- 20 minutes ago
Deadline: White House - Season Episode 129 -Episode 129 engsubtitle fullepisode🔥🍿❤️ Secret Engagement
Category
🎥
Short filmTranscript
00:02I stand by my decisions as special counsel, including the decision to bring charges against
00:09President Trump. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President
00:15Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based
00:22on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a
00:28Republican. No one, no one should be above the law in this country. And the law required that he be
00:36held to account. So that is what I did. Hi again, everybody. It's now five o'clock here in Washington,
00:43D.C. This show, Deadline White House, debuted the day that Donald Trump fired Jim Comey.
00:49He fired him for refusing to look the other way in the Mike Flynn case, among other actions that
00:55Donald Trump viewed as annoying and disloyal. Since that first broadcast, we have endeavored to
01:00chronicle Donald Trump's vicious war against the rule of law in our country. And no one understands
01:06what Trump's attacks against the rule of law look like better than that man, former special counsel
01:12Jack Smith. So much of what we know about Donald Trump's efforts to undo his defeat in the 2020
01:18presidential election against Joe Biden and his mishandling of some of the country's most sensitive
01:23national security secrets is because of the tireless work of Jack Smith and his team.
01:30More than anyone else in the country, he represented a threat to Donald Trump because he followed the
01:35facts and they led him deep inside Donald Trump's government and political coalition. The facts
01:42revealed crimes and those crimes were serious enough to represent a very real risk of conviction
01:48at trial for Donald Trump. That's the standard to indict somebody. And because of that fact,
01:55Donald Trump has called Jack Smith horrible things, a, quote, thug, a scoundrel, a criminal and a sick
02:02man. And we could actually go on and on, but we don't want to waste our time that way. Trump
02:06has threatened
02:06to prosecute him. And Jack Smith has made clear that he was just doing his job. He would do it
02:13all over
02:13again if given the chance. In his letter to attorney general Merrick Garland, delivering his final
02:18report, he writes this quote, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were
02:24influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is in a word laughable.
02:30While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team
02:35stood up
02:36for the rule of law matters. I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without
02:42regard for the personal costs matters. The facts as we uncovered them in our investigation and as we
02:48set forth in my report matter. That's where we start the hour. Joining us for his first interview,
02:54former special counsel, Jack Smith. Thank you so much for doing this. Thank you so much for having
02:57me. I asked you this when you walked in and I'll ask you, how weird is it to view it
03:04as part of your
03:05service to tell the story of the investigations you led? Yeah. Well, you know, I was a career prosecutor.
03:11I worked in the Justice Department and other prosecutors offices for near on 30 years. And
03:17I don't know if your viewers know this, but I worked in Republican and Democratic administrations
03:22over and over. I was the acting U.S. attorney in the first Trump administration in Nashville,
03:27Tennessee. And that administration appointed me to a position running a war crimes tribunal for the
03:34State Department. So I have investigated cases focusing on the facts and the law throughout my career.
03:40We did this case the same way under the same standards. And, you know, the thing that's,
03:46I think, important for your viewers to know is those standards are not meant to change from one
03:50administration to the next. And in my experience until now, they haven't. And so, you know, I think
03:57we are facing an attack on the rule of law that is different in kind and scope to anything I've
04:04seen in
04:04my lifetime. And one of the reasons I wanted to be with you here today in advance of the Fourth
04:10of
04:10July, celebrating the birth of a country that we all love, is to celebrate the public servants who do
04:16this work, the people I spent my career working shoulder to shoulder with. I loved being a prosecutor,
04:23and part of it was I loved being around these sort of people. And it angers me to see them
04:29victimized,
04:30to see them demonized for doing their jobs. I think it's really important that we stand up for
04:36them and let them know that there are a lot of people out there who back them and who are
04:43with
04:43them. And it's not just the people who've been targeted and fired for no reason for doing their
04:48jobs. It's also the people still in the Justice Department today. There are a lot of good career
04:53prosecutors who right now are working under incredibly difficult circumstances. And they're still trying to do the
05:00right thing. And these are not self promoters. These are not people who are going to go out and,
05:05you know, quarrel about their achievements. We need to hold them up and celebrate them because they're
05:11part of what makes this country great. Some of the agents, FBI agents that work for you have been
05:19savaged by Donald Trump and Kash Patel. At least one agent talked about being fired while he was
05:28taking care of his very, very sick wife. What did you expect to happen to these agents? And do you
05:36regret putting any of them in that position? I feel terrible about what has happened to them. If
05:42there's one thing I've spent my time on since leaving my work as special counsel is doing what I can
05:48to help and support them. The individual you're talking about, he was nursing his wife who was dying of
05:56cancer. And they fired him shortly after she died. I went to the funeral. That funeral was filled with
06:04heroes, public servants on both families. And I just can't believe that if people knew the character
06:10of these people I worked with, that they could ever stand for the demonizing that's happened to them.
06:15It's just beyond anything I can understand. And my sense from my limited exposure to people in DOJ
06:23and the FBI and the FBI for my time in government is they don't really want to go do other
06:26things.
06:27They want this to be their life's work, protecting the country's national security.
06:31Will you talk a little bit about the price people have paid who have been purged for political
06:36purposes? Yeah, I mean, you know, a lot of the agents and prosecutors I've worked with, and to be
06:41clear, not just in the special counsel's office, but throughout my career in a bunch of different
06:46positions I've had in the Justice Department. This is the culmination of what they wanted to do.
06:50It's why they went to law school. And it's their way of serving our country. And we've seen so many
06:56times in these retribution cases where prosecutors wouldn't be a part of it. You know, prosecutors in
07:01Minnesota who are like, I'm not going to investigate the family member of a shooting victim. I'm not
07:05doing that. Prosecutors who wouldn't go through with retribution prosecutions. And those people give
07:14up a lot. This is their whole career. A lot of them, you know, this isn't a lucrative sort of
07:18profession for a lawyer in terms of what you could do in private practice. They have to support their
07:23families. And one thing I have hope about is I think the traditions in the department, the people
07:29that draw are so strong that we're going to have to rehabilitate the department for sure. But there's
07:34a lot of people still there, still in place, wanting to do the right thing, wanting to follow the facts
07:40in law, not be a part of any retribution campaign. And I think for me, one of the things I
07:47see as I go
07:48around and talk to folks, and I try to travel around the country a lot and see different people and
07:52talk
07:52to different perspectives about this, is that those people, it really matters to them if they know
07:59they're being supported. Part of this campaign is to make people feel like isolated and feel like
08:05they don't have people backing them up. And so I just think it's really important. I want to express
08:09my support. I think everybody else should express their support. It's something with meaning and
08:16it's also something that matters. I mean, Chris Ray was the director of the FBI when the FBI agents
08:20that you're talking about went to work for you. He said nothing. Why? You know, I can't really comment
08:26on other people's choices. I would say- Would it help? Well, I think my perspective on this is that
08:32in the moment we're in, which is a pretty dire moment, right, what we're facing, that we should be
08:37uplifting the people who are doing the right thing. And I'll give you an example from my life.
08:42I resign as special counsel. I know I need to get a lawyer because the president has said he wants
08:48to
08:48jail me for doing my job. And so I retain lawyers Covington and Berlin. As soon as that becomes public,
08:56the president and the Justice Department target that law firm. And they do it because they don't
09:01want me to have counsel. They don't want to have anyone represent me. And what happened next was
09:07the very day that happened to Cole, the lawyers at the firm called me up and said, Jack,
09:12don't worry about it. We're there for you. They did not blink for a second. And as you know,
09:17that's very different than how some other law firms behaved. I think we should focus on things
09:23like that and separating a firm like Covington and Berlin from other ones that didn't show courage
09:28to come through. Well, right. The ones that fought also have batted a thousand in the courts. I think
09:33Judge Beryl Howell described those executive orders as giving her chills, chilling her to the bone. But
09:37some of the giant law firms that were so central in our politics in the first Trump term didn't just
09:44capitulate to Trump. They're now working for Trump's Justice Department, firms like Paul Weiss and
09:48others. What do you make of the damage they're doing to our democracy at a moment you describe as dire?
09:53Yeah. Well, I think one of the problems, I mean, there's several layers, right? One of the problems
09:58right today, besides the the retribution prosecutions, is that the Justice Department
10:04can't do its job, right? If you go to court. Explain that. Well, if you go to court and the
10:08judges don't trust you, you can't do the basic things that you need to do to represent the American
10:14people in court. And we have seen judges across the country say they can't trust prosecutors
10:20anymore. And that has such a cascading effect on any sort of case. And, you know, I can't count how
10:27many opinions. But one opinion like that in my career would have been seismic. People could not
10:33would not know what to do if a court said, you know, trust that's been built over generations has
10:39been lost in days. Right. And that's happening every day. And so regardless of what you think politically,
10:45they're just not effective at doing their job anymore. They've jettisoned expertise. Right.
10:50And so we have a situation where we've got rid of people who know how to protect our national
10:56security. And we think that that's somehow not going to have an effect on our national security.
11:02You know, an example I can give you, Brian Driscoll. I don't know if you know who he is.
11:07He was the great video at the beginning to kind of rally the troops that seemed from the outside.
11:12Yeah. I mean, he's a folk hero in the FBI. If you were casting for a hero. Right. That's what
11:18they
11:18look like. Right. And just for your viewers, this is a guy, career agent, you know, mob investigator,
11:26SWAT team, hostage rescue, served overseas, Medal of Value or bravery medals, all these things,
11:33and an expert in counterintelligence. They got rid of him because he stood up
11:38for agents who were being targeted improperly. You can't tell me, you cannot tell me our country
11:43is as safe as it was when people like that are being let go and fired for no reason.
11:50Well, the purge seems to have multiple tentacles. It's for FBI agents and prosecutors who worked on
11:55your two cases. It's also for people who aren't doing the personal political bidding of the
12:00individuals there. I think Mr. Bove started that in the short time he was there. Kash Patel,
12:04based on news accounts, seems to be carrying that out for deeply personal conduct. What does that
12:11mean for the people who were there because it was their life's dream to do that work to protect the
12:16country? What are they doing instead? Yeah. I mean, it's very tough because, you know,
12:21the people we're talking about, these people I spent my career with that I've so enjoyed their
12:25company and I have both respect and affection for, they're resilient people. Right. And they're not
12:30going to quit at this first sign of resistance. And so, as I say, as many as these examples as
12:35we've seen where people have just said, I'm not going to be a part of that because of their
12:41integrity, because of their character, there are a lot of people still in place. And I want to be
12:45clear. These are not people who are like throwing sand in the gears. They're just doing their job as
12:49they're supposed to do it, following the facts and the law. But is that because they haven't run into
12:53any friction from the politicization and the weaponization cases? Yeah, I think that's right.
12:57I mean, I think, you know, what I tell friends who are still in the department is,
13:02serve as long as you can. The Justice Department, our country needs the Justice Department to do its
13:07job. And you should do it as long as you feel like you can. And obviously, if you're asked to
13:12do something that you know is wrong, then your number's up and you can't do it. I would also add,
13:17Nicole, I think one of the things that maybe isn't being talked about enough is the effect it is
13:23having on the Justice Department in the future. You know, this last year, I've done a lot of speaking
13:29at law schools and universities. And, you know, it used to be that getting a job in the U.S.
13:35Attorney's
13:35Office of the Justice Department was, you know, one of the most sought after things you could possibly
13:39have. And great people who want to serve their communities and serve their countries. That was
13:44their dream. That was my dream as a young person. Those people, I can tell you, are not as interested
13:52and they're looking to do other things. And my concern is that that is, you know, the Justice
13:58Department works. I learned from mentors who came before me. And then I tried to do the same and teach
14:04those that followed me. When you break that chain, it's a real problem. And so I tell people when I
14:10go to
14:10these universities and into law schools, don't give up on it. Don't I even if you don't like what's going
14:15on right now, there's a much longer path here. And we need you if you want to serve for you.
14:24I guess
14:25resilience is going to have to learn more earlier in your career. But I don't want people to to get
14:30away
14:30from service as a result of this, because I think that's a that's a knock on effect. It'll be much
14:35harder
14:35to solve than some of the things that we're seeing in the headlines every day. But I'm
14:40sure these people that listen to you speak admire you and your in your career and the things you've
14:45been a part of. Do you think that this is a department that you could send someone to go
14:49work in and they could be asked to indict you? Oh, I think that could happen. But I also think
14:54in the Justice Department, even as we sit here right now, there are lots of people doing good work,
15:00prosecuting violent crime, protecting their communities, doing the everyday work of being
15:04a prosecutor. And yes, it could happen. That could happen. And that would be unfortunate.
15:10And then you might have to step down. But I don't want to see people run from public service
15:16because of that possibility. Do you expect to be indicted?
15:20Listen, I Donald Trump has made a bunch of statements. He said he would indict you. Yes.
15:25I tell you, Nicole, I honestly do not spend a lot of time thinking about the things he says about
15:30me
15:30and his threats about me. I'm real focused on the people who I worked with looking out for them. I'm
15:37real focused on how the Justice Department is going to be better going forward, things like that.
15:42In my situation, I did my job the right way. I had an all-star team. I mean, Nicole, the
15:48agents on my case,
15:50if I were to walk you through all the awards they've won throughout generations of administrations,
15:56we would be here all night. These were superstars. And I'm much more concerned that those people
16:03get to serve in the department, get to serve in the bureau again someday.
16:06What do you say about the facts that you developed that you see? I know you don't watch a ton
16:13of news,
16:13but that you see enough to know that the basic principle of recidivism likely applies to the
16:19election case. The things that you charged are a lot of the same kinds of stories we cover. What is
16:24the cost of someone not being held accountable for their crimes? Yeah. I mean, if you talk about the
16:31pardons of these people convicted for the violence on January 6th, right, there's all sorts of costs.
16:37There's the obvious cost of just recidivism. These are people who committed their crimes in the name
16:43and in the interest of Donald Trump, and he's returned the favor, right, by pardoning them.
16:47That sends one message to them. A message I'm equally concerned about is the message that it sends to
16:54law enforcement. Supporting law enforcement should not be a political issue. It should not be a Republican,
17:00Democrat, red, blue thing. And when I see people like Harry, uh, Harry Dunn, who was here before,
17:05uh, who put his life on the line to protect others and seeing him be smeared and vilified,
17:12uh, I don't understand that. That is, and I think more people who understand the actual facts of that,
17:18I don't think most people are okay with that. Um, it's deeply wrong. And I, I have a concern
17:24because we've seen that sort of thing in the incentives that set up.
17:26What do you make of the fact, do you support this theory that the pardons were step one,
17:33the slush fund is step two, and sending a message to the violent insurrectionists that not only would
17:39they not be criminally accountable for their crimes, but they'd be paid for their service?
17:44Yeah. Listen, I have no, uh, unique insight on that. I see the same things you see. Um, regardless of
17:51whether it sets a, an incentive system that you're suggesting, uh, it's just plain wrong,
17:58right? I mean, our country is built on values. That's what binds us all together. And I, my view
18:05has always been that those values don't have anything to do with political parties. Um, when
18:10I'm a prosecutor and I have to get credibility, build credibility with a judge or a witness,
18:15the jury, right? It's not about politics. It's about truthfulness, integrity, being decent to each
18:22other, exhibiting kindness, judgment. Um, I think those are the things that bind us together.
18:28And those are the sort of things we should lean into. Like I, I, I feel like personally,
18:32as divided as we are, if we lean into issues of integrity, um,
18:39more that that's the best hope to get people more back together than we are now.
18:43Do you think we still have a common definition of integrity?
18:46I think we, I think we do. But I also, for me personally, if I'm going to have that discussion,
18:52like I said, I, I travel around and I go to places where people don't expect me to be. I,
18:57I do, uh, events, athletic events where I travel and I'll be in like rural areas of
19:01different parts of our country and people will come up and talk during sporting events, right?
19:07But I, I go out in these places and I talk to different people. People come up to me and
19:11it's,
19:11it's interesting because they don't expect me to be there. And I have to say the vast majority of
19:17people are really appreciative of, of my service and the service of our team. But even when they're
19:22not, um, if you engage in a discussion with people and you're open to hearing them and not
19:27just kind of telling them what you think, I actually do think that people agree that integrity
19:32is a good thing. Do they believe that the crimes that do they, do they believe the facts? I mean,
19:37do, do they ask you about the cases you brought and do they believe you?
19:40Well, it depends on who you're talking about, but often the people who are more skeptical,
19:45know less about the facts. And I think one of the things, uh, that's hard for me in this process
19:51is,
19:52you know, I'm a facts guy, facts matter, um, really big on that. And, uh, and you know, when you
19:58go in
19:58a courtroom, that's all that matters. Right. And so, and you know that you're going to get your turn
20:03to present the facts and then they can present theirs. And there's a process, um, how we communicate
20:08with each other right now. It's very hard to do that. It's very foreign to someone like me who was
20:13raised as a prosecutor. Do you're talking in courtroom, not on the courtroom steps. And, uh,
20:19I think that's harder because a lot of the people I think who, uh, have resistance to what we do,
20:24they
20:24just not versed in the facts and, you know, not everybody wants to read a hundred whatever page
20:29report. I get it. Um, but I think, you know, this goes to the DOJ going forward. My view is
20:36that going
20:36forward, I think we can't get away from the issues of integrity and doing things the right way and
20:42facts and law. But I also think people like me who kind of were raised on that and know that
20:47we got to start listening more to people who know how to communicate and, and choose to communicate
20:52more in innovative ways. Cause a lot of the people that I bump into and talk to, um, no one's
20:58tried to
20:58communicate with them. No one's tried to give them the facts in a way that's actually easy for them to
21:02digest. And so, you know, very foreign to a courtroom guy like me. Uh, but I think it's a,
21:07a step that we got to be talking about. I mean, this was the, the, the challenge of the Mueller
21:12findings, right? You know, here it was, it kind of landed like a phone book and that was just volume
21:17one. Um, and no one explained it and no one defended it. And, and Trump and his supporters were
21:23able to misrepresent it in a single news cycle. Was that on your mind as you did your work in
21:28these two
21:28cases? Honestly, no. Um, I, my job was to do my job the right way. And when it came time
21:35to write
21:35a report, to write a report that summarized accurately what I did. Um, I didn't really
21:41think about stuff like that. And, you know, I, I understand your point about Robert Mueller,
21:44but I, I think Robert Mueller is an American hero. I mean, how he conducted his life,
21:48serving our country in the military, um, service throughout, uh, as the FBI, uh, as a prosecutor.
21:54I mean, the story I like about Robert Mueller is, this is a guy who did everything you could
22:00do as a lawyer. He's a partner at a big law firm, making a million bucks or more. And he
22:05wants to
22:05go back and be a line prosecutor. In San Francisco, right? Uh, no, he was in DC to be a
22:12homicide
22:12prosecutor. I mean, it's such a bad ass thing to do. I mean, I, in my world, that's really a
22:18cool
22:18thing. And so, you know, I, maybe as you say, like how that rolled out, he was working from a
22:24different era. Uh, and that's why I say we got to get better at that, but I don't want to
22:28lose the
22:29core of functioning with integrity and doing what's good for the country rather than what's good for
22:35you. Um, we're gonna ask you to stick around. We want to dive into some of the facts, um, at
22:40least
22:40the ones that are public that we have to work with. Um, and the cases, uh, that you brought or
22:44the
22:45election case. We've shorthanded it, the election case and the documents case. Uh,
22:48deadland white house continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
22:54We fight, we fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country
23:00anymore. Mike Pence. I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our constitution and for the good
23:12of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you.
23:20Well, we won by sending a message to the senators and the congressmen. We won by sending a message
23:24to Pence. Okay. That if they don't do as they are, as their, uh, their oath to do, if they
23:30don't
23:31uphold the constitution, then we will remove them from office one way or another.
23:37I want to read a little bit from, from the indictment on the election case, because I think all of
23:41us are
23:41trying to cover in real time and assault on, well, let me ask you first, do you, do you agree
23:46that
23:46we are covering in real time and assault on our elections, the upcoming ones? I'm very concerned
23:51of what's going to happen in the next election. Absolutely. Do you see again in, in, in things
23:56that are covered in things that are public facing conduct ahead of the midterms that you investigated
24:02on January, in the January 6th case? Well, I've been thinking about it more in terms of what needs
24:08to be done based on what we saw happen last time. And, you know, it's a different situation now,
24:13based on, you know, the people who perpetrated January 6th. They've probably learned from how they
24:18did that. Uh, my personal view is I think the state attorney generals have a tremendous role to play
24:24here. Um, they can make sure the rule of law functions in their state. And I, I would also say
24:30that I
24:30think a thing that all of us can do is support election workers and election officials. Um, the last
24:37time around, um, we saw that those people stood firm and they were in many cases, the difference. Um,
24:43it's clear to me anyways, that where I've seen publicly that those people are going to be put under great
24:48pressure. And, uh, my experience, um, not only just the special counsel, but, you know, I was the chief of
24:55the
24:55public integrity section at the department of justice for five years, uh, had number of cases
25:00with election officials. Um, these are people also, they're not tooting their own horn. They're
25:05not self promoters. They just care about our democracy. We need to show them that we have their
25:10back. I think those two things are central, um, to getting ready for the, the elections that are coming
25:17up. What is your advice to state attorneys general? I would be ready to litigate everything. I would
25:24brainstorm and I, and I think they are, I get that sense. Um, every possible, uh, permutation, uh, and
25:30don't let, um, reason be a limitation. Um, imagine everything that could possibly be tried.
25:36That Trump will do. Yeah. And I also think it's important for them to be proactive and, you know,
25:42initiate litigation, uh, where it's appropriate and where it would make sense to you if you have a sense
25:47or reason to believe that something's going to be done to interfere with people's right to vote and
25:52participate in democracy. The strength of the evidence that you and your investigators developed,
26:00um, is at least as detailed in the report that was released, seems to be that you were able to
26:06develop, and I'll say this as a non-lawyer, sort of the, the, the 360 evidence that you understood the
26:11state of mind. You had evidence that Trump knew he was lying. There were all sorts of interactions
26:16where he said to people, well, that national security issue will be dealt with by Joe Biden because
26:20I lost that he said to another aid quote, I can't believe I lost to that guy. So you were
26:26able to
26:26establish, and I think the congressional committee established some of this as well, people that he
26:30acknowledged losing to how much of the ability to hold people accountable is based on being able to
26:40see inside meetings and have witnesses that cooperate. And I guess I'm getting back to the
26:45pardon conversation we just have. I mean, how much do you think Trump has learned in terms of how to
26:49evade an indictment like the one you brought? Yeah. I, I think the one thing to start on this,
26:55on this sort of topic is we did this case the way I've done cases throughout my career,
27:00same investigative techniques, same use of the tools that a federal prosecutor has.
27:05And our proof was the same sort of proof you have in all sorts of cases, not just, uh, political
27:10corruption cases, uh, but all sorts of cases I've done in my career. You prove what happened,
27:15you prove, um, the intent of the person, and you also are thoughtful about what's the defense
27:21going to be. And can we disprove that? Because if you can't, then you can't prove the case beyond
27:24a reasonable doubt. Uh, and we did that. We did that in this case. Um, it wasn't unique in terms
27:30of
27:30how we did it. It was the same sort of processes you'd use in any case. And around speech, um,
27:38one of
27:38the things that the right used to say before Trump came back into office was, uh, to champion first
27:44amendment protected speech. One of the things that I understood better when I read this again,
27:49um, to prepare to talk to you was that speech in furtherance of crimes is not protected. I mean,
27:55how much do you think people should just be monitoring and tracking the things people are
27:59saying out loud in terms of stealing the midterms? Yeah. I mean, and that's maybe a good point for your
28:04viewers is there is rock solid Supreme court precedent that you cannot just use speech to
28:10commit a crime fraud, particularly there's a specific case on it. Um, and so obviously people
28:15have a first amendment right. And, and I think we made clear in our indictment that we respect
28:20first amendment rights. Uh, that's certainly important to me that we not charge a case that
28:24would in essence be violating someone's rights. Uh, but that doesn't mean that you can't commit
28:29crimes through words, uh, happens all the time. Um, when, when a Ponzi scheme person is, uh,
28:35bilking someone out of their life savings, they're doing it with words. That's how that's done.
28:39Um, all sorts of financial crimes, all sorts of corruption crimes, a bribe is usually communicated
28:45in words. Um, that happens all the time. And in a lot of ways, this case was no different.
28:51I was also reminded that after the Supreme court grants, Donald Trump immunity, you file a
28:58superseding indictment. You're still ready to bring the case to trial, right? Yeah, correct.
29:04Explain how you had to adjust and what that adjustment was. Sure. And, and, and we set this
29:08forth in our report. Um, you know, we did what good prosecutors do and what you're supposed to do.
29:14We received a decision from the court. It wasn't the decision we wanted. We didn't agree with the
29:18reasoning of it, but in a society where you believe in the rule of law, you follow the court's
29:23decisions. And so we analyzed the decision and we looked at what sort of evidence we could no longer
29:28use and what sort of evidence we could use. And because, and we set this forth in filings because
29:34in this particular case, uh, a lot of the evidence was him in his role as a candidate.
29:39Uh, we felt we could go forward and we briefed this issue for the court. And obviously we never
29:44got to a conclusion where we could litigate, um, the ultimate conclusion of that. Uh, but we would not
29:50have gone forward with the case unless I still felt we could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt,
29:54just like we wouldn't have gone forward with the case, uh, in the first place if we couldn't.
29:59And, and I, I guess one point I would want to emphasize there is I think a difference
30:04between the work we did and what you're seeing today is, uh, in our work, there was no predetermined
30:08outcome. When I took this job, I was perfectly happy to bring this case if the facts and law warranted
30:15it
30:15or not. And I've done that throughout my career and it hasn't mattered what person's political party was
30:21to do that. That's how we went about our work. Uh, completely apolitical politics did not play a
30:27role. Were you kind of hoping that the criminality wasn't as brazen as what you developed and uncovered?
30:32I don't think good prosecutors hope you follow the facts in the law. And, uh, you know, one of the,
30:39one of the good principles that real prosecutors always follow is the facts matter. And you don't
30:44not go down an avenue because, Ooh, maybe some facts will come out that will hurt my case. Um,
30:50you go and look at all the facts you possibly can, as searching as you possibly can, uh,
30:55because you want to get it right. Uh, that, I just, that contrasts to what we're seeing today,
30:58where there is a predetermined outcome process doesn't matter. And we just have to find a way
31:04to get to that outcome. And if there's facts that don't fit that outcome, we, we don't recognize them.
31:10And if there's facts that, um, make it not a crime, we just pretend those don't exist.
31:16I mean, a judge basically said that in the Kilmer Arrigo Garcia case, said that he found that this
31:21was a, an instance where basically criminality was being reverse engineered all the way up to
31:27Todd Blanche. If a judge has found that, what do you think they're capable of with two more years?
31:32Well, I, as I said earlier, I, from my perspective, I've seen a number of cases,
31:39James Comey, Letitia James, Jerome Powell. I mean, right. Um, there, there's not criminality
31:47here. I mean, seashells. I mean, so the only reasonable explanation is the president has it
31:55out for these people. And he has people who hit former personal lawyers who are going to do what he
31:59says, regardless of the factual law. I mean, you know, again, just to juxtapose it. Um,
32:05I didn't have people on my team resigning because they refused to go along with a scheme to go after
32:11somebody. That was not what happened. Um, you see that in all of these cases. Um, and just again,
32:18imagine if you would like, I was appointed from outside the government, no political allegiance to
32:24anybody and they were comfortable with Jack, wherever you think the facts and law dictate,
32:30that's what we'll do. And that's what will happen. Can you imagine that happening now?
32:35If there was an allegation of corruption in this administration, them saying, let's appoint an
32:40outside independent person to make a call on this. I think we know it would never happen. And I think
32:44that's a real easy way to differentiate following process, following the facts, having independence.
32:51If you were, if you took the name of our country off it and you were just examining the state
32:56of
32:56the rule of law in America, is it dead? I don't think so at all. And, and for the reasons
33:01I said
33:01earlier, um, there are legions of career prosecutors, people just like me, you just don't know their name,
33:10who are want to do the right thing. They're in the justice department. They want to serve.
33:16Um, we have a lot of challenges in front of us and the rehabilitation of the department is not going
33:20to be any mean feat. Um, you know, recovering character is a lot harder than gaining it in
33:26the first place. Uh, but I think we're totally capable of doing that. I'm absolutely completely
33:31optimistic. Uh, we're going to ask you to stick around. I want to ask you about the other case.
33:35I know you're a lot more limited on what you can say. Um, but I want to ask about that
33:38on the other side.
33:39Thank you. We'll be right back.
33:45We've talked about the dedicated public servants in the department and the FBI that worked on
33:50your cases. Um, one of them you can't talk about, and that's all of the, and these are some of
33:56the
33:56ones that Trump has raged against most ferociously. And that is, um, the prosecutors and agents involved
34:01in the documents case. Just explain why you can't talk about that. Yeah, there, there's an order,
34:06uh, from the judge in Florida judge cannon that that report is under seal and I don't want to
34:12do anything that could be misconstrued as me not following court order. I'm a lawyer who follows
34:17court orders. And so, uh, I just don't want to do anything that would be remotely construed is
34:22not complying with her order. Let me just ask the things that you've said publicly about standing by
34:27the facts that you developed and standing by what you've put in your reports. Do you stand by volume two?
34:32Absolutely. And the men and women who worked on those cases have been targeted with some of the
34:38most vicious retribution and political attacks. Um, are they political actors? Absolutely not.
34:45For the ones that are, I mean, have any of them survived the purge at the bureau and the
34:50department of justice? Uh, I don't think that's really for me to say. Uh, I think the, uh, I'm
34:56focused on the people I can help and that's what I've been trying to do. All right. We don't,
35:00we don't want to jeopardize any of those individuals and we don't want to put you in
35:03a bad spot with Judge Aileen Cannon. You think there's any chance she ends up on the Supreme
35:06Court? I have no views on that whatsoever. Um, we'll, we'll, we'll watch that with bated breath.
35:13Um, I want to share some reporting from my friend, Glenn Thrush of the New York Times,
35:17who's covered some of the folks that you've talked about, um, and sort of come back to
35:23what's on the other side. Uh, Kash Patel summarily fired Chris Meyer and another top agent in the
35:28Washington DC field office who had been targeted by the right, uh, uh, Walter Giordina. Mr. Patel
35:35did so after being told that the terminations were unlawful and that pushing out Mr. Giordina,
35:40who was caring for his dying wife, something you talked about would be inexcusably cruel.
35:44According to a lawsuit filed by three FBI supervisors, also dismissed by Kash Patel quote,
35:49we were always told that we would be taken care of and there would not be any retaliation for our
35:53assigned work. Mr. Giordina 48 told his supervisors the day he was fired, the circle of trust
35:58had been broken. I want to ask you about this concept of a circle of trust because as we talked
36:05about with the pardons and the slush fund, Trump seems to be erecting again, what is public facing
36:11a circle of trust with people who committed crimes for which they were convicted by juries of their peers,
36:16um, not just pardoning them, but giving them money. That circle of trust doesn't do anything for
36:21the public, for the public safety, for us national security. How do you begin to put back together
36:26a circle of trust between public servants protected the country from threats? Yeah, I, I think for me,
36:33the biggest thing we can do and it's, it's challenging is to get the facts out in ways that
36:38people can digest them. I think if you have a question of is a rioter who assaulted a police officer
36:45on January 6th a patriot or is Harry Dunn a patriot? Uh, we win that argument every time if
36:53people have the facts and I think it's hard and, and, you know, as a prosecutor who worked in a
36:58courtroom and didn't really work in the media and didn't, you know, want to give a speech on the
37:03courthouse steps, uh, I think we've now learned that you gotta be able to get people to understand
37:09the facts. We've got a great, uh, product in the, the work that we did as the special counsel,
37:15the work the justice department does every day. Um, but the people who do it, who are really the
37:20reason you can trust it, um, they don't promote themselves. And so we need to get their stories
37:25out there. I think if that happens, um, the sort of trust, uh, in government, which is pretty hard to
37:31earn, you can do that. Um, that's my experience as a trial lawyer. It's my experience in life when I
37:36interact with people in the world. And part of the reason I frankly wanted to talk to you today
37:41is to talk about these people because they're good people. And if you sat down with them for a coffee
37:46or a beer or a meal, you would like them and you would trust them and you would see the
37:50things that
37:51are being said about them are lies. And in my experience, which is dated, none of them are
37:56particularly political. I don't know the politics of any of these people. That's not something we talk
38:02about in the justice department. What does it do to the ability to imagine something on the other
38:09side that isn't a reaction to what's happening now? I mean, everyone from all the reporting that, that
38:15we have access to, um, is only doing the kind of work you're talking about. If they've avoid being
38:20asked to do something that violates their oath or is unethical, or as part of the retribution cases,
38:26or, um, is predicated on Trump's conspiracies, as we covered at the top of the hour, a massive
38:33deployment of, of intelligence agents to go look at data in Georgia based on a lie. Um,
38:41what happens on the other side to people that were involved in that misdirection of resources?
38:46Well, you know, one thing I don't like is this idea that everybody who did things we don't like,
38:51they're guilty of crimes too. And we're going to prosecute them. It should be the facts and the
38:55law. And you should look at, um, not, uh, uh, let's find this person and let's find if they,
39:02let's target them and see if we can find a crime. That's what's happening now.
39:05I think it's really important that whoever leads the justice department after this rejects
39:11that sort of thinking. Um, that doesn't mean that people who have committed crime should get a free
39:16pass. Um, and it's going to be difficult. I actually think the investigation of these things
39:20isn't hard. What's hard is getting people to understand it's been done in an objective way.
39:24Um, explaining in a way that people can digest that things are done following the facts and
39:32law and don't involve politics. That's a challenge doing the actual work. There's lots of people out
39:37there who've spent their careers like I have, who are capable of doing that work. Um, not just,
39:42not just cases in the political realm, but particularly cases also affecting our national security.
39:47Um, I, I, I spend a lot of time worrying about that when I see some of the people who've
39:52been
39:52fired. When you feel optimistic about our ability to come through and about the caliber of the people
39:59who are inside the department, um, what do you think and do you feel as optimistic about a country
40:06that would reelect someone for whom the facts showed he'd committed multiple felonies?
40:12Um, my view, Nicole, is our country has been a lot of things at a lot of different times.
40:18And what generally happens is when something really bad happens, Watergate, for example,
40:24uh, we respond and we get better as a result. Uh, I'm not saying the justice department has been
40:29perfect every day, but the people I worked with, I saw people trying to move things in the right
40:34direction. And I think it would be, uh, foolish to say we're not facing challenges right now.
40:41But when you face a challenge like we are today, uh, you have a choice about the attitude you take
40:46towards it. Um, anyone can put anything on you, but you have a choice about the attitude you take.
40:51Uh, for me. And I think a lot of the people that I've worked with, our view is I want
40:56to behave now
40:57in a way that my kids will be proud. I want to act in a way that when I'm retired,
41:01I look back on this
41:02time and say, I did things right. Uh, I think a lot of people relate to that and I think
41:07it's
41:07understandable. And I think if we start aligning actions with our beliefs, um, it's a huge, huge
41:15step. I think one of the things I've seen, which is the sort of journey I've been on is,
41:22you know, with me being targeted by the president, um, you get to find out who's who,
41:27right? You get to find out who runs toward the fire, who kind of backs away. Um, it's difficult
41:34in the moment, but I think for the future, that's going to be really helpful to know.
41:37Are you afraid to be speaking out? No, not at all. I'm not, I am not going to be intimidated.
41:43Uh, and there's no way in the world if, if the thought was to, to go after me so that
41:48I wouldn't
41:50speak up about the corruption that's happening or speak up to defend these agents and prosecutors,
41:55that is a grave miscalculation. There is no way I'm going to be intimidated.
41:59Would it help the Bureau and the Department of Justice if more of the leaders
42:04above the chain of command above you spoke out with the same messages, Merrick Garland and Lisa
42:09Monica? I'm not going to forecast what other people can do or tell other people how they should
42:15handle a particular situation. Everyone's got to make their own particular choice.
42:19My, my strong view is rather than sort of critiquing people who haven't done what we
42:25might like them to do. Um, and good, high integrity people who serve the public,
42:30spend their careers in public service. Let's focus on when we see somebody doing a good thing,
42:36we raise them up. Uh, I think that's a more productive way to face the challenge we're facing
42:41right now.
42:41My friend Esther Shalos says stay in the light. Um, I'll take that for answer. I'll
42:45re-snake in one more break. We'll be right back.
42:51We're back with Jack Smith. I want to ask you about some of your earlier work at DOJ. You worked
42:56in public integrity, which somewhere, uh, someone has all of their office supplies,
43:01right? And this week we reported that Donald Trump raked in $2 billion since returning to
43:05the white house. It's such a perversion of everything that's come before it. What do you
43:10make or what do you think when you think about the gutting of all of the prosecutors that used
43:15to investigate and prosecute those crimes? Yeah, I'm saddened by it because when I was,
43:20uh, at public integrity, when I was the chief of the section, and this was a, a section that was
43:25created in the wake of Watergate is one of the reforms after Watergate to deal with corruption in
43:29the government. Uh, we did good work. We did important work. We did nonpartisan work and seeing
43:35that section gutted, uh, saddens me. Uh, but I have to say at the same time
43:42that started because the attorneys in that section stood up, uh, when the Adams case in New York,
43:48um, that they forced the dismissal of a completely legitimate case that the prosecutors in the Southern
43:54District of New York brought, uh, and they tried to force public integrity to sort of lend their
43:59credibility to the dismissal. Um, that's what I'm talking about, about people of integrity. You know,
44:03the Southern District prosecutors, I don't know that they left and they're not in the department
44:06anymore. Right. But my point is there's people like that throughout the department and there's
44:10people who are going to continue to stand up. I, I have, I have a huge allegiance to them and
44:16I
44:16have a huge affection for them and I know they're out there and I just want to make sure they
44:19all hear
44:20us, uh, because this is going to go on for a while. Um, the path to victory here is not
44:25a short one.
44:26And I think the people in place who are doing their jobs, the people who stood up,
44:30we should, we should, um, celebrate them just like we're celebrating the 4th of July.
44:34These are the people who make this country great. My view.
44:37Is this the beginning of speaking out on their behalf more regularly, more frequently? Will you
44:41come back?
44:43You know, this is new for me, Nicole. Uh, uh, we'll see, you know, I, I'm trying, you know,
44:48as a prosecutor for, for 30 years and I'm in a different world now. I started a law firm,
44:54as I think, you know, with, uh, our friend, Tim Hefe. And, uh, I want to do whatever I can
45:00to be
45:00helpful right now. And, uh, I want to, uh, figure out what that is. I don't have an interest in
45:06being
45:07on TV to talk just so I can be on TV to talk. If there's a way that I feel
45:11like I can be helpful,
45:11I'm going to do it. Um, and that's going to guide me.
45:15We really appreciate you, um, deciding to talk to us here today. We've covered
45:19you for a long time. Um, we admire what looks like sort of standing strong in the face of
45:24withering attacks from the most powerful person in the country and our politics.
45:28And, uh, it's really a treat to get to talk to you. Thank you.
45:30Well, I really appreciate you having me. Thanks so much.
45:32Thank you for being here. If we ever get anything wrong though, you know,
45:34send up a flare, let us know. Sounds good.
45:36Thank you so much for being here. Uh, quick break for us. We'll be right back.
Comments