Trump’s War On Justice, the FBI and the Deep State | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

JON STEWART: Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are deep state guys. They're the ones who are like, the deep state is a problem. When we get in there, we're going to expose the deep state. We're going to expose that Ray Epps is a plant and a fed. We're going to expose the Epstein files. And then they get in there, and bupkis. So what happened there? [THEME MUSIC]. Hey, everybody. Welcome to The Weekly Show podcast.

My name is Jon Stewart. We are coming to you, oh, on a beautiful August, mugginess day. The humidity is 180%. It is Wednesday, August 13. What are we doing? It's the middle of August. You don't want to hear me. You want to be sitting somewhere with your feet. in the water, sipping yourself a nice--. what do they call it there? Aperol Spritz? Or perhaps, maybe knowing our audience a little.

better, a little Meister--. a little Meister Brau and a bong hit, whatever. it is that you want to do to get yourselves through. these, uh--. these August dog days of summer. We're gonna be talking about, for our final episode. of the summer, a little thing called the deep state. I don't know if you guys are familiar with the deep state. It's the part of the state that's very-- boy, it's embedded in there. You can't get it. It's a splinter in the heart of the body politic. that is corrupting all of it.

And we've got two guests who are gonna be discussing. the deep state in the Department of Justice. and the FBI, one of whom actually. has worked at the FBI for 16 years and was just let. go because he was friends with someone. that the Trump administration doesn't like. And the other is a reporter on the Department of Justice, on the deep state. And so we're going to dig into it all today, in the--. it's the deep state deep in the heart of August, deep.

in the heart of summer. But let's get right to it. [THEME MUSIC]. We're gonna get to our guests. We've got Michael Feinberg, who I assume we would say, a former FBI agent. We've got Devlin Barrett, who is a New York. Times reporter on FBI, Department of Justice, all these types of--. of issues. I want to thank you guys both for joining us here. Devlin is, for those of you who are watching this on YouTube, in a secure location. DEVLIN BARRETT: [LAUGHS].

JON STEWART: I don't know where, in the bowels of the Department of Justice. Michael Feinberg-- I'm gonna to start with you, Michael--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: OK. JON STEWART: --since you are, in many ways, at the top of the news. You just resigned. How long ago? Two weeks ago? MICHAEL FEINBERG: No, it was, uh--. I sent the letter of resignation on June 1, I believe. JON STEWART: June 1, OK. MICHAEL FEINBERG: It was either May 31. or June 1, whichever was the Sunday of that weekend. JON STEWART: So you-- you resigned from the FBI.

rather than-- and I'll let you tell the story--. rather than have to testify under oath. about your relationship with a friend of yours. who used to work at the FBI. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. So it's a little bit more complicated than that. JON STEWART: I would hope so. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Because I have-- yeah, I have--. I have zero problem whatsoever testifying about anything. in my life, whether it's social relationships, personal life, professional work, whatever.

I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. But Dan Bongino, the current individual occupying the Office. of the FBI's Deputy Director, found out somehow, I'm still not exactly quite sure of the mechanics, that I was friends with Pete Strzok. JON STEWART: Pete Strzok is a former FBI. agent who is famously on Trump's shit list--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yes. JON STEWART: --along with his, I guess, former girlfriend. of his, Lisa Page. Is that correct? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yes.

And, you know, somehow Dan Bongino discovered this. And it was made very clear to me. through a series of phone calls with my special agent. in charge, who was in direct communication. with Bongino, that my career was essentially over. I was in for a number of promotions to. the senior executive service. JON STEWART: How long had you been with the FBI, Michael, if you don't mind me asking? MICHAEL FEINBERG: 16 years. JON STEWART: So you'd been there 16 years. And in those 16 years, I'm assuming you.

had a lot of commendations. You had-- you had worked your way. up through the process there. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, I was, um, what we. refer to as a senior leader. I was the number two in charge of one of our field offices. I've received the FBI's highest investigative commendation, the Director's Award, for a major Chinese. counterintelligence case. JON STEWART: Now, this was with Huawei? Is that-- MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yes. JON STEWART: Is that the case-- MICHAEL FEINBERG: Correct. JON STEWART: --you had done? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, so I was. sort of the overall architect of that investigation.

And I've received a number of commendations. from the Director of National Intelligence. and other FBI awards. My career was going very well. And I was sort of on a glide path. to a senior executive position. And when Dan Bongino discovered that I was friends with Pete--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. MICHAEL FEINBERG: --I was told those-- those promotions are. never gonna happen, that I should. prepare to actually be demoted, which. usually means a relocation.

And my wife was in her seventh month of a high-risk pregnancy. And also that I was going to, at the very least, be polygraphed about the nature of my relationship with Pete. And given all that, and given what was going on. in my personal life, as heartbreaking as it was, to quote The Stones, I decided to walk. before they made me run. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: I just resigned. JON STEWART: How many FBI agents. do you think quote The Stones on their way out the door? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Probably not that many.

JON STEWART: Probably not a ton. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Although, Crossfire Hurricane, you know, the investigation which sort of--. JON STEWART: Oh, right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: --started this all--. JON STEWART: That started it all. MICHAEL FEINBERG: --does come from a "Jumpin' Jack. Flash" line. JON STEWART: It all goes back to The Stones. Devlin Barrett, I'm gonna ask you to-- to jump in here. So Michael's basically relaying a story of an exemplary FBI. agent, one who has been commended at the highest. levels of service. He is on his path, on a track moving up. This is the kind of institutional knowledge. and skill that any organization would need to function.

at the highest level, who has been. suddenly demoted based on--. and I hate to throw this back to-- but some sort. of middle school, you're friends with a kid that we. don't like, so now we're going to remove. you from law enforcement. Devlin, how insane-- not to perjoratize the question--. how insane is this? DEVLIN BARRETT: This is a problem that exists now.

that has not existed in the FBI in. the entire post-Watergate era. Like, what you're seeing, Mike's case. is an important example. But there are lots of other important example. where senior or low-level FBI agents. get letters saying, under the president's. constitutional authority, you're out. JON STEWART: These letters are from Kash Patel, who is the head of the FBI, or Dan Bongino, who's the deputy? Because in Michael's case, it was Dan Bongino. And the other, are these usually from Kash Patel?

DEVLIN BARRETT: I've seen both versions. I've seen some from Kash and I've seen some from Bongino. These fly in the face of civil service laws. These fly in the face of how the rules have. always worked at the Bureau. JON STEWART: It is-- it is so cute. It is so--. DEVLIN BARRETT: [LAUGHS]. JON STEWART: --cute to me that you would-- that you would say, hey, this is-- this is against civil service laws. DEVLIN BARRETT: Right. But here's why it matters, right? Like-- JON STEWART: Yeah, yeah. DEVLIN BARRETT: --all due respect to Mike, like, it's not. really about Mike's career.

JON STEWART: Right. DEVLIN BARRETT: It's about all the other agents at the Bureau. who see what happens to Mike and are--. and now have to worry, wait, if I catch. a case that, like, pisses somebody at headquarters off, am I, like--. I'm not just in trouble, I'm done. And to be clear, like, Mike didn't catch such a case. Mike just knows a guy socially that they don't like. That's a different issue. But the lesson that keeps these-- these firings, I often. have this discussion with people who are. like, look, so they're firing federal workers.

You know, there's a lot of people. in this country who would say, good, fire more federal workers. We don't care. But here's the thing about firing federal workers. Whatever you think the size of the federal government. should be, whatever you think the size of the FBI. should be, it's important for these institutions. to have some walls around them so they can do their jobs. and do difficult things well, difficult things. like investigate corruption, difficult things. like investigate spies. And if what you're doing in these firings.

is you are sending a message to the workforce--. not Mike, the people who are still there that if you cross. the people who are running the show, if you cross them, you will-- your career is dead. JON STEWART: Well, I think it's also a question of, you know, look, any organization has, when a new administration comes. in, there's going to be a different set. of metrics that are going to go for promotions. or for demotions. There's going to be a different culture that's been instituted.

I think the question here is that, these people aren't. being fired for incompetence, they're. not being fired for bloat--. let's say it's organizational bloat--. they are being fired vindictively, based. on through no fault of their own, that they worked on cases that the present administration. thinks they shouldn't have worked on. Would that be correct? DEVLIN BARRETT: Yeah. I mean, they're firing people for a lot of different reasons,

but that is one of the primary reasons they are firing people. JON STEWART: Michael, are you still in touch with, you know, when Devlin talks about, this isn't so much about the people. who've been fired-- although I think, for the people that are fired, they probably feel that way--. but are you in touch with people who say, yeah, this-- this changes the way. we do our or can do our jobs. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Oh, absolutely. It's been really interesting in a very sorrowful way for me. to go through this process.

Because I'm in this odd situation where in the--. the week or two after I left, I lost 90% of my close friends. I'm talking about people who were at--. JON STEWART: Wait, what? MICHAEL FEINBERG: --my wedding. I'll explain. I'll explain. Like, people who were at my wedding, people who were at my bachelor party, people with whom I vacationed, celebrated the holidays with, they're afraid to be associated with me now. And they've got mortgages. They've got tuition payments. They've got families they need to take care of.

They can't afford to get fired simply because we're friends. And with this spate of polygraphs. and weird social First Amendment association oversight. that's going on, they're really afraid to be in touch with me. But at the same time, I'm getting contacted. over Signal or LinkedIn--. JON STEWART: Oh, by-- by Pete Hegseth, giving you--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: No, by--. JON STEWART: --details of the next--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: No, by complete strangers. from both DOJ and the FBI who are looking to me now.

for guidance as to how they should handle very anomalous. situations with ambiguous authorities in which they're. being told to do things they're not entirely comfortable with. JON STEWART: Without giving away names or necessarily. how that goes, but when you say anomalous situations, can you be more specific on this? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, I'll just pull one from the news--. JON STEWART: Please.

MICHAEL FEINBERG: --in the past few days. Like, it is not normal for FBI special agents. to be doing street patrols in the District of Columbia. It's only happened once in history. That was also during the first Trump administration, during the civil unrest and protests. that occurred after the death of George Floyd. This is not something FBI agents are trained to do. It's not something they have practice with. It's not something they really have a lot of legal authorities.

or use-of-force continuum to which they can look to moderate. how they act with the public. It's just not normal in the scope of American history. to have them doing this. And a lot of them are really concerned-- all right, we get that we're being ordered to do this now. But eventually, assuming democracy. does not collapse, which I think is an open question. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Like, there's going to be. a change of administration-- JON STEWART: Yeah. MICHAEL FEINBERG: --or there's going to be a change. in congressional minorities--.

majorities. And there's going to be oversight hearings or inspector. general investigations. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: And what's going. to happen to the people who are doing things that are clearly. going to be politically disfavored by the. next administration? JON STEWART: Well, that-- that gets us into--. Devlin, that's-- you know, look, we've talked a little bit about a new administration comes. in, they fire people that worked on cases that they. disfavored, and it puts a chilling effect on their-- are. we now, Devlin, entering a cycle,

a sort of Maoist cycle of purges. and retribution on the change of-- of every administration? Or is this so particular to this one administration who's--. I mean, let's face facts, the fuel at the--. the nuclear core of this administration. is vengeance and vindictiveness. DEVLIN BARRETT: Right. This is a lot about retribution. And this is a lot about going after the institutions. that Trump blames for the case against-- the cases.

against him. You know, I think one of the ways. to understand what's happening right now is this is actually. a very human story, which is, I don't know a single person. who's ever had their home searched by detectives, agents, whatever, no matter what the evidence showed, I don't know a single person who's gone. through that experience and is--. does not come out of it deeply, deeply, deeply bitter. against the people who did that. And what you're seeing is, I think, a very human retribution. campaign against all of the people that he's mad at.

or even thinks he's mad at. JON STEWART: I think that's the nicest way. I've ever heard that put, in terms of excusing. But I would suggest that Trump, his original, before anybody had ever searched his house, was a "lock her up" guy. He gave speeches in 2015, like, he wanted. to jail political opponents. He wanted to be the strongman. He always seems to have admired--.

he used to talk about Viktor Orbán and Erdogan and Putin. Is this really a question of a guy. who's been emotionally scarred by law enforcement overreach? Because it doesn't feel that way. [THEME MUSIC]. Hi, everybody. I know most of you are probably just fast forwarding. through the pod to get to these ad reads, because they are delightful and you love them. And today's episode is brought to you by Ground News.

If you didn't fast forward through the podcast. to get to the Ground News, then you don't know. what you're talking about. Ground News is this website, and it's an app. And they're on a mission. They're giving readers an easier, more data-driven. way to read the news. So they, unlike the way that I read in a completely. discombobulated fashion, they will organize articles. from around the world by story and provide breakdowns. of political bias to help you understand what you're reading. And we all know most of the headlines out. there are designed to provoke what we. like to call fear and anger.

You got to get the reptile brain engaged. You got to get the clicks, my brothers. Well, rest assured, Ground News is the response to that, prioritizing media literacy, helping. readers sort through the noise, get to the heart of the news. It is a great resource to get clear information. and help you form your own--. oh, god bless them-- independent opinions. What the [MUTED]. So no more blaming your bad opinions on me. or being ill-informed.

Go to groundnews.com/stewart. Subscribe for 40% off the unlimited-access. Vantage Subscription. That brings the price down to about $5 a month. Well worth it. That's groundnews.com/stewart or scan the QR code on screen. [THEME MUSIC]. DEVLIN BARRETT: Two things, one, I joke. with sources all the time--. it is not 2025. It is 2016 part nine. We are still trapped--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS].

DEVLIN BARRETT: --on the, you know, hamster wheel. of 2016 politics. And I don't know when-- JON STEWART: Right. DEVLIN BARRETT: --we're getting off it. So that's one, I take the point. But I will say, most of the people I cover and talk to--. and I'd be very curious what Mike thinks. of this-- most of the people I talk to and cover. say that this administration is profoundly different in how it. approaches and manages the Justice. Department than the first Trump administration. JON STEWART: Right. DEVLIN BARRETT: But what is going on now. is deeply, deeply different and more damaging than what. happened in the first one. And that's not to say the first one was all,

like, sunshine and flowers. But this is different. And this is much more alarming to a lot. of the career agents and prosecutors. who've been through both. JON STEWART: Michael, you were there for-- for both of those. What's-- what's your thought? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, so I think the main difference. is that during the first Trump administration, you still had institutionalists being appointed. to cabinet-level positions. Jeff Sessions had been a US attorney. William Barr had been attorney general beforehand. They were certainly more aggressive on the right-wing.

side of things and they were larger believers. in the unitary executive theory than predecessors, but they still had a respect for the norms, largely. of the Justice Department. And say what you will about the Federalist Society, when Leonard Leo was picking nominees for positions, you knew they'd at least been through certain schools, held certain jobs, gone through--.

they trod a certain path that made. them familiar with the organs of US government. And they had a knowledge of the history. of those particular buildings and cabinet departments. Now, you've got a criminal defense team. Yeah, Emil Bove and Todd Blanche were AUSAs. That's not really a high-ranking position at DOJ. It's sort of the Y-level position. JON STEWART: Right. Well, they were more personal lawyers for Donald Trump.

MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, they were his criminal defense team. I mean, same with Pam. I don't think Pam Bondi ever held. a federal government position. These are people who have no reverence. for the norms and traditions of the Robert F. Kennedy building. JON STEWART: But let's talk about that. So let's-- let's do a defense of norms and traditions. MICHAEL FEINBERG: I will happily do that, yeah. JON STEWART: Because in my mind, you know, I hear this a lot about, these guys are violating norms and traditions. That's not, by definition, a bad thing.

And we can talk about the FBI. Look, there is a strong history within the FBI. Obviously, J. Edgar Hoover most famously. weaponized it, not necessarily for a particular executive, but for J. Edgar Hoover. So he used it. You know, they just released the MLK files, where it was very clear the FBI attempted to drive him--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Drive him to suicide. JON STEWART: --to madness and suicide, based on that. It's not as though, even the--. the reports about the Russia investigation into Trump.

or Comey's investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. are rife with all kinds of instances of overreach. So the question isn't necessarily. that the norms and traditions are so pristine, it's that this is abjectly corrupt and personal. Wouldn't that be the case? MICHAEL FEINBERG: I would take slight issue--. JON STEWART: Please. MICHAEL FEINBERG: --with your characterization.

JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] MICHAEL FEINBERG: I think--. no, no. JON STEWART: Somebody's got to. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. Just, I think the narrative you just provided--. JON STEWART: Yeah. MICHAEL FEINBERG: --is 100% true, basically. up until 1974 or '75 and '76. And then in the aftermath of Watergate, the FBI. and the intelligence community is subject to a number. of congressional hearings, most famously the Church Committee--. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: --but also the Pike. and Rockefeller Commissions. And out of that, you get a new statutory framework.

and you get a new tradition of independence of the Justice. Department from the White House, which I really. think does hold for the next, you know, roughly 40 or 50 years. But a lot of it's not codified. The notion that presidents don't take a personal role. in prosecutorial decisions or sentencing memorandums. or things of those nature, it's really held,

but it's entirely by a respect for the norms that happened. after Watergate and a recognition. by largely responsible presidents and officials, regardless of their politics, that Watergate was a bad thing. It's not something we want to repeat. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. MICHAEL FEINBERG: And-- and that's just gone. JON STEWART: Devlin, talk about that framework. Yeah, because I want to talk about that framework. that-- that was established and whether or not it--.

it was followed through. DEVLIN BARRETT: So here's how I would characterize it. And I would actually kind of disagree with both of you. a little bit in this sense-- JON STEWART: Hey! What the heck! DEVLIN BARRETT: Since 2016, there. has been this long-running political debate. about the rule of law, right? We have to uphold the rule of law. We have to protect the rule of law. And I think the mistake that a lot of liberals made in sort. of talking about and defending the Justice. Department and the FBI, which are not perfect places.

They make mistakes. But they are ideals that are-- that people try to uphold. And in talking about the rule of law, the argument was always made, the rule of law. is above politics. The rule of law protects the political system. And I'll be honest, as someone who has been covering this. world for, you know, since the late '90s, I just never. have believed that to be true. The political system is above and protects the rule of law. And I think what you are actually seeing,

and what we've been experiencing. through this whole arc, whenever. you want to start the clock, is that the rule of law system, these institutions tried to assert dominance. over the political system. And the political system said, no, we will not allow that. And so what you have now is you have a Congress that. is not going to save the FBI. You have a Congress that is not going to save. the Justice Department. JON STEWART: Go back to this, Devlin. So you say that the--.

the justice system tried to assert dominance. over the political system. In what sense? DEVLIN BARRETT: So look at--. I don't mean they deliberately set out to do that. I-- JON STEWART: OK. DEVLIN BARRETT: What I'm saying is, if you look at what Comey. did, not to harp on an old thing, but if you look at what Comey did in 2016, Comey had an outsized influence on that election. And I think the sort of behavioral lesson. that everyone took from that--. JON STEWART: Now, to go back, to give context to that, I think what you're referring to is--. DEVLIN BARRETT: Sorry, yeah, jumping.

JON STEWART: So there's the Hillary. Clinton email investigation. DEVLIN BARRETT: Mm-hmm. JON STEWART: There's the thought that Russia has--. I mean, this is sort of--. if you go back and unravel the whole original sin. of this story arc, at least, it kind of. begins with the meetings at Trump Tower, where supposedly Russian influencers, agents, said, we have information on Hillary Clinton. or we'll get information. Or they were asked by the Trump administration. to get information.

And this has kicked off this cycle, which goes into, Trump has a server in the basement where he's connected. to banks, which turns out not to be true--. the Steele Dossier, which turns out. to be filled with falsehoods. But ultimately, the real lever moment that you're talking. about, Devlin, is a few weeks before the election, Comey says, I'm reopening an investigation--. DEVLIN BARRETT: Right. JON STEWART: --into Hillary Clinton's emails. And her numbers plunge three to four percentage points.

immediately. DEVLIN BARRETT: Correct. JON STEWART: Would that be accurate? DEVLIN BARRETT: Yes. And I think that essentially opened. Pandora's box for everything that has happened since. That's my whole theory of the case. JON STEWART: Michael, in terms of being. at the FBI in that moment, as Devlin is talking about, how aware is the rank and file about this email investigation, the Russian? What is the conversation around all these issues that's going. on in the FBI at 2015, 2016? MICHAEL FEINBERG: So it's a little difficult for me.

to generalize. Because at that time, I came to headquarters. as a supervisor in the counterintelligence division. in the end of 2015, when a lot of this stuff was going on. JON STEWART: OK. MICHAEL FEINBERG: And as a result, like, the people who. were working on the Hillary Clinton email investigation, the people who were working on the Russia. investigation in its really nascent stages, these were all friends of mine. These are the people I socialized with,

the people I carpooled with, the people with whom, you know, I got beers after work or coffee during the workday. JON STEWART: Give us a sense of how big this system is. MICHAEL FEINBERG: It's huge. JON STEWART: It's huge. MICHAEL FEINBERG: So, I mean, by virtue of these sort. of social connections and the people with whom I worked, I had inklings of what was going on. But despite what the public perception is, it's not like the entire FBI or even all of headquarters. was aware of every step in these cases.

They were pretty locked down. Like I said, I had inklings because I knew people, but they weren't giving me details. on a day-to-day basis, remotely, of anything. that was going on. So most of the FBI, certainly everybody in the field offices. outside of DC and everybody outside. of the counterintelligence division at headquarters. was not really tracking. We all knew that the Clinton email. investigation was occurring because that.

was a matter of public record. The Russia investigation, people forget, was pretty locked down until after the election, or at least until after the intel community. assessment about Russian interference came out. These investigations are what we would call restricted, which. means I can't even go into FBI systems. and look things up if I'm not a member of the case team. They did a really good job of locking.

down the details of the Clinton email investigation. Because everybody knew it was going on because the Justice. Department had announced it. So it was a public referral that. originally led to the opening. The Russia investigation, we knew there was something going. on because there were these previously. unused rooms that now had people. going in and out of them. And people were pulled from their original assignments. to go sit other places. So we knew there was something in the air,

but we had no idea what it was. The fact that there was an investigation into members. of the Trump campaign and potential connectivity. to the Russian intelligence services. was not something the general workforce knew at all. JON STEWART: All right, so, Devlin, you know, what are the rules in place? So this is all taking place, that certain members of the FBI. are off on the Hillary Clinton investigation.

Certain members of the FBI are simultaneously. investigating connections between the Trump. campaign and--. and Russia. You just said you don't really buy the idea that politics. and law enforcement are these two separate entities, but that law enforcement kind of inserted itself. into this political scene. And this is the blowback from that. Is that what's happening in that moment?

DEVLIN BARRETT: Yeah, I mean, look, I think the public--. the public sort of election turmoil, let's say, that the FBI created or participated in in 2016. was really about Clinton email, right? Because most of the details, most of our understanding. of the Russia investigation prior to the election. wasn't known to the public at that time. We could see little bits and pieces. But, you know, I think in some ways.

the public was even more in the dark. than Mike was in terms of like what. this Russia investigation was about until well. after the election. And I think, like I said, no institution is perfect. There were significant errors of judgment made in I would say. both the Russia investigation and the Clinton. email investigation. And they are both sort of cautionary tales in why it is. very dangerous to pick up a radioactive, highly political,

presidential campaign related investigation. and expect to come out of that unscathed. I think the FBI leadership in that moment. misjudged how much credibility it had with the American people. and misused its position at a key moment, particularly on the announcement. of the Clinton email case. But at the end of the day, you need. a good, well-functioning FBI. At the end of the day, you need a good, well-functioning. Justice Department. And I think what you're seeing now, as we come to, like, more.

and more iterations of-- of this political fight. around DOJ, you're seeing a less and less functional. version of those institutions. And the joke I always have made is like, look, I. cover federal law enforcement. If I'm on the front page of the paper on any particular day, you know, that's just a regular day. If what I cover is on the front page of the paper, maybe two different stories or maybe three. different stories the same day, like, the country's got a problem. Like, there is-- that is not a good place for the country.

to be in if what I do for a living. is that front and center to sort. of the public discussion of what's. happening in this country. And we've been in that situation now for years. [THEME MUSIC]. JON STEWART: All right, folks, we're in the middle of summer. And I know you're probably throwing a lot of your money. down on what you call sunscreen, maybe a little shark. repellent, maybe one of them funnel hats that you. wear down on the boardwalk. And of course, overpriced wireless bills.

Big mobile, who shall not be named, is ruining your summer. They're taking the fun out of it. And that's why-- dah, dah, dah, dah--. you make a little switch to Mint Mobile. With Mint, you get the coverage and speed you're. used to, but way less money. All plans come with high-speed data, unlimited talk and text, delivered. on the nation's largest 5G network. And you can use your existing phone--. that's right, your existing phone. with any Mint Mobile plan. Bring your phone number along, your existing contacts, why not?

No more, new phone, who dis? Who dis? This? This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited. wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com/tws. That's mintmobile.com/tws. Upfront payment of $45 required. It's equivalent to $50 a month. Limited-time, new customer offer for first three. months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[THEME MUSIC]. The strange thing is, Devlin, and we'll. get to sort of where Michael then fits into that, is without any kind of a reckoning over how the Justice. Department and the FBI handled those radioactive cases. in 2015 and 2016, there was no real, you know, Church Committee. There was no memorandum that went out that talked. about the various things. It was, Comey came out and wrote. a book about how he was wronged and all these different things. It wasn't addressed.

What the Trump administration is doing now. with Bongino and Patel for their audience, for the MAGA audience, is the corrective. What we're seeing now is, you know, phony news is news that hurts Trump, a corrupt DOJ and FBI is a-- is a DOJ and FBI. that investigates Trump. It's all now just related, not to any norms, not to any memoranda, not to any best.

practices, everything in our government. is now related to one man. It's as though our government is. a subsidiary of the Trump Organization, is it not, Devlin? DEVLIN BARRETT: I think it is. And I think that-- that works in two ways. One, that has long been essentially. a conservative argument about executive power, right? There are ways in which what Trump is doing. fits into a broader argument that conservatives have made. in this country for years. But there are some parts of this. that are unique to Trump's desire for total control.

and Trump's desire for revenge and retribution. And, you know, I was saying when. the-- when the DC takeover of the--. when the federal takeover of the DC police force happened, you know, one of the things I said to a colleague. is like, look, many days, he tries to be the mayor. of the United States. He is-- he is a incorrigible micromanager in that sense. And I think there are ways in which these institutions. were not designed for that. These institutions don't work well in that environment.

I think the FBI is certainly one of them. You've got, just to Mike's point about agents being. out on the street, you know, lost in all this. is, like, agents don't carry tasers. Like, forget the training for a second. If an agent encounters a problem on the street, one, most of those agents have never--. never done, you know, street law enforcement. And they have one tool at their disposal, and that's a gun. That is not smart. That has risks with it. Now, I think FBI agents are pretty smart. I think FBI agents understand what they don't know.

and are careful in that way, most of them. But the-- the way these institutions are now being used. at Trump's direction are not the ways. they were designed to be used. And there are risks in that that I don't think. are immediately obvious to the public. JON STEWART: Is that, Michael, is--. is that the worry for you with those-- like, for instance, you're a guy who has-- you've worked on all these cases, espionage cases with China. You speak Mandarin. And by the way, let's be clear with the audience,

Michael is not a dyed-in-the-wool, bleeding-heart liberal that's been removed for his things. You were a member of the Federalist Society. at Northwestern, consider yourself. a conservative, a constitutional conservative, which is, I think, at this point, a relatively unique creature. But is that your concern, that he's basically using really. specialized tools as hammers? MICHAEL FEINBERG: I have a lot of concerns.

JON STEWART: OK. MICHAEL FEINBERG: That is certainly one of them. Devlin is very correct. The FBI-- I mentioned this earlier, but I realized I should probably explain what I mean. by it, because a lot of people in the audience. have never worked in law enforcement. If you are a patrol officer for a state or local police. department, you have what's called. the use-of-force continuum. If the person you're talking to punches you, you can maybe use a chemical agent. If they continue to fight you, you can escalate.

to a baton or a taser. Like, those may not be the exact examples, but it's like, there are steps you can take--. JON STEWART: Rules of engagement. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Exactly. The FBI, because traditionally we're. only dealing with our subjects when we're. doing an arrest or a court-ordered search or an. interview, we don't have that. We have a set of rules for what to do. if our life is threatened.

But-- JON STEWART: OK. MICHAEL FEINBERG: --like, we don't carry tasers. It's pretty rare to carry a baton or a chemical agent. You have a Glock. And if there is an imminent threat to your life. or a civilian's life, you're authorized to use it. But we're not trained for dealing. with-- with protests in the street. or crowds of people getting unruly. JON STEWART: Well, even in chain of command, Michael,

I'm just curious, just now we're. just talking logistically. So let's say 500 FBI agents are deployed. onto the streets of Washington, DC, in support of maybe. National Guard--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: --which also been deployed, or maybe Metropolitan. Police, which are-- MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: --I think, normally deployed. What is the chain of command? Is your, I guess, authority still Kash Patel? MICHAEL FEINBERG: It's weird. And when we very suddenly were ordered.

into the streets in 2020, that was a question a lot of us. were asking. What is our statutory authority for doing this? What are the legal violations we're investigating? We were just sort of told, and never in writing, that the Attorney General of the United States. has authorized you to do this. And we were deeply uncomfortable with that. And the only thing that really kept us within the boundaries.

of what's acceptable in American civic culture. is, frankly, the good judgment of the squad supervisors. And I'm not just saying that to puff myself up. because I was one at the time. But you had squads of agents led by a supervisor. walking the streets in DC. And those supervisors were making. judgment calls in every tricky situation. about how to handle it. And in general, I think they acquitted themselves very well.

But that, even that's not enough for this administration. Because there was one group of squads. that got surrounded by protesters who were. yelling and shouting at them. And they decided to take a knee to de-escalate the situation. JON STEWART: Sure, I remember. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Now, we can debate about whether that was. the right course of action. There is certainly a wide variety of opinion. within the FBI itself. But all of those agents, as of a few weeks ago.

when I left the FBI, they were being punished for something. that occurred five years ago. JON STEWART: Wait, they were being punished for not--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Every agent who took a knee in 2020, in 2025 was removed from their position of leadership. JON STEWART: Whoa. What? So, wait, what are the--. so right now, within the FBI, if you're an FBI agent--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: --up until now, what. are the offenses that you could have committed.

that would get you removed? So it's being friends with an agent. who worked on or is an enemy, supposedly, of the president. Is it anybody who worked on these Russia investigations? MICHAEL FEINBERG: It's simpler than that. It's simpler than that. JON STEWART: OK. MICHAEL FEINBERG: What is really happening. is they are trying to turn over as many leaders. and line personnel as humanly possible. so they can replace them with people who are inculcated.

in their own values. JON STEWART: Ideologues, ideologues on-- on the line. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, every special agent in charge who's. been removed or told they're going to be transferred if they. don't retire or what have you, like, the overwhelming majority. of these people just had the misfortune. to be appointed by Chris Wray during the Biden years. There is no real allegation of impropriety. They're just cleaning the decks. JON STEWART: Right. Well, that's what I was going to say. There may be plenty of people who agree wholeheartedly.

with Donald Trump who were working on the Russia. investigation because that was their job, not. because they were ideologically opposed to him. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, we never. got to pick the investigations on which we worked. Like, we were assigned them. JON STEWART: So what does that--. Michael, let me ask you, what does that do to the nation's. law enforcement institutional knowledge and readiness. if the first order of hiring is purely.

that you are ideologically in line, that you pledge your fealty to--. to Donald Trump? How do you-- can they fill out an organization. of competent people who also do that? MICHAEL FEINBERG: No, the integrity of the organization. is totally destroyed. If your number one priority is ideological rigor. or political loyalty, by definition, there are going to be certain cases you choose to pursue.

and certain cases you choose not to pursue. I don't think it's a coincidence that we've. seen the gutting of the DOJ and FBI's public corruption. program, both domestically and internationally, under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. since this administration came about. JON STEWART: Talk about specifically. what, when you talk about the gutting of-- of anticorruption. agencies, because that's something-- look, the Supreme Court has issued decisions. that it's almost impossible to get, I would think,

corruption convictions anymore because there has. to be explicit quid pro quo. And in terms of executive privilege, there is almost total immunity. So even forget about what they're. doing with the ideological function within the FBI, what about just the legal framework. around getting corruption cases going and convicting? MICHAEL FEINBERG: So the only area in which the Supreme Court.

has really spoken extensively about this. in the past few years is with respect. to executive power under Article 2 to the president. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: It's important to note. that the overwhelming majority of public corruption. prosecutions have nothing to do with the White. House or the executive branch. JON STEWART: Well, let's go with, do you remember the Governor of Virginia, McDonnell. I don't know if you you worked on on that case at all. But do you remember that corruption case in Virginia? MICHAEL FEINBERG: I do, yeah. JON STEWART: So he was convicted of, you know,

getting a gold watch and all these other things for favors. There was a Supreme Court case that basically said, well, we don't find, I guess, explicit quid pro quo, so that's fine. Doesn't that change the bar of corruption. for what FBI agents would investigate? MICHAEL FEINBERG: It does and it doesn't. JON STEWART: Mm-hmm. MICHAEL FEINBERG: You know, in most public corruption cases, there's not a lot of gray area. The quid pro quo is pretty explicit.

There was a decision involving, I. think it was Rod Blagojevich, that there. used to be something called the honest services statute. It was a real malleable law, which basically said if you're. depriving the people of honest services, you can go to jail for public corruption. And this is sort of famously when Rod Blagojevich. attempted to auction off, essentially, Barack Obama's Senate seat. JON STEWART: Right, his Senate seat, yeah. MICHAEL FEINBERG: That ruling had a lot of effect.

on how easy public corruption prosecutions were, simply. because that was an easy law to leverage, precisely because it was so vague. And there's a very colorable argument that it was too vague. and the court was right to narrow it down a little bit. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: I generally think. we want our laws to have as much specificity as possible. because I don't want--.

as an FBI agent, I'm not an elected official. There is no real democratic accountability. for me with the electorate. So I want very specific laws that take away my discretion, just as a member of a functioning democracy. The quid pro quo thing, I would say. in the overwhelming majority of public corruption cases, you do have that quid pro quo happening to such a degree. that it's not going to be an issue. JON STEWART: Mm-hmm.

MICHAEL FEINBERG: So I'm--. I'm much less concerned. JON STEWART: You don't think this then. will have a chilling effect on the ability. to bring public corruption-- forget. about the politicized nature of it. But even when the president says, we're going to make it legal to bribe foreign governments. for corporate entities--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: That's a different thing. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: The quid pro quo decision. I'm less concerned about, largely. because the quid pro quos are happening. explicitly in most cases.

And secondly, if you're engaged in public corruption, you're also engaged in a whole host of other illegal activity, usually laundering proceeds or committing. wire fraud or what have you, that you. could still be indicted on. There's more than one way to skin a cat. JON STEWART: There are ancillary crimes that go along. with some sort of-- because you have to hide the profits. of your corruption. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Exactly. So I'm not super concerned with the quid pro quo decision. I am immensely concerned with the executive immunity.

decisions, partly because, I mean, it. makes it impossible to ever go after a president for pretty. much any conduct whatsoever. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: But I also think. it's totally at odds with US history and founding ideals. JON STEWART: Mm-hmm. Devlin? DEVLIN BARRETT: You know, one DOJ person said to me. years ago, you know, Trump is going. to do a lot of cases that are good for Trump. and bad for the country. That's just how this is going to play out.

And if you look at the immunity decision, for example, one of the things I think is amazing about the immunity. decision that the Supreme Court handed up. is that under the terms of that decision, the Mueller investigation would basically never happen now. JON STEWART: There'd be no way to have any information. DEVLIN BARRETT: The-- the premise of it wouldn't fly. and the factual gathering of the information. would also not fly. And so there's almost no way to sort. of imagine a Mueller investigation. in this environment.

And honestly, I don't think that's an accident. I think that is the--. the-- a significant number of conservatives on the Supreme. Court expressing their dismay and distrust of how the DOJ. has done this in recent years. [THEME MUSIC]. JON STEWART: Hey, hey, what do you got there, a business? You realize your business needs to hire someone. and you needed them yesterday? Well, how are you going to find 'em? How are you going to find amazing candidates fast? What, are you gonna walk outside ask people directly?

Bah! Just use Indeed. Stop struggling to get your job posts seen on other job sites. Indeed's Sponsored Jobs help you stand out and hire fast. Sponsored Jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page. for your relevant candidates, so you can reach the people. you want faster. What do you want to be, on the bottom of the page? Come on, you're the boss. This is your business. Get yourself to the top of the page, for god sakes.

According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs. posted directly on Indeed have 45%. more applications than the non-sponsored jobs. With Indeed Sponsored Jobs, there's. no monthly subscription, there's no long-term contracts. You only pay for results. What more do you want from these people? How fast is Indeed? In the minute I've been talking to you--. and it might feel like longer--. 23 hires were made on Indeed, according to Indeed data.

That's worldwide. Join the 3.5 million employers worldwide that use Indeed. to hire great talent fast. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsor. job credit to get your jobs more visibility. at indeed.com/weekly. Just go to indeed.com/weekly right now. Support our show by saying you heard. about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com/weekly, terms and conditions apply.

Hiring? Indeed is all you need. [THEME MUSIC]. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Look, I am a conservative. I studied constitutional law literally. under one of the founders of the Federalist. Society, Steve Calabresi. But the unitary executive theory, that's pretty far afield from what any of the founders. ever intended the president to be. Like, the whole point was to place restrictions. on the operation of government, not to create.

an expansive executive power. JON STEWART: This gets us to maybe. the fundamental contradiction at the heart. of the MAGA movement--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: --which is, it is a movement that absolutely. cloaks itself in constitutional rhetoric and almost fetishizes, you know, how many of the guys, I got the Constitution here. They wrap their buses in "We the people.". But it is, if anything, it's better with the--. it's anti-federalist.

It's more Articles of Confederation. It doesn't appear to be in any way, have any fealty to constitutional principles. of free speech, you know, checks and balances, any of those things. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, I would humbly suggest, if your devotion to the Constitution is largely. manifested through a "we the people". tattoo and an affinity for the Gadsden flag, your understanding of Federalist. principles is probably not as deep as you think it is.

JON STEWART: You're saying they may not, in fact, be tread on? Is that what I'm hearing? MICHAEL FEINBERG: As somebody who-- like, I really do consider myself a philosophical and. constitutional conservative. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: But that requires a lot of thought. and a lot of penetrating discussions. about what words mean. And like, were the founders looking at Locke and Mill. or Burke or what have you, when they were. coming up with these systems? It's not simply saying, I don't like what you're doing,

therefore it's unconstitutional. Like, you have to actually engage. with these ideas on a regular basis. in a way that even makes you question your own beliefs, or the project has no intellectual integrity. And when I was coming of intellectual age in college. and law school, the conservative movement, I think, was very into that. Your audience would probably disagree. with a lot of the conclusions we came to, but there was an honest rigor of thought that is totally.

lacking in the MAGA movement. JON STEWART: Well, because I think what--. what they've done is they've sort of ceded any kind of that. rigor to the emotional kind of impulse. of-- of one individual--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yes. JON STEWART: --that they believe stands. above kind of all of it. And they've even, I think, infused him with a sort. of religious fervor. But, Devlin, you know, you've got these organizations, you know, the DOJ, the FBI, I mean, we're.

talking about law enforcement. Trump's influence writ large has been enormous. But if he rewrites the purpose and principle of-- of all. those organizations, have we lost the one thing that maybe. made America exceptional, which is the stability. of these institutions? Are we now in a kind of retribution cycle? Because if I'm the Democrats, I'm watching Donald Trump.

and going, oh my god, he's just exposed. a whole host of levers of power that we never. exercised that now we will. DEVLIN BARRETT: I think that's right. And there's-- there's a couple ways of thinking about that. One is the Kash Patel selection as the FBI director. I think it's safe to say that whenever. a Democrat comes into power, Kash Patel will.

no longer be the FBI director. And you will have lost one of the sort. of institutional sandbars that protected that institution. from political changes. Now, some people will say, certainly some people. in the Bureau will say, it's a good thing. if Democrats replace Kash Patel when. that situation comes to pass. But the other way to think about this problem, and again, I am a Justice Department reporter. I do not cover politics, but politics. has swamped the Justice Department, clearly.

And politics, to me, it seems pretty clear. that politics is less and less about what people believe, and it's more and more about who people hate. And so-- JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. DEVLIN BARRETT: --in that model--. JON STEWART: Yeah. DEVLIN BARRETT: --in that model, places like the Justice. Department and places like the FBI, which investigate politicians, are going to be under greater. and greater pressure. And I think, you know, after 9/11, there was a significant debate about should we, you know, abolish some part of the FBI and reconstitute.

it in a different way. I think the FBI, if you-- if you destroyed it tomorrow--. not saying that's going to happen or should--. but if you destroyed the FBI tomorrow, it would be rebuilt in some form. Because the American people still, on some basic level, believe there should be an entity like the FBI. But at the same time, it has to be. a credible, reliable, trustworthy institution for it. to do its job well. And that is the part that is really difficult right now. for a whole host of reasons, you know, one of the biggest.

ones being Donald Trump. JON STEWART: I mean, I would say, so this gets us back to sort of the character--. the characterization of those institutions as the deep state. You know, Trump came in and he basically characterized. any of these sort of organizations. within the government that may not have expressed loyalty. to him as the deep state. So now it's in the minds, look, there's always been a distrust, I think, through civil libertarians.

or through different political groups of law enforcement, of DOJ, of FBI. After 9/11, the Patriot Act supercharged certain kind. of digital espionage and all kinds of other things. that people, I think, were--. were very, and rightfully so, uncomfortable with how. it was going to be exercised. But this concept of deep state is a really powerful--. is a really powerful one and can be utilized by anybody who.

has some concerns about how government. is going to use its authority. And, Michael, I'll ask you, because, look, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are deep state guys. They're the ones who are like, the deep state is a problem. When we get in there, we're going to expose the deep state. We're going to expose that Ray Epps is a plant and a fed. We're going to expose the Epstein files. And then they get in there, and bupkis.

So what happened there? MICHAEL FEINBERG: So there's a real irony here in that. the deep state never existed. The notion that the FBI as an institution. was a hotbed of anti-Trump activity in 2015 and 2016. is pretty ludicrous. I don't think it's going to come as a shock to anybody. that most FBI agents probably lean right. Despite what people think, we don't. really talk about it at work. It is a pretty apolitical place.

But most people who choose to go into law enforcement. for a career are the sort of people. who are rooting for Javert when they read Les Misérables. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. MICHAEL FEINBERG: It's a certain mindset. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. MICHAEL FEINBERG: So, like, there never was a deep state. But ironically, what Patel and Bongino. are doing, in terms of trying to root it out, are actually creating it. They're getting rid of people who really value. political independence, institutional integrity,

ideological blindness. The only people that are going to be left by the time. they're done 3 and 1/2 years from now are people. at the executive levels who are willing. to bend their principles for the party in power. JON STEWART: How cynical was this, Michael? Like, all the stuff about Ray Epps being a fed and January 6. being a government op that was, you know, a bunch of feds urging on Antifa to--.

MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: --storm the Capitol and get it done. or that the deep state was protecting. the Epstein list because of that, how. much did they believe that? How cynical was that? And what is the process? Why is this Epstein thing suddenly now, oh, yeah, no. I mean, if anything looks like deep state, it's the president's personal lawyer going to interview. Ghislaine Maxwell. DEVLIN BARRETT: Off the record, without it being recorded. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: Right.

And then a week later, her being. transferred to a minimum security prison. where sex offenders are not allowed to be transferred to. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, there's a couple. things to unpack there. First of all, in terms of the cynicism, you know, there's probably a lot. of people throughout the country. who really do believe that January. 6 was some sort of inside job. I think it's a ludicrous belief, but I don't doubt that there are. massive numbers of people who sincerely hold that belief.

JON STEWART: But were Patel and Bongino amongst them? MICHAEL FEINBERG: The notion that anybody, anybody who was involved in this Stop the Steal rally, any of the organizers, they know that's horseshit. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: I mean, are you really telling me that, like, the PhD holders at the Claremont Institute. or various professors across the country, including some. at Ivy League universities or, you know, like, they know they're peddling. bullshit to the masses.

JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Like, so there is an immense amount. of cynicism at the top levels and a lot. of gullible people at the lower levels. who are being taken advantage of. And I don't know how a country survives that. JON STEWART: Devlin, how does, you know, when you talk about--. how many times have I read, Ray Epps, if you look at Ray Epps, the whole thing unravels. from January 6? It was all an inside job by the feds. Or when we get in there, day one,

you're going to see all the names. on the Epstein client list. And you're going to see. Well, now we know Trump is on the list or allegedly. on the list. And Ghislaine Maxwell, after talking to the president's. personal lawyer, is transferred to a minimum security prison. and I'm assuming getting surf and turf. Like, Devlin, is there a deep state? Was there not a deep state? Was this all cynical bullshit? DEVLIN BARRETT: So there is a lot of cynicism. to many of the things you describe,

but there are also some human behavior issues. that I think are important. Like, in the darker moments at the Justice Department and FBI, I think I don't really cover law enforcement, I don't really cover crime, I cover human behavior. And so let's take the J6 issue, because I think. that's an important example. JON STEWART: Right. DEVLIN BARRETT: There is an argument. that is made that if you just put enough facts on the table, you will show the reality. And even the people who don't want to believe you. will accede to your reality based on the facts. you have shown them. To that I would just say simply,

January 6 was the most videotaped, most recorded, most well-documented. crime to ever occur in human history. And there are still a very significant number. of people in this country who believe. it was some kind of con. There-- there is a smaller group. of people who say they believe it was a con, but I am skeptical that they really believe that. And I think we are dealing with a human behavior. problem, not a fact problem. JON STEWART: But what about, then, Devlin, if--.

if it's the most videotaped and some people still. think it's a con, but the people that. thought it was a con, view Trump's. reelection as the moment--. sort of like in a cult when they say, like, the world will end May 17th--. but they viewed his election as, finally. the con will be exposed. What happens when the con isn't exposed? DEVLIN BARRETT: This plays out in multiple ways. One, you're seeing a constant demand.

from Trump's own supporters for that to happen. You're seeing demands for indictments. You're seeing demands for, you know, the classic demand for, you know, frogmarch them out of the building. You know, that exists in the January 6 space. That exists, certainly, in the Epstein space. And one of the things that happens, I think, with this war on the deep state, this professed declared war on the deep state, is one of the features of it as a human behavior.

function is you're constantly promising. the future retribution. And I think one of the challenges. that the Epstein thing, in particular, shows. is that there's a real potential price. to be paid for never delivering that, even when you are in charge. There is a challenge to having someone. like Kash Patel in charge of the FBI, which makes arrests, when you don't arrest the people who. rooted for Kash Patel. When Kash Patel does not make a lot of those arrests, there is a political-- potential political price.

to pay for that. And I think we are just sort of starting. to test the limits of that. And I think it's going to be very interesting. Like, one of the ways to measure this, right, is when the Epstein stuff was in a really bad place, put. the administration in a really bad place a few weeks ago, there was a very quick amping up. of the talk about retribution for the Russia investigation. And so--. JON STEWART: Right, Obama, Clapper, they were all going down. DEVLIN BARRETT: Yes.

And-- and you have seen an increase, if you think about levels on a soundboard, you saw them turn down the level-- try to turn down. the levels on Epstein and try to turn up. the levels on the Russia retribution stuff. And I think that is part of a general process and part. of a general behavior of a lot of folks who think this is. their season of retribution. But at the end of the day, if you're. going to arrest people, if you're going to indict people--. I talk to people who are in the crosshairs.

of that all the time. And one of the things they say, and I think, you know, I take them at their word, is, look, at the end of the day, I still have some faith in the criminal justice system. In theory, could you investigate me? In theory, could you indict me for something? Sure. But I think no judge and jury would-- would buy that. Maybe they're wrong. I want to be clear. Like, there's a world in which that's not true. JON STEWART: All right. So, Michael, you're-- you're there. When you're at the FBI and you're.

seeing online Ray Epps is a fed and that's why January 6, what is the recourse within the FBI to disprove that? Is there any kind of energy to disprove it? Does everyone just have to hold their powder? MICHAEL FEINBERG: This actually raises a larger issue. with whether the FBI, as it's historically been constituted, is able, in our current political moment. and in the age of mass media, to maintain the trust.

of the American people. Traditionally, the FBI, with a few exceptions--. Comey's press conference on Clinton being one of them, but even I'll defend even aspects of that--. you know, the FBI has spoken through indictments and. through criminal complaints. We have not generally--. I apologize, I still say "we.". JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. MICHAEL FEINBERG: They have not--. they have not generally done pressers.

They have not met off the record. or one-on-one very frequently with journalists. They only talk through indictments. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: So there's never really. been a way for the FBI to push back against the conspiracy. theorists or to try and argue its own case outside. of the prosecutorial process. And that was particularly true under Director.

Wray, who was temperamentally loathed. to do anything like that. And that's never really been an issue because you've always. had adults in the White House. We don't have that now. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: We have an attorney general. We have a president. We have an FBI director, an FBI deputy director. who spent eight years trafficking. in conspiracy theories as a way of consolidating. their own power. So I don't know how you ameliorate that situation.

You know, I-- people have asked me, friends, family, other interviewers, like, how does the FBI come back from this? And I'm pretty pessimistic about it. Like, if we started fixing things. today, six months after this administration came into power, seven or eight months after this administration. came into power, I think it would. take a minimum of a decade. Like, we are not in for an easy road to rebuild.

what's being lost this year. JON STEWART: Well, and now what the courts. are doing is they're saying, actually, you know what? Take what you want. We're-- we're actually done. We're too tired. DEVLIN BARRETT: Look, part of my point before when we were. talking about, you know, the rule of law versus the law. of politics is that-- that relationship. is actually the opposite of what a lot of people think. And the courts are-- especially the Supreme Court, this administration has-- has a lot riding on the Supreme.

Court conservative majority agreeing. with them most of the time. And I think that is something that a lot of the public. probably doesn't, hasn't digested. or considered very much. Because it's pretty nerdy. JON STEWART: The interesting thing is going to be, how is the Supreme Court going to flip over on its back. when a Democrat is in office and wants. to exercise that same level of executive control? If the unitary executive only works. in Republican administrations, that's. going to seem like a larger issue than anything else.

DEVLIN BARRETT: Right. And look, what is happening in the country--. I would say in the government. Let's just stick with the government. What is happening in the federal government, long-term, big picture, is that power is bleeding away. from Congress and bleeding away from the courts, and it's pooling into the executive. That has been true for decades. But Trump is essentially an accelerant. to that and an aggressive, power-grabbing kind. of accelerant to that. And that's going to keep happening. JON STEWART: Well, I imagine what--.

what you're seeing now is what you see in--. in the countries that are-- have a more autocratic bent. And what you see then is the law enforcement arms. being used explicitly for--. for vengeance, for consolidation of power, and for all those-- those different elements. Or you see somebody running to say, again, I'll weed out the deep state.

And we're just in this bizarro deep state cycle. MICHAEL FEINBERG: You know, and I've. got a lot-- like, I don't have a lot of worries. about the FBI workforce. The average agent is somebody whose. integrity I trust implicitly. JON STEWART: But you've said yourself. that they're concerned about, you know, they've got. families and lives and kids. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yes. JON STEWART: And they may have to go along to get along. And so shouldn't you worry about them? MICHAEL FEINBERG: There's ways to sort. of put sand in the gears if you're really. uncomfortable doing something.

What concerns me more are the people who are. now getting promoted to SAC. JON STEWART: What's SAC? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Special agent in charge, I'm sorry, the head of a field office. There's 55 of them throughout the country. The people who are being made division heads, they're explicitly being told, and I've heard this. from some of them, that, like, you are not going. to criticize the director. You are not going to criticize the deputy director. And you are not going to push back against.

administration priorities. And if you do, you're going to be removed. People who are willing to make that sort of compromise. can't stay. JON STEWART: But-- but wouldn't you. normally say that in an organization, that sounds. like, I don't many organizations that would say, your job is to push back against our priorities. MICHAEL FEINBERG: No, no, I would argue what I just. described is totally antithetical to the FBI. I knew for the better part of two decades. It is not unheard of.

For example, there is--. I'm not going to get into the specific details. JON STEWART: You don't mean publicly. You mean internally? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Internally, yeah. JON STEWART: OK. MICHAEL FEINBERG: I mean, it--. it's not-- it was not uncommon under Mueller or Comey or Wray. for a special agent in charge or an assistant director. to vociferously push back against them. to the point of raising voices, almost. yelling about their decisions. There was a give and take. There was an understanding of like, look,

the only way this organization works is you hire. smart people with a good moral compass. and you give them a voice. And at the end of the day, it is a chain of command. So what the director says is going to go. But if we're going to be effective, you need to have an environment where. you allow people to voice their honest opinion and push back. It's the only way this works. JON STEWART: Generally, is the pushback, Michael, is it generally a pushback on norms and morality?

Like, what-- what would pushback look like? We can't do that because that's interfering. in a political process? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: Or we're substituting. our judgment for the judgment of our leadership? What would that pushback look like? MICHAEL FEINBERG: All of the above. I mean, the FBI was in a really tricky situation. with the Clinton email investigations. and the Russia investigation in the sense. that, like, there was literally nothing the organization could.

do that was not in some form or fashion going to put a thumb, however slight, on the scale. That's not intentionally. Just like, we were investigating both candidates. JON STEWART: Would the alternative have been not. to investigate them at all? Or to have them--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Which you can't-- which. you can't do either. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: But the reason I bring it up is I. can tell you, I know for a fact that there was a lot of dissent. up until the very last moment in both.

those investigations about what steps should be taken. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: And I think that a lot of people. have issues with both of those investigations. But trust me when I say, they could have been so much worse. if people did not have the freedom. to honestly voice their opinion about what should be done. [THEME MUSIC]. JON STEWART: Look, folks, I don't. know where you're getting your comfort. during these difficult times. But I'm telling you, man, the good comfort is this--.

cuddling up on the couch with your cat. Now, I don't have a cat, but it does. sound pretty nice right now. I have had cats. And they will, contrary to their reputation, cuddle you pretty hard. But this podcast is sponsored by Smalls. Smalls cat food is protein-packed recipes. made with preservative-free ingredients. you'd find in your fridge. And it's delivered right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls. their best overall cat food. Cats.com, that's where cats go when they're.

looking for information. That's their Google. Now, Smalls was started back in 2017. by a couple of guys home cooking cat. food in small batches for their friends. Oh, they must have lived in Brooklyn. A few short years later, they've. served millions of meals to cats across the United States. After switching to Smalls, 88% of cat owners. reported overall health improvements. Here's a review from a real Smalls customer. Elizabeth C. said, "My cat was always. so-so with her usual food, but she is very.

enthusiastic about Smalls. Her breath is much better. And she poops much less frequently. And it does not smell disgusting like it used to.". As someone who had cats, Elizabeth C., I feel you so deeply. I had their litter box in the closet where I kept my clothes. I'm not smart. What are you waiting for? Give your cat the food they deserve.

For a limited time only, because you are a Weekly Show. listener, you can get 60% off your first. Smalls order plus free shipping when. you head to smalls.com/tws. That's 60% off when you head to smalls.com/tws, plus free shipping. Again, smalls.com/tws. [THEME MUSIC]. Devlin, in your reporting throughout the Department. of Justice and--. and all these different areas, I would imagine there's. a healthy proportion of people who think, yeah,

it's about time, you know, somebody. took control of this or this. But there's also a contingent of people that. are fearful of what's going to happen, but also want to keep their jobs. You know, how pliable, you know, on a scale of law. firms that--. that imploded on one day or Harvard that tried desperately. to hold on before whatever payment.

they're going to fork over, what is the rank and file. of our Justice Department in terms of bending. to the whims of a strong man? DEVLIN BARRETT: So I think a lot of people at the Justice. Department this term have been shocked. by how much different this Trump term has been. than the first Trump term. I think you see that in the way that hundreds of civil rights. lawyers left the department earlier this year, just said,

this is nothing like what we imagined it would be. I can't stay here and do--. and use the Civil Rights laws of America this way. I think there is a desire on the part of many people. to dig in and hold on. If you think back, there's--. this was a big deal at the time, but it's sort of forgotten now because, you know, there's always so much chaos in this space. But if you think back to, there was-- there was an email. that the head of the New York FBI office. sent out early on in the Trump administration.

that basically talked about, look, we're dealing with problems. I understand that. I'm telling you as a former Marine, when things get bad, you dig in and you dig a trench. And you keep your head down and do your job. And I think a lot of people at the time. covered that email as if it was, you know, this call to arms. And I actually read that email completely differently. Because I thought he was saying something much more. sophisticated and thoughtful, which was that dig a trench, dig a foxhole, get in it, stay down.

And that is how you make it. JON STEWART: Live to fight another day. DEVLIN BARRETT: Correct. I think that is-- that is the view of a lot of people. Obviously, hundreds of lawyers have left the DOJ. Obviously, people like Mike are getting fired for reasons that. don't pass the smell test. JON STEWART: Right. DEVLIN BARRETT: But there are still many more people, I can tell you because I talked to a fair number. of them, who are like, they will. have to give me that letter. They will have to make me go. JON STEWART: And I don't want to misrepresent the scale of--.

of the problem. I don't have that much of a sense. of how large the DOJ, FBI is. I imagine it's massive. And are we talking about, like, a few people. around the margins, and there's generally this large ball. of knowledge that stays? Or what-- or does that ball just like, it goes to wherever it's forced? DEVLIN BARRETT: There's a couple. of ways to think about this. For the Justice Department, the most important people, I would argue, in the system, historically,

have been the layer of senior career officials. Those are not people that change. over during administrations. Those are people who have worked, for example, terrorism cases or supervised espionage cases. for decades. JON STEWART: So they have an institutional knowledge. of-- of the security of the country, right? DEVLIN BARRETT: Exactly. And one of the first things the administration did, they pushed out all those people. So they just scraped that layer off. And again, I think sometimes that stuff gets covered,

it's like, you know, oh, what a tragedy for these people. And I-- I do not discount in any way. the personal strife that that has brought to people. But the real issue is that all the careers under them, you know, see which way the wind is blowing. and see that, like, there is no choice but to do exactly. what you are told, exactly the way you were told to do it, and being told to do it by people who--. who have not done this before. JON STEWART: Right. DEVLIN BARRETT: There is-- there is a great scraping that. has happened within these institutions.

of institutional clout and knowledge and experience. And those have-- you know, the thing, the worry that. gets expressed to me all the time is, look, we can go out and walk a post for 30 days. Like, we're not-- we're not babies. We don't have glass jaws, like, fine, whatever. But like, I have guys cracking phones. in child exploitation cases. I have-- JON STEWART: Right. What are we taking our eyes off of? DEVLIN BARRETT: What are we going to miss? Where are we going to get caught--. caught out because we're not on the stick of all.

these very specialized things that we. normally would be doing? JON STEWART: Right. And you won't know till you know. DEVLIN BARRETT: And you won't know till you know. JON STEWART: We might have lost Devlin. DEVLIN BARRETT: Sorry, tech problem. I don't know what happened. JON STEWART: Yeah, I lost him. Shit. Our Department of Justice, the heart. of the American system of jurisprudence, runs on dial-up, apparently. All right, well, that's OK. All right, so Michael, is it your sense. that the DOJ operates or had operated similarly or other--.

I don't-- I don't know if you have much contact with CIA. or Homeland Security or NSA--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: --or any of the other 800 organizations. currently tasked with watching us and arresting us. You know, or the deprioritizing of ATF, you know, the-- the various things there, is it your sense that this is a process. that's going on throughout all of this infrastructure?

MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yes and no. FBI and DOJ are unique in that their mandates. are incredibly broad. There are very few criminal laws. or national security priorities that the FBI. and DOJ do not handle. An organization like ICE, they're. really only doing one thing. JON STEWART: Well, now FBI is-- is working--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: [SIGHS] I know. JON STEWART: --is working with ICE. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, it's--. it's insane. And this is a much longer conversation about why.

that's a terrible idea. But like-- JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: --I think in a functioning democracy, you actually want prosecutorial enforcement powers dispersed. You don't want to centralize them. That's how you get a police state. So it was always a good thing that these agencies were. working on separate matters. Now that you're unifying them into these weird Homeland. Security task forces where everybody's involved. in immigration and violent gangs, the ones being chosen.

to prosecute, I'm sure, coincidentally, all come from South America--. JON STEWART: Yeah, it just so happens. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, this is--. this sort of centralization of law. enforcement authority and operations. is something that we've seen. I'm not going to violate Godwin's law here. JON STEWART: Please don't. Please, please don't go there. MICHAEL FEINBERG: I'm just saying, like, there-- there--.

there are eras of history where this has happened. and countries where this has happened. And they're generally not things we want to emulate. JON STEWART: Right. Have you, through, you know--. and obviously you're not just an agent, but also, it seems, a historian of a lot of this. Have you seen those moments where countries move into more. authoritative states and these things get, you know, look, we still do at present time have elections.

MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: This still can be undone. At present time, this will be the last Trump administration, at least constituted by what we presently. think of as the laws against running for another term. Is it the kind of thing that a country, in your experience, can find its way out of? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yes, absolutely. I mean, you look at--.

look, Japan and Germany are vibrant, functioning democracies. South Africa, post-apartheid, had the Truth. and Reconciliation Commission. JON STEWART: But even both of those countries. have made, recently, I mean, Japan has an ultra-right party. that's gaining tremendously. MICHAEL FEINBERG: It does. And you have-- you have Alternative for Deutschland. JON STEWART: AFD, yeah. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Like, they don't run the country. JON STEWART: Yet. MICHAEL FEINBERG: And there is significant pushback. about them. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Neither of those parties.

have the broad-base support that the MAGA movement. has in the United States. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: But to answer your question, like, if and when this ends, like, absent. some sort of national reconciliation process where we. really do the sort of internal searching about how. a lot of this consolidation of power and destruction of norms. happened, I don't know how we come back. And I know that sounds really negative. It is. I'm in near despair about the future of our country.

And what makes me even more worried. is half the nation isn't going to want. to have that reconciliation, because they see nothing. wrong with what's happening. JON STEWART: I would say not only nothing wrong, but they see it as finally--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Good, yeah. JON STEWART: --finally this is what we're doing. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, I mean, like, look, I don't want to take, like, an overly. Calvinist view of humanity or get too Hobbes in here. But, like--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] Oh, it's been done here before, so you might as well. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: You might as well jump in. MICHAEL FEINBERG: I do think human beings, just in general,

like, we don't know as much as we think we do. We're pretty craven. Were pretty tribal. And like, for about 250 years, we. had a really good system of checks and balances. that tamped down on that. It never got rid of it. There are very dark moments, obviously, in American history. JON STEWART: Look, Franklin Delano. Roosevelt, the most progressive amongst us, interned the Japanese. MICHAEL FEINBERG: All the Japanese-Americans. JON STEWART: We somehow got back from that. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yes, exactly.

But like, we needed to have honest conversations afterwards. about why that was wrong. And I don't know that a lot of the country. is interested in those conversations. JON STEWART: Not only that, they're. removing those conversations from our historical record. I mean--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, the Smithsonian. is going through an audit. It's insane. JON STEWART: That's right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: And also, they seem very particularly. concerned with how the country is presented. through its racial history. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yes. JON STEWART: Segregation and slavery. being, hey, we shouldn't teach that because that's. not patriotic or that's not--.

you know, we are starting to go through different processes, not just with law enforcement, but. with the historical record--. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yes. JON STEWART: --of who we even are. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, and, like, look, even the notion that we shouldn't be debating and even. now atoning for the sin of slavery, even Thomas Jefferson, who most of the MAGA movement tends to like, you know, famously said, "I tremble for my nation when I. reflect that God is just," specifically. in reference to slavery. JON STEWART: Mm-hmm.

MICHAEL FEINBERG: Like, you need. to have a serious intellectual honesty and an ability. to confront uncomfortable truths. to really know, and in that knowledge, love your country. And that is something that what passes. for the conservative movement today is not willing to do. JON STEWART: Well, it's, you know--. I do wonder if maybe the answer is, you know, look, it is-- there is something appealing.

about the great man theory. There is something appealing about, a hero will rise amongst us. And we always do sort of celebrate. that in the United States. You know, Abraham Lincoln, the great man. stood up and held the country together through the Civil War. And it does, there's almost a wish. fulfillment of, well, maybe the bizarro Trump will rise. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah. JON STEWART: And that will be the person. But there's very little faith that the system.

will self-correct. That's the part that seems highly unlikely. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Well, our system has a fundamental flaw. And not to keep going back to the founders, but--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. MICHAEL FEINBERG: --as a good philosophical, like--. JON STEWART: Those bastards! What did they do here? MICHAEL FEINBERG: No, no, I'm about to praise them. JON STEWART: All right, fair enough. MICHAEL FEINBERG: There was a very clear recognition. in all of their writings that the system we set up. is only going to work as long as it. is populated by men of virtue.

And we don't have that. I mean, let's expand it to men and women of virtue, obviously. But like, the system was premised on a notion. that there would be disinterested, selfless. patriots who placed the well-being of their country. above themselves, which is what patriotism is supposed to be. We don't have that. You know, we talked earlier in the podcast about the situation. the FBI found itself in with both Clinton and Trump.

investigations, and how that caused the FBI to lose. the American people's trust. It's deeper than that, I think. I think regardless of your political views, in terms of a lack of self-interest and altruism, neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. were really exemplars of people who were willing to put aside. ambition for the greater good.

JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: And we were confronted in that election. with two people who thought the rules didn't apply to them. Now, I think, like, Clinton maintaining. an email server that is beyond the reach FOI law--. JON STEWART: Yeah, it's a slightly different order, different than, like, getting people. to storm the Capitol to prevent votes from being certified. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Exactly, or talking to a. foreign intelligence service. But like, it's still indicative of people who thought,

in some measure, admittedly very different degrees, that the normal rules that govern politics. didn't apply to them. And unfortunately, the only organization. that was in a position to push back against either of them. was the FBI. And, you know, I will make a much less lofty. quote than I have before. I'm going to quote the tagline for Alien vs. Predator. JON STEWART: Oh. [LAUGHS]. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Whoever wins, we lose. JON STEWART: I thought we were going.

Burke, Burke or Jefferson. MICHAEL FEINBERG: No, we could. No, no. JON STEWART: We're going Weaver? We're going Weaver? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, we're-- we're-- not even Weaver, we're going with one like the bad, knock-off. sequels 20 years later. JON STEWART: Oh, all right. Fair enough. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Alien vs. Predator, like, whoever wins, we lose. If Clinton won, there was going to be some form of retribution. for the email investigation. Trump won, there were forms of retribution. for the Russia investigation. Like, there was no way the FBI was going to come out of 2016.

and its aftermath intact. The only thing I'm amazed about is that nine years. later, it's still happening. JON STEWART: Right. and that it's still going. Well, we so appreciate you taking. the time to speak with us. I also want to congratulate you. I know that you just had a little baby boy. And that-- and certainly in this time, you stepping away for a bit. I should have-- what I should have.

done is forget about the podcast, just let. you nap for an hour. And that way, you'd be-- you'd be ready to go. MICHAEL FEINBERG: I'm sure in a couple of years, that will be an option. JON STEWART: Have you thought about your next sort of step? Have you been in touch with some folks that are. still allowed to talk to you? MICHAEL FEINBERG: Yeah, so I'm doing a couple things. Like, I still-- this is going to sound very. cliche and cheesy, my oath to the Constitution. did not come with an expiration date. simply because I left government. So I'm working with a number of organizations that are still.

fighting for national security and the rule of law. and the area of the Venn diagram. where those two things connect. I'm on the advisory committee for a group called Justice. Connection, which provides free legal representation to DOJ. and FBI employees who are put in positions. because of their political beliefs. or asked to do something illegal. JON STEWART: Right. MICHAEL FEINBERG: And I'm going to be starting a fellowship. with a website called Lawfare, where I'm.

going to be writing about the same issues. for the general public. JON STEWART: Right. Well, we certainly appreciate your service. over all these years. And-- and definitely find it hard to imagine the injustice. of having that all be erased based on, you know, look, it'd be one thing if, you know, they said you're a spy. But, you know, you're friends with a guy we don't like. But we really appreciate you being here. Michael Feinberg, former FBI agent.

Been there for many, many years. And let go for the most ridiculous of reasons. And Devlin Barrett, who we had on from The New York Times who. reports on these things, was at the DOJ and had his connection, I'm going to say, mysteriously cut. That's what I'm going to say. I'm-- I'm going to stick with the deep state ended up. cutting Devlin Barrett's feed. And that's why he was no longer-- we hope he's OK. That's what I'm going to say.

Michael, thanks again. MICHAEL FEINBERG: Thanks for having me. JON STEWART: All right. Bye bye. [THEME MUSIC]. I thought that was excellent, but I have no idea what it's. going to sound like because--. LAUREN WALKER: [LAUGHS]. JON STEWART: --it was like we did an interview with two--. and Michael was in, like, literally. at a bris for his newborn son. And it turns out at the Department of Justice, they have shitty Wi-Fi. There was so much shit going on there, I don't even know--. I have no idea what that is going to sound like. LAUREN WALKER: No one's doing it like us.

This is my Super Bowl. JON STEWART: Lauren, this is--. I, like-- and by the way, for the people at home, like, they've got three hours. Like, they've got, Nicole, Rob, Lauren, like, they've. got three hours to make this thing. sound like something coherent. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Superstar team. JON STEWART: It really is. It is a superstar team. I feel so badly for Michael. Like, talk about a, like, warrior philosopher dude, like, quoting Weber and Burke and on the line,

and removed because he still is friendly with a guy. they don't like. LAUREN WALKER: I love how he thought. he was the first person to wax poetic about Jon. Locke on this podcast. [LAUGHTER]. Sir, you have no idea. Join the club. JON STEWART: You do not know what you're dealing with, my friend. But he's-- he's one of the few guys who had quoted, I guess it was Weber.

But then also, where did he pull up? Was it something from Star Wars? Or was that me? I don't even remember anymore. LAUREN WALKER: Oh, yeah, Alien vs. Predator. JON STEWART: Alien vs. Predator. LAUREN WALKER: And Rolling Stones. JON STEWART: Rolling Stones, Alien vs. Predator. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Pop culture, baby. JON STEWART: That is a dude, if he had been in your dorm. in college, you'd have just been like, I want us to sit here forever. [LAUGHTER]. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: A deep thinker. LAUREN WALKER: He pulls out his pocket Constitution. JON STEWART: I don't know what's. going to happen when the gummy wears off, but right now, you're my favorite person in the world.

All good stuff. Brittany, before we go off for summer, is there anything anybody wants to know before we're--. we're gone there? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Always, there is. JON STEWART: All right, what have they got? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Jon, what lessons should Chuck. Schumer learn from Joe Biden's decision. not to step aside earlier? JON STEWART: Exactly. That's exactly right. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: [LAUGHS]. JON STEWART: Schumer has to learn that you got to stay in. there no matter what, until one day you look up.

and the angels are either dragging you towards the light. or towards the darkness. And that is the only way that, from now on, you can only. be removed from the Senate or our government. by the great claw arm in the sky that. dips-- it's what-- it's what his nipples are for, it comes down. They grab them both on the nipple. and pull him out of the machine. And--. LAUREN WALKER: You might not be far off. We're about to get an octagon at the White House. You never know. JON STEWART: Hey, man, July 4th, it's not--.

America can't celebrate its glorious history. without two people beating the shit out of each other. in the Rose Garden. It is gonna be, Chuck Schumer, I mean, there was recently, I think a senator, it might have been Dick Durbin, who. was like, I've made the decision not. to run anymore, at like 82. And everybody was like, wow, that's incredible, like, a guy. stepping away in his mid 80s. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: [LAUGHS] JON STEWART: Amazing. LAUREN WALKER: His prime. JON STEWART: Why leave so early, young man?

LAUREN WALKER: The selflessness. JON STEWART: It's like when you read. about like, an NFL player being like, I've decided to retire at 25. Like, just fucking crazy. What else they got? What else they got? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Do you watch Fox News? Do you have a favorite show? JON STEWART: Do I watch Fox News? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. JON STEWART: Look at me! [LAUGHTER] Look! Is this-- would this happen to some--. do you think this erosion happens naturally? You think this is just wind, sun, and rain?

No, this is the-- the corrosive acid. rain that flows from America's newsroom. on a daily basis and has--. look, look, look. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: That's the Jesse Watters glow, I think it's called. JON STEWART: Yes. This is what happens to a human being who is exposed. to that level of radiation. LAUREN WALKER: John's skincare routine is the vibe. [LAUGHTER]. JON STEWART: All right.

You guys gonna have a good rest of the summer? You gonna enjoy yourselves? What do we got, like, three weeks off? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. Sure do. LAUREN WALKER: Yeah, we'll be back. the second week in September. JON STEWART: You guys have crushed it this year, my friends, please. You've earned a wonderful vacation. All of you, I hope you all have a great time. and come back nice and crisp and ready to go. Brittany, how can they keep in touch with us. while we're all gone? 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: All right, Lead Producer Lauren Walker, Producer Brittany Mehmedovic, Video Editor. and Engineer Rob Vitola, Audio Editor and Engineer. Nicole Boyce, Researcher and Associate Producer. Gillian Spear. And our Executive Producer is Chris McShane and Caity Gray. Guys, fantastic job as always. Have a wonderful summer break. And I look forward to seeing everybody in September. Talk to you guys soon. Bye-bye. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast and is produced by Paramount.

Audio and Busboy Productions. [THEME MUSIC].