← The Beat with Ari Melber
The Beat with Ari Melber
Trump Loses Cases Against FBI Vet Comey, AG James
00:41:20
A federal judge has dismissed the cases against James Comey and Letitia James after the judge determined the interim U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed. MS NOW's Ari Melber reports and is joined by John Flannery.
Loading summary
Transcript91 lines
- [00:00]
A
This podcast is sponsored by Gold Belly.
- [00:03]
B
Shipping America's most iconic foods nationwide. Make this Thanksgiving one to remember with.
- [00:09]
A
The original Turducken, the viral pie caken.
- [00:13]
B
With decadent layers of cake and pie and more. Plus, Black Friday is the perfect time.
- [00:19]
A
To pre order unique gifts they'll rave about for years.
- [00:22]
B
Use promo code gift for 20% off. Your first order on Goldbelly.com Gold Belly America's Best Foods Delivered Ever spend $200 on a fragrance only to realize you hate it? Micro perfumes fixes that now you can try luxury scents without the luxury price. Pick from real designer fragrances like Dior, Tom Ford and Creed. It's the real deal. Authentic scents starting at just a few bucks. They come in sleek travel sprays, ship fast, and there's no subscription required. Why gamble on a full bottle? Go to microperfumes.com podcast for up to 60% off. That's microperfumes.com pod podcast for up to 60% off. We're following the breaking news that Nicole's been following. The Trump DOJ dealt this huge loss in court today. This is a bigger and faster rebuke than expected. It's a setback to Donald Trump's wider plots to try to see if he can get away with something that is considered illegal and unlawful. The selective prosecution of his perceived opponents. Well, today he ran into a brick wall. A federal judge dismissing it outright. And let me walk you through right now, each piece of it. We've been covering this today, but there are several components. One, the judge dismissing the charges against former FBI Director James Comey. That's a rebuke to their effort to go after a critic who Trump has basically been clashing with and attacking since the first year of his first term. And that's not all. The judge also tossing Trump's recent case against New York Attorney General Letitia James. And that's because of the person you see on your screen. Both cases the judge found today have the same legally fatal flaw. Her name is Lindsey Halligan and she is not, as of this hour, anymore a prosecutor. They ruled that she was basically powerless to bring these cases. Trump's handpicked attorney, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally installed. She brought both these cases. And remember, it was a move of legal desperation that she acted alone. Now, this matters what I'm about to tell you, because it affects a lot of the pending plots that Trump has. The evidence against Comey, for example, was so thin they could not get the sitting Trump appointee to bring the case. This was someone who circa this year, Trump, 2025, was willing to work for Donald Trump, was willing to do all that, but wouldn't bring a Comey case. So they replaced him with Halligan. She's kind of the temp lawyer. They couldn't get any other DOJ lawyers to join her crusades on these cases. And that might sound like a technicality. If you watch our channel, we've heard lawyers and experts discuss this, but. Okay, Ari, who cares? Well, tonight you see why the law cares. Because no other career nonpartisan lawyers would sign on to what they viewed as insufficient evidence or even a potential potentially unlawful indictment. So the indictments were only brought by her. And the court has now found a night. This is brand new. First time this has happened this year. First time any lawyer has been DQ'd like this out of Trump's DOJ. The court found she doesn't have this job. She is not the valid U.S. attorney in that district. And now the cases collapse. Later tonight, we'll get into more details, but that's what you need to know up top. The cases are collapsed. They are null and void. The Justice Department will appeal. They have that right. And legally, if they can find another lawyer to bring the case, they might have a path to refiling the case against Attorney General James. The Comey case is basically doa, and the technical legal reasons for that we will also get into tonight. And I can tell you we've got some big guests for this big news night. But let me tell you a little more about what we're learning. Both defendants had been fighting these charges on several fronts. For example, both of these defendants argued that, number one, Halligan wasn't even the valid lawyer, that this was a loophole where they brought an attempt to go after people that other lawyers would not sign off on. What I just told you about that was one lane. Another lane was that this was selective prosecution. The Trump administration was going to have to clear those hurdles before they ever got to trial. But now the cases are over. Now, if you broaden out, this is actually the third Trump revenge case to collapse, as did the case that was briefly brought against a New Jersey mayor and then dropped. No other cases that Trump has brought against these type of individuals have made it to trial, let alone one. So if you're keeping track, widening beyond just today's news, Trump's record this year is 0 wins, 3 losses. The wider impact is a rebuke to Trump's efforts to abuse DOJ powers to go after some of the opponents that he perceives here. That he wanted to go after some running for Congress, some in Congress, the charges dropped. In the lower left corner, Baraka, that's the mayor I mentioned. The precedent now is building up. He's losing these cases, not winning them. They're collapsing before they go to trial. And as you know, you don't need to be a lawyer to know courts are supposed to work off precedent. The precedents this year are running against this so far faltering revenge plot. Now, James Comey had publicly said he expected to win this case. Indeed, he recently told our colleague Nicole Wallace in an interview about the wider intimidation efforts, that while he was well aware of how bad things have gotten, I mean, James Comey, whatever you think of him in the 2016 emails and whether you think he did a good job, he has borne the brunt of Donald Trump's efforts to attack him, to ruin his career and his life, to audit him, to investigate him, to subpoena him. They interviewed him about a, a whole exaggerated issue around security. They didn't charge him on that. Then they went after this case that I'm telling you about. So Comey's lived through it. And yet he maintained, he said, his optimism because courts are still a place to deal in evidence and facts on this case. Tonight, it appears he was right. It was the evidence of this unlawful appointment that the judge dealt with. And he issued this new response on video today.
- [06:34]
A
The message has to be sent that the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies.
- [06:45]
B
There that is. Now, Trump had been trying to bend the doj. And the wider point of what he's doing here is installing loyalists and trying to test the loopholes. So if you broaden out one step further and you look at the National Guard or clashes with Venezuela, this is a president who, despite his cratering approval, is still testing every single power that he might get away with. That's what he's trying to do. And here he did something that the judge called probably unprecedented American history. Now, think about that. We've had the Nixon era, we've had McCarthyism. There are historians who remind us that we have been through times where the federal government has been abused like this before, that has politicians trying to use the powers to investigate, to charge, to try to end free speech and free democracy. Certainly that's what McCarthyism was about. But historians remind us these things often run out of steam and run into the wall of the courts. And what the court found here was that Trump had tried or his aides had brainstormed something that had was so sort of mischievous. No one other president had tried it, where they ran out the clock on basically one temp prosecutor and tried to put in another temp prosecutor. And I'm going to explain this in plain English. The judges point out that, well, if that were allowed, then you'd never need to go to the Senate to confirm anyone. You could just stack temp prosecutors all the way down. So certainly that's not allowed. And this ruling goes into much greater depth, about 30 pages of exactly why all of the law, precedent, and the Constitution itself is against that. So even if you say, okay, Ari, a lot of details here, you seem excited about the news. Sure. The bottom line is this was a test of whether a president willing to go farther than anyone in history could use a loophole to hijack more of the Justice Department cutting out not only the Senate, but the rule of evidence to go after their opponents. And tonight, the answer is no, you don't get to do that. No, you lose the case on Comey. No, you lose the case on James. And no, while we're at it, your lawyer, pack up your bags. She doesn't work here anymore. That is as wide a rebuke as we've seen in a while on these issues. And the losses come amid the wider reckoning for Trump that we are all living through. You can't miss all of this. Whether you open your phone or follow the news through television or newspapers, however you follow what's been going on in the last few weeks. Let me remind you that in the last three weeks alone, Trump lost these two cases today, lost the prosecutor who was doing his bidding, lost his effort to stop those 20,000 new Epstein emails, lost the wider fight to block a vote on the release of the remaining Epstein files, lost all the Republicans on that score in the Senate, most in the House lost MTG as a MAGA ally and then as a member of Congress. She announced going into the weekend she's resigning. And if you go back a full three weeks, he lost the off year elections. All these losses add up to a crisis of credibility that will clearly hurt him in his clashes with these other branches. Losing to the judicial branch today and the legislative branch last week. I bring in former federal prosecutor and congressional counsel John Flannery. That's our breakdown. Give us yours, sir.
- [10:13]
A
My breakdown is that we had learned something in Watergate that involved the President, an attorney general, and the ousting of a special counsel. Very similar rules to here, and that after that, we thought we would be independent. So Just to go to a couple of the facts that scream that this was not taking our laws serious. A woman who may be a fine lawyer in other ways was a prosecutor for four days in her life before she indicted Comey and James. That's it. No training, no understanding, no experience, no cases ever tried before. She'd never been in the grand jury before. And we should be fighting about whether or not they could bring this back? I don't think so. I think the statute of limitations means you're limited. Yeah, I think that.
- [11:06]
B
Well, let me read you the judge. I'll let you continue. But as you say, as the kids say, no shade to Ms. Halligan. But she had no experience for the job. That's a fact, not a criticism. The judge, to your point, says the implication of any other conclusion would be extraordinary. It would mean that Trump, the government, could send any private citizen off the street, attorney or not, in the grand jury room to indict. So long as the AG gives her approval afterwards. That, quote cannot be law, John.
- [11:37]
A
Right. Well. And when you spoke about the developments in recent days leading to this decision, you're talking about a march to justice, a march to the republic in opposition to the march that Trump would prefer, which is to be an autocrat, to be a dictator. How dare you? How dare you contradict me when I want to prosecute this guy who's a political enemy of mine, and I have no more evidence than my say so that you should go after him and ruin his public, his public, public and private life, even if you don't have anything to prove he committed a crime. And, you know, they talk about if they, if they go in, if I was advising them, I would tell them, let it go. Because if you win on anything, the next one's going to be a selective and vindictive prosecution, and it'll probably only be right.
- [12:28]
B
Like I mentioned. This is.
- [12:30]
A
Yes, right.
- [12:31]
B
This is step one. You mentioned the deadline. I'm ready. Read briefly, John. The Comey case was already rushed. It was desperate. I mean, it just wasn't going to happen. The Trump appointee said no. So they slam her in there. The judge rules. And I'm just going to summarize. Judge Curie today said basically the DOJ's time to indict Comey had run out. And when an indictment like this is void, she says the DOJ has no legitimate peg. That's the, quote, of a supreme, of a lower court ruling to, quote, no legitimate peg to refile after the deadline. And that's the US v. Comey citation there is today citing a 1987 case. Walk us through why that matters, John. Because it would mean that while they've gone after Comey a million ways, they can't even refile this case if they found a new lawyer to do it.
- [13:24]
A
Well, the notion goes like this. I have the power given to me by a set of rules that legitimately empower me. One of those is if you have an open seat, say for the U.S. attorney, you can appoint someone for 120 days, but at the end of that, then, and you need someone because you didn't get anyone to present to the Senate, what you do is you have to have the judges appointed. So judges then would have appointed a person who knew something about prostitution. Then the question is, would it go to the Senate? And it is very possible that it could go to the Senate and they would sit on it because the two senators from Virginia are Democrats and one of them could just put a hold on it. There'd be no U.S. attorney for that district. There'd be no charges.
- [14:12]
B
I think that, and let me, I'm going to jump in, I'm jumping in a lot today because there's so much, there's so much in this ruling. But to let you finish the point, I just want to underscore that's the new status quo. The court's ruling today disqualifies Halligan and they can have a judge pick the replacement who would presumably be more qualified than her, and that could be the U.S. attorney for the rest of the term. It's incumbent on only Trump. He now is on defense. He'd have to go to the Senate, as you say. And if he doesn't, they'll just have a career type person for, for the rest of the three years.
- [14:49]
A
Well, and, and here's the other thing. That, that period, that 120 days is already run. You don't get a second and a third and a fourth 120 days. So the, the limitations are the judges and the Senate and the judges, I assume they would appoint somebody that they know that's qualified for that position. And we might see what they call another declination letter, which is that the U.S. attorney, when appointed legitimately, a real lawyer who's not owing Trump and is not a loyalist, which is ironic given the charge against Comey, which is why he's charging Comey because he wasn't a loyalist to Trump. So you have a real prosecutor and he might write exactly what happened before. There's no, there, there, there's no case what is wrong with you? Now, the flip side of this is what happened to the people in Watergate should be happening to these people, from the President to the Attorney General to the lawyers who were wrongly invested in the corruption of our system of law because they want to earn and own this country for themselves, to use it as they want.
- [15:53]
B
And we'll see. And we'll see how that process goes. I think a headline tonight for lawyers is do you want to be the type of lawyer who does your job and stops where the legal and ethical line is, or do you want to be Lindsey Halligan where you get to pretend you were prosecutor until you are ignominiously removed by the courts? I don't know how many lawyers, even on self interest, before you get to ethics, would say, oh, I want to end up like her, John, I'm out of time. I got congressman standing by.
- [16:22]
A
I have. I have a formula that you should think, well, I.
- [16:26]
B
Okay, okay. Briefly.
- [16:27]
A
Done. Briefly. Okay.
- [16:29]
B
All right, we'll do a rain check only because I got the congressman and he's on a tight. John Flannery, thank you. Congressman Ro Khanna on this big news. Oversight leader, of course, and the Epstein bill. Author Ro Khanna here next. Trump has a deadline now, 25 days to release the Epstein files. Remember when Politico was reporting that a Kentucky Republican and California libel were the unlikely alliance pushing Trump on Epstein? That was back when it was a new idea that this pair was trying to get the files out. When Congress returned in the fall, they were ready to act. Massie was filing a petition to force that vote. Take a look.
- [17:21]
C
There is something that is rotten in Washington. Less than 1% of these files have been released. We are demanding today on the discharge petition that all of the files be released.
- [17:34]
B
The perpetrators are being protected because they're rich and powerful and political donors to the establishment here in Washington, D.C. what looked like a long shot was picking up steam, including mtg.
- [17:52]
D
I believe the country deserves transparency in these files and I don't believe that that rich, powerful people should be protected. I'm not afraid to name names.
- [18:04]
B
And so if they want to give.
- [18:05]
D
Me a list, I will walk in that Capitol on the House floor and I'll say every damn name that abused these women. I'm standing with the women and I will continue to do my small part to get the files released.
- [18:21]
B
Mtg, joining that initial pair and more Democrats who'd filed the petition to do something that rarely happens, override the speaker. The women and those survivors were speaking out as well. And they went up against Trump and the speaker, who were fighting to the very end to prevent the vote. We all witnessed last week, there was even an effort to not seat someone. The petition ultimately triggered a full vote just last week, and it's now law.
- [18:54]
C
So this is a Democrat hoax that never ends.
- [18:58]
B
The discharge petition is not only reckless, it is also a totally moot point.
- [19:02]
C
Well, I don't want to talk about it because fake news, he had nothing.
- [19:06]
B
To do with it.
- [19:06]
C
President Trump has clean hands.
- [19:08]
B
He's not worried about it.
- [19:09]
C
Let the Senate look at it, let anybody look at it, but don't talk about it too much. We're just hearing that Trump has signed the Epstein Act. Donald Trump put his surrender and humiliation in writing, in capital letters.
- [19:21]
B
Today is a day because of the.
- [19:24]
C
Survivors that we can say is the beginning of the episode. End of the Trump presidency.
- [19:31]
B
Beginning of the end of the Trump presidency. It sounds like sweeping rhetoric, but compare it to what we just learned today. A judge rebuking Trump on two cases, losing his hand picked prosecutor. The earthquake of that Republican revolt continues to reverberate. While it started, as I mentioned, with Congressman Ro Khanna, the Democrat from California, who joins me now, working with his Republican counterpart, Massie, on the House Oversight Committee. Welcome.
- [19:58]
C
Thank you, Ari. Thank you for having me.
- [20:01]
B
I'm curious how you see this ruling against Trump on the Comey and James case. You do oversight. More Americans have learned about you sort of pushing that. And this would seem like an example where both branches, legislative and judicial, are pushing back now.
- [20:19]
C
Seems like we finally read the Federalist Papers and the other branches of government have woken up. Congress woke up and said, we don't have to be supplicants to Donald Trump. We can actually overcome his objections and prevail. And now judges are standing up. Not just these judges who dismissed those baseless cases, but even in the Supreme Court, you saw justices questioning Trump's tariff policies. So it should give people faith about our democratic process.
- [20:52]
B
Hmm. I want to read, just remind people what's in the bill. It was quite a chaotic week. The bill is broad. It asks for all files relating to Epstein and Maxwell, who's imprisoned, although she got a better spot under the Trump administration. It also talks about the DOJ internal communications, which could be striking, although you know you're going to get some legal battle over that. Some of that stuff usually doesn't come out. And it also asks for documentation regarding Epstein's detention or death. This part of the bill, Congressman, says examiner files, autopsy reports, records detailing the cause of Death. Can you explain to us what the value is of these documents? And should we take the inclusion of the death review to be that you and your colleagues, which now are most of the House, think there are unanswered questions or even potentially questions about foul play regarding Epstein's death in custody in what was then the Trump era. Bureau of Prisons.
- [21:57]
C
Laurie, Thomas Massie and I have always tried to be very factual and not engaged in speculation. So there are unanswered questions that we need release of these documents for. But I don't know what happened, nor do I want to speculate. The main thing, though, that the survivors want, having really spent time with them over the last five months and that their lawyers want is, is to understand which other rich and powerful men went to Epstein's rape island, which other men engaged in the trafficking of these girls? And I do believe that information will come out through Epstein's computer. The pictures that are there, the emails that are there, and a lot of the FBI witness interviews where they have interviewed a lot of these people who either covered up for Epstein or. Or participated in the trafficking.
- [22:48]
B
One of the things about this that was unusual was your committee got the emails. You. You released a few, and then very quickly we got a bunch more. Maybe it's not the best organized course of transparency, but it definitely added a lot of transparency. Now, the initial emails that your committee found important, one of them made a lot of news because, as you know, it said Trump, quote, spent hours with, and then the victim's name was redacted. House Republicans identified that as the late Virginia Giuffre. She had also previously publicly indicated she didn't witness any misconduct by Trump regarding the sexual abuse of minors at Epstein's home. That's from the Times. What do you say to these questions about whether if her name was gonna come out anyway and she has, in effect, cleared Trump, that should have been included with the initial batch, or people have asked whether the committee was somehow trying to be misleading. This is. There was so much happening that first week. I wanted to give you a chance to address that in detail here.
- [23:57]
C
No, I mean, look, the Republicans and Democrats both release files. Thomas Massie and I have said release all of them. Robert Garcia, who's the ranking member, also believes we should be releasing all of these emails. And from day one, actually, I've not made this about Donald Trump. I have no idea what he may or may not have been involved in. For me, this has been about justice for survivors who've been denied justice for over a decade. And There are over a thousand victims. And whether there are Democrats or Republicans who were involved in either the rape or abuse of underage girls or simply the trafficking of a young women who may have been over age, but it was exploitive, the relationship that should come out. And these people should not have buildings named after them and scholarships named after them. That's really what this has been about.
- [24:46]
B
But on that point, and we've heard that from people and you've been a leader on this, we showed that, what do you say to people who ask, well, if it was that important, why not push to get them released when the Biden administration controlled doj and the same party might have been able to do that?
- [25:03]
C
I think it's a fair point. Look, I raised this with Elijah cummings. Originally, in 2019, under the Biden administration, there was a federal judge who was slowly releasing these files. But having gotten to know the survivors and their stories, I think the entire country let them down. And I wish we had advocated stronger and more forcefully in years past. What happened is that Trump then said he was going to release the files. I think it's good that he campaigned that way. No one criticized him for the first six, seven months. Then Pam Bondi said, there's nothing more to see. That's when Thomas Massie and I did this petition and that's where we built momentum to get it released. So I don't deny that we owed these survivors justice earlier on and all of us should have been more vocal. But the good thing is at least now they're going to get that justice.
- [25:54]
B
Interesting. Yeah, appreciate your answer on that. You mentioned being led by the evidence. Everyone's still going through it from the perspective of the oversight work you do. I wanted to get you on, get your response to some of this because it's quite disturbing what the new emails show. For example, Steve Bannon, who worked in the top of the government, had a lot of power advising Trump in the White House. When he left, he was trying to help Epstein redeem his reputation. We didn't have all these details until we got the new emails from your committee. I just want to remind viewers we did some reporting on this. Epstein was emailing that he met with Christians and the media portrayed him as beyond redemption and he found that offensive. And Bannon replies, quote, we must counter the narrative of, quote, rapist who traffics and female children to be raped by the powerful richest men and can't be redeemed. And then he writes secretly to Epstein and they were hiding their relationship at the time as you know, you're a lot of things we will show you are not that. Another email has Epstein writing to Bannon. You can understand why Trump wakes up in the middle of the night sweating when he hears we're friends. Does it concern you that someone at the top of government, in this case the Trump White House, self described, was trying to redeem and rehab this sex trafficker's reputation?
- [27:16]
C
Yes. It's disgusting. But you know, what these emails will show is that there were a group of rich and powerful people who just thought it was normal to be corresponding or raising money from Epstein. I've taken to describing it as this Epstein class, a group of people who think that the rules don't apply to them or that they aren't accountable. And it has really angered a lot of Americans that you have one set of rules for these powerful folks and another set of rules for ordinary Americans.
- [27:47]
B
So let's. Let's dive into that because some of the emails suggest the idea. And as we know as investigators, someone asserting something or bragging or what have you doesn't mean it's 100% true. You got to run down the lead. But there's an email in April 18th where Epstein's writing to a person that, according to what you released, we can't exactly confirm, but they say, I like your f. Wall street statement. Don't know how you're doing, but it seems he is following your lead. The sender says 1000%. I have Kudlow and Bolton in there. Epstein says, nice to finally have good soldiers for you. The person close to the administration emails were at a time where Kudlow and Bolton were there and kind of in good graces, according to a Politico account at the time that we dug up. Here's my question, Congressman. Is there a concern that Epstein operated at a level where he was using these sources, his relationships, and his paid attorneys, Ken Starr, Dershowitz, and others, not to have his case defended, which even the most vile defendants have that right, but to abuse access or even potentially blackmail people inside the government for different treatment. Do you think that's an avenue to investigate? Does it concern you that he did that?
- [29:04]
C
I do think that those are valid questions to be investigated. I mean, why is this guy worth half a billion dollars? Where is he getting his money? What was his motive? Why are so many powerful politicians and powerful business leaders spending time with him? These are all questions that one can ask. And this is not conspiracy theory. This is a sense of an elite that is so disconnected from rural America, small town America the kind of suburban town, Bucks county, where I grew up. And people are saying, that's why I said it's going to shock the conscience of how these people are living.
- [29:41]
B
Hmm. The final question is one that you've been working on with Massie, and now I guess you have a lot more Republicans at your back. If they're consistent. If the DOJ does not fully comply, will you take them to court? Will the survivors be there for that round? What is the game plan if you get something less than full compliance with what is now federal law?
- [30:06]
C
Well, that's the point now, Ari. It's federal law. And anyone who doesn't comply, not just Pam Bondi, but justice, career officials, can be held accountable, criminally accountable, and in contempt of Congress. Thomas Massie and I intend to meet with the Attorney General and we're going to continue to push for full disclosure. And yes, the law and the courts are an option, but ultimately, what made this happen and what will release the files are the courage of the survivors. They had to come to the Capitol Hill twice when the story was basically dead, when Johnson had shut down Congress, and they're the ones who pushed. That's how we got a unanimous vote in the Senate. You know, people are saying, oh, is this LBJ tactics of Massey incontinent? No, it wasn't. It's that the senators heard these incredibly powerful stories of these survivors.
- [30:55]
B
Yeah. Heard the people. What is your. What is your. This is inside baseball. But what's your. Before I lose you, what's your relationship with Mike Johnson right now? Are you guys talking recently or. You'll see. Day by day, we'll see.
- [31:08]
C
Look, I, we came into Congress together. It was a civil relationship, but, you know, he's obviously not been happy with me. But I've tried not to make personal for folks, and I, I'm glad that he ultimately voted for it and that Trump voted, signed it. My real interest is that these files now get out and that these survivors have just as one quick point. It started out for me going after elite impunity. It became very personal because I spent a lot of time with these women and the trauma that they faced. And I'm genuinely really committed to seeing them have some justice.
- [31:43]
B
Yeah. Congressman Khan, we covered, I think, a fair amount of ground. I appreciate your remarks, including looking back at what you called the failure of government for not only the survivors, but all the people who care about this for the right reasons. And that included, of course, the Garland era doj. So really interesting to get you on that as well as the ban and emails and everything else. I hope you come back. Thank you.
- [32:05]
C
Thank you.
- [32:05]
B
Ari.
- [32:06]
C
Thank you for covering this.
- [32:08]
B
Yes, sir.
- [32:09]
C
Thanks.
- [32:09]
B
Congressman Ro Khanna on that big issue that he of course helped spark with all of the people he mentioned. I want to tell folks, coming up, Elon Musk started a government program to cut government spending. Now his program itself has been cut. That's an update to a story that's been all over the place and setbacks on the retribution campaign. Special GUEST Next, why did we build the first American nuclear plant in 30 years? Because we're leading the way to secure American energy dominance. And why announce over $70 billion in energy infrastructure investments to keep meeting America's.
- [32:45]
C
Energy Demand, win the AI race and.
- [32:48]
B
Because our 9 million customers deserve affordable, reliable energy to power their homes and businesses. At Southern Company, the investments we make.
- [32:57]
C
Today are powering America, America's energy future.
- [33:02]
B
AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI transformation@rubrik.com that's R U V R I K.com ever spend $200 on a fragrance only to realize you hate it? Micro Perfumes fixes that. Now you can try luxury scents without the luxury price. Pick from real designer fragrances like Gucci, Chanel and Versace. It's the real deal. Authentic scents starting at just a few bucks. They come in sleek travel sprays, ship fast and there's no subscription required. Why gamble on a full bottle? Go to microperfumes.com podcast for up to 60% off. That's microperfumes.com podcast for up to 60% off. I know that Donald Trump will probably.
- [34:09]
A
Come after me again and my attitude's going to be the same.
- [34:12]
B
I'm innocent, I am not afraid. And I believe in an independent federal judiciary.
- [34:19]
A
The gift from our founders that protects us from a would be tyrant.
- [34:26]
B
New from former defendant James Comey. Having now won that case at an early stage, I'm joined by New York Times Magazine legal writer Emily Bazelon. Welcome.
- [34:35]
D
Thank you.
- [34:38]
B
Good to have you. We went through some of this earlier in the program. I'm curious what stands out to you? Big picture of what is a very swift rebuke of Trump's cases against the Attorney General of New York who'd been after him for civil fraud and famously, James Comey, who he's kind of been obsessed with.
- [34:58]
D
Yeah. I mean, there are many problems with this indictment, this particular problem that Lindsey Halligan, the supposed interim U.S. attorney in Eastern District of Virginia, the idea that she was improperly appointed, that stands at the very beginning of. Of bringing these charges. So it makes sense that that's the initial reason that a judge would try to dismiss the case. And, you know, I think the Trump administration will appeal, and they will have a kind of dry legal question at issue here. But really, at bottom, what happened was that Halligan was all by herself in making this presentation to the grand jury because there were no nonpartisan career attorneys who felt like they could see stand up behind this case, given how thin their own investigation found the evidence to be against Comey and against Letitia James. And so, you know, if Halligan hadn't been all by herself that day, then maybe it wouldn't matter whether she was properly appointed or not to the same degree, because other lawyers would have signed off on these charging documents. Instead, it was just her. And if she was improperly appointed, then there's no backup here.
- [36:08]
B
Yeah. And when you look at how Trump is spending the first year, and with the rebuke last week, the midterms coming, he may have a lot fewer options later. I want to say something that's so obvious to the point of naive, if that's okay with you, Emily, Go for it, Ari. It doesn't have to be this way. He could rule and govern within his enumerated powers, and were he not constantly trying to abuse and break all the rules, then more of his time and governing agenda would be spent not on fighting the disclosures that Congress has required or whether he can have troops around cities indefinitely. He could focus on the other things, and there might still be what we call normal democracy, debates about taxes and immigration. It doesn't have to be this way, and it's not my job to predict whether he will take the note. But what do you think about that aspect? So much of the time is on these kind of cases that sooner or later land with people saying, yeah, you don't have your own doj, you don't have your own appointees, and you're breaking the law.
- [37:19]
D
Right. Well, one way to think about what you're saying is that it is remarkable how much Trump has invested in these prosecutions of his perceived enemies. Right. He had a conservative U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia look very closely into this case, even though the facts were thin and cop Mac and say I'm sorry, but I can't make this one work. And Trump could have moved on to other things and we wouldn't have this whole sort of, you know, at this point, quite laughable effort by Lindsey Halligan, who is clearly out of her depth. Right. She hadn't been a prosecutor before. She had to do this by herself because the career attorneys refused to get involved in the case. And it all just makes the administration seem incompetent to a degree that does seem like a kind of big own goal.
- [38:10]
B
Yeah. I'm reminded when David Frum said, you know, if you wanted a high tech, organized, disciplined, secretive police state, these wouldn't be the people to run it. And perhaps it's sad that, that some of these issues are saved on incompetence. Go ahead.
- [38:28]
D
Yeah, I mean, I think that makes sense that point. And it just makes you wonder, you know, if he was coloring more in the lines, if there was the, some, something left of the traditional separation between the White House and the Justice Department, then would there be a lot of important cases that this office would be binging? Right. I mean, the Eastern District of Virginia is a crucial U.S. attorney's office. It has counterterrorism, counter espionage, national security cases. And you gotta wonder when they are distract by these faulty indictments, what they're not doing.
- [39:07]
B
Fair. Emily Bazelon, thank you. When we come back, Elon Musk wanted to cut the government, but he got cut. We'll explain. This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.
- [39:28]
A
Churchill.
- [39:32]
B
How it started, how it's going. Elon Musk said he was going to cut government spending with his chainsaw department. Now that department has been cut and early. Musk had already stepped back from government that was widely covered. He fought with Trump. He said he would be in the Epstein files, but now they've disbanded early. That's even with eight months left technically on the charter for according to Reuters here, Musk had sparked protests and a backlash with a firing agenda that seemed to even catch some top Trump officials by surprise. And the cost savings he promised kept going downhill. Well, I think we can do at least 2 trillion. Yeah.
- [40:11]
A
Yes, 2 trillion. Do you think the 2 trillion is.
- [40:15]
C
A realistic number now that you're looking more closely at it?
- [40:18]
B
Yeah. Well, I think we'll try for 2 trillion. I think that's like the best case outcome. But I do think that you kind of have to have some overage. I think if we try for 2 trillion, we've got a good shot at getting one. We anticipate savings in FY26 from reduction of waste and fraud by $150 billion. The Times reports that the way they did this work, very different from the usual process, means that not even Congress knows how much money they cut. If they did, they inflated savings from contracts, they counted things multiple. That's not how you'd run a business, by the way. And then of course, there's the expense and the lawsuits of shutting down programs. Musk was Trump's biggest campaign donor. This was the largest sort of reward and conflict of interest for someone who insisted on keeping all their business work while moonlighting at the government to fire people who showed far more commitment to public service. And then he kind of walked out the door in June. He talked about starting a third party, I should say. And then as mentioned, he wrote on the Internet it was time to drop the really big bomb. Trump's in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. And a sarcastic have a nice day at the end. We do not know whether Musk based that on raw information he had. Remember, he was seeking a lot of access to all types of government information. We do know that Trump was more in the Epstein emails than anyone knew at that time. We'll be right back.
- [42:04]
D
Want the same expert advice from the pros at a discount tire store while shopping for tires online? Meet Treadwell, your personal tire guide. Treadwell is an online tire buying guide that gives you personalized recommendations. Shop for tires with Treadwell@discounttire.com you know.
- [42:19]
B
You'Ve reached peak couple energy when your undies match. Meundies Match Me has you both covered literally in super soft ultramodal undies, socks, PJs and loungewear.
- [42:28]
C
Festive prints? Check.
- [42:30]
B
Cozy vibes? Double check. And right now, it's deal season. Get up to 50% off site wide.
- [42:35]
C
For Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
- [42:37]
B
Take your couple game to the next level with Meundies Match Me. To get deals up to 50% off, go to Meundies.com SXM Enter Pro promo code SXM that's Meundies.com SXM code SXM hi everyone, I'm Ashley Flowers, creator and host of Crime Junkie, the Go to Crime podcast for the biggest cases and the stories you won't hear anywhere else. So whether on your commute, studying or while you work, let us keep you company. With new episodes every Monday. It is truly a crime junkie's dream. So join me, my best friend Britt, and our entire crime Junkie community right now by catching up on hundreds of episodes and by listening to a new case every Monday on Crime Junkie, available wherever you listen to podcasts. There's already been a lot going on, but it's not every day that you get not one but two major rulings rejecting Donald Trump's revenge prosecutions agenda, closing the cases on Comey and Letitia James, as we've reported, and disqualifying his chosen prosecutor. These are legal findings that are now precedents. He is out of control of that prosecutor position, as we've reported. Judges will now fill that position until and unless he gets the Senate approval. A lot coming out of today's rulings. We will stay on it for you and we'll be right back. The clock is ticking on these Epstein files that Congress has now demanded from doj. Tonight we heard from Rocana about their plans to get the material and there was so much going on that we actually tried to highlight what I'll put back up for you here, which is what they actually want material on Epstein and Maxwell. That makes sense. Internal Justice Department communications, which could go back to the first term when Trump's DOJ was overseeing the case as well as the Biden term. They did the inspector general report on the death and you see here they want documentation of Epstein's detention and death, medical files, et cetera. Ro Khanna told us why they want that material while cautioning that he's not getting ahead of speculation and he outlined a blueprint for what they're going to do to get the stuff. Everybody has been skeptical that DOJ will comply when Trump's been fighting this. If you want to see excerpts from that interview, we will post them tonight on our YouTube. You can go to Ms. Now Ari to see the Ro Khanna interview and our other recent segments. It's time to save the Firestone.
- [45:10]
A
Black Friday and Cyber Monday sale is on.
- [45:13]
B
Get 15% off all tires and $40 off a lifetime will alignment when you buy two or more eligible tires. Visit firestonecompleteautocare.com for details and more deals.