Jack Smith & Brian Driscoll On Weaponizing Justice | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

JON STEWART: Well, I can't think of three bigger heroes. than the three of us. All right, just you two. Dammit. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to The Weekly Show Podcast. My name is Jon Stewart. It is Tuesday, July 7. This will air Wednesday, July 8. We're not going to talk about the 250th celebration. We're not going to talk about the US Men's soccer. team's truly just disappointing performance.

in their game against Belgium. All those things are worthy of episodes-- not going. to be doing it, because we have, today, an unusual opportunity. We have two gentlemen on the show who really. should not be on the show. They have lawsuits pending against our federal government. One of them is, seemingly, in the crosshairs. of the newly weaponized Trump Department of Justice, under the auspices of Mr. Todd Blanche who is, as you know,

an independent observer of law and not, in fact, the President's former lawyer who. is just working on his behalf. Well, oops. Yes, he is. And I will just get to it. We are surprised and delighted to get an opportunity to speak. with these two gentlemen. And we'll get to it right now. [MUSIC PLAYING]. All right. So we're going to bring in our guests immediately. We've got Jack Smith, obviously, the former special counsel on a classified documents.

case and the election interference case. We've got Brian Driscoll, who the former FBI agent, who, in 2025, was serving as the acting director of the FBI. until being let go by the administration. Brian, Jack, thank you for joining us. Thank you for your service to the rule of law. Let me start with this. I am under the impression that you are--. well, Jack, probably more than Brian--. but under some legal peril in terms of what you are.

allowed to talk about, what you are not allowed to talk about. Brian, I think you have a pending lawsuit. Jack, obviously, the President has. threatened you specifically. Why are you here? I'll start with Jack. JACK SMITH: Yeah, sure. Well, first off, Jon, thanks very much for having us. on your show. Brian and I are here because we want. to talk about the attack on the rule of law, and specifically how that attack has played out. against public servants, the people. that we spent decades working with.

The things that we're seeing over the last year and a half, you can see the output of that, right? You can see people being targeted. I think Brian and I have a unique perspective. And we understand what's being done to the people. who enforce the rule of law. The rule of law in our country does not enforce itself. It takes people of character and integrity to do it. And to undermine it, you have to attack those people.

And why I wanted to be here today, Jon, was to talk about those people, how much we should be. valuing them, how much we lose when people like that. are targeted-- and not just the people who've been fired, but also appreciating the sacrifice. of the people who are still manning their posts, still doing their job. I feel like a lot of that is getting lost. And I think more of a discussion about that is part. of the solution going forward.

JON STEWART: And, Brian, obviously, you're one of those people. Jack was special counsel over at the DOJ. You were in the FBI. Give me a little bit about your background. real quick about being one of those individuals who's working. for the rule of law and had never. had a problem before-- in fact, was moving up the chain. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. I mean, as far as my background is concerned, I started straight out of graduate school.

I went into the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. as an agent for about three years, and then came over to the FBI. And then I served for about close to 18 years with the FBI. as a doer--. as a special agent. JON STEWART: You were a hostage and rescue guy, yeah? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yes, sir. Yeah. For a time during my career, I was an operator. Everybody starts as a street agent, a criminal investigator, on a squad. I worked organized crime matters, among other things.

And I was on the SWAT team in New York. And then I made the hostage rescue team, very fortunately--. probably some clerical errors in there, but slipped through the cracks and served as an operator, and a sniper, and a team leader with the hostage rescue team. working embedded with our military. on some significant operations as well, but mostly domestically--. more than just hostage rescues. But what I like to say is we solve problems, like the wolf from--.

I forget the movie. You know what I'm talking about. JON STEWART: I know what you're talking about. I wasn't sure if it was the Wolf or the Jackal. I didn't know which team you were on there. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah, no, not the Jackal. JON STEWART: But the reason why I want to establish these sort. of bona fides and credentials is so Brian has worked. in busting up child exploitation, sex trafficking, and terrorism rings. Jack Smith was at The Hague working on crimes. against humanity and genocide. These are universally respected and admired members of-- first.

of all, those are things that almost everybody in the world. thinks it's heroic to try and tackle and to try and break up. And yet, you have both become embroiled. in the political collateral damage of, I guess, our dysfunctional system at this point. So I just wanted to establish what your careers. were before all this occurred.

Neither of you are partisan political actors. Would that be fair to say? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Correct. 100% accurate. JON STEWART: Jack, let's start with you. You came on people's radar as the special counsel. investigating the cases about election interference. in the Trump administration and the classified documents cases. Before that, what were some of the things. that you were working on before you had been. tapped by, I'm assuming, Merrick Garland,

to take those cases? JACK SMITH: Sure. I think overarching, Jon, the thing to understand is Brian. and I had similar career paths in that we may be known. to people for the last job we had, but the truth is, Brian and myself, we were guys on the line doing the work for the vast majority. of our career. I started as a local prosecutor in New York City. at the district attorney's office, prosecuting domestic violence and sex crimes cases.

I then became a federal prosecutor for nine years. in Brooklyn. And, again, the majority of that time, I was trying cases. I turned down promotions because I. liked doing the actual work of being a prosecutor. After that, I was overseas at the International. Criminal Court. I was then the chief of the public integrity section, which oversees corruption prosecutions. around the United States. Then I moved to Nashville, Tennessee with my family, and first I was the first assistant US. attorney, which is the second in command in the office.

And then during the first Trump administration, I was named the acting US attorney in Nashville. After that job, I went into a private sector job. for a very short period of time. And then the Trump administration. asked me to come back and serve in the State Department. overseas, running a war crimes tribunal. And that was what I was doing before I. became special counsel. JON STEWART: Jesus. And so, clearly, that's not the career path of, let's say, a James Carville or somebody along those lines.

So how did you get tapped to become. the special counsel in these classified documents cases? When did Merrick Garland reach out to you? Or is that not how this works? JACK SMITH: Yeah. I had had a career of public service. Why they picked me, you'd have to ask. Merrick Garland about that. I was asked to serve. And my career has been about service. And I think Brian and I, again, have very similar kind. of life and views about this. Public service is a privilege.

I've spent the best part of my adult life. working shoulder to shoulder with people like Brian. And when I was asked to come back and serve in this role, there was no way I was not going to do that. JON STEWART: And when you're asked for it, do you say, is this a prosecutable case? Is this a partisan case? Is this too political? Or do you just say, this is my assignment, and now it's time for me to go in and start gathering. the information with all the tools. that I have at my disposal. JACK SMITH: Yeah. I went into it with no preconceived notions.

I was living overseas in Europe in this State Department. job for the last four years. And so my job was to get up to speed on the facts. and on the law and to make a call. And, listen, I've done big public cases before, big corruption cases before. I knew that no matter what decision I was going to make, somebody was going to criticize it. And I think people who have experience doing those cases, they know that all that stuff, what people say in the media, people like you, people don't like you, you're a villain,

you're a hero-- it's all noise. Just noise. I had a great team of public servants. who had careers very similar to mine. And I think the important thing for your listeners. to understand, Jon, is we did that case the way I did. cases throughout my career--. same way-- same investigative techniques, same ways of investigating, same ways of making decisions. And at the end of the day, we felt we could. prove that case in court. And that's why we charged the cases. JON STEWART: And, Brian, for you, a similar path,

I'm assuming-- you're working your way. up all these different areas within the FBI. And you are tapped to be the director, I guess, of the FBI--. or I guess you were tapped to be the deputy director? Is that what happened first? And they screwed up. There was a bit of a clerical decision here, and so you just ended up being the acting head. for a little while? Is that how you came to your role? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So I was tapped to be the acting deputy director. And then on January 20, there was a clerical error.

in the publishing coming from the White House that had. my name as the interim director of the FBI. rather than my partner's. So they just flipped. JON STEWART: So then you became that. Then what happened in Brian's case is, so, at a certain point, you were asked. to compile a list of investigators that had worked. on the cases that they deemed were going after Trump.

or people within Trump world. Would that be accurate to say? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. Yeah. In sum and substance, that's absolutely accurate. And it's all detailed in the complaint. that the attorneys put forth as well. JON STEWART: And so when you were asked to compile this, you did not do that. You gave them an anonymized grouping. You felt that they would be targeting. people politically if you were to give that list, and for no reason.

BRIAN DRISCOLL: I mean, it was fraught with risk. But before I did that, which is accurate, I offered and asked for process, existing process, to reinvestigate or look for any of the alleged corruption. or bad intent. JON STEWART: When you say "ask for process,". what do you mean by that? Not that I'm not up on the law stuff. Trust me. I watch a shit ton of SVU, so don't think that I'm--. none of this is going over my head.

But what do you mean by that? BRIAN DRISCOLL: That show's the best. So there are existing processes in the DOJ. that are purpose built to investigate internally. and externally any violation, or misconduct, or corruption. And those processes are what I articulated when. asked for a list based off of just what they were assigned. to work on and investigate. Because agents, and analysts, and members of the FBI.

don't get to choose. You are assigned. JON STEWART: And so what you're basically. saying is, what are you accusing. these people of before I give you a list. of this kind of a thing? Are you just accusing them of weaponizing--. I'm assuming this is about they're accusing you. or these people of weaponizing the DOJ against Donald Trump. Would that be fair? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. I think that's fair. And I was not going to get into an argument. about those allegations. I wanted process. JON STEWART: Right.

BRIAN DRISCOLL: Articulated process. in writing so I'm not just leading these people. to the edge of an employment cliff. just to watch them get kicked off. JON STEWART: Right. And this is after Kash Patel took over that job or before? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Before. It was while I was the acting director early on. JON STEWART: OK. So he came in and replaced you. And then at that point, they let you go. BRIAN DRISCOLL: I lasted a few more months. So the current director got in there at the end of February, I believe. And then I was shown the door on August 8.

JON STEWART: And what was the reason they gave. you for showing you the door? BRIAN DRISCOLL: I mean, it was a one-page memo. And there's nothing of substance. And there was no process. So I'm still not clear. JON STEWART: There's nothing in there that. says, like, you were late. You weren't wearing your FBI issued polo shirt or jacket. BRIAN DRISCOLL: No. JON STEWART: None of that stuff. None of that. So just let go. And that's, I assume, the basis of your lawsuit, which. you probably can't discuss. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Correct. JON STEWART: Fair enough. BRIAN DRISCOLL: I could discuss other things.

JON STEWART: And we will, young man. Jack, Brian just said something interesting, which. is you don't get to choose. You got to choose whether or not. to accept the role, but the investigators. that are assigned to you or the people in the FBI--. I assume you use all the different tools. that are available at your disposal at DOJ. Those individuals are not, given the opportunit--. if you're assigning them a task, they can't say this feels political.

or I don't think I want to work on. that because I'm a Trump supporter or a Biden supporter. Is that the case? JACK SMITH: That's correct. And I think, again, for people like Brian and I, it is just 101 Justice Department, FBI. Politics doesn't play a role in these things. People don't talk about stuff like that. People don't bring up stuff like that. The team of agents who worked on the cases I. investigated, Jon--. I've been doing this for 30 years--.

these people were superstars. They were the best of the best. A lot of them were veterans, people. who'd served their country in all different sorts of ways. And to see those folks demonized and cast aside--. one of the reasons I've been so lucky to meet Brian and get. to chat with him is Brian's a perfect example of, if you. think our country is safer when we get rid of people like this, you don't know anything about national security. You don't know anything about fighting.

corruption in our country. And I think it's very easy to demonize people. as faceless bureaucrats when, you know, they're not there to tell their story. But when you get an example of the people who worked. on my case, the people Brian spent his career with, it becomes very hard to defend the actions. against these people. I have seen this attack on the rule of law. Brian used the word "process.". I think if you want to use one sort of metric to measure this, it's, are you going to get predetermined.

outcomes no matter what, hell or high water? Or are you going to follow a good process? We followed process when we did our investigation, just like I. had throughout my career. And the outcome of that process and those facts is what it is. And whether people like it or don't like it, that's how you do the job well. And it's the same thing with these agents who were fired. There was no process. Brian was trying to protect these agents, and he lost a career that he cherished,

that he devoted his life to for doing the right thing. I feel like stories like that, we need to talk about it more, because to me, in my career, the rule of law. was never a partisan thing. It wasn't a Republican Democrat thing. And I just can't imagine that people of goodwill. could hear stories like Brian's story, the stories of the agents who worked on my case. and say, no, that's OK. I'm down with that.

That's good. These are role models--. you want to raise your kids to be like these people. And to have them victimized, it's unfair to them, but we're all going to pay a cost for it, both in the short term and in the long term. [MUSIC PLAYING]. JON STEWART: Oh, my goodness. A lot of these other sponsors, quite. frankly, I could give a shit. But Ground News, that's what I'm talking about. This is right. This is the air that I breathe. Ground News is a website and an app, because this.

is America in the 2020s. You got to have an app. And it helps you better understand. the news you consume. So it's like when we talk about funding. We're always talking about, where's this money come from? Who's funding these politicians? Well, it's also important to know, who's funding our news? Who's subverting our news with big money? With Ground News, you can see who owns every news outlet. And you compare how these different outlets.

frame their stories, like Bezos might frame it differently. No, it was just a name that popped into my head. No reason. No reason why. You got to understand who owns it to understand. the editorial priorities. They got a blind spot feed that helps. you find stories that aren't being covered by your side. The Nobel Peace Center called it. an excellent way to stay informed. and expand your worldview. To get the same unlimited access to the Vantage. subscription, go to GroundNews.com/Stewart. and subscribe to get 40% off.

I've partnered with Ground News to get. you the discount that is available only. for a limited time. That's GroundNews.com/Stewart, or scan the QR code on-screen. Thank you to Ground News for sponsoring this episode. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Let's try and tease apart the idea of special counsels. and then just the general DOJ operations, because I do think there are slight differences. And special counsels are, I think, more inherently political, maybe, than just the general workings of the DOJ.

in terms of the types of prosecutions that they do. So, Brian, first of all, the first question I would ask. is, do you feel the difference when you're working as an FBI. agent, or, Jack, when you're working just. as a regular person within the DOJ, when administrations change? Do you feel the difference between an Obama administration. and a Trump administration or first Trump. administration, and second Trump administration,

or Biden administration? Brian, how does that play out within the organization? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Listen, every administration. has their priorities. And that's OK. That's a part of doing business in America. And that's one of the beautiful things about this country. I think the best way I could answer that question. is very rarely did I--. my career, as well as the careers. of those senior and junior to me, have transcended administrations. It has not changed the way we go about doing the job.

And I think the best way to illustrate that and demystify. what it's like to be an FBI agent for the general American. or otherwise out there, is to talk about what's on the center. of the FBI badge itself. And it's a depiction of Lady Justice. She's adorned with three things--. scales, a sword, and a blindfold. The scales symbolize careful weighing of evidence,

and process, and fairness, and balance. The sword is the authority and the very serious and respected. power of enforcing that law. And the blindfold is the ideal of performing. that job with impartiality, objectivity, and without favor. And when that blindfold is removed. and the scales are disregarded or are tipped because.

of an agenda or an influence that's inappropriate. and the sword swings wildly, then we have some problems. JON STEWART: I want to give people a fuller picture, because I think, look, everybody understands. that people that are working in these public services. are doing so probably with less financial reward. than they would if they were going. off and doing it in a more mercenary type operation. But everybody also has concerns about the excesses. and abuses of the legal system, of the DOJ.

I want to see if we can separate. out political abuses and power abuses, if that makes sense. What you're discussing are you're. seeing now political abuses. How do they internally remediate. other kinds of abuses? Because there's certainly a lot of people out there. who might say, if I had to go up against the FBI, I couldn't do it. The resources that they have, everything that they bring.

to bear, whether it's fair or not, with RICO, or they might want to squeeze somebody at a low level. to get somebody higher--. people are always concerned about overreach. within legal jurisdiction. BRIAN DRISCOLL: So I am not concerned. about the FBI employees abusing their authority and power. There are, at full strength, 38,000 FBI employees. that are there for a reason. And it is to protect the American people.

and uphold the Constitution. And everybody has a line. And I have never met anybody in 21 years, almost 21 years as a federal agent, that has or would. be willing to cross that line. JON STEWART: And how does the FBI police. that within its own ranks? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Oh, there's layers. There's an entire inspections division. There's office of professional responsibility. And the DOJ, there's checks and balances throughout.

JON STEWART: And these are put in, I assume, after Hoover's reign where trust within the FBI. plummets when they find out, oh, they're getting recordings. of Martin Luther King and all these other--. so they've layered in a lot of safeguards. for that type of abuse. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Right. And it's an imperfect organization. with a sordid history led by imperfect men and women. But I've never met anybody with malicious intent. to leverage the FBI to corrupt or violate the rights.

of the American citizens. JON STEWART: And, Jack, same question. for you in terms of more of the DOJ aspect. of it and the authorities. Because, look, there is, and I think a fair criticism. to be made, that when the federal government brings. to bear all of its resources against a citizen, that citizen is up against it. I believe the phrase is "shit's creek without a paddle.". It's very difficult to go up against that. How does DOJ protect against those kinds of abuses?

JACK SMITH: Yeah. So I think these are really important topics. First is just my experience. Been in the Department as a prosecutor for decades. To your point, Jon, I'm not saying the DOJ has. been perfect at every step. It's a human endeavor, right? But what I saw is similar to what. Brian saw-- people of goodwill trying-- trying. do the right thing. Are mistakes made? Sure. But good prosecutors, they correct. it when they make a mistake. In terms of the power, that goes back to the point I was.

making earlier that, to be a prosecutor, you have to make choices. You have to make judgments about to bring this case, don't bring that case. It is so important that the people in the roles. with that serious amount of power. are doing it the right way and for the right reasons. And they're not doing it for political reasons. They're doing it because they looked at the facts, and they didn't have a preconceived notion. of the outcome beforehand.

That's always going to be tough. And no matter what decision I make as a prosecutor, if it's a big case, there's going. to be certain people who think it's unfair and certain. people who think it's great. We can't get away, if we're going to have a justice system, of having prosecutors have discretion. about which cases to bring. And we can talk a bunch about the different ways we can make. the department better, but the biggest one. is to put people in the roles making those decisions who. have experience and expertise. One of the things I think we see.

today is the attack on public servants. is an attack on expertise-- that you actually. don't need a lot of experience or judgment. to do this job, right? And so making sure that people are qualified for the jobs they. have, that they've earned the responsibility. they're being given in significant cases, and then to protect those public servants. I think the thing now that's different. than any time in my career is the idea that you could make. a prosecutorial decision, and, because of that, just because someone later didn't like it, you get fired--.

or maybe even you don't make a decision, you just randomly get assigned to a case. That sort of randomness, that chills. people from doing their job. And, in my view, it's intentional. They're trying to chill people, and they're. trying to send a message--. that if you investigate people who. are my friends or my allies, you're. going to pay a price for it. And it's interesting you talk about the power dynamics, because I think what you're saying is real. And, as a prosecutor, I always felt it very important.

to think about that-- think about, like, if I'm going. to issue a subpoena, if I'm going to investigate this, this is a big thing and this person's life--. and being thoughtful about it and following the process. to make sure I treat person A the same as I treat person B. But at the same time, we have a situation. now where these public servants, who have devoted their lives to the craft of doing. this the right way, and they're not getting. any process whatsoever. And, again, my biggest concern is that we're not highlighting.

that enough, because if those people can't do. their jobs right, the concern that you have, Jon, it's exacerbated. JON STEWART: Oh, the whole thing becomes politicized. JACK SMITH: Politicized, or just fear. I mean, there's so many knock on effects. You have people who, like, we should totally open this case, but I might get fired for doing it. I'm not going to do it. Then you have people quitting, because they're like, I can't be a part of this. I don't want to be labeled as someone.

who is so different than how I was raised as a prosecutor. And for me, the biggest concern is. that we have young people who, when Brian and I were. 20 years old and I wanted to be a prosecutor. and he wanted to be an agent, I have a concern right now. that the people who are that age. and are thinking about what they're. going to do as public servants, they're like, no way. No way I'm doing this. I'm going to lose my job for nothing. And we will suffer a much greater cost for that.

than anything else going on. That's the hardest thing. If people are driven away from public service, nonpartisan. people who just want to serve, that's the hardest. thing to correct for. JON STEWART: Well, how can they not? I mean, I want to talk about your case for a second, Jack. And then we'll go back to you, Brian. But when I see just level of abuse that was leveled at you. as somebody who was doing that special prosecution case, and we can talk a little bit later about some decisions that. maybe were questioned or not questioned--.

but the threats that came down upon you, I would think, would be enough to discourage almost anybody, whether it be somebody within the DOJ. that's going to take case or somebody that's. being asked to work on that case, it would discourage them. I mean, the President of the United States. was calling you a psycho who should be in jail. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind.

would want to take on that kind of potential for abuse. JACK SMITH: Yeah. I mean, I don't spend a lot of time thinking. about the names I'm being called by the President. And for me, I mean, when we talk about, like, overcoming things or facing things, I'm a guy who just did my job, right? I've been doing it for a long time. I followed the same traditions. And I worked with the same sort of people. I had all through my career. There's nothing really special about that. A guy like Brian, on the other hand,

is a guy who could have went along. Could have said, here you go. Here's the names. Here you go-- JON STEWART: Right. JACK SMITH: --fire these people. People like him, and there's others--. Brian's an example, but there's many others--. stood up, lost something that they built their lives around, because they wouldn't do the wrong thing. and had to do the right thing. I feel like the more we can celebrate. that and use that as a differentiator, the better we'll be.

JON STEWART: Brian, I thought Jack was the hero. It turns out you're the hero. I thought-- actually, I was--. BRIAN DRISCOLL: No, Jack's the hero. JON STEWART: I was going for Jack here as the hero. Turns out Brian's the hero. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Chad Jack is too kind. He is absolutely a hero. And, Jack, I appreciate you. You know that, brother. I do want to add something to what Jack said before is where. I find peace and hope with those of us who have been. either forced into retirement, or wrongfully terminated, or otherwise--. I talk to most, if not all, of those people whose careers.

and, frankly, their life's purposes. were disrupted or interrupted during this period of time. And, to a person, each one of them. intends to go back and serve. And I'm one of them, obviously. And these are people that were just doing. their job, like Jack said. Like, we didn't sign up for praise, or awards, or chest. candy, medals, all this stuff.

We signed up to do our job because we believe in it. And we believe in doing the right thing. That doesn't change. JON STEWART: Brian, do you have a sense of how many people have. been removed because of working on cases. that the Trump administration deemed partisan, and how many have left just because they didn't want to be. a part of this, and how many that are. left there have their work chilled. because of what's happened? BRIAN DRISCOLL: I don't have a number, but one is too many. JON STEWART: Right.

But it's significant. You would say there's been a significant drain. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Absolutely-- with experience. As the acting director, I watched. my mentors, a lot of whom were my mentors. and people who helped raise me in the organization, get forced out. And then people started to be fired just because of the cases. they were assigned to. And, like I said, they all want to go back. These are veterans. These are agents. They're analysts who were at the top of their game,

but also some newer employees who. were assigned to these cases that want. to go back, be an analyst. I got an email yesterday from a guy who. was a new analyst assigned to one of these cases, was fired, and hitting me up for guidance on once. he does get back in, how to apply to be an agent, because that was his goal. It's not everybody's goal, but it happened to be his. And these people are motivated. JON STEWART: It's feeling like a calling. BRIAN DRISCOLL: It is a calling. JON STEWART: And a service.

BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yes. And that is why, like Jack said, he doesn't spend a lot of time talking. about the slings and arrows that people like. us can be the recipients of. That matters not because we are unafraid. We just want to serve. JON STEWART: I want to ask you a question, too. You were asked specifically about-- they basically. said to you, you'll be OK as long donated to a Democrat. or voted for Kamala Harris. Did they ask you that specifically?

Or is that something you're not allowed to talk about? BRIAN DRISCOLL: No, it's documented in the complaint. That was asked of me specifically prior. to going back down to headquarters. as the acting deputy director. It was referred to as a vetting interview. JON STEWART: Right. And I want to make very clear, the vetting to become. an FBI agent is unbelievable. I mean, in terms of they'll interview. everybody you've ever met, they'll. put you through lie detectors. They put you through a process of making sure that there is. nothing within your background that could be considered.

controversial, or easily blackmailable, or any of those other kinds of things to do that. Is that the first time in your service you were ever asked. about a political affiliation? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yes. JON STEWART: And had never been asked before? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Never. JON STEWART: Jack Smith, same question-- had you ever. been asked about your political affiliation. before getting a case? Had you ever been asked who you donated to? Has there ever been a question in terms of politics? I'm trying to get to the difference between when. you start to remove--.

everybody can be considered a partisan. depending on where you vote. But not everybody's an ideologue. And I want to get to a little bit of the difference. between that. Jack, was there ever a partisan tilt to how. you were asked to operate? JACK SMITH: Never. JON STEWART: Even in the first Trump administration. JACK SMITH: Even in the first Trump administration. Look, Jon, I was working in Nashville. as the first assistant, right? It's before Trump's elected. Trump gets elected. I become the acting US attorney.

The office did not change. We still did our job. And, just to go back to a point you raised earlier--. if a new administration comes in. and they want to change policy-- they want to say, we want to focus on immigration enforcement, we want to focus less on civil rights, we want to do environment, we don't. want to do less of corruption-- they get to do that. That is why elections happen. And I tell young people all the time, if you think you want to be a prosecutor, but you only want to work for certain sorts. of administrations and certain cases,

career prosecutor's the wrong profession for you. You shouldn't do it. But at the same time, if you want to do those things, you want to change the policy, that's fine. But you have to follow the law. And you have to follow doing things the right way. You don't investigate the victims of police. shootings, right? You don't try to smear them and call them domestic terrorists. to set a narrative. That is so far removed from anything. I've experienced, both as a line prosecutor.

or in leadership positions. It's just never been even anything close to that. [MUSIC PLAYING]. JON STEWART: Hey, everybody. If you know me, you know I like to cook. That's the first thing that you think of. You think of me, you look at me, and you think to yourself, is that Julia Child? No, no. It's just me. It's just so little Jonny with the apron on in the kitchen, because that's my happy place. But for those of you who are not like that, who are not me, there's a company called Factor. Factor will do everything that I do out of love.

for you out of convenience. Factor will shop, prep, cook, and they. will deliver it to your door. They might even chew it for you. That's how good these people are. And the meals are fresh. They're not frozen-- meals ready in two minutes. and 100 meals to choose from. More than that, probably. Each one crafted. You get them proteins, veggies, foods, fats--. all the stuff that I put into my meal prep.

over long periods of painstaking labor. I am the bear. So please, please do this for yourself. Head to FactorMeals.com/TWS50off. and use code TWS50off to get 50% off and free daily greens. per box with new subscription only-- while supplies. last until September 27, 2026.

See website for more details. [MUSIC PLAYING]. So what are we to make, then, of the people who are still. there and they are told, find out what Letitia James'. mortgage situation is like? I mean, right now, they have weaponized it. It's very clear. And they've said it explicitly. They are going to go after those that they felt weaponized. the DOJ against Trump. So if you're working there now, how do you respond to that?

Should everybody quit? I mean, clearly, there's probably partisans there. But how do they deal with that? Brian, I'll ask you that. BRIAN DRISCOLL: It's pretty black and white. If you receive a legal order or if it's in furtherance. of a properly legally predicated investigation, then that's the job. If you're asked to cross that line into what. is unethical, immoral, and illegal, then you have a decision to make.

And that's what I've faced as well. JON STEWART: But there are judgments associated with this. There are judgments in terms of when to bring a case. There is discretion. And I think you saw it when they. brought in Lindsay Halligan. There was cases that career prosecutors. felt had not risen to the level of charges being brought. BRIAN DRISCOLL: And that's the decision point. And that is not unilaterally decided by the FBI. The FBI doesn't make prosecutorial decisions.

We work hand in hand with the DOJ. And then if it makes it to court, then it needs to go through the process. JON STEWART: Jack, how do you think. people should handle that? JACK SMITH: Yeah, sure. And this is something I talk to young people who are thinking. of being prosecutors or people who. are still in the department, I talk to them about it. all the time. And my view is very similar to Brian's. If you can still do your job--. DOJ, even today, does a lot of good things, a lot of important things protecting communities. around our country-- protecting the safety of Americans,

protecting our national security. And a lot of people can do their job. Now, it could be, in this administration, you're going to get asked to do something that is just wrong, just illegal, just corrupt. And if that happens, your number's up. And it's interesting, the people. who I've talked to who are experienced, serious prosecutors, they know the difference. between those things. It's judgment, but it's not hard. You can look at Letitia James, and look. at her mortgage fraud situation, and you can then get the facts together.

But then ultimately you say, hey, as I understand the prosecutors in Virginia did, this is not a case anyone would ever bring. And then you might get fired for it, for telling the truth about how a case should be handled. And I think my view is that prosecutors, and agents too, should try to stay and do the right thing. And this isn't a matter-- you know, I've heard people say this isn't a matter. of throwing sand in the gears. Just do your job. Do what you've done all along.

And doing that makes it harder for them. to weaponize the department-- just doing your job. The rule of law, it doesn't work, the system doesn't hold if the people who enforce the law. don't have integrity and character. But if they do, it's much harder to target people. That's why you see a lot of these prosecutions. or the attempts to indict senators and congressmen. for reciting the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they fall apart because, A, real prosecutors won't do it.

And, therefore, the people they get to do it are incompetent. They don't actually know how to prosecute a case. JON STEWART: The real estate lawyers. Right. JACK SMITH: Yeah. They don't have any experience. I mean, and I think that's part of what we've seen that I think. folks like Brian and I find very frustrating, is this idea that you can do something that took us decades. to learn how to do well-- oh, yeah, I can just walk in. and I can investigate this incredibly complex case,

follow department policy, follow the rules, do it. the right way. And I think one of the things that's important to understand, Jon, it's, like, a hallmark of this weaponization, is what's happening in the courts. I mean, the decisions you're seeing. from judges about the positions that DOJ is taking--. corrupt, illegal, improper. I mean, there was a decision recently. regarding subpoenas to officials in Minnesota.

for a sham investigation. The judge found that that was not. a legitimate criminal investigation. and that it was unlawful. It was meant to retaliate against people. And, again, just the narrative-- that judge. was appointed by George Bush. That judge was a Scalia clerk, OK? So this is not radical left lunatics. making these determinations. This is the rule of law kind of right in front. of us having that battle. And my view is that the most important thing we do now.

is when we see public servants and we see good people. standing up, we support them. Those people need our support, and our support. will make a difference whether those people. can continue to stand up. JON STEWART: Is that the way you feel. also within the FBI, Brian? BRIAN DRISCOLL: 100%. The amount of sacrifice that the people, in any agency, but I'll speak for the FBI, are making on a daily basis, and who are willing to trade all their tomorrows to save.

your today is immeasurable. They're incredible human beings that are going through a lot. And they go through a lot-- they always have, but they continue to every day. And they don't complain about it. They make the sacrifices, whether that's. being willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for somebody. else, or to navigate this different environment in which. they are working to get the job done-- not for themselves, but to protect you and me. JON STEWART: Let's talk a little bit.

about this different environment. in terms of how Americans' faith in our legal system, I think, is--. "waning" would be putting it politely. And I want to talk a little bit about the systemic changes. that I think have caused that. Jack, you hit on it a little bit right there. You said, well, this is a judge that was appointed by Bush. And this was an Alito clerk. But think about that--. we're so politicized to the point now--.

I mean, you faced this--. Jack, there was criticism that you brought. the classified documents case down to Florida. because there was a chance you might end. up in Judge Cannon's court. Judge Cannon is a Trump, I think people would say not. just partisan, but ideologue. And she would make decisions purely based. on protecting her person. We've got the point now where we have teams. Judges are on teams. They're on the Democrat team. They're on the Republican team. And you can't expect fair justice if you're.

on the opposing squad. Is the entire system so politicized that. there's-- and we'll get into the Supreme Court of it all. after this-- but what do we do about the fact that we now look. to, when decisions come down, whether or not that judge is. an Obama judge, a Trump judge, and we use. that as part of justification? Well, that was a great decision because a Trump judge went.

against Trump world or an Obama judge. went against the Democrats. What do you do about that? JACK SMITH: Yeah. I think the first thing is that this judge was. appointed by this person, this judge clerked for this person--. I raised it as it's sort of a response to the claim. that they're all political radical people against. this particular president. From my point of view, in terms of getting credibility back,

not only for the courts, but also for the Department. of Justice, I think about it the same way I think. about my work as a prosecutor. When I am going into court, I need to be. credible with the judges. I need to be credible with juries. I need to be credible with witnesses. How I do that as a prosecutor is I. behave with values that we all share. I act with integrity. I tell the truth. I treat people with respect, whether they deserve it or not.

I show kindness. And I show courage if I need to. Those sort of values, those sort. of traits, that's the fabric that binds us together. And my view is that we have to lean into that more than ever, and that we should be looking for people in positions. leading these institutions or appointing judges who. not just will voice those traits, but have lived those traits. JON STEWART: But that's not what the public sees.

What the public sees is a judge in Florida that delays. the case, that makes rulings that make it impossible for you. to file, that changes thing. And then they see a prosecutor, yourself, release a, I don't know, 165-page document about. election interference right before. the election that they feel is a political move on your part. So the tough part is everybody who's.

within those institutions can say, look, we're working through process. And we are doing it in values and morals. that we think are fitting to the stature of the. organizations that we're in. But the public isn't-- that's not their experience of this. Their experience with this is it is a political game being. played out through processes that we normally.

thought were apolitical. JACK SMITH: Yeah. I think that gets to-- that's the next layer, right? That's communication. And to me, you know, I was a prosecutor, right? My career, I was a guy, I spoke in the courtroom, not on the courthouse steps. If I did press conferences, I said. the absolute minimum I had to say, and I got back to work. I didn't see that as part of my job. I saw my job as working with people like Brian. to actually do the work. I think what we've learned, to your point, Jon, is that there.

is another component to being a leader. in the Justice Department. JON STEWART: Maybe the largest component. JACK SMITH: Well, I would differ with you on that. because I don't want to get where. the next leaders of the Department of Justice. are comms people. And they don't know anything about prosecuting cases. I just think that, look, the people. who are good prosecutors, they are good communicators. They have to win juries over. They have to win judges over. I think in the past, we just haven't. taken it as part of our job to have this larger conversation.

I mean, for me, I grew up in upstate New York. I grew up outside of Syracuse. I think a lot of folks in Washington. don't think that they need to communicate, necessarily, to those people. We talked to people in Washington. I would love to see future leaders of the Justice. Department trying to explain what they're doing to people. outside of just the legal community, outside of just. Washington, DC. I think it's hard, to be real fair-- like, you. got a right to a fair trial.

You shouldn't be talking about the specifics of a case. while it's pending. But I do think there's more we can do if we all agree. that if you don't communicate these things. that show integrity. Because if you have integrity and you have competence, it doesn't mean much if people don't know that. and you can't communicate that. JON STEWART: But do you really think. it's just a communications problem, Jack? Because-- and, Brian, I'll ask you this too--. the FBI doesn't communicate their methodologies. and their things.

But I think people look at the way that these institutions--. I'll go back to, Brian, when you were first there, when Trump was going after the two FBI. agents during the Russia investigation. that he thought were-- it was Page and Strzok, I think, that had an affair, and he was ridiculing them. Is it enough for the FBI to just communicate. better what they're doing? Or do we need to really look at the totality of a system.

that's been politicized? BRIAN DRISCOLL: I think there's value in looking. at the totality, but you can't look at the totality. without a clear depth of understanding of the process. And I think the FBI has an interesting history of how they. communicate those processes, when they. can and they can't always. But I think, to Jack's point, you can rarely, in my experience, gain and earn trust and credibility.

through chest beating, and being the loudest voice. in the room, and being the voice when we're. living in these 18 inches between our phones. and our faces with just clicks and content. It Requires leadership with grace, and poise, and practice with clear messaging of what I can. tell you, what I can't, and why, and then just hope for trust.

JON STEWART: I don't think we get it. Like, I'll give you two examples. First is January 6. So the big story on the right is January 6 actually wasn't. what we all saw that it was. It was an FBI op. It was there was a guy who was an FBI plant, and he urged people to go in there. And there were 600 FBI agents that were there that day. And they're the ones that stirred the pot. And they did all that. And so our entire understanding of this. was actually the feds instigating.

an insurrection on January 6. And that's their storyline as they're going to get through. And I'll give you the flip side of that on the left, which. is James Comey, who was the head of it at the time, announcing that he was going to do an investigation. or reopen an investigation into Hillary Clinton a month. before the election. And that's what sunk her chances. Those are the narratives that you're fighting.

And I have not heard--. Comey has come out and said a few things about, well, I might not have done that, but I thought it was important. He's explained certain things. The FBI hasn't really talked that much about who. those agents were, what they were doing there, or any of those other situations. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. Listen, what I'll say about that. is that if the FBI expended its resources chasing. down or debunking every conspiracy theory, they would be spending much less.

time focusing on national security. and mitigating serious crime. JON STEWART: Does some, though, raise. to the level that need to be addressed more forcefully? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. And that comes with close and continuing. communication with the public in a responsible manner. And I think that could fix a lot of the things. that you're addressing. And, honestly, when you're speaking. about Director Comey and the others, I can't and won't speak for them.

And they have their choices to make on. not only when and how they communicate, but the style in which they do so. And they're surrounded by very smart people. JON STEWART: How hard is it now, when the director of the FBI, Kash Patel, is one of the people who propagated the January 6. theory-- that now you have somebody. leading the FBI who was a proponent of that conspiracy? Yet, there was a guy, Ray Epps--. they've never brought charges against any of those people. They've never actually given the information out there. They've never released certain files.

How do we retain faith in an institution. that, in some respects, won't defend itself forcefully, or, in this particular case, is being led by someone who. was one of the leading proponents. that we shouldn't trust this organization? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. So I understand that a fish stinks. from the head kind of concept. JON STEWART: I've heard that. BRIAN DRISCOLL: I was only the head of that fish for a very.

short amount of time. However, I spent a lot of time with the people and shared risk. of our lives with the people that actually. work that organization--. like I said, 38,000 at full strength. There's one guy named as the director, right? Now, I think people need to trust that those people, they're not appointees. They are civil servants.

They've given up a lot to be able to serve. in their capacities. They've worked their asses off to do it. And their families have given up a lot. And that's where I find trust in them, because I was one of them, and I was with them, and I'll do anything for them. Now, as far as the current director is concerned, on his first night after he was confirmed, he came to the office, and I had a few minutes with him, and I made him a promise in that moment--. not knowing how long I had left there.

I didn't have a crystal ball. I had some feelings about it. But I promised him that I would do everything in my power. and whatever influence I had to make. him the best director we've ever had, because we need him to be. And if he fails, we fail. That has not changed. Despite what people want to assign to me as. far as my opinions and thoughts--. my opinions are unproductive. I hope and root that he will be better every day.

I hope that those in leadership positions, not just in the FBI, but everywhere else that serves our country, understands that having authority. and being in authority are not the same thing. And surround yourself with people that are smarter, and better, and more experienced, and we'll all be better off for it. JON STEWART: And does that dysfunction present itself. clearly within the organization--.

chain of command, morale, eye on the prize? Or is there literally, like, the majority of the FBI's. focused on those day-to-day tasks of protecting Americans. and making sure these threats don't go, and there is a small kind of cadre, a kind of adjacent office that is more focused. on these partisan endeavors? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Well, let me caveat this with I'm. out in these streets just like you guys. So I'm not in there. But what you said is accurate.

The majority of the people there are doing their job. JON STEWART: And the priorities, they. might shift to drug interdiction. or they might shift to trafficking or something else, but they're still focused on the day-to-day task at hand. and the processes that were put in place. to protect those tests. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yes. And if there are priorities or surges. driven by the leadership, portions of the FBI.

will surge to that. JON STEWART: Well, like when they say, we're now moving a bunch of FBI agents to go to Atlanta, and they're going to go and they're going to raid election. offices, and they're going to do all those things--. and, by all accounts, they're moving. a lot of manpower to do that--. how are we supposed to have faith in that organization. anymore when that's so clearly a partisan endeavor,

an ideological endeavor? BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. Listen, I'm not going to be cute about it. That is troubling to watch from the outside. I don't know what's going into those decision matrix that are. driving those investigations. So I won't speak to the credibility of them. That said, like, I will go back to what I said before--. if it is legal, if it's predicated, if all the things have been done properly, then--.

JON STEWART: Even if, look, just. by the very nature of doing it, that puts a chilling effect. on the electoral process in that area, the people that work there-- we saw the hell that they. put two election workers through when. they were looking there. These are the things that I think very much undermine. that credibility that you guys are talking about. and the story that you guys are talking about in terms. of the individuals and the sacrifices.

they're making to protect us. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. And I think what's most vexing on top of that is not just. how the resources are being allocated. and what they're being allocated to, but what's getting dropped-- what kind of actual threats. are being prioritized or deprioritized. when that's happening? We have a very heightened national security. threat right now. Crime is going down, speaking globally.

or nationally, which is great. I'm not going to sit here and be ignorant enough to say, like, everything that these people are doing is bad. JON STEWART: No, no. I get it. BRIAN DRISCOLL: That's just not the case. And it's irresponsible to say that. However, from what I worked when I was in the Bureau, with Jack working in parallel, intersecting sometimes. through people we share as friends and colleagues, there are threats that we could use more resources pointed at, especially with the global environment.

and what's happening all over the world right now. Like, terrorism didn't stop. JON STEWART: Right. And those threats don't stop. Jack, I want to ask you about when DOJ--. when you've got the DOJ is headed up. by the President's personal lawyer--. but I want to talk about other structural things--. DOJ, I always look at as you're fighting corruption, right? It's influence peddling, bribes, the types. of white collar crime that is difficult to get.

your arms around and handle. But it seems as though the Supreme Court has. made that job-- forget about Trump and politicizing. these things--. it seems as though corruption, as we typically understood it, has been redefined by the Supreme. Court over the last 15 years. And I want to know how that affects. your ability to do the job that the DOJ is.

supposed to be doing. So, just as an example, in the McDonnell. case-- did you work on the McDonnell case in Virginia? JACK SMITH: I did. I was one of the supervisors in that case. Yes. JON STEWART: OK. So that's a case where a guy is paid. money, and gifts, and bribes to give access, right? You guys bring a case against him. He gets convicted. The Supreme Court says, actually, it's not bribery if it's just for access.

There were other cases. I've got some written down--. the Snyder case, which I thought was a fascinating one. Bribes that are given after you do the quid pro quo. are considered gratuities and, therefore, can't be prosecuted as bribes. You have the absolute immunity case for Trump. You have the Skilling case, which is about conflict. of interest or self-dealing.

At every turn, the Supreme Court is redefining what public. corruption is, to the point where I don't even know how you. would prosecute public corruption unless someone is. holding a giant bag that has dollar sign on it, and on it, it says, "for helping me with that thing.". JACK SMITH: Well, Jon, it's actually. even more dire than you know. JON STEWART: It can't be more dire than that, Jack.

It can't. JACK SMITH: But before we get to the Supreme Court, and I'll come back to that, we're in a world. right now, Jon, where if there is corruption. at the highest levels of our government, there is nobody to look at it. Nobody. Congress is not going to look at it. The DOJ is not going to look at it. There's not going to be any outside prosecutor. to look at it. And so, before we even get to bringing a case, there's no one who would be allowed to investigate it. JON STEWART: Now, when you say "nobody. is allowed to investigate it," how do you mean?

JACK SMITH: Well, you can imagine if there was--. take a look at the Signalgate thing, with sharing battle plans--. JON STEWART: Classified information over--. JACK SMITH: Right. And the attorney general at the time, Attorney General Bondi, immediately, without any facts, said there's not. going to be an investigation. Comes out later from the inspector general. that, in fact, it was classified information. and it endangered the lives of service members.

If that's not being investigated, we don't have to worry about what the Supreme. Court says because we're not going to get to court. and have a case. JON STEWART: But they are investigating Renee Good. I mean, they are investigating. It seems upside down, to some extent. JACK SMITH: Right. And, again, my point is that that judgment to investigate. real corruption and not investigate. shooting victims' family members, you need good people in these roles. Again, in terms of as we go forward, I hear a lot of people.

talk about how are we going to fix the FBI, how are we going to fix the Department of Justice. And, like, the idea--. I've heard someone say, the next director of the FBI. really needs to have smart people around them who really. know the Bureau and how it works--. people like Brian Driscoll. My response to that is--. my response is, how about we just. have one of those people run the FBI, someone who actually knows it? Not a politician, not a person with a political stake. in the game, but people who actually have done the work.

since they were young people. How about that? And I agree with you, Jon, that winning back credibility. is not going to be easy. But I don't think we shouldn't try to do it. And, again, I think that diving into that, my life, when I interact with people in the world, I hear people all the time who want. to go back to having normal people make these decisions. JON STEWART: Oh, dear god-- people are exhausted. They're absolutely exhausted. JACK SMITH: And so the way I think.

of it is we have-- the people who work in the Justice. Department and in the FBI, the everyday line prosecutors. and agents, which Brian and I spent most of our career doing, people know their story. They're going to like that. They're going to respect it. I mean, just go back real quick, Jon, on the issue of communication and the issue of January 6--. there is a inspector general's report. that exists that debunks everything you said about, like, the FBI setting this up. It's in detail. And if you take the time to read the 100-whatever odd pages.

it is, no person could come away and think. that's what happened. The problem, nobody's read it. Nobody knows about it. Nobody took it as their job to go out to the public. and say, hey, this is a big deal. People are going to believe this narrative unless I. explain this to folks. And so that's what I say about leaders on issues like that. that can cause huge distrust. Taking that on is part of the job. I certainly didn't do it in the DOJ before, but I think that's the thing we need to change going forward.

[MUSIC PLAYING]. JON STEWART: Do you ever look at your phone bill? Have you ever done that? Have you ever looked at your phone bill. I've looked at my phone bill. I think it's designed to not be able to understand, your phone bill. All the writing, and the things, and the gimmicks, and I want to say--. I want to curse, to be honest with you. I'm not going to do it. I generally want to curse, but I'm not. going to do it about this, because there's. a solution to this nonsense. Mint. You know what I'm talking about?

Mint Mobile, wireless plan. No gimmick. High speed data, reliable coverage. on the T-Mobile 5G network. You get rid of your overpriced wireless with Mint Mobile. You can sign up online. You know me. I'm terminally online. I live my life on the web. Do they still call it the web? My children literally think I'm a caveman--. like I'm Fred Flintstone, that I'm just waiting for a car that. has no floorboards and I'm just going to run it with my feet. But the point isn't what my children think of me.

What's important is what you think of your wireless service. [JON CHUCKLING]. To get your new wireless plan for just $15 a month, go to MintMobile.com/TWS. That's MintMobile.com/TWS. Cut your wireless bill to $15 a month at MintMobile.com/TWS. That's it. There's no catch. [MUSIC PLAYING]. How do we change when the Supreme Court has made the bar. for public corruption so high?

Look, special counsels in general. were appointed because it all felt. like it was a problem beyond the scope. of our standard system. So you had the Watergate special prosecutor. You had Iran-Contra was a special prosecutor. And they looked into it, and they found evidence. of criminal wrongdoing-- in the case of Watergate, brought down a president. Interesting that JD Vance said Watergate. today would be a 12-hour story and nothing would happen.

And I don't disagree with that, not because it's not. an egregious abuse of power, but. because the levers of accountability. that we have seem diminished. And I wonder if special counsels. played a role in that-- and I want your opinion on that. Let's look at the last ones-- you had. the Mueller case with Russia. You had a lot of convictions, but very few of them. were about election interference. It was mostly obstruction, or perjury, or those things.

I guess the next one was the classified documents case. Then they had the Biden documents case. It looked like he also had classified documents. Then they had a Hunter Biden special counsel. where we finally got him on weapons charges. Whitewater was another one. Were the special counsels also, I guess, at fault in some ways.

because they never really got to the crux of what they were. investigating, they were only able to spring process traps, and that's how they ended up catching a few low level fish. So if that's not there, what levers of accountability. are we left with? And I know that's a lot to answer, but I wanted your opinion on that. JACK SMITH: Yeah, sure. So I think of it this way. You've got a situation, a highly sensitive situation, with high level people in the government.

It could be my case. It could be Iran-Contra. It could be Watergate-- any of the ones you talked about. You've got three options. Option one is you say, this is too sensitive. We're not going to really look into it. Corruption at the highest level of government, it doesn't happen very often, and the executive needs a lot. of power to do their job. So we're really not going to even go down that road. There are people who take that position. On the other end, you say, you know what? The Justice Department run by a political appointee.

of the current president can totally do it. And people will find it credible, because the Justice Department does this every day. And we don't have to do anything special. The middle ground is to appoint somebody. outside the government. And how much discretion and power that person has. depends on whether you're talking. about the independent counsel statute, which. was Iran-Contra, or the special counsel regulations. that I worked under. And the balance is you want independence so that person can. make a call and call balls and strikes as they are, but you also need accountability, right?

And I think that was the concern. with the independent counsel statute. is some felt that the independent counsel was. accountable to no one and could go on forever. JON STEWART: And could catch a lot of people. in situations where they don't have the resources. Look, I'm no fan of General Flynn, but it's very different for Donald Trump. to have to defend himself--. I mean, that guy had to, like, sell his house. When somebody is in the crosshairs, whether it's a Papadopoulos, or a Carter Page, or a--. Hunter Biden has resources, but Letitia James now--.

these people don't have the resources to go up against it. Clearly, abuses have been taking place. JACK SMITH: Yeah. And I guess one thing I would just add to into the framework. is how we judge it. Like, I think when you're dealing with these situations, these complex, difficult, hard to prove situations, the idea that anybody's going to do that job. and you're going to get unanimous public agreement.

that that's a fabulous job. And we all agree with the outcome. That's just not happening. JON STEWART: No, that's a good point. Yeah. JACK SMITH: And so I think what we need to do, and my view, is in those situations, you hew to doing things the right way, the way they've been done in the Justice. Department for generations, at least since Watergate. That is a credibility enhancer. I think, again, communicating how you're. doing that is going to be helpful,

but you're never going to get 100% approval. And you're never going to get an outcome. that everybody agrees with. Sometimes the outcomes are more complicated. than can be explained in a short narrative. I feel like the job of a prosecutor. is not achieving a particular outcome--. how many convictions you got, how many people were charged, that sort of thing. It's doing it the right way. You do it the right way, and you let the chips fall. where they're going to fall. Not every profession is like that.

And I think the thing, from the perspective I have--. I think Brian might share this--. is the way the public judges a lot of the criminal justice. system is outcome based. And good prosecutors don't do that. So our internal metric for doing the job the right way. is one of, like, I did things the way. they're supposed to be done. Of course, if I think someone's guilty, I want to get a conviction. And I'm going to try to do that. But it's much more important to me. that I do it the right way than I get a particular outcome.

And I would never want to have a prosecutor who. had cut corners because he wants the public adulation. and support because he got an outcome a lot of people wanted. And so I guess a long way to say that is, like, there's sort of ceilings on how much. you can have everybody really happy. with the outcome of these things. They're built to be difficult from the start. JON STEWART: I'm not even talking about their happiness. with it. I'm more talking about the broader sense of accountability. that doesn't seem-- look, in my mind, the macro view of this--.

and, Brian, I think I'd like to get your opinion on this--. January 6 was a Rubicon for me in terms of democratic system. being subverted. The Supreme Court can say the president basically. has absolute immunity and you can't find anything--. and basically makes him beyond the scope of the law. if he's doing the duties of his office. But January 6 was the crossing the line that I thought, this is a person that needs to be held to account.

for trying to subvert--. peaceful transfer of power, that's the line. There's different corruptions within it, but if you won't leave when you're supposed to leave, that's when we turn from a democracy into an autocracy. Like, that's the dividing line, black and white. Our inability to hold that President. to account through a political process, impeachment--. that was clearly partisan. People that said, yeah, that was egregious. and he should never hold office again, still voted not to impeach because they.

said, well, he's leaving anyway-- little did they know. So the political process proved itself. to be not up to the task. The legal process, I thought, also proved itself. not to be up to the task. It took Merrick Garland, I don't know, two to three years before he even asked. you to do the investigation. I don't know why. I don't know if you have an opinion on that. JACK SMITH: My view of my work--.

I got appointed to do a job, and I did it. When I interacted with Merrick Garland, he's not a guy who put the finger on the scale. He didn't try to push me to do it--. bring a case, not bring a case. JON STEWART: But he didn't bring. it for two to three years. He didn't even ask you. JACK SMITH: Yeah. I mean, I got appointed when I got appointed. And, like, I guess my point on that, Jon, is that I understand that that's. a narrative that people want to talk about is, like, why didn't he move faster? That sort of thing. I feel like, from my perspective, having been someone who's done this job for a long time.

and cares a lot about where the department goes going forward, cares a lot about the people who work there, I'm much more. interested in finding people who are examples. of courageous people who are standing up, who are making sacrifices. If you're on a sports team and you're trying to do well, right, you look for ways that you can succeed. You look for plays that work. I want to see people and I want to raise people up. who could be part of the solution.

rather than looking backward. JON STEWART: And I completely agree with that. I'm talking more about how the system is perceived, even with those good people in it. So Merrick Garland takes years to do it--. I'm talking about how the legal process seemed to not. be able to hold him to account for what I thought is the most. egregious moment in my lifetime in American history-- like, makes Watergate look like chump change. So he holds off on that.

Then the system, unable to get at him. through that legal methodology, seemed like--. and you can push back on this--. seemed like it went after Trump with every available. methodology they could think of. Letitia James prosecutes him for, I think, his business and mortgage dealings. Alvin Bragg prosecutes him for the Stormy Daniels payments.

The government goes after classified documents, which. is something that I think most people were like, I didn't even know that was a thing. I always assumed that there were-- because in this country, our classification system is also broken. It looked like, to fair appearances, that the system did turn its eye to getting this guy any way. they could. And so if the political process failed us.

and the legal process seemed to have failed us, I think that's the question of how do we rebuild trust. in that system, even though it's staffed. with really good people. Brian, you were going to say something. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah, no, I'm going to take Jack. off the hook for a second. JON STEWART: Please. BRIAN DRISCOLL: I'm not saying that you're saying this, however-- JON STEWART: Yeah. BRIAN DRISCOLL: --I think it's important for people. to know that we didn't do nothing. We investigated the people who perpetrated.

the January 6 crimes. JON STEWART: Yes. That's right. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Myself, personally, were part of arrest teams that took off. some of the most violent and dangerous offenders affiliated. with some very violent groups. And these things, they do take time. I can't speak to the decision process of AG Garland. at the time and any delays and this, that, and the other thing. But the DOJ didn't sit on our hands either. We were hustling. We were working to hold the criminals accountable, and did.

Now, going all the way over to POTUS, I can't speak for that. JON STEWART: Right. BRIAN DRISCOLL: But felt like Jack needed some help. So, yeah-- [JON LAUGHING]. --I jumped in. There you go. You all right, Jack? JON STEWART: Listen, I think Jack will be fine. BRIAN DRISCOLL: It's OK. It's my job to look after him. JON STEWART: Well, do you-- am I being unfair? Am I being unfair in saying that, to my mind--. and, again, I'm not talking about the guys who, like you say, that stormed the Capitol,

and got arrested, and were given sentences, like-- and were held to account. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the ringleaders, and the people that pardoned those same people, and were never held to account for anything, either through our political means--. our only political means is impeachment. Our only legal means is through the DOJ. So am I being unfair to say that those systems were.

unable to operate and, at this point, have been through, whether it's the Supreme Court. or whether it's through the ability. of Donald Trump and his allies to delay, have we failed? JACK SMITH: Jon, I would say, first, on the political part, you're probably talking to the wrong guys for that. We're criminal investigators who work on criminal cases. JON STEWART: I just want your opinions. I'm not-- JACK SMITH: Yeah.

JON STEWART: Yeah. JACK SMITH: So on the other part, in terms of the cases against Trump, I can speak most directly to ours. And when I took that job, I would have been perfectly. happy, if the facts and law didn't justify. it, to not bring those cases. And I'm sure, if the facts were different, Jon, I'm sure a lot of the people who think I'm great. would not think I'm so great. And some of the people who think I'm bad. would think I'm really nice. The truth is-- JON STEWART: Very good point. JACK SMITH: Yeah. When you're a prosecutor, right, all that sort of things.

in terms of perceptions, and people. feeling this way, and this election, that is noise. That is things that I didn't consider when I'm doing my job. And I brought those cases and I moved. them forward because I thought I could prove them in court. And I thought I'd win on appeal. We don't change the metric once it's someone. who's a high profile case. JON STEWART: OK. JACK SMITH: And, again, I would just like to juxtapose. what weaponization is. I've been doing this for three decades. I'm not a political operative who was brought in.

from outside because they couldn't get. a line prosecutor to do it. People didn't resign because I demanded that they. do things that run so counter to the traditions. of the department. Just think about today, Jon, if you had an allegation. of corruption, can you imagine this administration. bringing in someone like me who's. got no political allegiance? Can you imagine that happening? JON STEWART: No. JACK SMITH: And that's why we come back to this issue of--. JON STEWART: I can't imagine, by the way, them even prosecuting it.

I mean, he literally was bragging yesterday. that he was making sure they weren't going to investigate. cryptocurrency corruption. I mean, they're bragging about no longer investigating. white collar crime. JACK SMITH: Yeah. And, again, that's why I go back. to this issue of, like, how we talk about it, because when you. talk about, Jon, like, the fact that people don't believe this. and people don't trust that-- it's not in a vacuum, right? There are people with very powerful megaphones using.

repetitive messages over and over again. that have no factual basis, but they get out there. And they become part of the public discussion. The history before these last couple of years. is prosecutors just sat on their hands. and let that be said. And we didn't worry about that. I think the credibility issues you're talking about. are because one side was telling. a story divorced from the facts, and the other side wasn't telling a story.

I think if you lean into the facts, in the cases we do, I could justify them in court. And I could justify them publicly. I think, going forward, that is the recipe-- that. and having the people who are telling the stories be. from the rank and file and be people. who've lived the values that they're. asking the teams to follow. JON STEWART: No. And, Brian, I'm assuming you feel the same way. about within the FBI. Because what it feels like is you. now have an organization that is. generally built apolitically--.

built through merit, built through whatever methodologies. they think gives them the best chance to get the best agents. and the most selfless people--. being utilized and weaponized by partisans, and with very little recourse, I would assume. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. And I am 100%, no surprise here, aligned with what Jack just said. It's going to take--. JON STEWART: You make a formidable team, the two of you. BRIAN DRISCOLL: I appreciate that. Jack's on the top. JACK SMITH: Uh huh.

Uh huh. BRIAN DRISCOLL: It's Robin, Batman. JON STEWART: All right, fair enough. JACK SMITH: How dare you, sir? [LAUGHTER]. BRIAN DRISCOLL: I don't look that great in tights. So, again, like what Jack said, it's going to take people. from the rank and file who cannot. speak for themselves publicly. They're not allowed to. JON STEWART: Right. BRIAN DRISCOLL: But people like Jack and I, and I don't want to put words in Jack's mouth. or speak for him, but I can speak for myself when I say, like, I have been and continue to seek.

purpose to fill the purpose that was taken from me. Part of how I'm fulfilling that purpose. is trying to be that responsible voice. I'm not anointed by the men and women of the FBI. to speak on their behalf. However, I can offer a perspective. that most don't hear. And, like I said before, like, demystifying some. of the thought processes, some of the experiences. we've been through and some of the ways things get done, it's a responsibility. And I think all of that noise, all of the dynamic opinions.

regarding, like--. Jack and I talked about this the other day, like, we're, like, Joe Fridays. It's just the facts. That was our career-- it was not about credit, was. not about getting the awards. It's about the facts, doing the job, because it's what we signed up for. And now we can represent, hopefully--. but it's a no fail task. When Jack and I speak, we cannot fail. We cannot allow our words to be twisted because we speak.

and stand for something bigger than just ourselves, because that's the part of the organization we craved to be. a part of and we're proud to be a part. of-- something larger than us. It makes me deeply uncomfortable to do this type. of stuff, no offense. Thank you so much for having us. JON STEWART: I'm deeply uncomfortable as well. doing this. I have been for years--. 30 years. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. I told this to my teammates when.

I was in that period of time where. I was the acting director. There is nothing I wanted more, when that period was over, than to just disappear into anonymity. and continue putting points on the board. on behalf of the organization, on behalf. of the American people. Now, I understand that I put myself. under a level of pressure to do things like this. But to me, pressure is a privilege. because it means something is expected of me, even if I'm the only one that might expect it of myself.

JON STEWART: Right. It's finding purpose, even after you've. been let go from the place where you found that grounding. and you found that relevance. BRIAN DRISCOLL: And because I believe in them. I believe in the organizations. I believe in the American people. I had an experience last week that reinforced it. in a very real way. I told Jack, I ride my motorcycle to work. I save money on the E-ZPass lane. JON STEWART: How much cooler than me can you be? God, this is really--. now you're just taunting me.

BRIAN DRISCOLL: No, I promise I am not cool. JON STEWART: Well, I ride my electric bike. sometimes to get the mail, so don't think you. and I aren't the same. Because we're the same. BRIAN DRISCOLL: You're exponentially. better in every way. So I was riding to work, and I was going the speed limit, I promise-- it was 50 miles an hour, two-way street, hit a deer. I had nowhere to go. And so, at 50 miles an hour, I took a short flight. and a longer slide and tumble.

JON STEWART: Wow. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Bike is fine, importantly, for me and my mindset. But I'm fine too. JON STEWART: All right. Deer is OK? Important to me. BRIAN DRISCOLL: It, surprisingly, ran off. I never saw it again. I will find it. JON STEWART: All right. BRIAN DRISCOLL: But what happened next, after I realized. that I was OK, I stood up, and traffic stopped. on both sides of the street. And everybody emptied those cars-- it.

was rush hour in the morning. The first person to me was an African-American. female in her 50s, let's say. Second person, young blonde woman in scrubs. The third, fourth, fifth people were in the car that would have. killed me if I went into oncoming traffic, filled with Hispanic laborers. None of them asked who I voted for, like, my sexual orientation, my religion. They didn't even ask my name. All they saw was a dude in America who needed help.

And they helped me. And in that moment and every moment in the last week. and a half has kind of like cleared. the fog for me as far as all of the things. I consume responsibly. And I think it is on those consumers--. it's on the communicators as well and the organizations you. talked about, and it's on us--. but it's also on the consumers to be responsible and don't. just believe the first headline that you see, but read. diversely, broadly, and don't just.

get sucked in to what the algorithm is. telling you how to think. JON STEWART: Brother, preach, preach. I'm telling you-- BRIAN DRISCOLL: I feel better. JON STEWART: Listen, it's very easy to have. your perspective skewed. And it's an important remembrance there. And I think that's-- and, listen, I appreciate both of your guys' time so much for this. And I think probably a great way to end is in that sense of, so how do we get back to that without the idea.

of just believing in the goodness of us, but do you have ideas on how we can reclaim the accountability. so necessary for this system to function. properly and not be co-opted by bad actors or partisan actors? People will say, like, well, the real elections. are the real accountability.

That's ultimately where it all ends up. But I'm watching our electoral process be co-opted now. through partisan measures where the thumb is. being put on that scale in very bad ways. Do you have ideas about, beyond trusting the integrity. of the rank and file, where we can. start to bring a little more accountability to the system?

I'll ask you, Jack. JACK SMITH: Well, in terms of the Justice Department, and I think the Bureau as well, I think the one thing we can. say with certainty is when there's been more politics, it's been bad. And when there's been less politics, it's been good. And so I think a thing that should be looked at. is whether there's ways you can not just get the Justice. Department back to what it was when. I worked there, but are there ways we can make it better? You know, Jon, after Watergate, there. was a bunch of reforms that made our government better--.

JON STEWART: Yep. JACK SMITH: --in a bunch of different ways. JON STEWART: Very much so. JACK SMITH: And it was a dark time after Watergate, right? And people took that darkness, and the pain they were feeling, and the negative outlook for the future, and they turned it into things that made our country. better for a good long time. We have an opportunity to do that right now. I think getting people-- there are so many people out there. who feel alone, and feel isolated, and feel like nobody. is standing up for them, or speaking for them,

or exhibiting the values that we're talking about. I think that's a foundation. And I think you start with that. And then the Justice Department, of all the things. that the government does, to me, is the one thing where politics can have a role. We have to find reforms where it. makes it harder and harder to do what's happening right now. JON STEWART: Brian. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Yeah. Jack is so much more articulate. JON STEWART: Come on. BRIAN DRISCOLL: So, I mean, what he said. No, I think it comes down to not taking trust for granted,

people with credibility and real experience, maybe. a little bit of scar tissue, but don't have an agenda. that are ready to serve and bring. trust into the institutions. But I also think that John Q citizen, Jane Q citizen should. be fluent in their rights and, like I said, be unafraid to exercise them in a safe manner with no violence,

but just be unafraid. JON STEWART: And I think it's probably going to come down. to that is, you said it earlier, courage and the courage of individuals. And, Jack, when you talked about the reforms. after Watergate, it struck me--. so much of that was rebalancing the branches of government. And it does feel like we're moving--. this idea of a unitary executive and a president,

as much more forceful as a king--. until that changes, it's very difficult to rebalance this, because now we are going to be much more so, and DOJ being under that auspice, it's going to be much more difficult to do it until we. rebalance the branches again. And right now, it feels like we're. in an outsized pre-Watergate mindset. JACK SMITH: Yeah.

I mean, I would say one thing about. that is that when you think about, like, how change comes. about-- like, you look at the times in our history. where something really bad happened. and we got better, whether it's abolishing slavery, women's. suffrage, the Civil Rights movement, right, there were moments when no one knew. if what they were going to do was going to make a difference. And they did it anyways, right? You don't think about the likelihood of success. You just think, I'm going to be on the right side of history. I'm going to behave in a way that's going to make my kids. proud, my parents proud.

And you just do that. And you don't worry about consequences. I think, in terms of a mindset for our society, 99% of the time, I think most people. know the right thing to do. They really do. The problem becomes when they factor in the consequences. for doing the right thing, because then people, if the consequences are too high, they start rationalizing ways where they. don't quite have to do that. And maybe they could do something short of that. As Brian said, if we start taking a mindset of it's. our country, we own the problems,

if you want a solution, you got to be a part of it--. I feel like that happens, and if that becomes. our national dialogue and integrity is a more central. part of it, some of the things you're talking about, we can elect people who will not do those sort of things. I mean, I have a big concern--. I don't want to have a situation where we've. had these abuses and that becomes a new normal. for any party, right? And we've seen that other times. JON STEWART: And the key to remember is it doesn't have to. That it is, like you say, that action against this corruption.

is necessary. And the courage to take action against that corruption. is all of our responsibilities. JACK SMITH: Absolutely. JON STEWART: Well, I can't think of three bigger heroes. than the three of us. [LAUGHTER] All right. Just you two. Dammit. Jack Smith, former Special Counsel, Brian Driscoll, former FBI agent who, in 2025, was the acting. director of the FBI.

Thank you so much for spending the time. and pointing out the great stories of the integrity. of the people in the rank and file. of law enforcement, and of our Department of Justice, and all those things. We have to keep highlighting the good work. by the good people and those that. continue to stand up against corruption in all of its forms. And so I appreciate you both being here for that. JACK SMITH: Thanks for having us, Jon. Really appreciate it. BRIAN DRISCOLL: Thank you, sir. Appreciate you. JON STEWART: All right.

Bye, guys. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Those guys have balls. You know, can I say something? When I'm hanging out with guys like that, I'm literally like, so you guys want to do shots? What do you want to do? [LAUGHTER]. Want to go to a Giants game? What do you want to do? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: We're going to hang out, right? JON STEWART: We're going to hang out, right, guys? Like, it's so, like, you're overwhelmed by manly madness--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. That was also-- that was a three, like, New York, New Jersey, tri-state area accents. that I was hearing, too. JON STEWART: That's terrible. You know what?

That should have been the whole conversation. You believe these fucking guys--. [LAUGHTER]. --at the DOJ? But it is a little bit like the Jimmy Cagney movies. where, like, one brother's a priest, the other is a gangster. Like, they're the brother that, like, went into law enforcement. Yeah, my brother on the street. Yeah, he's in trouble all the time. But I went the other way. But I honestly, like, I can't imagine--. they keep talking about it, like, trying to divorce.

themselves from the madness. But the madness, the circus, is all. that we experience from them. And it's incredible. Like, there's a certain zen like they have, I guess, kind of accepted all this. They've accepted the storm, and there's, like, a weird zen about them. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. I think it's almost maybe, I don't know, I'm thinking out loud, but, like, they really harp so much on how important.

process is in their work. And I almost think it's, like, hard to, then, remove themselves from just like, well, this is how we do things. We just keep putting one foot in front of the other. We just keep keeping our eye on the ball. JON STEWART: Well, I also think, he got to it a little bit at the end, which is, like, they live in a world of standards--. evidentiary standards. And the Trump administration lives in a world of hyperbole. And the world of hyperbole never survives its contact.

with the world of standards. GILLIAN SPEAR: No. JON STEWART: And so I think it really. is that strange dichotomy. I think they're more comfortable in that world of, like, well, you can't really just make shit up. You have to prove it. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. Because we're going to actually have to, then, put this in front of a judge and a jury. and actually have to prove our case. Whereas the Trump administration can just say, surely you can all agree with us. that somebody took a razor blade to the reflecting pool.

because I feel that way. JON STEWART: And stole 13,000 votes. And there were 500,000 people on the mall. watching the speech-- and just nonsense. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. And what's your evidence? Fuck you. JON STEWART: Right. Fuck you. You're dumb. That's a terrible question. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. Next question. Yeah. JON STEWART: Well, I'm definitely--. I've got to make sure I've got a big motorcycle ride planned. GILLIAN SPEAR: I was actually--. I was reminded, when he was saying that, when I was looking. into Jack Smith, he took the role as special prosecutor.

while he was recovering from a bike. accident in the Netherlands. And they were concerned that him sort of agreeing to it, it would be an issue that he was on painkillers. So he went, like, cold turkey for several days in order to--. I mean, integrity is so important to these people. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Oh, my god. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. I mean, I was just thinking about that. during-- when he was talking about the bike accident. JON STEWART: I love too, also, like, that's crazy Jack Smith. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. Deranged. JON STEWART: Donald Trump-- deranged Jack Smith.

And he's like, you know, for me, it's really about process. [LAUGHTER] Like, he's like the Bob Ross of law enforcement. He's like, I take a little bit of white, a little bit of blue. GILLIAN SPEAR: I bike through the Netherlands. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: What is his morning meditation? I need to know it. He needs to drop it. JON STEWART: No question. What do the kids want, Brittany, after our week off? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Jon, do you think Trump is happy? JON STEWART: Oh, boy. That's-- you know, I never considered that, Brittany.

Poor little billionaire president. GILLIAN SPEAR: Getting richer by the minute. JON STEWART: Poor sweet little. I think he is animated by vengeance. And so, paradoxically, yes, I think he is happy that his body. is a bile production facility.

Whereas you and I live aerobically, he lives anaerobically and, therefore, is. happy in his oxygenless world. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. But, like, even just coming off of this weekend, like, that wasn't a success--. he's happy by how this weekend went for him? He's happy with all of his renovations? JON STEWART: Do you believe that that is how. he's interpreting the weekend? He put on the greatest--.

GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. JON STEWART: --American fair ever since the expo--. since the World Expo in, like, 19-whatever. GILLIAN SPEAR: Meet me in St. Louis. Yeah. JON STEWART: Right. GILLIAN SPEAR: He posted that photo where it's, like, deranged-- like, millions of people and, like, signs that say "Trump.". It's so-- and, honestly--. JON STEWART: He's beloved. GILLIAN SPEAR: It's like, is there. a distinction between, like, believing your own lies. and just like--. I don't know if he believes him or if it even matters to him.

Like, it's enough to have that photo. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I guess. GILLIAN SPEAR: Even though it's completely madeup. I don't know. It's pretty sick. JON STEWART: I think when you say, is he happy? Is he the center of attention? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yes. JON STEWART: Then he's happy. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: That's it. JON STEWART: Because he is animated. only by our eyes, and our focus, and our attention. He's the original algorithm. [LAUGHTER]. He drives us to his embrace, and we. all revolve-- he is the sun.

And we are but the stars. Romeo and Juliet is about him. It's about Donald Trump stepping out over the balcony. And it is the east. GILLIAN SPEAR: I always got more of a Lear vibe, but--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: OK, Gillian. JON STEWART: It's both. Well, she's our Jeopardy! champ, so she's gotta know that shit. I only have to know the titles of a couple of plays. She's got to know what they're about. What else do they want? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Jon, when do you think Democrats should.

start campaigning for 2028? JON STEWART: Oh, my god. I thought they already had. Oh, you know what I think? I think when they come up with, like, a plan. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Oh. JON STEWART: Now, I don't want to be controversial. But when they come up with, like, an idea about what they. want to do when they govern that isn't just like, what if we just extend that one housing tax credit? Like, when they develop a theory. of the case of government--. GILLIAN SPEAR: Well, there's an idea. JON STEWART: --and how to make it actionable to people's lives.

with value instead of just platitudes about, we got to get back to affordability, you know those kitchen table issues. And you're like, kitchen-- what are you fucking talking about? But have some specifics. You don't have any--. ChatGPT could come up with a pretty nice platform, probably. in a minute and a half. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. Andrew Cuomo tried that. JON STEWART: Oh, he did those AI commercials? GILLIAN SPEAR: Well, he also, like-- there was a housing plan. that his team put out that just had, like, ChatGPT, like, gibberish in the middle.

JON STEWART: No. GILLIAN SPEAR: Yeah. JON STEWART: That's hilarious. And that's why he won. GILLIAN SPEAR: Exactly. JON STEWART: But how hard can it be? All right. Very good. Brittany, how do they keep in touch with us? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Twitter, we are WeeklyShowPod. Instagram, Threads, TikTok, Bluesky, we. are WeeklyShowPodcast. And you can like, subscribe, and comment. on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. JON STEWART: Fantastic. Guys, thanks very much. As always, producer Brittany Mehmedovic, producer Gillian. Spear, video editor and engineer Rob Vitolo, who types faster than you think he does,

audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce. And our executive producers, Chris McShane and Caity Gray. We shall see you all next week. Bye bye. [MUSIC PLAYING]. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast that's produced by Paramount. Audio and Busboy Productions.