MS NOW EXCLUSIVE: Jack Smith breaks silence on Trump I FULL INTERVIEW

I stand by my decisions as special counsel,  including the decision to bring charges against. President Trump. Our investigation developed proof  beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump. engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether  to prosecute a former president based on the same. facts today, I would do so regardless of whether  that president was a Democrat or a Republican. No.

one no one should be above the law in this country  and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did. Hi again everybody. It's  now 5:00 here in Washington DC. This show Deadline. White House debuted the day that Donald Trump  fired Jim Comey. He fired him for refusing to. look the other way in the Mike Flynn case, among  other actions that Donald Trump viewed as annoying. and disloyal. Since that first broadcast, we have  endeavored to chronicle Donald Trump's vicious.

war against the rule of law in our country. And  no one understands what Trump's attacks against. the rule of law look like better than that man,  former special counsel Jack Smith. So much of what. we know about Donald Trump's efforts to undo his  defeat in the 2020 presidential election against. Joe Biden and his mishandling of some of the  country's most sensitive national security secrets. is because of the tireless work of Jack Smith and  his team. More than anyone else in the country,

he represented a threat to Donald Trump because  he followed the facts and they led him deep inside. Donald Trump's government and political coalition.  The facts reveal crimes and those crimes were. serious enough to represent a very real risk of  conviction at trial for Donald Trump. That's the. standard to indict somebody. And because of that  fact, Donald Trump has called Jack Smith horrible. things. A quote thug, a scoundrel, a criminal, and  a sick man. And we could actually go on and on,

but we don't want to waste our time that way.  Trump has threatened to prosecute him and Jack. Smith has made clear that he was just doing his  job. He would do it all over again if given the. chance. In his letter to Attorney General  Merrick Garland delivering his final report, he writes this quote, "The claim from Mr. Trump  that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced. or directed by the Biden administration or other  political actors is, in a word, laughable. While.

we were not able to bring the cases we charged to  trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up. for the rule of law matters. I believe the example  our team set for others to fight for justice. without regard for the personal costs matters. The  facts, as we uncovered them in our investigation. and as we set forth in my report matter. That's  where we start the hour. Joining us for his first. interview, former special counsel Jack Smith.  Thank you so much for doing this. Thank you so. much for having me. I asked you this when you  walked in and I'll ask you how weird is it to.

view it as part of your service to to tell the  story of the investigations you led. Yeah. Well, you know, I was a career prosecutor. I worked  in the Justice Department and other prosecutor's. offices for near on 30 years. And uh I don't  know if your viewers know this, but I worked. in Republican and Democratic administrations  over and over. I was the acting US attorney. uh in the first Trump administration in Nashville,  Tennessee. And that administration appointed me.

um to a position running a war crimes tribunal for  the State Department. Uh so I have investigated. cases focusing on the facts and the law throughout  my career. We did this case the same way under the. same standards. And you know, the thing that's  I think important for your viewers to know is. those standards are not meant to change from one  administration to the next. And in my experience. until now they haven't. Uh and so you know I think  we are facing an attack on the rule of law that is.

different in kind and scope to anything I've seen  in my lifetime. And one of the reasons I wanted. to be with you here today uh in advance of the 4th  of July celebrating the birth of a country that we. all love is to celebrate the public servants who  do this work. The people I spent my career working. shoulder-to-shoulder with. Um, I loved being a  prosecutor and part of it was I love being around. these sort of people and uh it angers me to see  them victimized uh to see them demonized for doing.

their jobs. Uh I think it's really important that  we stand up for them and let them know that there. are a lot of people out there who back them and  who are with them. And that's not just the people. who've been targeted and fired for no reason  for doing their jobs. It's also the people still. in the justice department today. Uh there are a  lot of good career prosecutors who right now are. working under incredibly difficult circumstances.  Uh and they're still trying to do the right thing.

And uh these are not self-promoters. These  are not people who are going to go out and. uh you know crow about their achievements. Uh  we need to uh hold them up and celebrate them. because they're part of what makes this country  great. Some of the agents, FBI agents that work. for you have been savaged um by Donald Trump and  Cash Patel. Um at least one agent um talked about. being fired while he was taking care of his very  very sick wife. Um what did you expect to happen.

to these agents and do you regret putting any  of them in that position? I feel terrible about. what has happened to them. And if there's one  thing I have spent my time on uh since leaving. my work as special counsel is doing what I can uh  to help and support them. Uh the individual you're. talking about um his he was nursing his wife who  was dying of cancer uh and they fired him shortly.

after she died. Uh I went to the funeral. That  funeral was filled with heroes. Public servants. on both families. And I just can't believe that if  people knew the character of these people I worked. with that they could ever stand for the demonizing  that's happened to them. It's just beyond anything. I can understand. And and my sense from from my  limited exposure to people in DOJ and the FBI from. my time in government is they don't really want  to go do other things. They want this to be their. life's work protecting the country's national  security. Um, will you talk a little bit about the.

the price people have paid who have been purged  for political purposes? Yeah, I mean, you know, a lot of the agents and prosecutors I've worked  with and and to be clear, not just in the special. counsel's office, uh, but throughout my career  in a bunch of different positions I've had in the. Justice Department, uh, this is the culmination of  what they wanted to do. It's why they went to law. school, uh, and it's their way of of serving our  country. And we've seen so many times in these, uh, retribution cases where prosecutors  wouldn't be a part of it. you know, prosecutors.

in Minnesota who are like, I'm not going to  investigate the family member of a shooting. victim. I'm not doing that. Um, prosecutors  who wouldn't go through with uh retribution um. prosecutions. And those people give up a lot. This  is their whole career. A lot of them, you know, this isn't a lucrative uh sort of profession for a  lawyer in terms of what uh you could do in private. practice. Um they have to support their families.  And one thing I have hope about is I I think the. traditions in the department, the people at draw  are so strong. Um that we're going to have to.

rehabilitate the department for sure, but there's  a lot of people still there, still in place, wanting to do the right thing, wanting to  follow the facts in the law, not be a part. of any retribution campaign. Uh, and I think for  me one of the things I see as I go around and talk. to folks and I try to travel around the country a  lot and see different people and talk to different. perspectives about this is that those people, it  really matters to them if they know they're being.

supported. Part of this campaign is to make people  feel like isolated and feel like they don't have. people backing them up. And so I just think it's  really important. I want to express my support. I. think everybody else should express their support.  Um, it's not it's something with meaning and it's. also something that matters. I mean, Chris Ray  was the director of the FBI when the FBI agents. that you're talking about went to work for you.  He said nothing. Why? You know, I I can't really. comment on other people's choices. I I I would  say would it help? Well, I I think my perspective.

on this is that in the moment we're in, which is  a pretty dire moment, right? What we're facing, that we should be uplifting the people who are  doing the right thing. And, you know, I'll give. you an example from from my life. I resign as  special counsel. Uh I know I need to get a lawyer. because the president has said he wants to jail  me uh for doing my job. And so I retain lawyers. Covington and Berlin. Uh as soon as that becomes  public, the president and the Justice Department. target that law firm and they do it because they  don't want me to have counsel. They don't want to.

rep have anyone represent me. And what happened  next was the very day that happened, Nicole, the lawyers at the firm called me up and said,  "Jack, don't worry about it. We're there for you.". They did not blink for a second. And as you know,  that's very different than how some other law. firms behaved. I think we should focus on things  like that and separating a firm like Coington and. Burling from other ones that didn't show courage  to come forward. Well, right. The ones that fought.

also have batted a thousand in the courts. I think  Judge Barl How described those executive orders as. giving her chills, chilling her to the bone. But  some of the giant law firms that were so central. in our politics in the first Trump term didn't  just capitulate to Trump. They're now working for. Trump's Justice Department. Firms like Paul Weiss  and others. What do you make of the damage they're. doing to our democracy at a moment you describe as  dire? Yeah. Well, I think one of the problems uh. I mean there's several layers, right? One of the  problems right today besides the the retribution.

prosecutions is that the Justice Department can't  do its job. Right. If you go to court, explain. that. Well, if you go to court and the judges  don't trust you, you can't do the basic things. that you need to do to represent the American  people in court. And we have seen judges across. the country uh say they can't trust prosecutors  anymore. And that has such a cascading effect on. any sort of case. uh and you know I can't count  how many opinions but one opinion like that in.

my career would have been seismic people could not  would not know what to do if a court said you know. trust that's been built over generations has been  lost in days right and that's happening every day. and so regardless of what you think politically  they're just not effective at doing their job. anymore they've jettisoned expertise right and  so we have a situation where we've got rid of. people who know how to protect our national  security and we think that that's somehow.

not going to have an effect on our national  security. Uh you know an example I can give you. uh Brian Driscoll I don't know if you know who  he is. He he was the he made a great video at. the beginning um to kind of rally the troops  that seemed from the outside. Yeah. I mean he's. a folk hero in the FBI if you were casting for  a hero. That's what they look for. Right. Right. Um, and and just for for your viewers, uh, this is  a guy, career agent, you know, mob investigator, SWAT team, hostage rescue, served overseas,  medal of value, bravery medals, all these things,

and an expert in counter intelligence. They got  rid of him because he stood up for agents who. were being targeted improperly. You can't tell  me. You cannot tell me our country is as safe. as it was when people like that are being let go  and fired for no reason. Well, the purge seems to. have multiple tentacles. It's for FBI agents and  prosecutors who worked on your two cases. It's. also for people who aren't doing the personal  political bidding of the individuals there. I.

think Mr. Bob started that in the short time he  was there. Cash Patel, based on news accounts, seems to be carrying that out for deeply personal  conduct. What does that mean for the people who. were there because it was their life's dream to  do that work to protect the country? What are. they doing instead? Yeah. I mean, it's very tough  because, you know, the people we're talking about, these people I spent my career with that I I've so  enjoyed their company and I have both respect and. affection for, they're resilient people, right?  And they're not going to quit at this first sign.

of resistance. And so, as I say, as many as these  examples have seen where people have just said, "I'm not going to be a part of that. Um, because  of their integrity, because of their character, there are a lot of people still in place." And,  and I want to be clear, these are not people. who are like throwing sand in the gears. They're  just doing their job as they're supposed to do it, following the facts and the law. But is that  because they haven't run into any friction from. the politization and the weaponization cases?  Yeah, I think that's right. Right. I mean, I think you know what I tell friends who are  still in the department is serve as long as.

you can. Uh the Justice Department, our country  needs the Justice Department to do its job and. you should do it as long as you feel like you can  and obviously if you're asked to do something that. you know is wrong, then your numbers up and  you can't do it. I I would also add, Nicole, I think one of the things that maybe isn't being  talked about enough is the effect it is having on. the Justice Department in the future. You know,  this last year, I've done uh a lot of speaking. at law schools and universities, and you know, it  used to be that getting a job in the US attorney's.

office and the Justice Department was, you know,  one of the most soughtafter things you could. possibly have. And great people who want to serve  their communities and serve their countries. That. was their dream. That was that was my dream as  a as a as a young person. Uh those people, I can. tell you, are are not as interested and they're  looking to do other things. And my concern is that. that is, you know, the Justice Department works.  I learned from mentors who f who came before me.

and then I tried to do the same and teach those  that followed me. Uh when you break that chain, it's a real problem. And so I I tell people when  I go to these universities and into law schools, don't give up on it. Don't I I even if  you don't like what's going on right now, uh there's a much longer uh path here and we need  you if you want to serve. um for you, I guess. resilience, you're going to have a little earlier  in your career. Uh but I don't want people to to.

get away from service as a result of this because  I think that's a that's a knock-on effect that'll. be much harder to solve than some of the things  that we're seeing in the headlines every day. But I'm sure these people that listen to you speak  admire you and your in your career and the things. you've been a part of. Do you think that this is a  department that you could send someone to go work. in and they could be asked to indict you? Oh, I I  think that could happen. But I also think in the. Justice Department, even as we sit here right  now, there are lots of people doing good work,

prosecuting violent crime, protecting their  communities, doing the everyday work of being. a prosecutor. Uh, and yes, it could happen. That  could happen and that would be unfortunate and. then you might have to step down. But I don't  want to see uh people run from public service. because of that possibility. Do you expect to be  indicted? Listen, I Donald Trump has made a bunch. of statements. He said he would indict you.  Yes. I'll tell you, Nicole, I honestly do not. spend a lot of time thinking about the things  he says about me and his threats about me. Um,

I'm real focused on the people who I worked with,  looking out for them. I'm real focused on how the. Justice Department's going to be better going  forward, things like that. In my situation, I did my job the right way. I had a allstar  team. I mean, Nicole, the agents on my case, if I were to walk you through all the awards  they've won throughout, you know, generations of. administrations, we would be here all night. These  were superstars. And I'm much more concerned that.

those people um get to serve in the department,  get to serve in the bureau again someday. What do. you say about the facts that you developed that  you see? I know you don't watch a ton of news, but but you see enough to know that the the the  basic principle of recidivism likely applies to. the election case. The things that you charge are  a lot of the same kinds of stories we cover. What. is the cost of someone not being held accountable  for their crimes? Yeah. I mean, if talk about the.

pardons of these these uh people convicted for the  violence on January 6th, right? There's all sorts. of costs. Um there's the obvious cost of just  recidivism. um these are people who committed. their crimes in the name and in the interest of  Donald Trump and he's returned the favor right. by pardoning them. Uh that sends one message to  them. I a message I'm equally concerned about is. the message that it sends to law enforcement.  Um supporting law enforcement should not be a. political issue. It should not be a Republican  Democrat redue thing. And when I see people like.

Harry uh Harry Dunn who was here before uh who put  his life on the line to protect others and seeing. him be smeared and vilified uh I don't understand  that that is and I think more people who. understand the actual facts of that I don't think  most people are okay with that. Um it's deeply. wrong and I I have a concern because we've seen  that sort of thing in the incentives it's set up. What do you make of the fact, do you support  this theory that the pardons were step one,

the slush fund is step two in sending a message to  the violent insurrectionists that not only would. they not be criminally accountable for their  crimes, but they'd be paid for their service? Yeah. Listen, I have no uh unique insight on that.  I see the same things you see. um regardless of. whether it sets a an incentive system that  you're suggesting, uh it's just plain wrong, right? I mean, our country is built on values.  That's what binds us all together. And I my.

view has always been that those values don't have  anything to do with political parties. Um when I'm. a prosecutor and I have to get credibility, build  credibility with a judge or a witness or a jury, right? It's not about politics. It's about  truthfulness, integrity, being decent to each. other, exhibiting kindness, judgment. Um, I think  those are the things that bind us together. And. those are the sort of things we should lean into.  Like I I I feel like personally, as divided as we.

are, if we lean into issues of integrity um  more, that that's the best hope to get people. more back together than we are now. Do you think  we still have a common definition of integrity? I I think we I think we do, but I I also for me  personally, if I'm going to have that discussion, like I said, I I travel around and I go to  places where people don't expect me to be. I I do. uh events, athletic events where I travel, and  I'll be in like rural areas or different parts.

of our country and people will come up and talk,  endurance sporting events, right? Yeah. I do ride. bikes, things like that. But I I go out in these  places and I talk to different people. people come. up to me and it's it's interesting because they  don't expect me to be there. And I have to say the. vast majority of people are really appreciative  of of my service and the service of our team, but even when they're not, um, if you engage in a  discussion with people and you're open to hearing. them and not just kind of telling them what you  think, I I actually do think that people agree.

that integrity is a good thing. Do they believe  that the crimes that do they do they believe. the facts? I mean, do do they ask you about the  cases you brought and do they believe you? Well, it depends on who you're talking about, but often  the people who are more skeptical know less about. the facts. And I think one of the things uh that's  hard for me in this process is, you know, I'm a. facts guy. Facts matter. Um really big on that.  And uh and you know, when you go in a courtroom, that's all that matters, right? And so, and you  know that you're going to get your turn to present.

the facts and then they can present theirs. And  there's a process. Mhm. Um how we communicate. with each other right now. It's very hard to do  that. It's very foreign to someone like me who. was raised as a prosecutor. Do your talking in a  courtroom, not on the courtroom steps. And uh I. think that's harder because a lot of the people  I think who uh have resistance to what we do, they're just not versed in in the facts. And you  know, not everybody wants to read a 100 whatever. page report. I get it. Um but I think you know  this goes to the DOJ going forward. My view is.

that going forward I I think we can't get away  from the issues of integrity and doing things. the right way and facts and law. But I also think  people like me who kind of were raised on that. and know that we got to start listening more to  people who know how to communicate and and choose. to communicate more in innovative ways because  a lot of the people that I bump into and talk to. um no one's tried to communicate with them. No  one's tried to give them the facts in a way that's.

actually easy for them to digest. And so, you  know, very foreign to a courtroom guy like me. Yeah. Uh but I think it's a a step that we got  to be talking about. I mean, this was the the. the challenge of the Mueller findings, right? You  know, here it was. It kind of landed like a phone. book and that was just volume one. Um and no one  explained it and no one defended it and and Trump. and his supporters were able to misrepresent it  in a single news cycle. Was that on your mind as. you did your work in these two cases? Honestly,  no. Um, I my job was to do my job the right way.

and when it came time to write a report to write a  report that summarized accurately what I did. Um, I didn't really think about stuff like that  and you know I I understand your point about. Robert Mueller but I I think Robert Mueller is an  American hero. I mean how he conducted his life. serving our country in the military um service  throughout as the FBI uh as a prosecutor. I mean, the story I like about Robert Mueller is this  is a guy who did everything you could do as a.

lawyer. He's a partner at a big law firm making a  million bucks or more. And he wants to go back and. be a line prosecutor in San Francisco, right? Uh,  no. He was be in DC to be a homicide prosecutor. I mean, that's such a badass thing to do. I  mean, I in my world, that's really a cool thing. And so, you know, I maybe, as you say, like how  that rolled out, he was working from a different. era. Uh, and that's why I say we got to get  better at that, but I don't want to lose the. core of functioning with integrity and doing  what's good for the country rather than what's.

good for you. Do you agree that we are covering  in real time an assault on our elections, the. upcoming months? I'm I'm very concerned of what's  going to happen in the next election. Absolutely. Do you see again in in in things that are covered  in things that are public facing conduct ahead of. the midterms that you investigated on January  in the January 6 case? Well, I've been thinking. about it more in terms of what needs to be done  based on what we saw happen last time and you.

know it's a different situation now based on  you know the people who perpetrated January. 6. They probably learned from how they did that.  Uh my personal view is I think the state attorney. generals have a tremendous role to play here. Um  they can make sure the rule of law functions in. their state and I I would also say that I think  a thing that all of us can do is support election. workers and election officials. Um the last  time around um we saw that those people stood.

firm and they were in many cases the difference.  Um it's clear to me anyways that what I've seen. publicly that those people are going to be put  under great pressure and uh my experience um not. only just as special counsel but you know I was  the chief of the public integrity section at the. department of justice for 5 years uh had number  of cases with election officials. Um these are. people also they're not tooting their own horn.  They're not self-promoters. They just care about. our democracy. We need to show them that we have  their back. I think those two things are central.

um to getting ready for the the elections that are  coming up. What is your advice to state attorney. Storml? I would be ready to litigate everything.  I would brainstorm and I and I think they are. I. get that sense. Um every possible uh permutation  uh and don't let um reason be a limitation. Um. imagine everything that could possibly be tried  that Trump will do. Yeah. And I also think it's. important for them to be proactive and you know  initiate litigation uh where it's appropriate and.

where it would make sense to you if you have  a sense or reason to believe that something's. going to be done to interfere with people's  right to vote and participate in democracy. the strength of the evidence that you and your  investigators developed um is at least as detailed. in the report that was released seems to be that  you were able to develop and I'll say this as a. non- lawyer sort of the the the 360 evidence that  you understood the state of mind. You had evidence.

that Trump knew he was lying. There were all sorts  of interactions where he said to people, "Well, that national security issue will be dealt with by  Joe Biden because I lost." that he said to another. aid, quote, "I can't believe I lost to that guy."  So, you were able to establish, and I think the. congressional committee established some of this  as well, people that he acknowledged losing to. How much of the ability to hold people accountable  is based on being able to see inside meetings and.

and have witnesses that cooperate. And I guess  I'm getting back to the pardon conversation we. just had. I mean, how much do you think Trump has  learned in terms of how to evade an indictment. like the one you brought? Yeah, I I I think  the one thing to to start on this on this sort. of topic is we did this case the way I've done  cases throughout my career. Same investigative. techniques, same use of the tools that a federal  prosecutor has. And our proof was the same sort. of proof you have in all sorts of cases, not just  uh political corruption cases, uh but all sorts.

of cases I've done in my career. You prove what  happened. you prove um the intent of the person. and you also are thoughtful about what's the  defense going to be and can we disprove that. because if you can't then you can't prove a case  beyond a reasonable doubt. Uh and we did that. We did that in this case. Um it wasn't unique  in terms of how we did it. It was the same sort. of processes you'd use in any case. and around  speech. Um, one of the things that the right used.

to say before Trump came back into office was uh  to champion first amendment protected speech. One. of the things that I understood better when I read  this again um to prepare to talk to you was that. speech in furtherance of crimes is not protected.  I mean, how much do you think people should just. be monitoring and tracking the things people are  saying out loud in terms of stealing the midterms? Yeah, I mean that and that's maybe a good  point for your viewers is there is rockolid. Supreme Court president that you cannot just use  speech to commit a crime. Fraud particularly,

there's a specific case on it. Um and so obviously  people have a first amendment right and and I. think we made clear in our indictment that we  respect first amendment rights. Uh it's certainly. important to me that we not charge a case that  would in essence be violating someone rights. Uh. but that doesn't mean that you can't commit crimes  through words. uh happens all the time. Um when a. when a Ponzi scheme person is uh bulking someone  out of their life savings, they're doing it with. words. That's how that's done. Um all sorts of  financial crimes, all sorts of corruption crimes,

a bribe is usually communicated in words. Um  that happens all the time and in a lot of ways, this case was no different. I was also reminded  that after the Supreme Court grants Donald Trump. immunity, you file a superseding indictment.  You're still ready to bring the case to trial, right? Yeah. Correct. Ex explain how you had to  adjust and what that adjustment was. Sure. And and. and we set this forth in our report. Um you know,  we did what good prosecutors do and what you're.

supposed to do. We received a decision from the  court. It wasn't the decision we wanted. We didn't. agree with the reasoning of it. But in a society  where you believe in the rule of law, you follow. the court's decisions. And so we analyzed the  decision and we looked at what sort of evidence. we could no longer use and what sort of evidence  we could use. And because and and we set this. forth in filings because in this particular case  uh a lot of the evidence was him in his role as a. candidate. Uh we felt we could go forward and we  briefed this issue for the court and obviously we.

never got to a conclusion where we could litigate  um the ultimate conclusion of that. uh but we. would not have gone forward with the case unless  I still felt we could prove it beyond a reasonable. doubt just like we wouldn't have gone forward with  the case uh in the first place if we couldn't and. and I I guess one point I would want to emphasize  there is I think a difference between the work we. did and what you're seeing today is uh in our  work there was no predetermined outcome when.

I took this job I was perfectly happy to bring  this case if the facts and law warranted it or. not and I've done that throughout my career And it  hasn't mattered what person's political party was. uh to do that. That's how we went about our  work. Uh completely apolitical. Politics did. not play a role. Were you kind of hoping that the  criminality wasn't as brazen as what you developed. and uncovered? I don't think good prosecutors hope  you follow the facts in the law and uh you know, one of the one of the good principles that real  prosecutors always follow is the facts matter.

And you don't not go down an avenue because oh  maybe some facts will come out that will hurt. my case. Um you go and look all the facts you  possibly can as searching as you possibly can. uh because you want to get it right. Uh that I  just that contrasts to what we're seeing today. where there is a predetermined outcome. Process  doesn't matter and we just have to find a way to. get to that outcome. And if there's facts that  don't fit that outcome, we we don't recognize.

them. And if there's facts that um make it not a  crime, we just pretend those don't exist. I mean, a judge basically said that in the Kilmar or Rego  Garcia case said that he found that this was a a. an instance where basically criminality was being  reverse engineered all the way up to Todd Blanch. If a judge has found that, what do you think  they're capable of with two more years? Well, I as I I said earlier, I from my perspective  have seen a number of cases. James Comey,

Leticia James, Jerome Powell, I mean, right?  Um, there there's not criminality here. I mean, seashells. I mean, so the only reasonable  explanation is the president has it out for. these people and he has people who his former  personal lawyers who are going to do what he. says regardless of the facts of the law. I  mean, you know, again, just to juxtapose it, um, I didn't have people on my team resigning  because they refused to go along with a scheme to.

go after somebody. That was not what happened.  Um, you see that in all these cases. Um, and just again imagine if you would like I  was appointed from outside the government, no political allegiance to anybody, and they  were comfortable with Jack, wherever you think. the facts and law dictate, that's what we'll  do. And that's what'll happen. Can you imagine. that happening now? If there was an allegation of  corruption in this administration, them saying, "Let's appoint an outside independent person  to make a call on this." I think we know it.

would never happen. And I think that's a real  easy way to differentiate, following process, following the facts, having independence. If you  were if you took the name of our country off it. and you were just examining the state of the rule  of law in America, is it dead? I don't think so at. all. and and for the reasons I said earlier.  Um there are legions of career prosecutors, people just like me, you just don't know their  name, who are want to do the right thing. They're.

in the Justice Department. They want to serve.  Um we have a lot of challenges in front of us. and the rehabilitation of the department is not  going to be any mean feat. Um you know, recovering. character is a lot harder than gaining it in the  first place. Uh but I think we're totally capable. of doing that. I'm optim completely optimistic.  We've talked about the dedicated public servants. in the department in the FBI that worked on your  cases. Um, one of them you can't talk about and.

that's all of the a and these are some of the ones  that Trump has raged against most ferociously and. that is um the prosecutors and agents involved  in the documents case. Just explain why you can't. talk about that. Yeah, there there's an order  uh from the judge in Florida, Judge Cannon, that that report is under seal, and I don't want  to do anything that could be misconstrued as me. not following a court order. I'm a lawyer who  follows court orders, and so uh I just don't want. to do anything that would be remotely construed as  not complying with her order. Let me just ask the.

things that you've said publicly about standing  by the facts that you developed and standing by. what you've put in your reports, you stand by  volume two. Absolutely. And the men and women. who worked on those cases have been targeted  with some of the most vicious retribution and. political attacks. Um, are they political actors?  Absolutely not. For the ones that are I mean, have any of them survived the purge at the  bureau and the department of justice? Uh, I don't think that's really for me to say. Uh, I  think the uh I'm focused on the people I can help.

and that's what I've been trying to do. All right.  Okay. We don't we don't want to jeopardize any of. those individuals and we don't want to put you  in a bad spot with Judge Ailen Cannon. You think. there's any chance she ends up on the Supreme  Court? I have no views on that whatsoever. Um. we we'll we'll all watch that with baited breath.  Um I want to share some reporting from my friend. Glenn Thrush at the New York Times who's covered  some of the folks that you've talked about. Um and. sort of come back to what's on the other side. Uh  Cash Patel sumearily fired Chris Meyer and another.

top agent in the Washington DC field office  who had been targeted by the right uh uh Walter. Gordina. Mr. Patel did so after being told that  the terminations were unlawful and that pushing. out Mr. Gordina who was caring for his dying wife,  something you talked about, would be inexcusably. cruel. According to a lawsuit filed by three FBI  supervisors, also dismissed by Cash Patel. quote, "We were always told that we would be taken  care of and there would not be any retaliation.

for our assigned work." Mr. Gardina 48 told his  supervisors the day he was fired, the circle of. trust had been broken. I I want to ask you about  this concept of a circle of trust because as. we talked about with the pardons and the slush  fund, Trump seems to be erecting again what is. public facing, a circle of trust with people who  committed crimes for which they were convicted by. juries of their peers. Um, not just pardoning  them, but giving them money. That circle of. trust doesn't do anything for the public, for the  public safety or for US national security. How do.

you begin to put back together a circle of trust  between public servants who protected the country. from threats? Yeah. I I I think for me the biggest  thing we can do, and it's it's challenging, is to get the facts out in ways that people can  digest them. I think if you have a question of. is a rioter who assaulted a police officer on  January 6th a patriot or is Harry Dunn a patriot, uh, we win that argument every time if people have  the facts. And I think it's hard and and you know,

as a prosecutor who worked in a courtroom and  and didn't really work in the media and didn't, you know, want to give a speech on the courthouse  steps, uh I think we've now learned that you got. to be able to get people to understand the facts.  We've got a great uh product in the the work that. we did as a special counsel, the work the Justice  Department does every day. Um but the people who. do it, who are really the reason you can trust it,  um they don't promote themselves. And so we need.

to get their stories out there. I think if that  happens um the sort of trust uh in government, which is pretty hard to earn, you can do that. Um  that's my experience as a trial lawyer. It's my. experience in life when I interact with people  in the world. And part of the reason I frankly. wanted to talk to you today is to talk about  these people because they're good people. And. if you sat down with them for a coffee or a beer  or a meal, you would like them and you would trust. them and you would see the things that are being  said about them are lies. And in my experience,

which is dated, none of them are particularly  political. I don't know the politics of any of. these people. That's not something we talk about  in the Justice Department. What does it do to the. ability to imagine something on the other side  that isn't a reaction to what's happening now? I mean, everyone from all the reporting that  that we have access to um is only doing the. kind of work you're talking about if they've avoid  being asked to do something that violates their. oath or is unethical or is part of the retribution  cases or um is predicated on Trump's conspiracies,

as we covered at the top of the hour, a massive  deployment of of intelligence agents to go look at. data in Georgia based on a lie. Um, what happens  on the other side to people that were involved. in that misdirection of resources? Well, you know,  one thing I don't like is this idea that everybody. who did things we don't like, they're guilty of  crimes, too, and we're going to prosecute them.

It should be the facts and the law, and you should  look at um not uh uh let's find this person and. let's find if if they let's target them and see  if we can find a crime. That's what's happening. now. I think it's really important that whoever  leads the Justice Department after this rejects. that sort of thinking. Um, that doesn't mean that  people who have committed crime should get a free. pass. Um, and it's going to be difficult. I I  actually think the investigation of these things. isn't hard. What's hard is getting people to  understand it's been done in an objective way. Um,

explaining in a way that people can digest that  things are done following the facts in the law and. don't involve politics. That's a challenge. doing  the actual work. There's lots of people out there. who've spent their careers like I have who are  capable of doing that work. Um not just not just. cases in the political realm, but particularly  cases also affecting our national security. Um I. I I spent a lot of time worrying about that when  I see some of the people who have been fired.

when you feel optimistic about our ability to come  through and about the caliber of the people who. are inside the department, um what do you think  and do you feel as optimistic about a country that. would reelect someone for whom the facts showed  he'd committed multiple felonies? My view, Nicole, is our country's been a lot of things at a lot  of different times. And what generally happens. is when something really bad happens, Watergate  for example, uh we respond and we get better as a.

result. Uh I'm not saying the Justice Department  has been perfect every day, but the people I. worked with, I saw people trying to move things  in the right direction. And I I think it would be. uh foolish to say we're not facing challenges  right now. But when you face a challenge like. we are today, uh you have a choice about the  attitude you take towards it. Um, anyone can. put anything on you, but you have a choice about  the attitude you take. Uh, for me, and I think a. lot of the people that I've worked with, our view  is I want to behave now in a way that my kids will.

be proud. Yeah. I want to act in a way that when  I'm retired, I look back on this time and say, I did things right. Uh, I think a lot of people  relate to that. And I think it's understandable. And I think if we start aligning actions with  our beliefs, um, it's a huge, huge step. I think. one of the things I've seen, which is the sort of  journey I've been on, is, you know, with me being.

targeted by the president, um, you get to find  out who's who, right? You get to find out who. runs toward the fire, who kind of backs away. Um,  it's difficult in the moment, but I think for the. future that's going to be really helpful to know.  Are you afraid to be speaking out? No, not at. all. I'm not I am not going to be intimidated. Uh,  and there's no way in the world if if the thought. was to to go after me so that I wouldn't speak up  about the corruption that's happening or speak up. to defend these agents and prosecutors, that is a  grave miscalculation. There is no way I'm going to.

be intimidated. Would it help the bureau and the  Department of Justice if more of the leaders above. the chain of command above you spoke out with the  same messages, Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco? I'm not going to forecast what other people can  do or tell other people how they should handle a. particular situation. Everyone's got to make their  own particular choice. My my strong view is rather. than sort of critiquing people who haven't done  what we might like them to do. Um and good high.

integrity people who serve the public, spend their  careers in public service, let's focus on when we. see somebody doing a good thing, we raise them up.  Uh, I think that's a more productive way to face. the challenge we're facing right now. I want to  ask you about some of your earlier work at DOJ. You worked in public integrity, which somewhere  someone has all of their office supplies, right? And this week we reported that Donald Trump  rading to the White House. It's such a perversion.

of everything that's come before it. What do  you make or what do you think when you think. about the gutting of all of the prosecutors that  used to investigate and prosecute those crimes? Yeah, I'm I'm saddened by it because when I was  uh at public integrity, when I was the chief of. the section, and this was a a section that was  created in the wake of Watergate as one of the. reforms after Watergate to deal with corruption  in the government. Uh we did good work. We did. important work. We did nonpartisan work and  seeing that section gut gutted uh saddens me.

Uh but I have to say at the same time that started  because the attorneys in that section stood up. uh when the Adams case in New York um that they  forced the dismissal of a completely legitimate. case that the prosecutors in the Southern  District of New York brought uh and they. tried to force public integrity to sort of lend  their credibility to the dismissal. Um that's what. I'm talking about about people of integrity. You  know, the Southern District prosecutors I don't.

know that but they left. I mean they're not in  the department anymore, right? But my point is. there's people like that throughout the department  and there's people who are going to continue to. stand up. I I have a I have a huge allegiance to  them and I have a huge affection for them and I. know they're out there and I just want to make  sure they all hear us. Uh because this is going. to go on for a while. Um the path to victory here  is not a short one and I think the people in place. who are doing their jobs, the people who stood  up, we should we should um celebrate them just. like we're celebrating the 4th of July. These are  the people who make this country great in my view.

Is this the beginning of speaking out on their  behalf more regularly, more frequently? Will you. come back? You know, this is new for me, Nicole.  Uh uh we'll see. You know, I I'm trying, you know, I was a prosecutor for for 30 years, and I'm  in a different world now. I started a law firm, as I think, you know, with uh our friend Tim  Hayy and uh I want to do whatever I can to be. helpful right now. And uh I want to uh figure out  what that is. I don't have an interest in being.

on TV to talk just so I can be on TV to talk. If  there's a way that I feel like I can be helpful, I'm going to do it. Um, and that's going  to guide me. We really appreciate you um, deciding to talk to us here today. We've covered  you for a long time. Um, we admire what looks like. sort of standing strong in the face of withering  attacks from the most powerful person in the. country in our politics. And it's really a treat  to get to talk to you. Thank you. Well, I really. appreciate you having me. Thanks so much. Thank  you for being here. If we ever get anything wrong. though, you know, send up a flare, let us know.  Sounds good. Thank you so much for being here.