← The Jim Acosta Show
The Jim Acosta Show
THE BIG BLUE WAVE! With Larry Sabato plus Dave Aronberg on the Epstein Probe AND Authors Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis on Blockbuster Book "Injustice."
01:06:42
Loading summary
Transcript138 lines
- [00:00]
Larry Sabato
Foreign.
- [00:06]
Jim Acosta
Welcome to the Jim Acosta show. And the big blue wave is rising in America. Democrats triumphed in last night's elections, winning races in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York City by wide margins. It was a repudiation of Donald Trump's second term in office. Trump is blaming everybody but himself. But don't forget, he's the one who knocked down the east wing of the White House. He's the one who threw a Great Gatsby party right before kicking people off of SNAP benefits. He's the one who's been posting memes of himself, dumping crap on Americans protesting in the streets. And perhaps most critically, he's the one who refused to work with Democrats on reopening the government, something that I think a lot of Americans caught on to. Let's discuss Larry Sabato. He is the director of the center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Larry, stunning night last night, in your view, what happened? What's the big takeaway?
- [00:57]
Larry Sabato
The, the big takeaway, Jim, is that it was a Democratic landslide. And not just in certain places. There are elections that mattered that we didn't hear anything about nationally, but when you looked into them, like the Democratic winning and ousting of two incumbent Republican members of the Georgia Public Service Committee, which is an important commission, that was significant right there. And then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices, their retention, three of them, they were Democrats. And without them, Democrats would have been in a much tougher position come future elections for getting decisions that mattered to the electorate. So it was really widespread. What happened was widespread. It was all pro Democratic. There's almost nothing you can cite that wasn't. And look, it wasn't just the Democrats won. It's the margins, right? The fact that Democrats came out in droves. Now, maybe they just wanted to turn the page, and we can understand why. But this is how you turn the page. You win elections. That's what really transforms politics. They've been in the dumps. We know how negative they feel about many of the Democratic leaders. They probably still do today. But they feel better about themselves and they feel better about the opposition to Donald Trump.
- [02:23]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, no question. And, and Virginia was stunning. I mean, Abigail Spanberger, yes, she was expected to win, and she did that. But Jay Jones, who was running for attorney general and really damaged himself with these horrific texts that came out, you know, in, in the press from a few years ago, he won and, and, and won rather handily. And I was looking at your center's crystal ball post, and for the nerds who like to get into into the weeds. And the numbers, I thought this one really stood out to me. Abigail Spanberger won Loudoun county in Virginia, which is one of the suburb counties outside of Washington, D.C. by an eye opening 29 points. Jay Jones won it by 19 points. That's, that is stunning, Larry. That's, I mean, I guess it's because of the federal workers and the way Trump's been acting in Washington to some extent, but it's just stunning.
- [03:13]
Larry Sabato
It's not that voters were pleased with Jay Jones. They certainly were unhappy with what they learned and they should be unhappy with what they learned, but their view was a governor to be successful in one four year term, which is what we give them in Virginia, they have to have people who are on their team to work with them. Well, and you can't do that with a party represented in the other key office of Attorney General. And I've seen, you know, I've lived for so long, you know how old I am, Jim. I can remember circumstances where there was a Republican governor and a Democratic Attorney general or vice versa. They didn't get along and it really slowed down the term and there's not much to slow down. By the time you get anything passed, you're leaving office. So this was really important. And that's why people voted for Jones. They just. And the other reason. This is interesting. Yeah, I think the Miaris people, the Republicans generally thought that, that having Donald Trump constantly embrace Jason Juarez and spending tens of millions of dollars on ads linking Meares and Trump that somehow would help me arrest. No, I actually think it drove the stake into his heart because this electorate hated Donald Trump, not disliked, hated Donald Trump. And they would vote for anything that Trump didn't want.
- [04:41]
Jim Acosta
And it sounds as though this was the case up in New Jersey too, Larry. And I mean, as you and I both know, all politics is local, as the old adage goes. And the New York Times picked up on this, that Trump kind of gave Mikey Sherrill, who won that race for governor, an unexpected gift after the federal government shut down. The New York Times writes, Trump made what many Democrats saw as an unforced error. While tangling with Chuck Schumer, the President announced he had terminated construction of a vitally important new Hudson river rail tunnel between New York and Jersey, the Gateway project, Larry. I mean, if there's one thing that's going to piss off people in New Jersey is if you screw with their commutes. I forgive the sal language, but I mean it.
- [05:21]
Larry Sabato
You remember Chris Christie like a New Yorker.
- [05:23]
Jim Acosta
Chris Christie did It too.
- [05:24]
Larry Sabato
Right. He did it, too. And he since converted, I think. And certainly he's caught on to Trump if he ever didn't know. But yeah, it was it. That was dumb. What's interesting to me again is listening to pundits that I trust on the Republican side. They were absolutely convinced there was going to be an upset, and at the very worst, it would be a point or two in the Democratic direction rather than what it turned out to be 13 points. Now, that wasn't as good as Spanberger. She won by 15 points. And they were, they were once roommates, as you know, when they both joined Congress after the 2018 election. You know, an odd fact. Spanberger was born in New Jersey and now she's governor of Virginia. And Cheryl was born in Virginia. Now she's governor of New Jersey. I mean, that's. That you can't make this stuff up. I don't know if anybody else is interested, but I thought I'd mention that.
- [06:21]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, I'm. There was a full moon.
- [06:23]
Larry Sabato
Yeah, there was a full moon that night. Yeah.
- [06:25]
Jim Acosta
And speaking of full moons, Donald Trump rose this morning and he tried to blame everybody but himself. He was, I guess, posting no social. Yeah, leave it. Shocker. Breaking news. He, he was trying to say that, well, I was. I'm not on the ballot. And he said, oh, maybe the shutdown hurt us. Let's play a little bit of that sound and talk about on the other side.
- [06:50]
Larry Sabato
All right.
- [06:50]
Mike Johnson
I thought we'd have a discussion after the press leaves about what last night represented and what we should do about it and also about the shutdown and how that relates to last night. I think if you read the pollsters, the shutdown was a big factor, negative for the Republicans, and that was a big factor. And they say that I wasn't on the ballot. Was that the biggest factor? But I don't know about that. But I was honored that they said that. And I just want to thank everybody for being here.
- [07:25]
Jim Acosta
Man, talk about sleepy Joe. I, he sounded awfully sleepy there. But Larry, your thoughts on that?
- [07:30]
Larry Sabato
Laugh. But first of all, I've been up all night. I still haven't gone to bed.
- [07:34]
Jim Acosta
I'm punchy, too.
- [07:35]
Larry Sabato
The other thing is that is so Trump. Well, I don't know about that, but I was so honored that they exonerated me completely and blamed everybody else. I mean, Trump is incorrigible on everything. This is the way it's going to be until the end. Whatever the end is for him.
- [07:55]
Jim Acosta
Right.
- [07:56]
Larry Sabato
He. He's. Jim, He. As though he had nothing to do with the government shutdown.
- [08:01]
Jim Acosta
Right.
- [08:02]
Larry Sabato
Just watching and wondering, like a, you know, sports event on tv. I, I don't get it.
- [08:07]
Jim Acosta
He delighted in the shutdown. They were exploiting the shutdown, trying to fire federal workers, even though that's not legal. He, he bulldozed part of the White House during the government shutdown. I mean, it's pretty. It's pretty. I mean, it's brazen, of course, and that's just an understatement for him to go out and say those sorts of things. The other thing, though, that I thought was interesting is he was encouraging Republicans to do away with the filibuster, which they seem to be in no hurry to do.
- [08:32]
Larry Sabato
They're not going to do it.
- [08:33]
Jim Acosta
Yeah.
- [08:33]
Larry Sabato
I can tell you, I've talked to a couple of. There's no way. Yeah, they do there. The votes aren't there. And Thune has been honest about that. You know, Thune is of the McConnell Wing. McConnell was and is, even as a regular member of the Senate, determined to keep the current rule. And they believe it's important and keeps the Senate as an institution valuable to the country. I happen to agree with them. I think they're right about that. They are not going to go along with what Donald Trump wants. I don't care how often he says it.
- [09:02]
Jim Acosta
Yeah.
- [09:03]
Larry Sabato
And that's, that's interesting because it's the first time they're really standing up to him about anything. It's a Senate rule. It doesn't sound like it's important. It actually is important. And they are refusing to do something he's ordering them to do.
- [09:16]
Jim Acosta
Well, and it makes me wonder if, and I, I was listening to some of the Supreme Court arguments earlier in the day and they didn't sound so maximalist about the unitary exec. Executive. And perhaps they're putting their fingers in the wind here in Washington.
- [09:29]
Larry Sabato
And Jim, you remember the old fictional Mr. Dooley who said the Supreme Court reads the election returns and, and there is nothing like an election to change views and even the outlook of institutions. Demonstrations are great. I love the no King stuff and so on. Fantastic. Seven million people. Nothing is the equivalent of an election. And, and we've just proven it again. It's affected the Supreme Court. I don't care what they say. It's affected Republicans in the Senate. And maybe the. Although, who knows? They haven't been here in so long. Right. I don't think that unless their telephones are working, they haven't been even talking to one another. But They've been doing the most important work of their careers. Jim.
- [10:15]
Jim Acosta
Yeah.
- [10:15]
Larry Sabato
In the district. I think Speaker Johnson was. Was just right on about that. They're doing important work of the Congress, and they're just.
- [10:23]
Jim Acosta
Well, we have a little bit of video we can show of. Chrissy Houlihan is a congresswoman in Pennsylvania. She was interrupting a Mike Johnson press conference. We can show a little bit of that. And just. I mean, she was making the point. You're not even talking to us. You're not even trying to talk. Trying to talk. So we can show a little bit of that. I guess we've got it.
- [10:40]
Press Secretary or Moderator
Okay.
- [10:40]
Jim Acosta
Questions?
- [10:41]
Larry Sabato
Yes.
- [10:41]
Press Secretary or Moderator
Good. I'm.
- [10:44]
Jim Acosta
I've called on somebody else.
- [10:45]
Mike Johnson
Go ahead.
- [10:47]
Carol Lennig
Let's.
- [10:47]
Jim Acosta
We're having a press conference. Thank you.
- [10:49]
Mike Johnson
Go ahead.
- [10:49]
Dave Aronberg
I am part of the American people.
- [10:51]
Jim Acosta
Yes, ma'.
- [10:51]
Carol Lennig
Am.
- [10:51]
Dave Aronberg
And you should respect free speech.
- [10:52]
Jim Acosta
What's the question? What's the question? What's the question? I'm asking you a question.
- [10:57]
Dave Aronberg
If you're ready to have a conversation with the other side.
- [11:00]
Jim Acosta
You. I can't hear you.
- [11:01]
Press Secretary or Moderator
Because we have someone who doesn't respect.
- [11:03]
Jim Acosta
The rights of their colleagues over here.
- [11:04]
Press Secretary or Moderator
Obligation.
- [11:05]
Jim Acosta
Not just. I'd love to talk with you. Wait, wait, wait. I'd love to talk with you. Come to my office. Okay. You have an obligation, the leadership of both parties. I thought, Larry, you know how small the Republican leadership looked in that moment, too, you know, the day after. You know, getting into it like that. You know, they're not doing themselves any favors these days.
- [11:25]
Larry Sabato
Well, I think they look terrible. And people know two things. One is they're all being paid. They're being paid to do nothing. They're not even there. And that's because of decisions made mainly by Mike Johnson and his team. And the Senate has been part of it, although at least you give them credit for staying in Washington. This has been pitiful, really. It's just pitiful. And it doesn't help government. It makes the whole government look crazy around the world. People from Australia just today asked me how in the world, the world's top government, top country, can allow their whole government to shut down for more than a month. It's unheard of in other societies. And you have no answer for it because it makes no sense.
- [12:12]
Jim Acosta
No. And you would think, looking at the polls, that they would have gotten out of bed this morning and said, you know, maybe we should reopen the government. We should end this government shutdown because it is just not working for them politically. I did want to. Just very quickly, Larry, before I Let you go show the. The New New Yorker cover. Mom Donnie riding the subway. You know, we got to talk about Mom Donnie, just for a second. Larry, I know New York City is not the rest of the country, but I think something very interesting happened in New York. And to me, it's kind of a reminder of what the Democratic Party used to be. It used to be that, you know, they were kind of all over the place. It was a big tent. And then there were. There were folks in the party who said, we don't want a big tent. And it got. It got a little nasty internally, but they're getting back to being maybe more of a Big Ten party, and that's probably healthy for the Democrats. I don't know. What are your thoughts?
- [12:59]
Larry Sabato
They have to be. They have to be. It's a diverse country. You cannot run without a successful coalition. And Democrats have been trying to push everybody through the same keyhole. No, the old Mao say tongue statement from the sayings of Chairman Mao. You know, I read that every night to, you know, confirm everybody's suspicions. I am antifa, but don't make it harder on yourself. No, I don't care. I mean, you know, I'm 73. I should be retired by now anyway. But I love this line from now let a thousand flowers bloom.
- [13:34]
Jim Acosta
Yeah.
- [13:34]
Larry Sabato
And that's the secret to a successful party. And the Republicans don't do it either. The party that figures out they need to let a thousand flowers bloom will dominate American politics for decades.
- [13:47]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And I mean, do you think he has much of a future beyond New York City? I guess we'll have to see. He has to now govern now. That's the part of being at Bayard, New York City.
- [13:55]
Larry Sabato
You know what, Jim? There are two things he has that we don't give enough credit to him for one, one he has no real control over. But he's young and he's charismatic. How many Democratic leaders does that describe?
- [14:14]
Jim Acosta
Not too many at all.
- [14:16]
Larry Sabato
You know, he's adding youth and charisma. You can be grateful for that, even if you don't agree with him on anything.
- [14:22]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. No, a little injection of that probably will go a long way for the Democratic Party. Larry, always great to have you on. Really appreciate. I'll let you some rest. And don't talk to those Australians anymore. They'll wear you out.
- [14:34]
Larry Sabato
I like them. I've had a lot of Australian students here at UVA until. Until Trump blocked all the international students. Yeah, I miss that. That is a tragedy. We ought to talk about that sometime. That was a tragedy for American students. They're missing out on so much.
- [14:51]
Jim Acosta
It's. And it's hurting all these wonderful institutions like the University of Virginia. And I mean, that's part of, you know, the experience of going to college. You run across people from other walks of life and expand your horizons.
- [15:04]
Larry Sabato
And as a student said to me, and. And that those people I get to visit, those are. Those are my foreign trips.
- [15:11]
Jim Acosta
Exactly right. The students will always think about it that way. As they should. As they should.
- [15:17]
Larry Sabato
They're becoming adults. Sorry. I laugh so much, but I'm pretty punchy.
- [15:21]
Jim Acosta
No, that's okay. We all needed a good laugh. I was having them last night, too. So. Larry. Larry, great to see you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. You and your team, the wonderful center for Politics.
- [15:31]
Larry Sabato
It's the team.
- [15:32]
Jim Acosta
You guys knocked it out.
- [15:33]
Larry Sabato
Me out. They wheel me out every day, Jim. That's the only thing I contribute. Then they wheel me back and lock.
- [15:40]
Jim Acosta
The door as long as they will you, you know. And it's not into a river or off a bridge or anything.
- [15:45]
Larry Sabato
That's right. Yeah. There you go. Don't give them any ideas.
- [15:49]
Jim Acosta
Thanks, Larry. Good. Thanks a lot.
- [15:51]
Larry Sabato
Going to.
- [15:51]
Press Secretary or Moderator
All right.
- [15:52]
Jim Acosta
Always love the UVA center for Politics and Larry Sabato, and he's got a great team there, and he's absolutely right. Talking about what has been taking place at the universities across the country. I'm going to talk a little bit about some of this at the end of the program, but I do want to get to Dave Aronberg. I think Dave is with us, the great Dave Aronberg. And Dave, great to see you, as always. You're always terrific on these legal issues. And, you know, I wanted. You and I were texting, I think it was last week, saying we got to talk about Epstein. There's a lot going on. This massive election happened. So I appreciate your patience in waiting and standing by. But, you know, the election stuff, as big as it is, is sort of, you know, casting a shadow and perhaps blocking from our view, some pretty important legal headlines. And one of them being in the Comey case. I just saw this a little while ago, that a federal judge is ordering prosecutors in the case of James Comey to produce to defense lawyers a trove of materials from the Justice Department's investigation. And the judge essentially said to the. To the Justice Department that they had sort of an indict first, investigate second posture. This. These are not good things to hear when you're the prosecutor in a case like almost every day There's a new revelation that says that this Comey case is in trouble.
- [17:18]
Dave Aronberg
It is in trouble, Jim. Thanks for having me back on. And it's even worse that the judge was a magistrate judge who said this was a top executive or top prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia. The office that is now prosecuting Comey, led by Acting U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan, who was Trump's personal lawyer, an insurance lawyer who has never prosecuted a case. So here's this guy who's got all this experience in that office prosecuting cases, looking at this neophyte prosecutor saying, what's going on here? What are you doing? You know, this is so. It's a real embarrassment. And he said it in front of her. She was standing there in the courtroom. And the issue here is that the government trying to justify that this was not vindictive prosecution that they've got. All this evidence showed communications between Richmond, Daniel Richmond, who is a confidant, friend and lawyer to Jim Comey, and how they have communications that where Comey instructed Richmond to leak. Problem is, number one, these are possibly attorney client privilege conversations and should not be just distributed. Number two, the government did not turn this information over to the defense, which is why the magistrate judge gave the prosecution roll, tongue lashing, saying, you're supposed to turn this over. This is really unfair. Number three, just because Comey had authorized Richmond to disclose certain materials to the press has nothing to do with this indictment, which is about whether or not information was disclosed to the press over the Russia investigation or the Clinton investigation by a current FBI agent, a current FBI employee, and Richmond at the time was not a current FBI employee. So this is like a data dump that doesn't get the prosecution from point A to point B.
- [19:17]
Jim Acosta
Interesting. And. And so, I mean, you feel pretty strong that we're not going to get to a trial in this or the James case or what do you think that this could just blow up between now and then?
- [19:27]
Dave Aronberg
There are so many reasons why this case will be dismissed before it ever gets to a jury. These cases are what we call in the legal community as weak sauce. That's a fancy Latin phrase, Jim.
- [19:42]
Jim Acosta
Weakest sauce, I think is the correct Latin there.
- [19:45]
Larry Sabato
But. Yeah, correct.
- [19:46]
Dave Aronberg
Yeah, but it's so weak because, I mean, let's talk about the Comey case. Yeah, We. The indictment was so vague, we didn't know, and now we starting to get bits and pieces that it's about Richmond. Remember, at first we thought it was Andrew McCabe and how Comey authorized Andrew McCabe to leak and that, of course, was not true. So now it's about Comey authorizing Richmond to leak. But here's the thing about the Richmond leak. The Richmond leak was investigated by the FBI already. Arctic freeze. Arctic Hayes. There's so many Arctics. Arctic Hayes was the investigation.
- [20:22]
Jim Acosta
Right.
- [20:22]
Dave Aronberg
And the FBI interviewed Richmond and Richmond said, no, Comey never told me to leak. How are you going to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Who's your witness now? Who, who's gonna, you think Comey's gonna take the stand and say, yes, I told him to leak? No. No. So the FBI at the time said, this case is not going anywhere. We're not filing charges. Bill Barr thought we're not filing charges. John Durham thought we're not filing charges. But only because Trump ordered Lindsey Halligan to file charges or charges filed. And by the way, if you're wondering about those documents that showed that Comey did authorize Richmond to leak, that was about a conversation that Comey had with Trump about Michael Flynn, and it did relate to Russia. But at the time, Richmond was not an employee of the FBI. So the question from Ted Cruz by way of Senator Grassley was, did you ever authorize anyone at the FBI to leak about Russia or about the Clinton investigation? And the answer is no. And the answer is still no to this day.
- [21:33]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, fascinating. I mean, and it's, it's amazing. I mean, it's not amazing. It's just predictable that they're, they're going down these roads and pursuing these political prosecutions. Whereas, you know, the Epstein investigation, they just, they, that was a hot potato they threw out the window as soon as they came back into office. And Congressman Jamie Raskin recently sent a letter to the Department of Justice about this and asked what happened to the investigation into the co conspirators. And CBS News reported this, that Jamie Raskin, the congressman from Maryland, he was the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is seeking documents from the Justice Department on its move earlier this year to end the investigation into alleged coconspirators of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. You know, Raskin wrote in this letter, I write to demand an explanation for why DOJ has abandoned the women and girls abused by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell and their co conspirators fired or cut off career prosecutors from the case, which that, that's been a big deal. And ceased its investigation into one of the largest sex trafficking rings in history. This is what Raskin wrote to Pam. Bonnie. This is a letter obtained by cbs. And what's interesting about this, I'm just going to go down to this paragraph below and read it to you, Dave. It says this. The U. S. Attorney's office for the Southern district of New York was running an active investigation into Epstein and Maxwell's co conspirators until January 2025 when prosecutors were directed to transfer the Epstein case files to the Justice Department's headquarters in what Raskin said was a, quote, sudden and dramatic shift in the posture of the investigation. The investigation into co conspirators has inexplicably ceased. He said, I mean, I think this is wild and it's so undercovered, this Epstein stuff. Trump has succeeded in one thing. He's been able, just because he's kicked up a storm in every direction and all these different fronts, he's managed to make the Epstein news to kind of go to the back burner and beyond. But this, to me sounds like potentially some blockbuster stuff going on here that has just not been revealed.
- [23:38]
Dave Aronberg
That would be big news because, yeah, it was clear when the number two person at the doj, Todd Blanche, interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell that the purpose for interviewing the devil's accomplice, Lane Maxwell, was not to get information about co conspirators. It was to exonerate Donald Trump. And we know that because of the questions asked. We know that because they sent down the number two person who had nothing to do with this case, who was not well versed in this case, who didn't know about the follow up questions to be asked. And number three, we know that it was not about co conspirators because they instantly said we're going to release the transcript. If this were about finding co conspiracy, you would never release a transcript right away because that alerts any co conspirators out there. So yeah, that's why it was never the intent to go after new people. It was always the intent to show the world that Donald Trump didn't engage in anything criminal with Jeffrey Epstein. And, and quite frankly, I don't, I don't have any evidence that he did. But his name is in the Epstein files, which is why he's ordering the Epstein files to remain sealed and is denying that his name was on that infamous birthday card. That.
- [24:48]
Jim Acosta
Right, the book.
- [24:51]
Dave Aronberg
Right, exactly. So I'm not surprised that they're not pursuing co conspirators. They want this thing to be put in the annals of history. They want this to be over with and to move on. In fact, Trump has said that he wants to move on, but if there is proof that there was an active investigation of co conspirators and that the Trump administration put the kibosh on that. Yeah, that would be big news. And, and one more point of it, I don't know, even if they did get information about co conspirators, if they would be able to prosecute them, their statute of limitations issues, there's evidentiary issues, a lot of time has passed. There's the non prosecution agreement, which could apply to named co conspirators, although Ghislaine Maxwell tried to say it applied to her as an unnamed co conspirator. So there are a lot of issues, but that's different than just saying we're not American Pursuit, we're going to end the entire investigation altogether.
- [25:46]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And I mean, in the fact that Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, won't swear on Elita Grialva, you know, and she would be that decisive vote in releasing the Epstein files. It just at every turn, they're, it's interesting what's been reported and what's been coming out lately, that they've just really had a concerted effort to keep this under wraps and completely contrary to what they promised during multiple political campaigns and, and, and most especially during the 2024 presidential campaign when all these surrogates were. Trump said, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, we're gonna, this is what we're gonna do as soon as we get in there. It's wild.
- [26:21]
Dave Aronberg
That's part of the problem is that it was people like Cash Patel and Dan Bongino were out there on podcasts saying, release the Epstein files. There's a list. And now they're saying nothing to see here because now they're the number one and number two people at the FBI that's making this whole thing so crazy. That's why. And also the base, Trump's base, this isn't just a Democratic hoax. This is Trump's base saying, we care about this and we want to see this. So they're just prolonging the inevitable. The shutdown will end at some point, especially after last night's election numbers came out. And so once it ends, they're going to swear in the new congresswoman, they're going to vote to release the Epstein files, and then it will assumably go up to the president and he'll have to veto the bill, and then it's going to be a bigger controversy than ever.
- [27:04]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And I mean, you know, it's, it's kind of remarkable to see, you know, over in Britain, Prince Andrew, you know, getting taken to the woodshed by the king there. And yet, you know, Donald Trump just, you know, there's, you know, we, we don't have a whole lot of accountability happening over here in the U.S. it's just, you know, there a bit more of it over there across the pond, it seems.
- [27:30]
Dave Aronberg
You know what? It's not just over there in Britain, but also, remember in France, there was that photographer who was implicated in the Epstein matter, a guy named Jean Luc Brunel. He was involved with the modeling world, and he was accused of sexual assault. In fact, one of Epstein's main accuser, Virginia Giuffre, who passed away recently by suicide, alleged that Brunel procured women and minors, including young, young women, for sex with Epstein. And he was arrested back in France in 2020. And what happened? He was found dead in this prison cell in Paris. And I'm never one on conspiracy theories, but of course you have two people, Epstein and Brunel, who were found dead in their prison cell by hanging. Both of them. And they're the only ones. Yeah. So you have Brunel, you have Epstein, you have Ghislaine Maxwell, and now you have former Prince Andrew. The only ones really held accountable for this. That's not a lot of people who. Compared to the people who allegedly were involved. There are supposed to be hundreds of Johns out there of, of people who partook in this, and we're talking about as many people as you can count on one hand.
- [28:46]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, yeah. No, I mean, it's just astounding. And, you know, to me, you know, it boggles the mind that they've been able to put this under wraps for as long as they have. But I think you're absolutely right. I think with the election results, there's. There's going to have to be some movement on this shutdown thing. And then as soon as that happens, it's game on. And we'll have to. We'll have to reconvene and have this conversation again, Dave, about the Epstein case, because I, you know, we're not letting it go on this program, and I know you're not either, but Dave, as always, thank you.
- [29:17]
Dave Aronberg
Hey, Jim, thank you. And, you know, last time I was on with you, I got so many new subscribers to my sub stack, and my sub stack was inactive, but now it's active.
- [29:26]
Jim Acosta
Oh, great.
- [29:27]
Larry Sabato
Yes.
- [29:28]
Jim Acosta
And so, yes, follow Dave on substack. There it is right there. Dave Aronberg. And I always, I always enjoy our conversations. I think you boil it down just perfectly and, you know, you got to have people who tell it like it is these days. We don't need to sugarcoat things over here. And independent media, that's, that's why there are folks watching and subscribing because they don't want us to do that.
- [29:47]
Dave Aronberg
So, and you've done so well in independent media, Jim. I, I'm just, it's great to be on with you. Let's do it again.
- [29:53]
Jim Acosta
We'll do it again. Thanks, Dave. Really appreciate it. Thanks so much.
- [29:56]
Dave Aronberg
Thanks for having me.
- [29:57]
Jim Acosta
All right. And you know, one final special treat here on the show. I had the opportunity to speak with the wonderful Justice Department correspondent Carol Lennig. She used to be with the Washington Post. She's now over at msnbc. And she, along with Aaron Davis, they're both Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. They've just come out with a new book called Injustice How Politics and Fear Vanquished America's Justice Department. And I, you know, guys, you, we've all talked on this, a program about my feelings on how Mer Garland handled the January 6th cases and, and the classified documents case. You know, that, that very much had a, had a hand in why Donald Trump was able to get back into the White House. I mean, it might have been the whole ball game when you think about it. Well, Carol and Aaron have written a book about this period in our history and let's play that conversation because I think it's just fascinating. And the book that they've written is just a blockbuster. Some of the information that they're going to reveal in this interview that they reveal in their book is very, very interesting. So take a look. And joining me now are Pulitzer Prize winning journalists Carol Lennig and Aaron Davis. Their new book, Injustice How Politics and Fear Vanquished America's Justice Department is now out and everybody is talking about this book. It is, I just, I just took a peek at Amazon, Carol and Aaron. It's doing great. So congratulations. It looks like it's another big hit, but it's an important one, too. And you know, I, I'll just, I'll just say it. I, you know, this is how I do things now. I just say it like it is as far as I think it is. And one of the things I've said repeatedly on my show is that one of the reasons we are where we are right now is because, because, and I know there's a lot more to the book than what I'm about to say is that Merrick Garland was just a bit too timid in going after the people at the top of the scheme to overturn the 2020 election. I know that's a big part of your book. And I do want to talk about classified documents case and, and Jack Smith and so on and so forth. But if we could start there, that would be great, I guess. First of all, Carol and Aaron, thank you so much for doing this. It's. I'm huge fans of both of you.
- [32:10]
Larry Sabato
You.
- [32:11]
Carol Lennig
Well, Jim, first of all, you know, Aaron and I are huge fans of yours. We're delighted to talk with you because first off, we think that you do say it how it is, and you also ask good questions, Gosh darn it. So here we go, here we go.
- [32:25]
Jim Acosta
Here we go questions. But, I mean, what do you make of that premise that I just laid out? Feel free to attack it with a meat axe or put it in a blender, whatever you want.
- [32:38]
Carol Lennig
You know, what Aaron and I found was that Merrick Garland has incredible respect across a very broad political spectrum. Republican judges and Supreme Court justices respect him. Democrats and progressives respect him. But as the attorney General, what he wanted to do after Trump's first presidency was restore faith and public trust in the Justice Department department. And he hearkened back to an almost antiquated and naive playbook, which is post Watergate, where he grew up in the Justice Department. He was very much involved in writing the rules for separating and creating independence between the White House and the Department of Justice and kind of these strict ethic guidelines. And so he has said publicly, and we heard more of this from inside the building, that it's not enough to be above politics. You have to appear and have people believe that you're above politics. And to do that, he steered the ship very far away from looking directly at Donald Trump. So many people who worked for him and admired him hoped that the Justice Department would do, you know, kind of walk and chew gum. They would do two investigations, look at the riot, and then also look at Trump campaign allies and developing evidence in December of 2020 that there seemed to be a plot for him to try to overturn the election.
- [34:11]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And, you know, and a lot of this boils down to. And again, correct me, just feel free to correct me at any stage in this conversation, but there was a focus on or a priority was given that they go after the, the rioters, the people. It was sort of like a bottom up approach to the investigation. And there's one part in your book where you guys write, unless investigators turned up clues from rioters, phones or financial records that pointed them back toward the president's campaign. The authors write the decision effectively walled off Trump and his allies from becoming subjects of an FBI probe. It was the January 6th committee, I guess you both write, that ended up uncovering so much in the case that the justice was department wanted, what the committee uncovered. That's a fascinating part in all of this. And it was, I think, what a lot of people just suspected was going on, that this bottom up approach took too long and it just didn't get to the heart of who was at the top of this scheme. It seemed to me to overturn the election results.
- [35:10]
Carol Lennig
Yeah.
- [35:11]
Press Secretary or Moderator
Just to pile on there a little bit with what Carol said, you know, the people we talked to who were close to the attorney general at that time, you know, he really felt by the conversations he had with people that he had time. He came in after January 6th and thought, you know, that the country was in a different place, that nobody could respect what just happened at the Capitol. And it was too, you know, egregious. And so they weren't thinking about this on a timeline. And so, you know, wanted to take the time, wanted to build this thing up.
- [35:44]
Jim Acosta
Brick.
- [35:44]
Press Secretary or Moderator
Bridge by brick is a phrase that you hear often in that, you know, senior leadership, where there was going to be so there was just so much evidence they had on camera that they were going to get there that way. You know, the other thing that I think is problematic, though, is that the public thought there was an investigation going on. And, you know, you go back to the day after January 6th, where then Acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin comes out and there was a press conference, remote press conference in the middle of COVID But he's asked, you know, how far will you go in this investigation? He says, we'll go as far as we need to. And he's asked specifically about Donald Trump. Will you go to Donald Trump? And he'll say, you know, he says, we will take this to, you know, even people who weren't there at the Capitol will be, you know, held accountable. And the next day, there's headlines in the New York Times and Washington Post and everywhere. Donald Trump will be the subject of investigation. The Department of Justice says, but we actually found that a full 15 months went by before they really put the spotlight on what had happened regarding Trump. People around him and his campaign and the fake electors and all of that. And that meant in that gap, you're right, the House Select Committee, the investigators, they were the first people laying down the tracks and doing these interviews. And that was a remarkable upside down situation where, you know, people working for, you know, at the behest of a congressional committee, but the first ones doing interviews that are going to be, you know, eventually important in a criminal case.
- [37:14]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And so Carol, I guess it was that, that the attorney general was sort of blindsided by just how much evidence was out there that were, was it that he was going back to what you were saying earlier, that he was such an institutionalist that he was trying to protect the institution from looking overly politicized. And so he sort of slow walked. I mean maybe not intentionally, but that's sort of what happened. This idea that they needed to investigate, investigate this thing from top to bottom and it sort of bit them in the end. You know, they waited too long.
- [37:48]
Carol Lennig
You know, we'll never know, Jim, what could have been. But we know that losing 15 months was enormous. You know, Jack Smith who becomes the special counsel ends up having to sprint when he's finally appointed. And it's actually we'll get to that, I'm sure. But back to Garland. You know, we have some moments that we were sort of stunned by inside the Department of Justice. Here's one example. You know, Garland tells people that he, his aides and deputies that we have to, you know, be above reproach. We can't look political in any way, shape or form. Well, in the investigations which eventually involves the classified documents case and the election interference case in the fall of 2022 when they. Wait, let me start, I have to start over because I have to tell you something different. Yeah, you asked the question. Blindsided. In June of 2022 when the House Select Committee is putting on its pretty sexy televised hearings, right. Here's our findings. They have Cassidy Hutchinson testify in a blockbuster hearing. Now we find that her testimony ends up not being critical to the criminal case, but it's pretty blockbuster stuff that she shares about what it was like the morning of January 6th and the day before, how much Trump wanted to drive up to the Capitol himself, how much he wanted to walk with the protesters, how much he was warned there were weapons in his protesters hands and he wanted to let them come into the rally anyway. And don't and don't screen them all these things. Well, we learned that Garland is watching those televised hearings on that day and he turns to a group, a coterie of AIDS and says did we know about her? And wow. One aide turns to him and says no sir, we didn't. That afternoon Thomas Windham, the one prosecutor who's who initially was, was appointed in early 20 in late 2021 to look at potential ties to the Trump campaign and election interference and fake electors. That afternoon, when Garland is shocked and blindsided, is when Tom Wyndham for the first time reaches out to Mark Meadows to ask for the records that the House Select Committee has had for eight months. Ask for his texts and his emails that were, you know, fairly big news.
- [40:19]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, I mean, Aaron, it. That just sounds so. They didn't know about Cassidy Hutchinson. I just. Just want to. I'm a bit dumbfounded. I think I just. I just passed out. That's pretty wild. I mean, and to me, it sounds a little bit like. I mean, I'm just gonna say it. I mean, prosecutorial malpractice. I mean, it sounds a little bit like, you know, investigative malpractice. That. That they weren't overturning every rock that they should have been, and they were being a little too careful, a little too cautious. I am going to get to the classified documents and Jacksmith and everything else, but just to button that part up, that's just wild to me.
- [40:59]
Press Secretary or Moderator
It wasn't just Cassidy Hutchinson, though. You know, we found in our reporting and we, you know, there's these scenes in the book where the. Inside the senior staff of the Attorney General's office, they start having these. They start clearing a part of the Attorney General's afternoon schedule on the days of the House Select Committee hearings. And they have a. What they call a hot wash where they go back over everything that's been said publicly that day because, you know, it's all really, at that point new to them as well, because they have not interviewed so many of these people that are. That the House Select Committee had interviewed. And they knew Cassidy Hutchinson existed. She was on a file somewhere, people they could interview, but they had not interviewed her to that point. They didn't know the allegations that she would raise if she was interviewed. And so that was. They were learning it in real time.
- [41:47]
Jim Acosta
As the public and a lot of us in the reporting world covered all this stuff at that time, have spoken with Cassidy Hutchinson and that to me, I mean, it seems to me she would have just been fine talking to them. It might not have happened right away or whatever, but my goodness, the other. The second part of the debacle, if I may call it that, you don't have to call it that, is the classified documents case. And I think from what I understand from what you report reported, is that flash forward to Jack Smith, he's the Special Counsel, he's handling these two cases on two Separate tracks. And there's this issue of getting assigned the case of Judge Aileen Cannon. And I guess one attorney calls another attorney on the team to tell him that the fate of the judicial wheel and who is selected for the case was Judge Aileen Mercedes Cannon. And one of the attorneys says, you're not going to believe it. Brat said, we got Cannon. It was the worst news. We're screwed. Olson said, tell us a little bit about the classified documents case. What happened there? That was a bit of a car crash, too, and getting Judge Aileen Cannon. And it sounds as though Jack Smith was maybe under the impression, well, you know, the doc, the documents case is so airtight. We've got so much great evidence here. We're going to be just fine. It doesn't matter what judge we get or where the court is or whatever. And that's. That wasn't the case, right?
- [43:08]
Carol Lennig
Totally. To remind, you know, Judge Cannon had, for a procedural reason, shown herself in handling the, the actual search warrant of the, the subpoena insert and search for Mar a Lago in August 2022. She was the judge who kind of caught the case of the fight over the, the search and the recovery of the documents. And she showed herself to be so pro Trump as to ignore decades of court precedence. She was basically spanked by the appellate court above her, which said, you can't do what you just did, and everyone knows you can't do what you just did, which was to try to block criminal investigators from actually looking at the classified records that they own and had and had recovered in, you know, triplicate from Donald Trump's club in part in Palm Beach. So what happens with Jack Smith is he is making a decision in the spring of 2023, just months into being appointed special counsel. Where should I indict this classified documents case? The evidence of Trump withholding and obstructing justice, obstructing the case to try to conceal these records is overwhelming. It's on surveillance tape, it's on texts, it's on the documents they actually carted away in FBI vans. So it's, in their view, a slam dunk case. But the issue is where is their strongest legal firmament for bringing it? Jack decides after a legal analysis by his team that it's Florida. Well, the problem is prosecutors can bring a case wherever they have venue. And many people, including a prosecutor named David Raskin, who was on the team, assumed they would go to D.C. for lots of reasons. One, experienced judges who know how to handle classified cases. Two, Eileen Cannon in His view was an exist, as he said to his team, an existential threat to the case. When Jack presents to the Department of Justice and Merrick Garland's team that he's going to bring the case in full, Florida, you know, they all kind of put their finger to their chin and, and think about the legal issues and why that's a stronger way to go. But David Newman, a national security prosecutor, says to Jack Smith, you know, if you get canon, this case is dead. That's your biggest risk. And that is exactly what happened. The case collapsed.
- [45:37]
Jim Acosta
Wow. And what about Jack Smith now? I mean, and, you know, the way Trump has gone after him and he's been somewhat public lately, I think he did an interview with Andrew Weissman and so on, and he's been rather, you know, feisty in responding to what has been taking place. I guess you guys write a little bit in the book about how there was sort of a cult of Jack Smith, or he was a bit of an insular figure in terms of how he was running that team, and that that may have harmed perhaps the process of what he was going through and the team was going through in terms of putting together these cases. Can you talk a little bit about, I mean, are there some folks who worked under Jack Smith who were saying, or maybe observers in the Justice Department who were saying that didn't work out so well, you know, despite his sterling reputation.
- [46:30]
Press Secretary or Moderator
There's a lot in the book about, you know, inside this insular world of Jack Smith and his special counsel office. You know, it's really something that American public has not heard anything about so far. And some of it's really fascinating. You know, they really had essentially a special counsel's office that was already up and running inside the U.S. attorney's office, you know, the election interference case. And they had, you know, like a full staff of people working the national security on the classified documents case. All those attorneys they were trying, you know, Jack gets a point and, you know, Jackson, a hospital basically, and as it happens in the Netherlands, the day that Garland calls him and asks him if he'll become the special counsel, and so they, you know, he says he basically takes the entire staff that's already working. So these aren't necessarily all Jack's people. It's not like a Mueller investigation where he went and hand picked every person who was going to be on his team. He was, you know, started running as fast as he could, you know, and he does those first months of the investigation. He runs them from the first floor of his flat In Amsterdam, where he's like a metal hospital bed has been put where the kitchen table was because his leg had been broken. And so people are going over there briefing him. You know, he's making decisions, you know, and they arrives back in D.C. the day after Christmas, and, you know, basically most of the staff shows up that day and they, they started going from then. But, you know, Jack, the good and bad of Jack, in everybody's mind, was that he was decisive and he would make a decision. And Garland, it's part of the reason he picked him in the first place. When he ran the Public Integrity section earlier in his career in the doj, he had come in and evaluated all the cases that were out there after the disaster of the Ted Stevens, the prosecution, and just axed a bunch of ongoing investigations. And so Garland wasn't, you know, felt that this guy's going to come in and he's not going to necessarily try to get a prosecution. He's just going to decide, do we have it or don't we have it? And go forward one way or the other. Now, he did make those decisions in a small group. He was not going to involve everybody. And the people who really, you know, care about him and know him from the years say that that was partly because he's like, so someday, and we are now in the someday, someday, I'm going to be the one held accountable for these decisions. It's not going to be the team and everybody else. And so he was not going to make decisions by committee. It was ultimately going to come back to him.
- [49:02]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And I guess I wonder how I didn't get to get all the way through your book. I'm going to. But I want, you know, one of the other theories that I've had about why Donald Trump was able to when the presidency. And I know you, you both talked about this somewhat, you know, he was able to, and there's the book again, is that he was able to use these cases against him as a political weapon, you know, and, and, and he was able to just ride his way through the Republican primaries and so on, you know, by saying, you know, woe is me. Look at the way they're coming after me. They're. They're not coming after me, they're coming after you. And I'm just standing in the way. He used to say things like that. But, but, you know, he played the system like a fiddle. Was just my overarching recollection of the entire debacle of when he was out of office. He just Played it like a. And it. Did you get it? Did you get to. What is kind of wrong with our judicial system that allowed, I mean, these two pretty damning cases against him to just go up and smoke and that he was just able to. To puncture them at every, at every turn.
- [50:11]
Carol Lennig
You know, the classified documents case was the one that was the election interference case, Jim. You know this. Yeah, it was, it was complicated and, and there had never been anything like it. Oh, I don't know why another president hadn't tried to use angry, militant, organized supporters to stop a certification of a free and fair election. Right. That had never happened before in our, in our country's history. And so bringing that criminal case was complex. But the classified documents case was a, you know, in the words of many of the people we've interviewed, a slam dunk. And we have a scene in the book where, you know, right after the raid, the FBI drives off with boxes and boxes in vans around 4 o' clock on that particular August 8th of 2022. They find that there are documents in there, that there are people that literally who are national security mishandling records, chiefs and deputies, that their job is to recover sensitive documents. They have the highest clearances you can have. But some of them are not able to look at those documents because that's how securely they must be kept. They're part of special access programs where only the president or a cabinet member can authorize someone to look at those documents. So we're talking about serious national security risks. If any of the pages that were spilling out of the shower room at Donald Trump's club landed in the hand of a Chinese spy who happened to sneak into Mar a Lago for a party. Really big stuff. That night. There's a teleconference with the Assistant Attorney General, Matt Olsen, and his team. Hey, guys, what do we got? What do we do now? They're reviewing how serious some of this material may be, the volume of records that they've obtained. And Olson says to this encyclopedic expert on his team, Julie Edelstein, what do we do now? And she says, if it was anybody else, we'd arrest him tomorrow. Anybody else? Right. Trump was given special deference because he was a former president. And Aaron. And I don't take a position on whether or not you should show deference to a former president, but there was room there in that time in the fall to potentially bring that case. And Merrick Garland actually asked for, demanded that his team freeze the investigation for two months before the midterm elections. Some people were really shocked by that. Inside the office, there's something called the 60 day rule you might be familiar with. And you're not supposed to in the Department of Justice bring a case that might affect an election or affect a candidate's election. The thing that was making people inside the Department of Justice recoil at Garland's order was Donald Trump's not on the ballot in the midterms. He's not a defined candidate. But Garland took the conservative approach. And you asked the right question, Jim, which is, is there something wrong with our Justice Department that, that, that let this go. And again, we're not in the business of taking a position, but what we can tell you from the voices of the people inside is that all this deference and all of these careful choices and timorous choices perhaps, of Merrick Garland's, to not have any perception of politics made this case, that was a slam dunk, never happen.
- [53:54]
Press Secretary or Moderator
There's just one thing I would add to that, which is, you know, in so many ways, Donald Trump benefited from all of the careful cautiousness to really indict an American citizen for a crime that are built into the system. And one of those that they really had to investigate. And this kind of slowed down that seemingly very black and white classified documents case were all the people around Trump who were also creating a lot of confusion about had he declassified these documents, he done that, including the person who's now the FBI director who is out there very, very publicly claiming that, you know, the president declassified all these and, and getting interviewed by investigators at one point in time and behind closed doors pulls back on some of that we report in the book. And so, you know, Ash Patel was.
- [54:47]
Jim Acosta
Saying very publicly, oh, he declassified all this stuff. And then when he was brought in front of the prosecutors, the attorneys, they, for, they said, I don't know.
- [54:55]
Press Secretary or Moderator
I don't know. I don't know about all those, all those documents. I know about some. And so that's, there's an expression for.
- [55:00]
Jim Acosta
That, but I won't say it here.
- [55:01]
Carol Lennig
You know, so it was, it was highly misleading.
- [55:05]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. Talking out of his ass is what I was going to say. But anyway, go.
- [55:09]
Press Secretary or Moderator
The FBI took an incredible amount of time to run every, every one of those statements down, to interview all those people who are saying those things publicly so that they could know, is there any truth to this? Because if we actually indict them, president, former president, on this, we can't have something come back later and, you know, and have been wrong. So there was a, there was a, you know, if you're going the phrase, if you're going for the king, they really did feel like they had to. And so much of it was also that they were so beat down from the first round with Trump and the Russia investigation and how he personally attacked agents and prosecutors. And there was a real reluctance. There was a big fight inside between prosecutors and agents about whether even to conduct that raid at Mar A Lago that, you know, we should just take his word for it. He's the former president that was, you know, quote, by one of the FBI folks at the time.
- [55:58]
Jim Acosta
And I know you're in book rollout mode, so I don't want to take any more of your time, but I'll just ask very finely, just, you know, and feel free to wrap it up as succinctly as you can. But contrast all of that caution, all of that respect for the system, all of the reverence that Merrick Garland and Jack Smith showed for the, the Department of Justice and the checks and balances and our system of government, the Constitution and so on. Contrast that with what has been taking place since January. And I'm sorry, I don't mean to chuckle, but, you know, if you don't laugh, you'll cry. Donald Trump now going, going after his political enemies to the point where he has convinced federal prosecutors. And I still think this is shocking to me, and I don't get shocked easily that you have people like James Comey being hauled into federal court. And I'll say my characterization, ridiculous charges. I mean, what has happened to our justice system, Carol?
- [56:48]
Carol Lennig
It's not wrong, Jim, to say it's ridiculous. I mean, Pat Fitzgerald, Jim Comey's lawyer at the arraignment, said, I can't tell what my client is accused of. And the reason he can't tell is because the evidence and the supporting documentation is not in front of anyone. But you're so right to focus on contrasting the caution, the carefulness, the institutionalism of a Merrick Garland and what Donald Trump is doing. The former head of the Public Integrity Section, this elite unit in the Justice Department that was created to chase down corrupt officials that are on the take. Right. And to prosecute them and to spirit that out after the Watergate era. The head of that office, John Keller, has been extremely careful in not talking to the press in his real job. But now he, he said to us, and sounding an alarm, when you bring cases without factual evidence, when you charge people and you don't have the documentation to, to, to show it. And it's your political enemy. This is the hallmark of, of a dictatorship. And he has every right to say that because that is what dictatorships look like. And it is so shocking. We spend a lot of time in the book explaining how the Department of Justice got weakened and kind of rope a doped and pushed around and fearful and in a defensive crouch. But what Donald Trump is doing now is making all Americans less safe and putting into rubble our, our. The credibility of this institution. When Democrats take over, do you think people are going to believe that the criminal charges that are brought against a senator who happens to be a Republican are warranted? Or are they going to think, yeah, this is just the new guys in town are bringing criminal charges against somebody they don't like?
- [58:53]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. No, the damage is, Aaron, the damage is hard to calculate at this point. We won't know for years, perhaps.
- [59:01]
Press Secretary or Moderator
Yeah, it's true. You know, this has become apparent, I think, maybe more so to the public as the Comey indictment and Letitia James indictment have come down and made big headlines. But to the people inside the Department of Justice, those first days were, I mean, quite traumatic. You know, we're inside the rooms as they are searching for any of the thousands of agents who are involved with January 6th to go ahead and, you know, completely excise them from, from the Department of Justice, from the FBI, you know, the entire upper class of, you know, executive assistant directors inside, you know, just lopping them off. And these are folks with decades and decades of experience and have led some of the most sophisticated, you know, counter espionage and intelligence and national security cases and all of our foreign interactions with other countries and their law enforcement for decades, and they're all gone. There is a huge brain drain inside the department. There's a, the shutter, I think, went through the building, though, on the day that, if you remember, Trump goes in and has a press conference at the Department of Justice and he's. And they actually covered up some of the statues of like, lady justice and things behind him and put these, this blue curtain and set up like a stage in the middle of the Justice Department for him. And they pipe in his, like, old campaign music for this thing. Nobody can really believe that this, you know, it was like basically a campaign happening inside the Department of Justice. And Pam Bondi comes out and says, we're so lucky to work at the pleasure of the president. And some people's mouths drop open hearing that throughout the building and other auxiliary buildings at doj. That's never anything that anybody thought they were hired to do at the Department of Justice. George Bush and others have gone in that building and dedicated it saying your mission here is to the rule of law, not to me as the president. And that was echoed when Garland, the first day he was in office and bidet and said, don't answer to me, answer to the American people. That's just so different now where we.
- [61:04]
Jim Acosta
Are so different in so many ways. But I'm so grateful to both of you for laying all of this out in your book. It's, it's going to be just so important for people to read from years from now. It's called Injustice How Politics and Fear Vanquished America's Justice Department. Carol Lennox, Aaron Davis, thank you both so much for your time. I personally could go on all day and I could take up another half hour, hour of your time, but I won't do that because that's not nice. You're on a book, book tour. But thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.
- [61:33]
Press Secretary or Moderator
Thank you. Great time.
- [61:34]
Carol Lennig
It was great. Jim, thanks again.
- [61:36]
Jim Acosta
Thanks again. Best of luck. Just an absolutely terrific interview is one of the, one of my favorite interviews I've done here on this program and I'm so appreciative to Carol and Aaron for giving me their time. They are rock star journalists, folks, make no mistake. And Carolyn, Carol is a national treasure. I'll just say right here, so go get that book. It's a blockbuster. And just thinking back to election night, I, I did want to close by asking this question. For those of you who have been bending the knee, those of you have been bending the knee since January of this year, how are you feeling today? Corporate media, law firms, universities that bowed down to the tyrant. How are you feeling today after what we saw on election night? How does it feel to be Mike Johnson? He is refusing to swear in Representative Elect Adelita Grialva and is blocking the release of the Epstein files. Someone should tell the speaker about what happens to the mics in Trump's life. It usually doesn't end well. Democrats, though, did learn a valuable lesson, well, at least most of them did, that when you stand united, stand up to Trump, you can rally the American people behind you. The people are waiting to be led and some of them have started to lead, each in their own way. And perhaps there is something to the idea of having a big tent in the Democratic Party. The so called experts in Washington are trying to lecture Democrats about how mom Donnie is too far to the left or how Spanberger and Cheryl are too centrist. Don't forget what the humorist Will Rogers used to say. I'm not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat. These issues of affordability, as they've been called, are really about how we take care of one another as Americans. It's about not leaving people behind. SNAP benefits, Obamacare, those kinds of programs are popular because Americans believe and a helping hand for those in need. Americans, at their core resent the idea of the rich and powerful hoarding the wealth of this country for themselves and engaging in outright corruption. What did Trump say on 60 Minutes that he doesn't know the crypto king that he pardoned? Give me a break. Did anybody believe that? The answer is nobody. So the question remains to those of you who face the test. We still have three years plus to go, folks. Will you bend the knee to him? What's your answer? How do you want to be remembered? Did you bend? Did you break when the wannabe dictator turned to you for obedience? Or did you stand up for something that's bigger than yourself? Make no mistake, what happened across America on election night was inspiring. But a hard road lies ahead, folks. A hard road lies ahead. Don't give in. Don't give into the lies. Don't give into fear. Hold on to the truth. And as we all saw on election night across America, hold on to hope. Still there. We still have it. It's not going anywhere. Have to hold on. My thanks to Larry Sabato. My thanks to Dave Ehrenberg, Carol Lennig and her co author Aaron as well. Really appreciate everybody for tuning in. Thanks so much. And I'll see you next time. Still reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. Thanks for tuning in. See you. Foreign.
- [65:59]
Larry Sabato
SA.