's now indicted two people reporting here, the Attorney General is able to insult someone as an interim. That's this disposition for about 120 days. Then the law says a federal court can decide who serves next. The U.S. attorney who was removed prior to the Trump loyalist you see on your screen already served the 120 day term. And the question is whether Trump even had the legal authority to make a second interim appointment. That is the kind of thing that might normally be arcane, but now given the unusual cases she's bringing. What do you see there?
- [14:15]
A
Yeah, so, I mean, look, Schiff's reaction is as I would expect it. I presume he is prepared to be on the receiving end of a prosecution himself. I think he's said as much with respect to this appointment issue. So it's usually very, very difficult to disqualify a prosecutor or to get an indictment tossed out for some sort of procedural type of issue. This argument is actually surprisingly good. And I wasn't really familiar with it because we haven't had to be familiar with situations like this because usually presidents go through an actual Senate confirmation process to install their U.S. attorneys. Trump has not been able to do that successfully with all of these folks. So it does seem to me that if you read the relevant statute, that if Trump had exhausted the 120 days for an acting position with Eric Siebert, that Lindsey Halligan cannot then come in and take another 120 day term because the statute goes on to say after that 120 days expires, the district court can appoint someone to serve as the U.S. attorney. So the obvious inference from that is that there's only one 120 day option that the President gets and he exhausted it with cbert. That's gonna be the argument. But again, it is a high bar to get a case tossed out on a theory like this. But this is an unusually good argument, I have to say.
- [15:30]
B
Right. And because she's been the only one willing to do it, even if they didn't toss the case, but the court said she's not in this job in a valid way, you don't know who would come in after her and whether they would want to carry this on. So again, we're seeing the testing of the checks and balances. As you reminded us, most presidents haven't tested it this way. So we didn't get to this point where you just have these end runs and sort of pseudo officers and seeing how long they can do it. And obviously if you let the other extreme go and there was no check on it, then presidents would have an incentive not to deal with the Senate at all because they could have these so called temporary folks. That's why there's a time limit. So that's become a bigger part of the story we're going to follow. Ankush, thank you for your expertise. We have an exclusive coming up tonight with something that's very much newsworthy. The congresswoman as mentioned, who was one of the first charged under these enemies list theories. And tonight, former Trump lawyer Ty Kaur has a lot of concerns. He has been speaking out is going to be, I think, an interesting expert legal perspective later in the hour. We'll be right back.
- [16:33]
E
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.
- [17:09]
D
If you're a smoker or dipper ready to make a change, you really only need one good reason. But with Zyn Nicotine Pouches, you'll discover many good reasons. Zyn is America's number one nicotine nicotine pouch brand. Plus, Zyn offers a robust rewards program. There are lots of options when it comes to nicotine satisfaction, but there's only one Zinn. Check out zen.com find to find Zen at a store near you. Warning. This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
- [17:38]
G
Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why why you should. One, it's $15 a month. Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it. Are you, are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.
- [18:01]
B
Payment of $45 for three month plan $15 per month equivalent required New customer.
- [18:04]
C
Offer, first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.
- [18:07]
B
See mintmobile.com we are reporting on these brand new indictments from the Trump doj. Some very legally suspicious, as we've explained. Just walking through the obvious facts and the biggest thing to remember is anyone can debate any particular person or factual record. You could talk about, for example, whether AG James ever spoke out of turn and sounded dramatic or negative about Trump. You could talk about James Comey, who has his share of critics. But when you take it all together, what you see is the pattern of the enemies list, which even Trump's AG said they would not do. And so we broaden out. You have the New York Attorney General indicted. James has been a target of this retribution because of the civil, non criminal case that she brought under her lawful authority in the state of New York to Trump's business. But other Democrats, opponents, perceived enemies and former aides to Donald Trump, depending on how big you draw the list, are now on the other end of this kind of overbearing Trump doj, criminal onslaught with these legal tools. Some indicted, some, some charges dropped. Upper right. You see who I mentioned? Congresswoman McIver. Now she was arrested doing a type of oversight. This was early in what has been a chaotic for a second term of Trump. It was an ICE facility. She faces criminal charges for what was basically interactions or some might call a scuffle outside that facility. And as other people are now facing tonight for the first time, what she has been fighting for weeks, her indictment, which she and some legal experts say is completely specious, she returns at this newsworthy moment to join us. Congresswoman McIver back on the beat. Welcome.
- [19:43]
C
Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. It's good to be back.
- [19:46]
B
Appreciate you being here. When you see these new charges against James and others, do you see this as similar and the set or the same as the way the DOJ is now pursuing you?
- [19:59]
C
Absolutely. I mean, at the end of the day, look, we wake up and I'm like, what the hell? Another terrible action by this president in this administration. Anyone who is a critic of this administration and this president who holds this administration accountable, they are targets. They become on Trump's hit list and then you have them intimidating you, bullying you, charging you, bringing up trumped up charges. I mean, this is real life. This is happening. To be a critic isn't a crime. And Americans who are watching this play out, they should be fearful, they should be outraged about what is happening because this is horrible.
- [20:35]
B
Several of the cases revolve around people in government doing their job.
- [20:42]
C
Correct.
- [20:43]
B
Now, getting a government job doesn't mean that you're immune from any and all oversight. And, and Bob Menendez was a Democrat who was convicted of corruption. He's in a prison right now, and we can name Republicans to that as well. So it's not that there's a permanent shield, but when it goes into, for example, with Mr. Comey, he was cooperating with the Congress and speaking to them, and the question is whether that itself should be, quote, criminalized. In your case, you say you were doing oversight. There was some interaction, I'm careful to notice. But your, your defense has released video that you have which appears to suggest that the order or the request to do these cases, and there were two that day, you and the mayor seemed to come from on high, not up from the evidence. Let's take a look at that. All right, I'm coughing them right now. All right, guys, listen to me. We're going to walk out of the gates. I'm going to place the mayor in handles, okay? We are arresting the mayor right now for the deputy attorney general, United States, anyone that gets in their way, I need you guys to give me a perimeter flight and problems and get them on there. If you have body cams, turn them on. If you have body cams, quote, turn them off. Apparently, that one didn't go off, at least not under that request. Why does that hurt them or help your case if you, like the mayor, were targeted?
- [22:06]
C
I mean, at the end of the day, it confirms exactly what we said happened, right? They went and arrested the mayor when he was off the property. Right after they told him to leave, after willingly letting him in, they went and arrested him. And that's what we always said, that they caused this whole situation. It didn't need to be this and this. It seemed like it was like a conspiracy to even have this happening, right? Once again, me, along with two of my other colleagues were just there to have an oversight visit to do our job. The fact that all of this happened, once again, it was awful and it should have never occurred. But it goes back to what this administration does. This is the things that they do. They try to stop you from having oversight. They are literally stopping us from doing our jobs. And since then, it's been a whole downfall of other lawmakers in Congress trying to have oversight and literally being stopped from doing so.
- [22:58]
B
And finally tonight, some people are being charged, other people are being threatened. What do you say to those people who, looking at all that might feel like maybe they should just be quiet and sit down.
- [23:08]
C
Look, this is, I'm not going to lie to you, Ari. This is difficult, right? I've talked with many folks about this, about how being charged, going against, standing up to this administration, it's not an easy pull. But at the same time, we have a duty. I have a duty as an elected official to hold this administration accountable and represent the people that I represent in New Jersey's 10th congressional district. And I don't intend to not do that. It's just like the AG James said today in her response to these charges, we're going to continue to show up and do our job and we cannot be bullied or intimidated for doing so. And I say to other people and to the American people, you have to be outraged about what is happening, what this president is doing, politicizing the Department of Justice at the highest level, weaponizing the DOJ at the highest level. This is awful and it's not right. It's not normal and this is not democracy. Right? And so we have to continue to stand up this administration and continue to do our jobs. And I tell everyone to continue to do that. Do not be discouraged, even with the horrible things that this president is doing.
- [24:13]
B
Congressman McIver, important words there. Thank you for coming back on the beat and we'll be following your case. Up ahead, there is a line crossed with the Guard troops in Chicago. We're going to talk about what's possible, what is legal, and the mindset inside Donald Trump's White House from a lawyer who served there, Ty Cobb. When we come back, Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music. Discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album, and we'll make you a personalized station for free. Download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life.
- [24:48]
D
If you're a smoker or dipper ready to make a change, you really only need one good reason. But with Zen nicotine pouches, you'll discover many good reasons. Reasons Zyn is America's number one nicotine pouch brand. Plus, Zyn offers a robust rewards program. There are lots of options when it comes to nicotine satisfaction, but there's only one Zyn. Check out zyn.com find to find Zen at a store near you. Warning. This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
- [25:18]
G
Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should.
- [25:25]
A
One.
- [25:25]
G
One, it's $15 a month.
- [25:27]
B
Two.
- [25:28]
G
Seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it. Are you, are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for.
- [25:42]
B
Three month plan, $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only.
- [25:45]
C
Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.
- [25:52]
B
We are living through a test of the rule of law that what started in Donald Trump's first term shifted into something very different. That's our top story tonight. As we've seen these indictments and the lawyers around Trump, current and past, have special insights into what's happening. Ty Cobb is a celebrated attorney. In fact, before ever working in the Trump White House, he was an Assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland, a federal prosecutor dealing with the kind of cases we've been covering tonight. He also did high profile defense work and then moved to the forefront of the political stage in the first Trump White House. He was in that internal legal team that was dealing with what was then one of the biggest stories and biggest problems for Trump's early presidency, the Mueller pro. He also departed less than a year into that post. A White House lawyer, Ty Cobb. I. Cobb, the president's lawyer, the White.
- [26:47]
A
House lawyer handling the Russia investigation, Ty Cobb.
- [26:50]
B
Ty went on to Harvard and Georgetown Law and along the way became a mustache enthusiast. White House lawyer Ty Cobb announcing that he' at the end of the month.
- [27:00]
E
They have ratcheted up the public's concerns about the investigation and its legitimacy. I object to that approach. I don't think it's a witch hunt.
- [27:13]
B
White House lawyer, acclaimed litigator Ty Cobb, our special guest tonight. Welcome.
- [27:20]
E
Thank you for having me, Eric.
- [27:22]
B
Appreciate it. When you look at the Comey indictment, the news tonight on the James indictment and the use of the doj, where you were a prosecutor in this manner. And we can show some of the assorted faces. What is your view of what's happening?
- [27:41]
E
Well, I think what we're seeing is authoritarianism and tyranny that we're now under and the disintegration of the rule of law under Pam Bondi's stewardship and her fealty to the president as opposed to her oath of.
- [27:58]
B
That's strong words. So you think it's very clear that the attorney general knows what's going on, knows it to effectively be wrong, and is, in a sense, violating her oath to the Constitution.
- [28:11]
E
Well, let's parse that out. Her testimony was that there would be no enemies list at the Justice Department? Clearly there is. Does she know what's going on? She was directly ordered by the President to bring these charges. Did she appoint Lindsey Halligan to be the U.S. attorney even though she was unqualified and the appointment was illegal? Yes. So my answer to all your questions is absolutely.
- [28:36]
B
You mentioned the Halligan appointment. That's something we've covered. This is the newly installed, inexperienced U.S. attorney bringing both the cases, James and Comey. Do you think that could be a problem for those cases? Do you think she is not legally validly serving in that post right now, effectively bringing her prosecutions into question?
- [28:58]
E
I, I do believe that to be the case. You know, there's only one opinion on this issue issued thus far in the existence of Section 546, and that was written by Justice Alito when he was a Assistant attorney general in 1986. That makes it very clear that after serving 120 days, only the district court has the authority to appoint a new U.S. attorney. And that didn't happen here.
- [29:29]
B
When you were working at the Trump White House, you, of course, were there during a period where the Comey history and other clashes were paramount. What do you think of this indictment of Comey on the merits? And what, if anything, might you tell us about that period of time? Because there was such a high end clash, it was almost perhaps one of Donald Trump's first big clashes over who was in charge and whether the rules would hold.
- [29:57]
E
So my involvement in the Comey events at the White House is not something I'm ethically allowed to discuss. But I think Comey, as we all know now, has many detractors. He's controversial. But this indictment is so unworthy of the Justice Department as we've known it in the past as trying to be even handed and put no person above the law and not to exercise retaliation. Keep in mind that seasoned, experienced federal prosecutors concluded there was insufficient evidence to indict Comey. They he was the lead, lead prosecutor in that regard, was fired, according to Trump, resigned, according to him. But, but he's gone. And the reason he's gone is because he didn't bring the indictment against Comey. He was replaced by a Trump loyalist and personal attorney who promptly did bring an indictment against Comey without the support of her office. And in fact, her support there is so weak that she had to go a couple hundred miles just to find attorneys within the Department of Justice who could choke down the humiliation of trying to represent the United States in this farcical prosecution.
- [31:18]
B
When you look at this second term Donald Trump, how does it contrast, if at all, from the president you served and either him or the structure and the administration around him in the first term?
- [31:35]
E
Well, I think in terms of the structure, you know, you had people of character in the White House, you know, General Kelly, certainly in the Cabinet, General Mattis, Nikki Haley, Steve Mnuchin. There were a lot of senior people, smart people, people who loved the country and were there for their independent judgment and to try to help the president understand where the guardrails were and what the lanes were. You know, that doesn't exist now. I think, you know, this term the president feels unleashed. You know, it's, it's, it clearly is his belief that he's entitled to do whatever it is he wants. And once he decides what he wants, you know, the only issue is how quickly can you do this for me? Pam Bondi delivered Comey and now has delivered James. Hopefully, hopefully, America will understand that that's not really what the country was supposed to be about. It shouldn't be what it's about. And ideally, it's something that people will rise up and unite and push back on.
- [32:41]
B
Well, you're clearly using your voice and your experience to do that. What would you say to the people who still work inside either the White House, which is one thing, or agencies in the DOJ where they do take an oath to uphold the Constitution, they are not supposed to and are not empowered to do things in DOJ or the military, particularly the fact that people's liberty in life that are contrary to their oath in the law.
- [33:07]
E
So I'm not really qualified to give advice to the federal employees writ large. But I will say that in my experience, most of the people serving the government are there because they enjoy the service. They enjoy performing their duties and honoring their oath. They enjoy helping people and trying to make the government work in a way that promotes America as a, as, as a whole. I think it's very difficult for them to try to break ranks or resign. I think those are all, you know, major life decisions that nobody should be telling them to do. They can only make that decision with their own conscience. And of course, everybody that leaves the government or puts themselves in a position to be fired, you know, weakens the government because they're not going to be replaced by competent people. They're going to be replaced by loyalists and tools.
- [34:01]
B
Yeah, as you say, that's something that people who take this seriously have to balance. I want to turn to the wider questions of the rule of law and the military powers that Donald Trump is trying to seize or expand. This was an exchange that got a lot of notice. It was posed as a question by a reporter, but it has since been reflected in other reporting as something that perhaps is being mulled inside the White House. Take a look. Are you planning to invoke the Insurrection Act? Well, it's been invoked before.
- [34:33]
E
As you know, if you look at.
- [34:35]
B
Chicago, Chicago is a great city where.
- [34:37]
E
There'S a lot of crime, and if the governor can't do the job, we'll do the job.
- [34:41]
B
The Insurrection act, is that going to be formally invoked? Is that a way to kind of get around all this opposition? Well, it is a way to get around it. If we don't have to use it, I wouldn't use it. If you take a look at what's been going on in Portland, it's been going on for a long time. And that's insurrection. I mean, that's pure insurrection. The president making claims there, basically factual claims about what he views as an insurrection for extraordinary powers. What I want to do, Ty, is get your response to this. I know you've been speaking out about the importance of both the facts and the legal history. So we have a quick break, and then we will come back and hear Mr. Cobb's reaction. Stay with. We're back with former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb. We heard the president respond to the question of Insurrection act or other emergency powers. Your view of the legality of that and whether, based on your knowledge, you think this White House is serious about getting to that point?
- [35:48]
E
Oh, I think the White House is very serious about using any lever of government that, you know, inflates Trump's sense of his power and allows him to assert the level of control that he and his team want us want to assert in America. So, yes, I think he is likely to invoke that at some point. And sadly, you know, there is very little law or analysis that would restrain him if he chose to do so. The act is written in a way that both sides have known for years, is a little bit reckless. Attempts to remedy the act have not gone very far in Congress, although there have been a few and a few recently. It's an act that clearly does need to be revised, but I think he'll invoke it, and if he needs it, and if he does, it will be difficult to stop his occupation of America and the encouragement that he gave generals recently to start practicing their soldiering in American cities against Americans.
- [36:58]
B
So what does that look like, you view what you just referenced and the early sort of military deployments and skirmishes as a deliberate blueprint for what? Where would that go under the president?
- [37:12]
E
You know, that's an excellent question. You know, I think many commentators have suggested that it may go toward his ultimate desire, perhaps not in 2026, but in 2028, you know, to ensure that power passes to his chosen successor, as opposed to the free and fair elections that we've been treated to throughout history.
- [37:36]
B
Yeah. So you, you view it as a legitimate concern, not a, a movie nightmare scenario, that these current skirmishes would be building up to more widespread use of the military to distort or subvert the, the 2028 election and transfer of power if, if he were to lose, if the Republican Party were to lose.
- [37:59]
E
I think just because it's a nightmare, which it is, as we're enduring now, doesn't make it not legitimate. I think it is something that people need to be vigilant about and question throughout. I don't think anybody ever anticipated the rule of law would disintegrate as rapidly as it has under Trump and Bondi. I think we're suffering now because of that, now that we have an enemies list in the Justice Department, despite Pam Bondi's assurance to Congress when she was being confirmed and now that she's executing it on behalf of the president. So, yes, I'm very concerned. I think people should be concerned.
- [38:42]
B
Understood. I think people are listening. There's a host of cases where Donald Trump has been losing in the lower courts and would be normally on track to lose in the Supreme Court because he's not following the rule of law, where, as you well know, and you worked on this, lawyers will tell the president, well, the Constitution forbids that. So writing an executive order flatly against it isn't going to work. You don't get to rewrite the Constitution that way. You're going to lose. It's going to take energy and resources here. It's the opposite. We've heard about flooding the zone and the other things. The birthright citizenship case is one example. Federal appeals court ruled the president cannot end that because it's in the Constitution. The fifth court since June blocking those types of orders. And yet he plows ahead. Can you help us understand that? Having worked for him and around him. And what do you see heading towards the Supreme Court, at least on those cases that seem fairly clear.
- [39:37]
E
So I'm not sure my personal experience assists much more than just the obvious facts there, which is birthright citizenship is guaranteed. Anybody born in the United States, an executive order denouncing it and forbidding it is ridiculous. You know, the appellate court just wrote a hundred page opinion saying essentially that this is ridiculous. And the mere fact that we're writing 100 pages about it is only because we're giving you the history, not because it isn't really ridiculous.
- [40:13]
B
And we're speaking on a night where when we booked you, there was a lot going on. Now we have, as of tonight, the late breaking indictment of Letitia James, who is also the top law enforcement official in New York. We've covered that tonight. But I'm curious, even though it's brand new, if you have any view of the strength of that case and how it relates to the problems in Trump's doj?
- [40:38]
E
Well, I think what people need to look at is the pattern here. You have, you have Trump's vindictive order for Pam Bondi to be his tool of vengeance and indict his enemies. She promptly facilitates that by appointing, by firing a sitting U.S. attorney, by firing or accepting the resignation of the sitting US and appointing Lindsey Halligan, Trump's personal attorney and somebody with zero experience and appointing her illegally under the governing statute. So, and three days later, you know, Comey's indicted by her grand jury presentation. And, and today we have Letitia James. Both of these cases, the indictments are very odd. They're actually, the Comey indictment is an embarrassment, I think, for most seasoned prosecutors. And then the indictment today, you know, this is looking at the furor this is taking in. The government's request is for a little over $18,000 and in forfeiture money in a case that likely will not get to trial because of the misconduct involved in bringing it if it gets to trial. What we know incontrovertibly is that the bank ultimately understood clearly by representations from the Attorney General of New York that this was a vacation home. So there's very little that would lead anybody to believe she could ever be convicted. So you have these two cases, you know, almost impossible for anybody to believe that a conviction is possible primarily because of one man's narcissism. That's. That's not America. That is not America. And I think the Attorney General's, you know, brave statement this afternoon as an indicted defendant whose lawyers typically would say, please don't say anything public, went out and publicly made it very plain that she's not afraid and made a point that she's a person of faith, not a person of fear. I think we all need to be a little bit afraid, but we need to lean into the faith. You know, trust each other, embrace each other, unite a little bit. Not over every single issue, but in the importance of America. And I think if Americans lean into what America has always meant and push back on the tyranny that we're now experiencing, we'll all be in a better place. And ideally, we'll get this stuff behind us and see better days.
- [43:07]
B
Important sentiments there. Former Trump White House lawyer, federal prosecutor Ty Cobb. Thank you for joining me tonight. I do appreciate it.
- [43:16]
E
My pleasure. Nice to be with you.
- [43:18]
B
Yes, sir. And we will be right back. DOJ indicted New York Attorney General James today, one of the three people marked for charges by this Trump Post. The remaining individual on that list who has not been charged is a member of the United States Senate. Speaking out tonight.
- [43:41]
F
So deliberately target the president's enemies to the point where the president tweets to the attorney general, I want you to go after these people, and in short order they do. That is exceedingly dangerous to the country. But I can tell you this, those of us on the president's enemies list, and it is a long and growing list, will not be intimidated. We will not be deterred. We will do our jobs. We will stand up to this president. And I would also say to my other colleagues across the aisle that this president's animosity, his vengeance, his disregard for the democracy that has been our proud legacy will not protect you from the president's vengeance.
- [44:34]
B
Senator Schiff with pointed remarks there. As noted, John Bolton was a longtime conservative Republican facing this search. Mike Pence was a loyal Donald Trump Republican all the way up to January 6, when he refused to join what later became Jan6 storming of the Capitol and the sedition he also excommunicated by Trump. A warning from Schiff that he hopes Republicans and others will hear as things get very serious tonight. Thanks for joining us.
- [45:04]
D
If you're a smoker or dipper ready to make a change, you really only need one good reason. But with Zyn nicotine pouches, you'll discover many good reasons. Zyn is America's number one nicotine pouch brand. Plus, Zyn offers a robust rewards program. There are lots of options when it comes to nicotine satisfaction, but there's only one Zyn. Check out Zyn. Com Find to find Zinn at a store near you. Warning. This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.