Trump's Stunning Humiliation Over AG Exposed | The Daily Beast Podcast

Todd Blanche may eventually get through. It is, I think, useful to have the senators. say there is a line beyond which I will not cross. The thing that's remarkable to me, Joanna, is this is the holdup? I mean, Todd Blanche has been found by a federal judge to engage. in vindictive prosecution. I do think that the level of scrutiny for the attorney general. should be higher than for other cabinet level officials.

If you believe that the role is supposed to be. independent as a de facto independent, even though the Constitution. doesn't say that the person is independent. I'm Joanna Coles, this is the Daily Beast podcast, and today we have one of my favorite guests, Andrew Weissmann, who is the former general counsel of the FBI. He worked with Robert Mueller on the Russia investigation, and he's the author of the number one bestselling book, Liar's Kingdom.

But today we're talking to him about Todd Blanche and Donald Trump's decision. to hold back the confirmation process because Thom Tillis, the senator. from North Carolina, and John Cornyn from Texas are refusing to confirm him. What does Andrew think about that? We're also going to be talking to him about the 86-47. seashell threat to Donald Trump, posted by James Comey. What's happening there and the strange.

use of the Mafia and Sammy the Bull, who Andrew used to frequently. put on the stand as an expert witness, and his, well, his description of what. it was like interviewing Sammy the Bull I found completely riveting. And then we're going to talk about. this move and this Senate's unanimous vote that Ghislaine Maxwell. should not be pardoned for her 20 year sentence for sex trafficking.

So just before we get into what I found to be a really gripping conversation, a quick reminder please subscribe to the Daily Beast podcast wherever you get them. If you haven't done, and subscribe to the website where we keep you up to date. Moment by moment with the crazy that's going on out there. anyway, press the subscription button. Join us. We're independent media and now let's get into it with Andrew Weissman.

Most people use Claude like it's a fancy version of Google. That's like owning a Ferrari and driving it at five miles an hour. They open it up, see the models haiku, sonnet, opus and freeze, but. never find out what Claude can actually do because Claude isn't a chat bot anymore. It's how people build apps, automate their entire week, and ship work. that used to take a whole team, often without writing a single line of code. If you use Claude chat every day but freeze the seconds.

someone says Claude code or coworker, you're in the right place. Because I just found the Claude AI Mastery Workshop. It's a full, deep dive into Claude. It's real use cases and ten plus other. AI tools happening this weekend ten till seven EST, and they have been generous enough to make it free of cost for my audience. So go register through the link. In two days you'll do deep research with Claude, create full presentations,

get hands on with Claude code, build custom agents and walk away. able to put your whole week on autopilot? Sign up now and you also get three free. bonuses, 50 secret Claude codes, a full AI prompt library, and a personalized AI toolkit builder. What you'll learn in two days will change your next two years. Sign up now! Before they sell out, scan the QR and join the WhatsApp community before seats close.

Andrew Weissman first of all, welcome. Secondly, where are you? It looks as if you are in some kind of holding cell. Please don't tell me that this administration has finally gotten to you. Not yet. So I'm still free as a bird. And where am I? I am at miss now, at their studios. Because when I finish this with you, Joanna, I'm going to jump on air. Okay, well, just as well.

Just as long as you're. not in some kind of holding cell in some hellish American jail somewhere. That's good. So we're recording this on Thursday afternoon. It looks as if Donald Trump is going to hold back the nomination. for Todd Blanche until his two Republican holdouts, John Cornyn from Texas and Thom Tillis from North Carolina, roll out of office because he refused to endorse them. And they got primaried.

As we as we all kind of know how bad of a blow. is this to Todd Blanche and how bad of a blow is it to Donald Trump. and and. how bad of a blow is it to the American people? Well of course, yes. Okay. Very well, very well answered. You know, look, Todd, Blanche may eventually get through. It is, I think, useful to have the senators. say there is a line, you know, beyond which I will not cross.

Remember, there are two parts to the bogus settlement. And when I use bogus, that is the federal a federal judge found. that this whole $10 billion lawsuit was bogus and not. and this was not, in fact, a quote unquote settlement, in fact. And this was the this was the case against the IRS. for humiliating Trump by releasing part of his tax returns. Yeah, actually. And it wasn't really the IRS. It was a contractor who unauthorized release stuff.

Now that's bad, but it obviously didn't cost $10 billion in damage. And it wasn't sanctioned by the IRS. But there were two parts to the quote unquote, settlement. One was this fund to that was, you know, all reporter was going to be used to pay criminals. And by the way, the Department of Justice. has now been doing that, but not using the fund. They've been using other funds. But there was a second part to the alleged settlement,

and that was this general release that only Todd Blanch signed, the acting attorney general giving an audit. release of tax liability for Donald Trump, his family and his companies. And notably, the president seemed to be fine, saying, hey, I'll give up the fund because that's money. That's not going to me. But when it comes to the tax audit, you know, like, I'll be damned if I'm giving up something for me that I got. And so that seems to be.

the sticking point that, that, you know, that's the thing that Todd Blanche. either isn't willing to give up or isn't willing to give up, because Donald Trump isn't willing to give it up. And you could understand why not just these two senators, but frankly, it should be all senators should be upset. Just imagine if the shoe were on the foot and this was a Democratic. president saying, you know, I want unilateral immunity. The thing that's remarkable to me, Joanna, is this is the holdup.

I mean, Todd, Blanche, as we have discussed in the past, has been found. by a federal judge to engage in vindictive prosecution. He was referred in terms of his conduct to a disciplinary board. He, in my view, is obstructed. The independent investigation of Alex Purdy and Renee Good, the two people who were killed in Minnesota. I mean, there's there's a litany of things. And, you know, this feels a little bit like, okay, they found something.

But you would think at any rational world there would have been sort of, you know, A to Z on why it is that he should not be confirmed. Okay. So so you said two things there I want to follow up on. First is. the fund that they are paying criminals out of. So where is that money coming from. So the 1.8 billion is sort of suspended for now.

Right? Right. This is to go to people. Let's just remind everybody that Trump. believes or a committee of people that he's setting up, believes were harmed. by the Biden administration using the DOJ as a weapon against them. And this would include the January 6th, as some of whom attacked policemen. I mean, it's so difficult to get your head. around the idea that we would be giving.

tax payers money to those people. How do these payments get sanctioned? How do they get through Congress or the Senate? Sure. So great question. And yes, it is hard to understand because it's one thing for the president. to pardon these people because in the Constitution he has that unilateral power. But now it's not only do I want to pardon you, but I want to pay you. like, like talk about like sort of doubling down well,

and pay you for chasing your own party through the halls of Congress. I mean, we've all seen those videos of the of the senators and the Congress people. looking terrified and people who had due. process in many cases have pleaded guilty and have said from their own lips. under oath that they are guilty or went to trial, as is their right to be clear. But a jury found them guilty and they have a right to appeal, etc. and these are people. who were adjudicated criminals and as you noted, for serious crimes.

So how can they do this? I always thought that, you know, that what the administration would do is say, okay, we're not going to create one big global fund of $1.776 billion, but the Department of Justice is other parts of money. So one pot of money is something called the Federal Tort Claims Act. And what they, the Department of Justice has been doing is using that. And in a way that's less sort of a lightning rod, because it can be.

sort of dribbled out in small, small cuts and doses. So we have already seen, for instance, Michael Flynn got over $1 million. just the other day, another convicted defendant. got reportedly hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that can get partial out under this Federal Claims Act. And in some ways, it's sort of like a smarter political strategy. because it doesn't have this sort of label that people can sort of latch on to, as well as the genesis of it being this, this bogus settlement.

And so there is this other pot of money that the Department of Justice has. And to be clear, Congress has the power because they have the power. of the purse to say, stop it. We do not want it. But right now, the sort of the. That would. take Congress to sort of pull back the funds right now, the sort of default is that the DOJ has the funds and can use them.

Well. And so I understand this is a political humiliation for Donald Trump. But but just explain to us what is the difference in practical terms, in actual terms between being an acting attorney general. and being the attorney general? Is this is this humiliating for Todd Blanche? And so the the actual difference is. truly nonexistent.

It is a question of. the message it sends and the sort of. the humiliation to the president and to Todd Blanche, because, you know, they do have a majority of Republicans in the Senate. And it means that even though they have the majority, they cannot muster. the necessary votes here because they have gone too far. Now, as you pointed out, two of the senators who are objecting. are going to eventually, you know, go by the wayside.

And so this could all. take on a different hue in several months. But in the meantime, he will be acting, or Donald. Trump could try and put a different person in as acting. So Todd Blanche could go back to being a deputy attorney general, and another person could be reprised as the acting attorney general. We'll wait and see. But I do think it is. It is for a president who has basically.

wiped the floor with the Senate and the House. It is a loss. It is a loss. You know, his first attempt at attorney general with Matt Gaetz, the congressman from Florida, also bit the dust. Is there something about the role of attorney general. that sort of triggers people, or is it is it just these two candidates? I think it's a little bit of both. I think what you see is that the concern is that the role of attorney general,

traditionally post-Watergate in Democratic and Republican administrations, is that they are not the same as other cabinet level officials in that. they have an obligation to the public, they work for the public, and you do not do anything and everything that the president wants. just because he has the power to do it. So specifically, who to target?

You know, James Comey, I'm sure we'll talk about is like a classic, you know, now or who not to target. Meaning I don't want you to go after people who are engaged. in criminality because they're friends or they're in the right party. And so I do think that the level. of scrutiny for the attorney general. should be higher than for other cabinet level officials. If you believe that the role is supposed to be independent.

as a de facto independent, even though the Constitution doesn't say. that the person is defendant is independent. right now, who can forget that slip of Todd Blanche's tongue when asked. if he was a friend of the president and he said, I am the president's lawyer. And then he quickly moved on and said, I am the acting attorney. general or whatever. He said, so, well, let's talk about James Comey.

So, so can you bring us up to speed with what's going on? And and also, again, one just finds it remarkable that we're in this moment. because a 65 year old man posted. some seashells on on his social media, following which, again, I find, frankly quite bizarre that James Comey, former head of the FBI, would do that. Nonetheless, what's happened since he made that post, I mean, feels like a.

sort of Sci-Fi or it feels like a dystopian drama. It does, and it's laughable if it weren't so serious. And to bring people quickly up to speed. James Comey was originally indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia for lying. That case was thrown out, as was the case of Letitia James, the the New York. Attorney General, because of the improper appointment of the US attorney. There's a lot to say there about that. But those cases are on appeal where the government saying, please.

put those back. In the meantime, what we have learned in connection. with this second indictment, the eight six, four seven indictment, is that James Comey sees there's on the seashore. with his wife, takes a picture post. That is, there's a lot of sort of right wing blowback. saying that this is a threat. James Comey immediately takes it down. He is he is asked to be interviewed by the Secret Service.

He is or the FBI. He does do the interview. He says, I had no idea that's what it that that's what people understood it to be. So he took it took that down. He apologized and said, you know, of course I don't believe in violence. And then we wait a year. And what we've learned is that Todd. Blanch was very much sort of behind, sort of orchestrating. that this needs to be done, even though the Secret Service is like.

saying, what are you talking about? And they want to they want to get it. The ability on an emergency basis to track the movements of James Comey. and his wife, who were presumably on vacation, going back to their home outside of Washington, D.C. and they do they and Andrew, how do they do that? Do they go into his phone? Are they tracking the car? What's the actual mechanism of that tracking? I think they're tracking his phone.

through a GPS, and they're saying it's an emergency, even though if it was truly an emergency, they would have arrested him. And it took over a year to bring this case. And I can tell you, as somebody who has been in law enforcement, if you really thought that James Comey was a threat. to the president of the United States, you would have arrested him. I mean, the idea that it's like, oh, he's such a threat. They were leaving him out there for a year. That's not the way it works. It's also a bizarre threat that you would make a threat in seashells.

on the beach, on social media, which couldn't be more public. Yes. So, yeah. So you would think and one of the James Coburn. has now made a whole series of motions to an excellent series of lawyers. that he has truly first rate people and legal minds, attacking it based on vindictive prosecution based on a violation. of the First Amendment, seeking all sorts of discovery about what happened.

But what we learned is two things. One, that the president of the United States was actively monitoring. is like sort of step by step in real time, exactly what was going on in the case. What is he being interviewed? What has he said? I mean, and we were just talking about this idea of a separation. of Department of Justice and the presidency. This is this is the antithesis and of course, is formed. the basis for the vindictive prosecution motion showing.

just how the political are involved in, in in the outcome here. This this second thing we learned is how does the government plan on showing. that James Comey thought that eight six, four, seven meant 86 is code for. kill and that it's so obviously understood that. But he said eight, six, four, seven people would know that. And like he knew it and everyone would know that.

So the defense says, what are you talking about? Like this is like sold on Amazon and their t shirts and everyone's. using it in the phrase of like, he should not be president. We should get rid of him. Not in terms of get rid of his life, meaning he should not be president. And what does the government do? They in the investigation go to Sammy Gravano, the former underboss of the. Gambino family, which, by the way, I have put him on the stand several times.

When I used to be an organized crime prosecutor, he was a witness for me. Then later. Was he a good. Was he a good witness? Did you? Why? He was the excellent witness. He was an excellent, excellent witness. And in part because he made no excuses. for what he did or for how he did it. It was it was like we walked him. I put a gun under his chin and blew his brains out. We took him after we killed him and we put him. These are real examples, buddy. We took him and put it.

We dragged his body down into the basement. We had a kiddy pool. We cut up his body in the kiddy pool so that the blood would be easily contained. And so this very sort of matter of fact of these are the rules. And this is what I did. And it made him just very, a very believable witness. And he was very good. Having said that, he then gets sentenced, he gets. he gets a light sentence from a judge. But because he cooperated so extensively, just truly.

dozens of people were prosecuted in whole or in part based on his information. But he does his five years. He does some probation after that. And about a New York minute after he finishes his probation, he starts in ecstasy ring in Arizona and our office. I was leading it in the criminal side at the time, prosecutes. him for that drug activity, and he gets 20 years. So I've sort of put him on as a witness and I have prosecuted him.

In any event, Sammy is interviewed by the FBI and he says, well, in the. mob we would understand 86 could mean to kill. We would never say it because it would be too obvious. to law enforcement if we said, 86, Joanna, or, you know, 86. That puts a chill, a chill. down me and place.

He said. We wouldn't say it out loud, but that's what it would be in mob talk. And here's the problem. James Comey is not in the mob. Right? So even if mobsters might use it at times to mean that, by the way, it could also mean what I think commonly we understand, which is like, you know, in. cafeterias and diners, people say like 86.

or an order because it's like canceled. But even if a mobster thought it meant. killed, that doesn't mean James Comey, who was not in the mob means it. Or who who do you think is a. post it to whatever it is, Instagram or Facebook? I'm sorry, but that's not like the mobsters. favorite way of getting hit messages so the public wouldn't understand it. So especially in seashells, there's something particularly effeminate. about the seashell way of messaging that you're planning to kill someone.

I mean, it's just insane that they would think that. Yes. And then, I mean, it goes on and on at the time that the Secret Service is saying, what do you mean? We're supposed to get an emergency order about this, like, and track him. And this is like a big deal, but we're not arresting him. We don't think this is what he meant. And by the way, the president is out of the country. So how is there an emergency? So the whole thing, I think the legal term is. stinks to high heaven, and.

it really should be the case. that this case never sees a trial, either because it's vindictive. or a ground that I think is is highly appropriate here. It violates the First Amendment because there was no clear, imminent threat that was that was being conveyed by James Comey. Even even if you could prove that his intent.

It does sound like James Comey has woven his way. into Donald Trump's head. Yes, it does it really to me, in some ways, that sort of ground zero, I think for. sort of I ended up working on the Mueller investigation. But, you know, that was an outgrowth of James Comey. being independent, then being fired. by Trump.

And I think Trump. sort of views that as sort of the original sin. that that that lack of loyalty, etc.. And, you know, this is one where I just to be clear, I have no love lost for James Comey. I thought there's I think there's a ton of things that he. that I really disagree with. And many people in the Department of Justice believe that. Remember, he gave a very famous press conference where he denigrated Hillary Clinton. with any foundation for sort of as justifying it.

But that's sort of irrelevant to this issue of charging him. criminally for something that just reeks of both. First Amendment violation and vindictive prosecution. So James Comey was a US attorney and in the Southern District. of New York, prestigious job. like Rudy Giuliani before him.

And now it turns out like Jay Clayton. And I was going to say, what do the three have in common. other than they all held that prestigious position? Can you tell me, Andrew, you know, something else they share? Well, that is a good question. They what is there? Well, they're going to tell you I tell you they're white. Their men, they have risen to sort of great heights.

Those are those are all positives. But what do you have in mind? Well, I was going to say they've had terrible hair jobs, terrible dyed hair. I thought Jay Clayton's hair looked absurd. No man has hair that color. I think Anthony Scaramucci calls it Latin America dictator Brown. But it reminds me of Rudy Giuliani when it came dripping down his head, Jay Clayton's hair. And also, I think at some point, though, I couldn't swear to it.

But I was looking very closely at photos of him earlier. I think James Comey also died his hair at one point. Anyway, that's beside the point. That's beside the point. But what did you think of Jay Clayton getting appointed. as well to the Office of National Intelligence? My biggest concern there. I do not know Jay Clayton personally. I have no, you know, personal.

views of him in terms of his integrity. But here's the real problem. By statute, the head of the intelligence community is supposed to have. substantial intelligence experience, and he simply does not. And this goes to sort of two issues. One, why would the president. of the United States, who reads the Presidential Daily Brief, or is supposed to read it every day and sees the threats that we face?

And by the way, those threats are certainly not getting less. now that we are at war with Iran. Why would you pick somebody with that lack of experience? I mean, the answer I mean, I know the answer. The answer is loyalty. But that's not what's supposed to come first when you're talking about American. safety. And so. to me, that's sort of like sin number one is like the president.

So number two is Congress. Congress passed that statute that says that he is supposed. to have substantial experience. Whoever fills that position, a he or she we've had with the prior. head of the DNI under Biden was Heinz. I mean, she was, by all accounts, I mean just extraordinary and deep, deep, deep experience in the national security realm. And that's what you should be looking for. But it's the second sort of sin here is Congress.

Are we a rule of law, country or not? And shouldn't we expect Congress when they pass a law. to say what it means and means, what it means, what it says and and be like? We told you that the person has to have this experience and the answer is no. And when you put somebody up who is qualified, we will confirm them. And so, I mean, I know this all sounds terribly naive, but it's like. we either words think we're normalizing. what is really unacceptable and unacceptable, the Congress itself.

Well, there's an argument that Jay Clayton. is at least better informed about intelligence possibly, than the previous holder of the job, Tulsi Gabbard, who essentially, you know, had all sorts of connections to a cult, which we've written about extensively at The Daily Beast, actually. But, Andrew, you've seen at those daily briefings, those daily intelligence. briefings, what is the sort of thing that they contain?

Because I think lots of people. sort of watching and listening have heard about the daily briefings and, and I imagine it would be the first thing that the president would turn to. Every morning you wake up and you're like, oh my goodness, what's in the briefing? What what sort of thing? How long is the briefing? And I know everybody's. tried to shrink it for Donald Trump so that it's shorter than it used to be. And he still doesn't look at it. But can you give us a sort of sense of what the briefing actually contains, and what's the format that a president gets it in?

So so first, obviously it's classified. So I'm not going to be able to give you, you know, specifics or details on that. There is a written component. And the written component can be longer or shorter. depending on what what is happening that day. And and then there is an oral component. because in the briefing and the briefings. that the FBI side, for instance, you know, it sort of goes up the chain.

And then ultimately senior people are briefing the director of the FBI, then the director of the FBI briefs the attorney general, then the attorney general and the director of the FBI. Go briefed the white House. At least that's the way it worked in, in my time. And so there's an oral component. And obviously the the principal, whether it's let's just take the president. The president obviously can ask questions about what's being presented. orally or anything else, like, because the president can read it. and have questions about things that aren't presented orally.

And the art here. And I remember asking Director Mueller about this because, you know, the first few weeks I there your jaws on the ground because, I mean, obviously everything that's assigned to the FBI gets reviewed. and gets followed up. You can't not follow things, but you can't follow everything all the time immediately. So you have to do triage and you want them to do triage. And the thing that's remarkable to me is watching.

experienced people be able to go, okay, on page three, in paragraph four, I need to know the following. Now on page seven, in paragraph six, and which ones were being singled out because, you know, I was looking at it. like page after page going like, oh my God, oh my God, oh my God. Like at all. Like it's all an emergency. And the and that's where I find it. inconceivable that you could be president for four years.

Be if you have access and being told about this. and that your number one. obligation and interest. would not be finding the people who are going to be able. to do that job successfully and with the necessary experience. And whatever you can say about Cash Patel, you cannot say that he is the best person for that job.

He does not have that experience. And the same thing with Jake Clayton. He doesn't have that experience to do. that job to keep the country safe. And that to me is something that I just can't get my head around. Having been in law enforcement, that, that that's that's. why you're in law enforcement is you're trying to keep the country safe. The idea that something bad would happen to somebody, that you could have loss of life on your watch,

was the number one thing that drove director Robert Mueller, and that he drove us correctly and rightly to be the best we could be, was because that was not going to happen on his watch. So let me just ask you something. Do you think it's because Donald Trump doesn't doesn't understand that? Do you think it's because he doesn't care? I mean, it seems inconceivable. that a president well, first of all, A wouldn't care, but B.

would want something like, God forbid, a terrorist act on his watch. You know, I don't know the answer to that. My guess as an armchair psychologist is that I think there is. there's something so. unusual because it's I don't. I've never gotten the sense of any. The empathy gene does not seem to be there in any way,

way, shape or form, which you know that. that you don't go to your son's wedding, just none of the normal or somebody seems to like, may pass out in the Oval Office and sort of. look off at the camera while other people, I mean, none of the normal reactions. in that situation to me. suggest that this none of the sort of normal human emotions you would have to.

that of and like, I'm not I'm not like saying any of it like me. Certainly I'm not trying to say like I'm the greatest person in the world, but. those are normal emotions to have. Whenever you see a tragedy and when you're in public office, that obviously. has to be one of the reasons that you went into public service. I can hear you channeling your therapist mother, Andrew, who you write about in your book Liar's Kingdom, which I, I noticed.

launched, I think, at number one on the bestseller list. So congratulations. Congratulations for that. Okay, so a final question for you. The Senate this week voted unanimously that Glenn Maxwell. should not have a pardon. This was brought by a Democratic senator from Nevada. Does it carry any weight? Something like that. I mean, we know it's almost impossible to get the Senate.

to do anything unanimously. But this one, they really do seem to be clear about Glenn Maxwell. sentence for 20 years for sex trafficking should not get a pardon. Will that unanimous vote in any way. protect the victims and ensure that Guillén doesn't get a pardon? No, I mean, it doesn't. It doesn't have any legal force. The president has the power in the Constitution to issue a pardon. It can have, you know, potential persuasive authority.

It also on the cynical side, it allows. the Republicans who are staying loyal to Donald Trump. And even if he pardons her to be able to say. But I was against it. Now, to be clear, if they really were against it, they could actually go to court to enforce the Epstein Transparency Act. as if they were really for it. They could say, we are not confirming Todd Blanche until he turns over the 2 to 3 million. Reportedly, Epstein documents that have not been released.

And there's to me, it's performative. in a way that is trying to avoid, you know, steps that they clearly could take. that would actually be meaningful in terms of the victims. How disappointing. I was hoping it was genuinely a bipartisan attempt to do the right thing. But of course, it's just politics as usual. Andrew Weissman It is always a thrill to have you on our podcast. Thank you for joining us, and rest assured, you will be our first call.

when we get developing news of anything else that Todd Blanche is up to. It's always a pleasure. Thank you so much for inviting me. That description. of using a kiddy pool so that the blood didn't go everywhere. How gruesome, how how strange and how fascinating. And that gesture that Andrew made with a gun under the chin. Oh, I found it chilling.

Well, there you are. Tell us what you thought of that conversation. We love your comments. Send us your limericks. Leave us your comments on what you thought. Do you think there is any difference between acting? If you were in a job and someone said you were acting the role, but you didn't actually have the role, how would that feel? And I'll be back tomorrow with David Rothkopf. In the meantime, if you have been, thank you for joining us and a big thanks to our production team, Ryan Murray, John Romero, Heather Pesaro, Rachel Passa and Neil Rosenhaus.

So the good news is we have so many beast tier members now. There are too many names to read out and we really appreciate your support.