Podcast Summary

Podcast: The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Episode: After James Comey, Who’s Next on Trump’s Revenge Tour?
Date: October 8, 2025
Host: Tyler Foggatt (A), Senior Editor at The New Yorker
Guest: Ruth Marcus (B), Contributing Writer focusing on law, courts, and the rule of law
Notable Segment: Clip from James Comey (D)

Overview

This episode delves deep into the implications of Donald Trump's so-called "revenge tour" targeting perceived political enemies during his second term as president, with special attention to the recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. Tyler Foggatt and Ruth Marcus discuss the specifics of Comey's case, the broader pattern of retributive justice, and what this means for American political and legal norms.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Origin and Ethos of Trump's "Revenge Tour"

• Trump’s approach: Ruth Marcus explains that Trump's pursuit of former adversaries marks a significant break from established legal norms, emphasizing, “It is against the rules of the Justice Department to do tit for tat and to retaliate by weaponizing the criminal law against your political enemies.” (00:44)
• Trump’s motivation: Marcus notes, “He hasn't [forgotten Comey]. This is a man of many grudges, and he holds them, and he does not let go of them.” (04:27)
• Statute of Limitations: The urgency was driven by impending deadlines: “To the extent that there is a viable case against Comey... the statute of limitations on it was going to expire in just a few days after the indictment was handed down. So it was a rush job.” (04:49)

2. Why Begin with James Comey?

• Irony and motivation: Despite Democratic ire toward Comey, Trump fixates on him for his role in launching the Russia investigation and not pledging personal loyalty. Marcus points out: “If there is a single person who Trump might be able to thank for his having been elected in 2016, it would be James Comey.” (05:57)
• Historical animosity: Comey’s refusal to "pledge loyalty" during a 2017 dinner and his role in the Mueller investigation were central to Trump's grudge.

3. Breakdown of the Comey Indictment

• Flimsy charges: Neither Marcus nor experienced prosecutors can discern a coherent criminal act.
  • Count One: Alleged false statement during 2020 Senate testimony regarding leaks about a Clinton investigation.
  • Count Two: Obstruction of Congress, based on the same set of facts as Count One.
• Lack of clarity: “The fact that experienced prosecutors look at this indictment and cannot tell what the allegedly false statement is gives you some sense of why so many people think the indictment is so flimsy.” (08:26)
• Grand Jury context: Only two of three possible counts were indicted, raising further doubts about the case’s substance.

4. Escalation and Broader Targets

• Pattern of retribution: Not just Comey, but officials like Adam Schiff, Letitia James, and even Comey’s daughter, Maureen.
• Casting a wide net: Rather than seeking evidence related to prosecution of Trump, the administration is “searching desperately for something, anything, that you can hang on them,” likened to a “Stalinist” approach. (25:55)
• Targeting by association: Maureen Comey was likely fired “solely because of her last name.” (27:09)

5. Public Spectacle and Legal Risk

• Trump’s public pronouncements: By posting demands for indictments on Truth Social, Trump provides “the best evidence... for filing a motion to have the case dismissed, because it’s a vindictive or selective prosecution.” (21:39)
• Political strategy vs. legal jeopardy: Despite the optics, such public pressure could undermine the administration’s cases.

6. The Extent of the “Revenge Tour”

• Beyond law enforcement: Retaliation has extended to the private sector (e.g., demanding private companies fire former government officials) and even entertainers and journalists.
• Scope: “The entirety of Trump as a political candidate is a revenge tour... it is going after law firms... going after reporters and their corporate overlords… going after educational institutions… going after agencies… even people within agencies.” (29:52)

7. Resistance Inside and Outside Government

• Visible resistance: Some resignations and refusals to participate in the retribution campaign (e.g., Eric Siebert, U.S. attorney; FBI agents).
• Silence out of fear: Most act quietly due to “how scary it is... [and] what bringing the full force of this administration on them can do.” (34:04, 38:03)
• Notable courage: Whistleblower Erez Ruvini is cited for filing an official complaint at personal risk. (38:03)

8. The Danger of Normalizing Political Prosecutions

• Cycle of retribution: Marcus fears institutionalizing tit-for-tat lawfare, stressing, “Once you decide that you can take the Justice Department and use it to criminally punish your political enemies, you have gone to a place that is unsupportable, un-American, an absolute violation of legal ethics. And I think the next Justice Department can't and shouldn't do that.” (41:04)
• Breaking the cycle: Both agree that the next administration faces immense challenges in restoring impartiality without itself lapsing into retribution.

Memorable Quotes

• “Didn’t we all learn about two wrongs? And let me just be clear... two wrongs don’t make a right." – Ruth Marcus (01:51)
• "Even though I knew this was coming and I know that more is coming, it remains shocking..." – Ruth Marcus (18:14)
• “I am not a person normally given to hyperbole, but this is literally Stalinist... bring me the man and I'll find you the crime.” – Ruth Marcus (25:55)
• “My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees. And you shouldn't either… My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I'm innocent. So let's have a trial and keep the faith.” – James Comey (32:49)
• “It is scary to stand up to these guys... It is not surprising to me that few other people have taken that step.” – Ruth Marcus on internal resistance (38:03)
• “You have to break the cycle without being a total patsy… but without being, you know, so full of retribution that the government isn’t behaving in ways that are just.” – Ruth Marcus (43:31)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:44 – Ruth Marcus explains the breach of Justice Department rules with Trump’s approach.
• 05:57 – Discussion of the irony of Comey as “enemy #1” after 2016.
• 08:14–12:56 – Detailed explanation of the Comey indictment and its legal weaknesses.
• 18:14 – Reflections on how the revenge tour differs from what Ruth expected.
• 21:30–23:01 – Analysis of Trump’s public pressure via Truth Social and legal consequences.
• 25:55 – “Stalinist” approach: Wide net for prosecuting political adversaries.
• 27:09 – Maureen Comey fired due solely to her last name.
• 29:52 – The revenge tour’s expansion to media, private sector, education.
• 32:49 – James Comey's Instagram statement after indictment.
• 38:03 – Challenges facing career DOJ lawyers and rare acts of whistleblowing.
• 41:04–43:31 – Prospects for breaking the cycle of politically-motivated prosecutions.

Conclusion: The Stakes and What's Next

Ruth Marcus and Tyler Foggatt paint a sobering picture: The “revenge tour” has upended precedents and professional norms in law enforcement and the political system. While high-profile resistance exists, pervasive fear and resignation persist. Whether future administrations can restore institutional impartiality—or whether political prosecutions become entrenched as the new normal—remains an urgent and unresolved dilemma. The episode closes on the acknowledgement that breaking the cycle of retribution is essential for American democracy to endure.