“A clear and decisive retreat by the Trump administration”

This isn't the end of a fight. It's the start of one. Lioness, the critically acclaimed original series from Taylor Sheridan, returns August 2nd only on Paramount Plus. In the new season, hidden networks, foreign operatives, and personal betrayals collide while Joe walks the line between duty and family. Don't Miss Lioness. Starring Zoe Saldana, Michael Kelly, with Morgan Freeman and Nicole Kidman, streaming August 2nd only on Paramount Plus. Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters.

Hi there, everyone. It's four Clark in the East. We have big breaking news today on a clear and decisive defeat for the Trump administration and an equally clear and decisive win for the First Amendment. The Trump Justice Department has announced that it is withdrawing subpoenas issued to five reporters from the New York Times. The subpoenas would have compelled those journalists to testify before a grand jury. It came after a hearing in court in which... The Times asked a judge to quash the subpoenas, and according to reporting from our colleagues, Lisa Rubin and Fallon Gallagher, the judge blasted the Justice Department telling prosecutors that... They had a choice that could either withdraw the subpoenas or he would quash them himself. For its part, the New York Times has been arguing that the White House is abusing the justice system to fish for its reporter's sources and deter coverage. They've also alleged in court documents that the FBI sought the phone records for reporters and the spouses of two reporters and the mother of one journalist without initially disclosing it. All of this started when Donald Trump allegedly got very upset when the New York Times reported that he had left Turkey on the old Air Force one because a new plane gifted by the Qataris was not deemed secure enough. And that breaking news is where we begin today with some of our most favorite experts and friends. Former top DOJ official and general counsel for the FBI, our legal analyst, Andrew Weissman, is here. Also joining us, former DHS chief of staff during Trump's first term, Miles Taylor's back, and former director of the CIA, now our senior national security and intelligence analyst. John Brennan is here. Andrew Weissman, I start with you because this is, you worked at the highest levels of the department, and this is a... really clear legal defeat for Todd Blanche personally, who testified in his confirmation hearing that he called the code red. So let's put this in the context of the Department of Justice issuing grand jury subpoenas to the Federal Reserve and issuing grand jury subpoenas in connection with the sitting governor of Minnesota and the mayor of Minneapolis. The reason I'm raising all of those is those were all examples of where the court has said. these subpoenas are improper in illegal and were quashed.

And to me, there's two stories here. One is that you have Todd Blanche on the verge of a confirmation where he has shown both illegality and at sort of incompetence, if this is like now saying it was some mistake. But you have judges pushing back repeatedly. And the second story is, where in God's green earth are the senators and the outrage, where, again, I hate to do this sort of like in any other administration. But could you imagine that what would happen in any other administration, Republican or Democratic, where you have this, and the person who is responsible is seeking to get a promotion? Yeah, I mean, Andrew Weissman, I'll do the in any other information and I'll do in any other outlet. I mean, if it were Fox News, if it were Tucker Carlson's podcast, if it were any other outlet, Republicans would be jumping up and down screaming about the First Amendment. Some of their most powerful and prolific voices were screaming the loudest about the First Amendment. The silence is deafening from the right. And so just to make sure people understand having been at the department and both at sort of the attorney side and working at the FBI, the amount of scrutiny that is supposed to go on before you would issue subpoenas like this to reporters to their spouses. to the mother of a reporter, this is either just intentionally lawless or just such a gross screw-up that this is one where, you know, if you're a supervisor, you are saying, how could this possibly happen? But here, this is all playing out while the person who, you know, where the buck is supposed to stop with, which is Todd Blanche. It is happening while he is saying, I want to become the attorney general, engaging in this kind of either lawless and or erratic behavior that just would be unacceptable in any other administration. Director Brennan, I remember the State Department preparing briefings for obviously the president, but also senior staff when we would travel abroad. And one of the things you would be briefed on is how said government treats journalists in the country. Like if you were going to an autocratic country, there would be a little section. I mean, America now forever under this administration has in that section for anyone coming here from. parts abroad that the acting attorney general nominee to be the attorney general sought to subpoena five journalists to testify before a grand jury and was only stopped by a judge.

Airstencold just shows how different this administration is from the administrations that we used to work for. And first of all, I really want to compliment the New York Times reporters who published this story, which is exactly the reason why we have a fourth of state is to expose government corruption and competence of national security. And it seems like this is all three in terms of the dangers that were presented when Donald Trump was riding on that new jet that was provided by the Qudderi government. And it's not just the threat of missiles or the type of, you know, defensive measures that this aircraft didn't have. It's also the technical surveillance capabilities of adversaries around the globe that can collect against a flying platform like Air Force One. So absolutely the right thing to do. Secondly, it's quite clear. that moving toward these subpoenas without doing their own internal housekeeping and seeing what needed to be done in terms of trying to prevent, you know, any unauthorized leaks. It just shows that their first inclination is to use the capabilities of the Justice Department to abuse the authorities. And who was involved in this, as Andrew pointed out? Todd Blanche, but also who was the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York? Jay Clayton signed off on these subpoenas. And so it just shows that they, the Trump administration sees the Department of Justice as its own aggressive law firm that is going to do everything possible to, you know, aggressively pursue all of its enemies, including before the state, the media, the ones that are really, it's a, it's a pillar of this country's democracy. And so it's so, I'm so glad that. The judge let me give a real ultimatum to the administration. But also I would think, you know, maybe Todd Blanche is not going to appeal this because he recognizes that his, you know, nomination is on the line, which is why he met with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. So again, it's just so surreal. As we said, we shouldn't be astounded by these things, but I think continuously we are. Let me do what you just did and go back to the reporting with you, Director Brennan. It was about. the Qatari gifted Air Force One. And it was a story that... The first paragraph was probably written when Trump told that big lie that what he was going to do with the Katari gifted plane was send it on a tour so that military members stationed overseas could look at it. That was the story Trump told. So if you sat down and had to write that, it is your job as a journalist to check your sources and make sure that was true. So like all Trump stories, like all Trump debacles, like all authoritarian. punches that they try to throw. It starts with a lie told by Donald Trump in front of all the cameras at the NATO summit. Yeah, he gets himself into these, you know, pickles.

by continuously lying. He cannot tell the truth even if his life depended on it. And so therefore, the misrepresentation of the facts. And there's still a question about what he plans to do or would like to do with that jet after he leaves office. And so, again, the journalists did exactly the right thing. And I'm glad that these subpoenas have been quashed because I'm hoping it's going to encourage other journalists to continue to pursue and pull these threads when they see stories like this that, again, are going to expose the design. honesty and the corruption and the incompetence of this administration. Miles, I think you had the best line that the story leaked about why they actually switched planes and then the investigation into the leaked leaked. Your reaction to this decisive legal defeat for Todd Blanche. Well, that was already, I think, a good sign about the defiance in this country. In fact, Andrew Weissman and I were just talking about this yesterday on defiance.org is trying to measure the different sectors where we're seeing capitulation or defiance. And this was one of those episodes. As you note, the leak probe itself leaked. And what did that tell us? It told us that people inside the administration. likely inside the FBI were appalled that they were being directed to do this, that they were being directed to investigate journalists. And within 24 hours told the New York Times about it. Extraordinary. I've never seen anything quite like that. And that's before, of course, the justice system weighed in with its own act of defiance and worked to quash this. I think that's the good news. The bad news, of course, here is you have a president that is hellbent. on torching the First Amendment of the Constitution. And unfortunately, I have two personal connections to this episode. The first was in the first Trump administration when I found out that the president was so concerned about leaks from his staff that made him look bad that he told the White House chief of staff that he wanted to wiretap his staff members. Now, that... directive obviously was not followed through on what i can't tell you today is whether or not that is happening what i do know from this reporting from the new york times is that they did go seize the phones of white house staff and staff from other agencies so trump is carrying forward those directives in a second term the second piece is that this may not have happened if the Justice Department had not as soon as Trump came back into office rolled back protections for journalists. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo in the first quarter of last year, citing the executive orders against myself and Chris Krebs as justification for stripping journalists of their protections. and launching these leak probes into journalists. So they've taken away things that the Justice Department used to do to prevent these types of subpoenas from ever reaching a court in the first place. And they may have failed this time, but I'm not going to put it past the administration to try this again and again.

Yeah, and I think it's also important to note that the New York Times has sort of the mightiest legal defense infrastructure inside and outside the New York Times legal department, probably in the world, certainly in this country. Independent journalists are a lot more vulnerable to these kinds of abuses of the Justice Department tools, if you will. I want to play, even with that stipulated, I think all three of you have been targeted by Trump's venom and threats. I want to just play for you what this was like at a human level for the journalists. I was out for some drinks sitting on a patio. My wife and I were over at some friend's house for dinner, you know, having a really nice evening, a glass of wine and all that. My family and I had sat down to watch sheep detectives, a murder mystery, and right as we were about to find out from the sheep, who had committed the murder. I get a call, and I pick it up, and it's an FBI agent who identifies himself and says, I'm in front of your house right now. Are you coming home anytime soon?

I, too, have watched sheep detectives, sad to say. But this doesn't even sound real, right? And that's produced with all of the production finesse of the daily. But these are five of the most important journalists at the New York Times. Eric Schmidt wrote a story in the last 48 hours about the Pentagon's covering up. of people injured, of injuries and casualties in the war in Iran. Julian Barnes covers the intelligence community expertly and fearlessly. Eric Lipton covers all things legal, including the Supreme Court. Tyler Pager is an intrepid White House reporter, and Adam Goldman has covered the FBI longer and better than just anybody on the beat. So these are five reporters who represent a real... threat to Donald Trump, but who also had sort of the backing of all of this hardwired legal infrastructure. I wonder Andrew Weissman, what would have happened if they didn't have that sort of safety in numbers and they didn't have all that institutional protection? Well, we are seeing that major media organizations, not all by a long shot, but in New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, when they get targeted, have been stalwart. And it really, in many ways, I think. our other two guests and the oaths of office that they took and their adherence to it. Well, you know, that's true with respect to intrepid reporters as well, that they are in the job for the right reason and are going to do the right thing. But it is worth noting that this in many ways is such a classic authoritarian... playbook because it's in some ways it's a win because you may not win with this specific but the issue is whether you will deter other people whether you will have editors who say do we really need to do this or can you go back and double check will you slow this down maybe somebody else can report this or let somebody else do it. When it's smaller places saying we just can't afford it. And so just having that discussion and having some quantum of people who are going to pull their punches, whether it's happening in the media, whether it's happening in the government, whether it's happening in law firms, in businesses, that's the sort of win-win of taking these kinds of authoritarian. tactics and just to tie it back to and we're at an inflection point where this is DOJ being led by somebody who is now at this moment the Congress has the most leverage on what DOJ can and cannot do and they have the ability.

to put a stop to this and to set down some red lines. You know, I'm not hopeful, but it's just, it needs to be called out that there is a way to deal with this right now if Congress has the backbone. Such an important point. I mean, I think the other part of it is it's intended to chill not just journalists and their editors, but sources. Because even the Justice Foreman said what they were really apt to was to get the journalist to out their sources, which no journalist is inclined to do. All right, all of you are needed for the whole hour. When the four of us come back, Donald Trump's allies in the house are still at it looking for anything to go after Donald Trump's favorite enemy. Jack Smith. There is news today of a criminal referral from the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee. We'll dive into what that means and what Jack Smith is saying about it next. Plus, the U.S. attorney who was fired by Donald Trump via email after 54 minutes on the job has filed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump. He joins us ahead. And later in the broadcast, Donald Trump's war with Iran has pushed both the price of oil and Americans' patience and tolerance to... New highs with no end in sight. We'll get to all those stories and much more when Deadland White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere today.

This isn't the end of a fight. It's the start of one. Lioness, the critically acclaimed original series from Taylor Sheridan, returns August 2nd only on Paramount Plus. In the new season, hidden networks, foreign operatives, and personal betrayals collide while Joe walks the line between duty and family. Don't miss Lioness. Starring Zoe Saldana, Michael Kelly, with Morgan Freeman and Nicole Kidman, streaming August 2nd only on Paramount Plus. With Instagram teen accounts, protections are turned on by default. Yo, look at this real. Okay, the secret is in the timing. Don't rush it. Built in content and contact settings and automatic time reminders. Mom, heading out back. Instagram teen accounts, nothing to turn on, safer from the start. Watch Disclosure Day at Home now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? While now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters.

Donald Trump and his allies are doing everything they can think of to prove special counsel Jack Smith right. Just three weeks after Smith came on this program to say that we are facing an attack on the rule of law, unlike anything he has seen in his lifetime, comes news of a criminal referral from the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee. That would be Congressman Jim Jordan. He's accusing Jack Smith of lying to Congress when he testified about obtaining the phone records of 44 members of Congress who were talking to Donald Trump and his team about efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In his referral, Jim Jordan claims that Smith lied when he said he did not seek search warrants for the contents of any text messages. It is a claim that falls apart almost immediately from Republicans. Our colleague Kandelan explains it. Quote, Jack Smith was asked if his office obtained congressional text messages through subpoenas of toll records. He truthfully answered no. His office did obtain some text through a subpoena to the National Archives. He was never asked about that. Republicans say that means he knowingly lied under oath. But the actual facts are... always besides the point in what is a search for anything to harass the person who represented more than anyone else, a threat to Donald Trump's very liberty. In a letter to Jim Jordan, attorneys for Jack Smith say that the criminal referral is spurious, and they write this, quote, Mr. Smith agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. fully cognizant of the risk that President Trump's Justice Department would try to find something in his testimony to serve as a basis for a criminal charge. This risk existed not because Mr. Smith would make a false statement, but because Trump has repeatedly ordered that Mr. Smith be prosecuted and jailed. That is not the rule of law. Jack Smith himself has said that he expects to be prosecuted despite doing everything right and that his work as an independent, nonpartisan special counsel, would be unthinkable. under this current administration. Take a listen to what he said on this program. He said he would indict you, yes. I'll tell you, Nicole, I honestly do not spend a lot of time thinking about the things he says about me and his threats about me. I've seen a number of cases. James Comey, Letitia James, Jerome Powell, I mean, right? There's not criminality here. I mean, seashells. I mean, so the only reasonable explanation is the president has it out for these people, and he has people who are his former personal lawyers who are going to do what he says, regardless of the facts of law. I mean, you know, again, just to juxtapose it. I didn't have people on my team resigning because they refused to go along with a scheme to go after somebody. That was not what happened. You see that in all these cases. And just, again, imagine, if you would, like, I was appointed from outside the government. No political allegiance to anybody. And they were comfortable with Jack, wherever you think the facts in law dictate, that's what we'll do. And that's what will happen.

Can you imagine that happening now if there was an allegation of corruption in this administration, them saying, let's appoint an outside independent person to make a call on this? I think we know it would never happen. And I think that's a real easy way to differentiate following the process, following the facts, having independence. We're back with Andrew Miles and Dr. Brennan. I mean, Director Brennan, this is the variable because Donald Trump has been mad at you since 2016. And he just finally found people weak enough and sycophantic enough and corrupt enough to try to rub sticks together and make something up about you. The variable actually isn't Donald Trump. He's wanted to. investigate and prosecute James Comey since 2017. The first New York Times story reported, I think with a headline, Trump wants to prosecute Clinton, James Comey, and there was somebody else, maybe it was you. The variable is the weakness, the fecklessness, and the appetite for politicization of the Department of Todd Lant. Yes, Nicole. Jim Jordan is not just a craven politician who has abused the authorities of his chairmanship of the committee. He also is a complete shill for Donald Trump. And so what is happening to Jack Smith is exactly what happened to me. Both Jack and I appeared separately voluntarily in front of his committee. And then as a result of those appearances, and our testimony, he makes referrals to the Department of Justice. He made a criminal referral on me, which is why I'm a target of several investigations out of the Southern District of Florida. And what we are doing, we're trying to do, is to respond to the subpoenas. It consisted with the rule of law. But just like Jack Smith, I have had to deal now with subpoenas. And unlike the New York Times, I don't have an in-house team of lawyers. So the intention that Jim Jordan and Donald Trump are engaged in is try to harass and harangue and to try to ruin people reputational and financially and so on. And so it just shows that there is this collusion and conspiracy. among the Republican members of Congress and the White House to go after individuals who tried to uphold their responsibilities and obligations when they were government employees, but who have, you know, run afoul of Donald Trump. And so, again, this is just so ludicrous, but it's so hard to believe that this would have ever happened previously. But again, it's not surprising or shocking at all that this is going on right now with this administration and this Department of Justice. I mean, Miles, it is the danger of anyone thinking that any of these stories wouldn't be the beginning of lots of these stories, right? So if the beginning was in 2017, when it was first reported in the New York Times that Donald Trump wanted the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute Clinton, James Comey, and somebody else, that was the flashing red. And I'm not saying that those of you who worked in the first term deserve...

medals of freedom. But clearly, Trump has now reconfigured the government to have only people who are on board with this corrupt use of the Department of Justice. And I know you too have been targeted. I wonder if you can speak about what Jack Smith spoke about after that answer when he said, you know, when I went to hire a law firm, the law firm was then targeted. with political attacks from the administration and executive order seeking to destroy their ability to retain and attract clients. What is sort of the whole of a pro-democracy response look like from the individual to the private sector and beyond? Well, it was very, very bad last year. And I suspect both of my co-panelists here could attest to that. I mean, as Trump started to go after people, the same elements of support that were there in the first term were not there. And full disclosure, at one point for a brief period of time, Andrew Weissman was one of my attorneys at the end of the first. Trump administration. But firms like the one he previously worked for and a lot of others were much more hesitant to take on these types of cases at the start of this second Trump administration. You know, I spoke to a number of different big firms after I was singled out. And there was a lot of fear out there. Now, I ended up getting lucky because there were folks mobilizing in the pro-democracy community. And I now have the literally the best legal team in America. That I think is the good news now, is this year there are a lot of efforts underway. to sort of crowd fund and support people who get targeted, but still a lot of gaps. There are a lot of people who are afraid. And Director Brennan is right. The mere act of bringing these allegations or the act of a criminal referral against a Jack Smith is meant to scare all the people who are not named. And we know that because after they came after me, they told outlets the purpose of this. is to send a message that was the quote from a senior white house official they wanted to scare other people but nicole i would warn those existing officials because the Jack Smith of the world and the John Brennan's are not going up and lying to congress but they better be damn careful because there seems to be an episode almost every month of a trump official actually appearing to lie to Congress. We had Pam Bondi, who was accused by members of Congress of lying about the Epstein files in testimony, and Kristi Noem accused of lying about the $220 million in DHS ads, and Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe accused of lying about Signalgate. I mean, there are some...

actual very serious allegations of perjury. So I'd urge these folks to be very careful about who they go after for spurious claims of perjury when there's real ones that will survive the statute of limitations after this administration. Andrew Weissman, my sense is that Jack Smith isn't worried about himself in this, but as Miles and Director Brennan have suggested, worried about the people who work for him, worried about efforts to harass and investigate and prosecute members of his team. What is your sense of how this news has landed in his inner circle? Well, you know, he said that to you, Nicole, and that is the kind of person he is. I want to maybe just drill down for a moment and read to the audience what the line is that Jim Jordan says is allegedly false, because I think it reveals just how Craven to use Director Brennan's reference to Jim Jordan. Here's the quote. Did you seek a search warrant for the content of any text messages from members, that's members of Congress? And then Jack says, from members? Yes. And he says, no, I don't recall that. I didn't do that. It was just toll records. So the facts are that Jack Smith did not seek a search warrant for the content of any text messages from members. He was never asked about whether he got the content of any text messages from some other source or whether he got it through. something other than a search warrant. That just was never asked. There is literally... No false statement here, even if you look at Jim Jordan's own letter. The good news here is that this kind of case would have to be brought in Washington, D.C. That's the venue under the Constitution where the alleged crime happened, meaning that a D.C. grand jury, which has been loath to bring, spurious claims, would have to vote this. And even if they voted this, it would land in front of a DC judge and a DC trial jury. So that's all of that is ways to have sort of some checks on what the Department of Justice is doing. It'll be very, very hard for them to do what they're trying to do with Director Brennan, which is to try and get this to a favorable venue, i.e. Judge Cannon.

What's so interesting when you sort of lay out the facts as they are, which in a court of law is what DOJ will have to contend with, is that if he'd said anything else, that would be an actual lie, right? It is the upside down and backwards world. He tells the absolute truth, and that is what, you know, over on Earth, too. They try to reverse engineer into faux criminality. Andrew Weissman, thank you so much. for being here on these two big stories. Miles and Director Brennan stick around after a break. The first legal challenge of its kind to the Trump-Todd Blanche Justice Department that has repeatedly tried to wield power over prosecutors, one of those judicially appointed U.S. attorneys bringing a lawsuit. He joins us next. Don't go anywhere. Summer routines live or die by how easy they are. And honestly, if something takes too much effort, I'm out. That's why Grooons is my go-to. It's one daily pack of gummies covering my greens, vitamins, and minerals. Plus, it has six grams of prebiotic fiber, which is more than two cups of broccoli. No mixing powders, no giant pills, no hassle. I just rip open the pack and I'm done. They taste good and make it easy to stay on top of my health, even when life gets busy. Save up to 52% off with code podcast at grooens.co. That's code podcast at gr-un-s.co. At DSW, we ask the important questions. Like, what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're prepping for wedding season, festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay, the right shoes can make or break an RSVP. So own the moment. You've got big plans and we've got just the shoes at the perfect price, of course. Get ready to get ready with designer shoe warehouse. Head to your DSW store or DSW.com today. And let us surprise you. Let's check in on the Serta counting sheep. Why aren't we counted anymore? Well, the all-new Serta Perfect Sleeper has the Q4 support system that helps relieve aches and back pain. We'll never get counted again. Uh, nope. Serta, we make the world's best mattress.

The sweeping politicization of the Department of Justice being undertaken by Donald Trump and Todd Blanche is today facing a major legal challenge. Last week, Roger Rogoff was appointed and sworn in as U.S. attorney in Washington State by a panel of judges after the post had been vacant. But he was abruptly fired by email 54 minutes later. Now, Rogoff is fighting back in the first lawsuit from an ousted U.S. attorney, arguing that his firing was illegal. The lawsuit states that Donald Trump's attempt to fire Rogoff cannot stand. He argues that Rogoff should, quote, serve in that role until the president nominates and the Senate confirms a U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, which has yet to occur. Todd Blanche took to social media last week after Rogoff's ouster, claiming that Donald Trump has broad authority to carry out the firings. The lawsuit fires back at that as well, arguing that Trump's actions, quote, will permit the executive branch to evade the Senate's advice and consent role indefinitely. That former U.S. attorney, Roger Rogoff, joins us right now. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, Nicole. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. You know, we've covered the other side of this, the illegally appointed political folks like Alina Habba. But this is the first time someone legally appointed by the judges has sought to fight back and defend himself. Tell me what the legal argument is. So the... The idea is that the president is supposed to appoint U.S. attorneys across the country, but he has to do it with the advice and consent of the Senate. And he hasn't done that. He hasn't done that for three years in the Western District of Washington. And when the judges attempted to fill their role as set out by Congress by appointing someone per statute. to take that position when the president doesn't do what they are supposed to do, that person was immediately fired. And so the rule of law is not being followed. The purpose of the advice and consent clause of the Constitution is being frustrated, and that's not the way that the process is supposed to work. And the advice and consent function of a Republican-controlled Senate doesn't seem like a hurdle that even Donald Trump couldn't topple. Why do you think they're operating this way? I don't know that Republican, Democrat, or whatever really matters with this lawsuit. The idea is that every president faces hurdles with Congress. And the idea is that the president figures it out and appoints someone who can be confirmed, whether that takes a couple tries or not. But that's the way presidents have done it forever. And that's the way this president should do it as well.

and then preventing the process that is set out and designed to fix the problem that has been created was then frustrated and prevented by the firing of the U.S. attorney that was appointed. James Comey said on this program over a year ago that of the three-legged stool of democracy, the judiciary is the one that's holding strong, that Congress has sort of opted out of a lot of their functions and the executive branch is acting in an unprecedented norm-busting and corrupt manner most of the time. Can you explain from your vantage point the strain right now on the judiciary? So I was a judge for a period of time, and I know that when laws are not followed, when precedents are not followed, that it is the judiciary that has to step up and make sure that we put people on the right path. And so I am... cognizant of the pressure on the district judges in the Western District of Washington, who are trying to make sure that this U.S. Attorney's Office, one that I used to work for and care about deeply, is led by a legitimate United States attorney appointed pursuant to the legislative acts that have been created according to the Constitution. Roger, what is your broader sense of how business is being conducted at the Department of Justice right now? So I am a local prosecutor and an AUSA who worked in the Western District of Washington. My connection to the Department of Justice, no matter who's been in office, whether it's been Democrats and Republicans, have been light touches. I am not involved in what happens at Maine Justice and what happens to the Department of Justice. So I can't really speak to that. What I do care about is that in this case, with this department, with this district that I live in and that I've worked in my entire career, it is not working the way it's supposed to work, and someone needs to make it work right. It's not working the way it is supposed to work. Simple but profound. Roger, good luck. We will stay on top of this. Please stay in touch with us. Thank you for joining us today. We will. Thank you so much. Up next for us, Donald Trump's very public attempts to undermine trust in our elections has with the head of the CIA, according to brand new reporting, in a very uncomfortable position. There are growing calls for him to be pushing back or to even resign.

And if there was anything at all that implicated, you know, China in doing something that was inappropriate, I'm sure he would have been the first one to the door to push that out. So he's willing to go along with the dishonesty in the lives of Donald Trump when it's consistent with what he is doing and what's to do. But now he's in a very uncomfortable and awkward position because the CIA, the professionals, are not going to let him get away with something that is going to misrepresent the facts, which is why I think. that, you know, he was able to, you know, approve what was pushed out by Donald Trump during his speech last week without revealing source of methods, which CI professionals really push back hard against. But now he has to explain why if he was the person who was responsible for the publication of the daily presence daily brief that these, you know, claims that Trump was making were not included then, it does put him in the crosshairs. Because now he has to say, well, Trump was wrong or that John Ratcliffe slipped up. And again, it's interesting to see how he's going to twist and turn to try to satisfy both and all of his sort of superiors on this one. John Solomon gave us the answer when he said, quote, there is no evidence that any foreign powers flipped any votes in 2020, right? So we know that the election was not rigged against Donald Trump because John Solomon, who went looking for that evidence, told us that there wasn't any. But we also know that what Donald Trump is doing is displaying disdain, disgust, and hatred for his own voters by telling them. That it isn't John Brennan and it isn't anyone that worked for Joe Biden. It isn't anyone that worked for Barack Obama. It is the one guy that worked for him and did such a good job that he brought him back a second time, John Ratcliffe. That's the story he's telling his face, Miles. As far as CIA directors with the first name John, I can tell you which one I would rather have in the seat, but that's a secondary conversation. Look, I worked with John Ratcliffe. I was the staff director on a task force for him on Capitol Hill that led a major national security investigation. And let me tell you what my experience was like with him when he was a junior member of Congress during that investigation. He was out to lunch. I am not surprised he missed half the meetings. I'm not surprised that John Ratcliffe allegedly vetted this speech, but also apparently didn't catch the glaring discrepancy here that we all caught, which is that these documents show he was in charge when this alleged deep state cover up occurred and was the one who delivered presidential daily brief documents to the White House that would have notified the president about this threat. I'm not surprised at that. at all. I think you're right, Nicole, at the top of the segment when you said, this has got a hard-to-follow stupid, stupidity decision tree, if you will, attached to it, because there's all sorts of incompetence on display through all of this, and perhaps even bigger than the fact that John Ratcliffe was Director of National Intelligence when this happened is the fact that Donald Trump was...

president when this happened and i personally briefed him on some of these threats and i saw him get briefed on some of these threats and i helped prepare ahead of him making a speech about the threat of the Chinese in our elections. It does, none of this passes the smell test. Donald Trump knew. Donald Trump was aware and Donald Trump just tried to pretend last week as if he wasn't aware about Chinese threats to our elections and try to characterize them as something more than they were. It was top to bottom filled with errors and incompetence this speech last week. Well, I also wonder if John Ratcliffe, Director Brennan, had the final approval on what they did release about Russian attacks on our elections. I mean, that was also, again, something that we've talked about that we've known, but Donald Trump pushed that out. Again, I don't know what to call the decision tree crazy insane upside down and backwards, but clearly not one that Trump was briefed on when he's pushing out information that Russia, after all these years, did meddle in our elections and they were for Trump. Well, just like Miles, it was a very sloppy review of these documents because many of them undercut Trump's allegations and claims. And so usually what happens is that the CIA professionals and others will go through it looking for issues that they need to redact or not release because they're going to compromise towards the methods. I'm sure CIA professionals didn't mind releasing some stuff that was true about Russian interference or the lack of any type of Chinese involvement here. So, again, it's just, I'm interesting to hear Miles talk about when John Ratcliffe was on the committee and that he was not fully engaged. I'd like to think that, again, the CIA professionals are continuing to do their job irrespective of John Ratcliffe's leadership, and they're doing it in the right way. But again, that speech, you know, first of all, was just so, so full of lies and dishonest claims. but also the document release in no way supported those allegations. And it undercut them significantly. Miles Taylor, Director Brennan, thank you for spending the hour with me today. We're so grateful to both of you. After the break, a rare rebuke from some people in Donald Trump's own political party trying to rein Trump in over the deeply unpopular war with Iran. Much more news ahead. When Denai White House continues after a quick break, don't go anywhere.

Walmart shoppers, meet the debit card design with you in mind. The Walmart Money Card offers up to $75 cash back on purchases at Walmart each year, early direct deposit, overdraft protection, and so much more. When Walmart is your everyday store, you need a card to match. That's the Walmart Money Card. Open your account today. The Walmart Money Card is issued by green dot bank, member FDIC. Fees, terms, and conditions apply. Visit Walmartmoneycard.com to learn more.