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

Cash patel and dan bungee know our deep state guys there the ones who are like the deep state is a problem when we get in there we're gonna expose the deep state we're gonna expose that ray apps is a plant and a fed we're gonna expose the epstein files and then they get in there. And pop just So what happened there? 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 13th.

What are we doing? It's the middle of August.

You don't want to hear me.

You, you want to be sitting somewhere with your feet in the water, sipping yourself a nice, what do they call it? Their Aperol spritz or, uh, perhaps maybe knowing our audience a little better, a little maestro, a little Meister brow and a bong hit. Whatever it is that you want to do to get yourselves through these August dog days of summer, we're going to 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. There's a splinter in the heart of the body politic that is corrupting all of it. We've got two guests who are going to 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 gonna dig into it all today. It's the deep state, deep in the heart of August, deep in the heart of summer, but let's get right to it.

We're gonna get right to it.

We're going to 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 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. I don't know where in the bowels of the Department of Justice. Michael Feinberg, I'm going to start with you, Michael. Since you are in many ways at the top of the news, you just resigned. How long ago? Two weeks ago?

No, it was, I sent the letter of resignation on June 1st, I believe. June 1st. Okay. It was either May 31st or June 1st, whichever was the Sunday of that weekend.

So you've, you've, you resigned from the FBI rather than, and I'll let you tell the story rather than have to testify about under oath about your relationship with a friend of yours who used to work at the FBI.

Yeah, so it's a little bit more complicated than that.

I would hope so.

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've 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. Pete Strzok is a former FBI agent who is famously on Trump's shit list. Yes. Along with his, I guess, former girlfriend of his, Lisa Page. Is that correct?

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.

How long had you been with the FBI, Michael, if you don't mind me asking?

16 years. So you'd been there the FBI, Michael, if you don't mind me asking? 16 years.

So you'd been there 16 years, and in those 16 years, I'm assuming you had a lot of commendations, you had worked your way up through the process there.

Yeah, I was what we refer to as a senior leader. I was the number two in charge of one of our field offices. I received the FBI's highest investigative commendation, the Director's Award for a major Chinese counterintelligence case.

Now, this was with Huawei? Is that the case?

Yes. 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, I was told those promotions are never going to happen, that I should prepare to actually be demoted, which usually means a relocation. My wife was in her seventh month of a high-risk pregnancy.

Also that I was going to, at the very least, be polygraphed about the nature of my relationship with Pete. Given all that, given what was going on in my personal life, as heartbreaking as it was, you know, to quote the stones, I decided to walk before they made me run.

Right.

And resigned.

How many FBI agents do you think quote the stones on their way out the door?

Probably not that many. Although, Crossfire Hurricane, you know, the investigation which sort of started this all does come from a jumping jack flashlight.

It all goes back to the stones. Devlin Barrett, I'm going to ask you to jump in here. Michael is 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, 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 it 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. Uh, Devlin, how insane not to perjured eyes, the question, how insane is this?

This is a problem that has 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 examples where senior or low-level FBI agents get letters saying, under the president's constitutional authority, you're out.

These letters are from Kash Patel, who is the head of the FBI or Dan Bongino, who is the deputy. I guess in Michael's case, it was Dan Bongino and the other, are these usually from Cash Patel?

I've seen both versions. I've seen some from Cash and I've seen some from Bongino. Um, these fly in the face of civil service laws. These fly in the face of how the rules have always worked at the bureau.

It is so cute. It is so cute to me that you would, you would say, Hey, this is,

this is civil service.

But here's why it matters. Right. Like all due respect to Mike, like it's not really about Mike's career. It's about all the other agents at the bureau who see what happens to Mike and are, and, 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, 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 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, your career is dead.

Well, I think it's also a question of, 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 no through no fault of their own that they worked on cases that the president administration thinks they shouldn't have worked on.

Would that be correct? Yeah, I mean, they're fighting people for a lot of different reasons, but that is one of the primary

reasons they are firing people. 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, you know, 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?

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 week or two after I left, I lost 90% of my close friends. I'm talking about people who are at my wedding. I'll explain. I'll explain. Like people who are at my wedding,

people who are at my bachelor party, people with whom I vacation, 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 the spate of polygraphs They can't afford to get fired simply because we're friends.

And with the 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 Signaller.

Oh, by Pete Hegseth giving you details of the next.

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.

Without giving away names or necessarily how that goes, but when you say anomalous situations, can you be more specific on this?

Yeah, I'll just pull one from the news in the past few days. It is not normal for FBI special agents to be doing street patrols in the District 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 practiced with. It's not something they really have a lot of legal authorities or a 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, like there's gonna be a change in administration, or there's gonna be a change in congressional minorities, majorities, and there's gonna be oversight hearings,

or inspector general investigations, and what's going to be oversight hearings or inspector general investigations. 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?

Well, that gets us into Devlin. That's, you know, look, we've talked a little bit about, you know, a new administration comes in, they fire people that worked on cases that they disfavored, and it puts a chilling effect on there. Are we now, Devlin, entering a cycle, a sort of Maoist cycle of purges and retribution on the change of every administration? Or is this so particular to this one administration who's, I mean let's face facts the the fuel at the Nuclear core of this administration is vengeance and vindictiveness, 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 show,

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.

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 locker-up guy he gave speeches in 2015 like he wanted to jail political opponents he wanted to be the strong man he always seems to have admired he used to talk about Viktor Orban and Erdogan and Putin. Is this really a question of a guy who's been,

you know, emotionally scarred by law enforcement overreach? Because it doesn't feel that way. Hey 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.

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. 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 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? So no more blaming your bad opinions on me or being ill-informed. Go to groundnews.com slash Stewart. Subscribe for 40% off the unlimited access Vantage subscription. It brings the price down to about $5 a month.

Well worth it. That's groundnews.com slash Stewart or scan the QR code on screen.

Two things. One, I joke with sources all the time. It is not 2025. It is 2016 part nine. We are still trapped on the hamster wheel of 2016. And I don't know when 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's 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. 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. Michael, you were there for both of those. What's your thought?

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 an 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'd trod a certain path that made them familiar with the organs of U.S. 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 lie level position. Well, they were more personal lawyers for Donald Trump. Yeah, they were just 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. But let's talk about

that. So let's do a defense of norms and traditions. I will happily do that, yeah. Because in my mind, 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 them, you know, MLK files where it was very clear, the FBI attempted to drive him to madness and suicide. Based on that, it's not as though even 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? I would take slight issue- Please. With your characterization. I think-

Somebody's got to.

Yeah, just, I think the narrative you just provided is 100% true basically up until 1974, 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, 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. And that's just gone.

Devlin, talk about that framework. Yeah, because I want to talk about that framework that was established and whether or not it was followed through.

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. Hey, what the heck? 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 FBI. You have a Congress that is not going to save the Justice Department.

Go back to this, Devlin. So you say that the justice system tried to assert dominance over the political system. In what sense?

So look at, I don't mean they deliberately set out to do that. 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.

Now to go back to give context to that, I think what you're referring to is.

Sorry. Yeah. Jumping.

So there's the Hillary Clinton email investigation. There's the thought that Russia has, I mean, this is sort of, if we 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,

or we have information on Hillary Clinton, or we'll get information, or they were asked by the Trump administration supposedly Russian influencers, agents said,

or 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 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 into Hillary Clinton's emails, and her numbers plunge three to four percentage points immediately.

Correct.

Would that be accurate?

Yes. And I think that essentially opened Pandora's box for everything that has happened since. That's my whole theory of the case.

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 Russia? What is the conversation around all these issues that's going on in the FBI at 2015-2016?

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. Okay. And as a result, 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 I got beers after work or coffee during the workday.

Give us a sense of how big this system is.

It's huge. It's huge. 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 and 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 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.

All right. So, Devlin, 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 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?

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 key moments, 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 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 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, 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.

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 to 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, da-da-da-da, 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 slash TWS.

That's MintMobile.com slash TWS. Upfront payment of $45 required, 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.

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 that 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 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?

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 D.C. takeover of the when the federal takeover of the D.C.

police force happened, you know, one of the things I said to a colleague is like, look, in 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, you know, agents being out on the street, you know,

lost and 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 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.

Is that, Michael, is that the worry for you with those? Like, for instance, you're a guy who is, you've worked on all these uh cases espionage cases with china you speak mandarin and by the way let's be clear with the audience michael is not a uh died in the world bleeding heart liberal that's been removed for his things you you were a member of the federalist society northwestern consider yourself 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?

I have a lot of concerns. 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 could escalate to

a baton or a taser. Those may not be the exact examples, but it's like there are steps you can

take. Rules of engagement.

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 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 protests in the street or crowds of people getting

on a roof.

Well, even in chain of command, Michael, I'm just curious, you know, just now we're just talking, you know, logistically. So let's say 500 FBI agents are deployed onto the streets of Washington, D.C. in support of maybe National Guard, which has also been deployed, or maybe Metropolitan Police, which are, I think, normally deployed. What is the chain of command? Is your,

I guess, authority still Kash Patel? 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 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 deescalate the situation.

Sure, I remember.

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.

Wait, they were being punished for not-

Every agent who took a knee in 2020, in 2025 was removed from their position of

leadership.

Whoa, what? So wait, what are the so right now within the FBI, if you're an FBI agent, 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?

It's simpler than that. It's simpler than that. 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.

Ideologues. Ideologues on the line.

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. The overwhelming majority of these people just had the misfortune to be appointed by Chris Wray during the Biden years. There's no real allegation of impropriety. They're just cleaning the decks.

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.

Yeah, we never got to pick the investigations on which we worked. Like, we were assigned

them. So what does that, Michael, let me ask you, what does that do to the nation's law enforcement, Law enforcement institutional knowledge and readiness if the first order of hiring is purely that you are ideologically in line that you pledge your field to. Donald trump. How do you can they fill out an organization of competent people who also do that?

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, in 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 in power.

Talk about specifically what, when you talk about the gutting of corruption 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. 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?

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 II to the president. 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.

Well, let's go with, do you remember the governor of Virginia, McDonnell, I don't know if you worked on that case at all, but do you remember that corruption case in Virginia?

I do, yeah.

So he was convicted of 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?

It does and it doesn't. 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 Rob 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 Rob Blagojevich attempted to auction off, essentially, Barack Obama's Senate seat.

Right, his Senate seat, yeah. 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 viddy. And there's a very colorful argument that it was too viddy and the court was right to narrow it down a little bit. 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. So I'm much less concerned.

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.

That's a different thing. 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 legal 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.

There are ancillary crimes that go along with some sort of... because you have to hide the profits of your corruption. 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. But I also think it's totally at odds with U.S.

history and founding ideals. One DOJ person said to me years ago, 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.

There'd be no way to have any information.

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 a significant number of conservatives on Supreme Court expressing their dismay and distrust

of how the DOJ has done this in recent years. Hey, what do you got there?

Business? You realize your business needed to hire someone and you needed them yesterday? Well, how are you going to find it? How are you going to find amazing candidates fast? What do you got to 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's 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 subscriptions, 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? 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 past. 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 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com slash weekly. Just go to indeed.com slash weekly right now. Support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast.

Indeed.com slash weekly. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring? Indeed is all you need.

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. The whole point was to place restrictions

on the operation of government, not to create an expansive executive power. This gets us to maybe the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the MAGA movement, which is it is a movement that absolutely cloaks itself in constitutional rhetoric and almost fetishizes how many of the guys that 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. 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.

You're saying they may not in fact be tread on? Is that what I'm hearing?

As somebody, like I really do consider myself a philosophical and constitutional conservative.

Right.

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.

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 beliefs, or the project has no intellectual integrity. 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 Maccann movement. that is totally lacking in the back end of it. Well, because I think what they've done is they've sort of ceded any kind of that rigor to the emotional impulse of one individual that they believe stands above all of it. And they've even, I think, infused him with a sort of religious fervor. But Devlin, you've got these organizations, 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 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.

I think that's right. And there's a couple of 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, you know, 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 in that model, 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 destroyed it tomorrow, not saying that's going to happen or should, but if you destroy 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.

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 very, and rightfully so, uncomfortable with how it was going to be exercised. But this concept of deep state 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, Cash Patel and Dan Bungino 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 gonna expose the Epstein files, and then they get in there and bupkis. So what happened there?

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 Miserables. It's a certain mindset. So 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. 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 three and a half

years by now are people at the executive, who are willing to beg their principles for the party in power?

How cynical was this, Michael, like all this 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 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. Off the record, without it being recorded. Yeah. Right. And then a week later, her being transferred to a minimum security prison where sex offenders are not

allowed to be transferred to. Yeah. There's a couple of things to unpack there. First of all, in terms of the cynicism, there's probably a lot of people throughout the country who really do believe that January 6th was some sort of inside joke. I think it's a ludicrous belief, but I don't doubt that there are massive numbers

of people who sincerely hold that belief.

But were Patel and Bongino amongst them?

The notion that anybody who was involved in the Stop the Steal rally, any of the organizers, they know that's horseshit. Right. I mean, are you really telling me that 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.

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.

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 6th, that 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 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?

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. You know, 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 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.

But what about then that Devlin, if it's the most videotaped and some people still think it's a con, but the people that thought it was a con viewed Trump's re-election 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 Khan will be exposed. What

happens when the Khan isn't exposed? This plays out 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, frog march them out of the building. You know, that exists in the January 6th space that exists and certainly in the Epstein space. And the 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 that who

you know, 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 we are just sort of starting to test the limits of that. And I think it's going to be a 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.

Right. Obama, Clapper, they were all going down.

Yes. 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, a 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, look, at the end of the day, I still have some faith in the criminal justice system that in theory, could you investigate me in theory? Could you indict me in for something? Sure. But I think no judge and jury would, would buy that. Um, maybe they're wrong. I want to be clear. Like There's a world in which that's not true.

Alright, so Mike, you're there. When you're at the FBI and you're seeing online, Ray Epps is fed and that's why January 6th. What is the recourse within the FBI to disprove that? Is there any kind of energy to disprove it? Does everyone just have to holdprove that? Is there any kind of energy to disprove it? Does everyone just have to hold their powder?

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, 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. 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 loath 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. 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. People have asked me, friends, family, other interviewers, like, how does the FBI come back from this? And I'm pretty pessimistic about it.

If we started fixing things today, six months after this administration came into power, seven, eight months after this administration came into power, I think it would take a bit more of a decade. Like, we are not in for an easy road

to rebuild what's being lost this year.

Well, and now what the courts are doing is they're saying, actually, you know what, take what you want. We're actually done. We're too tired.

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, opposite of what a lot of people think. And the courts are, especially the Supreme Court, this administration 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 hasn't digested or considered very much because it's pretty nerdy.

The interesting thing is going to be how is the Supreme Court

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.

Right. And, and, and look, what is happening in the country? I would say in the government, let's, 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, uh, power grabby kind of accelerant to that, an aggressive, power-grabby kind of accelerant to that. And that's going to keep happening.

Well, I imagine what you're seeing now is what you see in the countries that have a more autocratic bent. And what you see then is the law enforcement arms being used explicitly for vengeance, for consolidation of power, and for all 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.

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.

But you've said yourself that they're concerned about, you know, they've got families and lives and kids and they may have to go along to get along. And so shouldn't you worry about them?

There's ways to sort of put sand in the gears if you're really uncomfortable doing so. What concerns me more are the people who are now getting promoted to SAC.

What's SAC?

The 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, 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.

But wouldn't you normally say that in an organization, that sounds like, I don't know many organizations that would say your job is to push back against our priorities?

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. You don't mean publicly, you mean internally? Internally, yeah. I mean, 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. Edit the end of the day it is a chain of command so what the director says is gonna go. But if we're gonna 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. Generally, is the pushback, Michael, is it generally a pushback on norms and morality? What would pushback look like? We can't do that because that's interfering in a political process, or we're substituting our judgment for the judgment of our leadership? What would that pushback look like?

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 gonna put a thumb, however slight on the scale. That's not intentionally just

like we were investigating both candidates.

Would the alternative have been not to investigate them at all or to have them?

Which you can't, which you can't do either. So, you know, but I 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. I think 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.

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've 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 the 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 get 60% off your first Smalls order, plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com backslash TWS. That's 60% off when you head to smalls.com backslash TWS, plus free shipping. Again, smalls.com backslash TWS.

Devlin, in your reporting throughout the Department of Justice 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 who think yeah it's about time you know somebody to 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 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 strongman?

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 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, like dig a foxhole, get in it, stay down. And that is how you make it.

Live to fight another day. Correct.

And 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. Right. 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.

And I don't want to misrepresent the scale 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 and are we talking about like a few people around the margins 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?

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 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.

Tom Scott So they have an institutional knowledge of the security of the country, right?

Dr. Tom Bilyeu 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 as like, you know, Oh, what a tragedy for these people. And I do not discount in any way the personal strife that that is, 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're told

to do it. And being told to do it by people who have not done this before. You know, 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 word 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, what are we taking our eyes off of? 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.

Right. And you won't know till you know. And you won't know till you know. Uh, we might have lost that one. Sorry, tech problem. I don't know what happened. Yeah, I lost them. Shit. Our Department of Justice, the heart of the American system of jurisprudence, runs on dial-up apparently. All right.

Well, that's okay. All right. So, Mike, is it your sense that the DOJ operates or had operated similarly or other, you know, I don't, I don't know if you have much contact with CIA or Homeland Security or NSA or any of the other 800 organizations that are 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?

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. In an organization like ICE, they're really only doing one thing.

Well, now FBI is working with ICE.

Yeah, it's insane. And this is a much longer conversation about why that's a terrible idea, but like, 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. This is- It just so happens.

Yeah. 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.

Please don't. Please don't go there.

I'm just saying, like, 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.

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. 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?

Yes, absolutely. I mean, you look at—look, Japan and Germany are vibrant, functioning democracies. South Africa, post-apartheid, had the truth and reconciliation committees.

But even both of those countries have made recently, I mean, Japan has an ultra-right party that's gaining tremendously.

It does, and you have alternative for Deutschland.

AFD, yeah.

But like, they don't run the country.

Yeah.

And there is significant pushback about them. Neither of those parties have the broad-based support that the MAGA movement has in the United States. But to answer your question, 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. I would say not only nothing wrong, but they see it as finally.

Good. Yeah. Finally, this is what we're doing. Yeah. I mean, like, look, I don't want to take

like an overly Calvinist view of humanity here.

It's been done here before, so you might as well jump in.

I do think human beings, just in general, we don't know as much as we think we do. We're pretty craven. We're pretty tribal. 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.

Look, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the most progressive amongst us, interned the Japanese.

All the Japanese Americans.

We somehow got back from that.

Yes, exactly. But 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.

Not only that, they're removing those conversations from our historical record.

Yeah, the Smithsonian is going through an audit. It's insane.

That's right. And also, they seem very particularly concerned with how the country is presented through its racial history. 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 records of who we even are.

Yeah, and like, look, even the notion that we shouldn't be debating, even now atoning, for the sin of slavery. Even Thomas Jefferson, who most of the Magna movement tends to like, famously said, I tremble for my nation when I reflect that God is just, specifically in reference to slavery. 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. 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 this, the Civil War or, and it does, there's almost a wish fulfillment of, well, maybe the bizarro Trump will rise 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.

Well, our system has a fundamental flaw. And not to keep going back to the founders, but as a good philosopher, like...

Those bastards, what did they do here?

No, no, I'm about to praise them. Ah, all right, fair enough. 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 the system was premised on a notion that there would be disinterest in 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. 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 are willing to put aside ambition for the greater good. And we were confronted in that election with two people who thought the rules didn't apply to them. Now, I think Clinton maintaining an email server that is beyond the reaches of FOIA is different.

Yeah, it's a slightly different order. Different than like getting people to storm the Capitol to prevent, you know, votes for big certified.

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, whoever wins, we lose. I thought we were going Burke. No, we could. We're going Weaver? We're going Weaver? Yeah. Not even Weaver. We're going with one of the bad knockoff sequels. Alien vs. Predator, whoever wins, all right. All right. Fair enough. Alien versus Predator, 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. 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.

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 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 ready to go. I'm sure in a couple of years that will be an option.

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?

Yeah. So I'm doing a couple of 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 at 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.

Right.

And I'm gonna be starting a fellowship with a website called Lawfare, where I'm gonna be writing about the same issues

for the general public.

Right.

Well, we certainly appreciate your service over all these years, and definitely find it hard to imagine the injustice of having that all be erased based on, look, it'd be one thing if they said, you're a spy, but 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 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 okay. That's what I'm going to say. Michael, thanks again.

Thanks for having me.

All right.

Bye-bye.

I thought that was excellent, but I have no idea what it's going to sound like because it was like we did an interview with two people and Michael was 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. No one's doing it like us. This is my Super Bowl.

Lauren, this is, 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.

Superstar team.

It really is, it is a superstar team. I feel so badly for Michael Phelps. Like, talk about a, about a 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.

I love how he thought he was the first person to wax poetic about John Locke on this podcast.

Sir, you have no idea. Join the club.

You do not know what you're dealing with, my friend. But 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.

Oh yeah, Alien vs. Predator.

Alien vs. Predator.

Rolling Stones.

Rolling Stones, Alien vs. Predator.

Pop culture, baby.

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.

A deep thinker. He pulls out his pocket constitution. 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 gone there? Always there is. All right. What do they got?

John, what lessons should Chuck Schumer learn from Joe Biden's decision not to step aside earlier?

That's exactly right.

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 his nipples are for. It comes down, they grab them both on the nipple and pull him out of the machine and... You him out of the machine.

You might not be far off. We're about to get an octagon at the White House.

You never know.

Day, 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 going to be Chuck Schumer. I mean, there was recently, I think a senator, might have been Dick Durbin,

who was like, I've made the decision not to run anymore, like 82. And everybody was like, wow, that's incredible. Like a guy stepping away in his mid-80s. Amazing.

It's prime.

Why leave so early, young man?

The selflessness.

You know, it's like when you read about like an NFL player being like, I've decided to retire at 25. Just fucking crazy. What else they got? What else they got?

Do you watch Fox News? Do you have a favorite show on there?

Do I watch Fox News? Look at me.

Look.

Would this happen to some... You think this erosion happens naturally? You think this is just wind, sun, and rain? No, this is the corrosive acid rain that flows from America's newsroom on a daily basis and has, look, look, look.

That's the Jesse Waters glow, I think it says.

Yeah, this is what happens to a human being who is exposed to that level of radiation.

John's skincare routine is the five.

Yeah.

All right, you guys gonna have a good rest of the summer? Yeah.

You gonna enjoy yourselves?

What do we got, like three weeks off?

Yeah.

Yeah, we'll be back this second week in September.

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? Twitter, we are weekly show pod. Instagram, threads, TikTok, blue sky. We are weekly show podcast. And you can like, subscribe, and comment on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart.

All right, lead producer, Lauren Walker. Producer, Brittany Medvedevic. Video editor and engineer, Rob Vettel. Audio editor and engineer, Nicole Boyds, researcher and associate producer Jillian Spear, and our executive producers, Chris McShane and Katie 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 The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast.