Yeah

...

DOJ for a really long time.

Right.

So I- my priors are I've covered DOJ and the FBI for something like 25 years.

Um, I've covered Republicans, I've covered Democrats, I've covered, you know, pre-9/11, post-9/11.

Um, and this is a radical repurposing of the department, and it is happening at a time ...

I mean, you say in the book, I mean, it's, this is a bottom-up thing that's become a top-down thing, right? I mean-

Right.

Todd Blanche gets to stay the acting attorney general even if the Senate rejects him.

So, you know, on the one hand, you have all the financial incentive to keep this alive, to keep the, the, the audit protections in, in place.

And on the other hand, you have, you know, uh, a distinction without much of a difference.

And may- maybe to, maybe what the president is really signaling with his, with his threat to pull the nomination is that he cares more about the fund and more about the tax protection for him and his family-

Mm.

Um, for, that person was paid a million do- a seven-figure settlement, so at least a million dollars.

Um, it's remarkable that, that that gets announced while this fight is happening, while these two senators are still very concerned about the fund existing in a n- by another name.

So based on your reporting, why is pulling the Blanche nomination more acceptable to President Trump than making concessions on this fund?

Well, for one thing, it, even if you pull the Blanche nomination now, Trump doesn't really lose much control of the Justice Department, because Blanche is already the acting attorney general, and can keep him there for quite a long time if he wants to.

So you're not actually losing him being in charge of the department.

That would continue.

And what Trump seems unwilling to let go of is the possibility of reviving the weaponization fund, as he calls it, um, and also this condition that sort of gets not just him, but his relatives, his companies, and a very undefined group of people called affiliates, um, off the hook for any audits from, by the IRS.

About this fund, is there any mechanism, whether it's congressional appropriations power, uh, judicial review, the DOJ's own internal rules, that could actually stop taxpayer-funded payouts to people the president believes were somehow wronged?

Absolutely.

Congress could certainly do, Congress [laughs] could certainly pass legislation that would limit this, and judges could certainly try to impose their own limits on it.

So based on your reporting, why is pulling the Blanche nomination more acceptable to President Trump than making concessions on this fund?

Well, for one thing, even if you pull the Blanche nomination now, Trump doesn't really lose much control of the Justice Department because Blanche is already the acting attorney general.

and can keep him there for quite a long time if he wants to.

So you're not actually losing him being in charge of the department.

That would continue.

And what Trump seems unwilling to let go of is the possibility of reviving the weaponization fund, as he calls it, and also this condition that sort of gets not just him, but his relatives, his companies, and a very undefined group of people called affiliates off the hook for any audits from by

About this fund, is there any mechanism, whether it's congressional appropriations power, judicial review, the DOJ's own internal rules, that could actually stop taxpayer-funded payouts to people the president believes were somehow

wrong? Absolutely.

So, based on your reporting, why is pulling the Blanche nomination more acceptable to President Trump than making concessions on this fund?

Well, for one thing, it, e- even if you pull the Blanche nomination now, Trump doesn't really lose much control of the Justice Department, because Blanche is already the acting attorney general, and can keep him there for quite a long time if he wants to.

So, you're not actually losing the, him being in charge of the department.

That would continue.

And what Trump seems unwilling to let go of is the possibility of reviving the weaponization fund, as he calls it, um, and also this condition that sort of gets, not just him, but his relatives, his companies, and a very undefined group of people called affiliates, um, off the hook for any audits from, by the IRS.

A- about this fund, is there any mechanism, whether it's congressional appropriations power, uh, judicial review, the DOJ's own internal rules, that could actually stop taxpayer-funded payouts to people the president believes were somehow wrong?

Absolutely.

Congress could certainly do, Congress [laughs] could certainly pass legislation that would limit this, and judges could certainly try to impose their own limits on it.

I wanted to say some things to you and have you describe what they mean in the Trump era 2.0. Jeffrey Epstein and the Jeffrey Epstein Files.

Probably the single greatest self-inflicted wound, politically speaking, for the Trump administration.

The whole issue with the files was basically something that the administration itself played up.

Pam Bondi, when she was the Attorney General, played it up.

Kash Patel played it up.

They promised, they kept promising, and then...

Trump told them to reverse course, and it was the first time really that a lot of Trump's base revolted against him for trying to hold those files back.

Well, it's answerable in this

She started by asking him to point to an anecdote that exemplifies what he believes the department has become

becomeI think the first year sort of showed how in cases all around the country where the president had a personal interest, he directed outcomes.

But I think one of the really simple ways to tell, to give an example of this is, the White House has wanted to arrest and prosecute Jim Comey, the former FBI director, since it got back into power.

One of the things the book recounts is they actually started by pursuing what's called the seashells case, what many law enforcement officials view as an absurd case about Jim Comey posting a photo of seashells on a beach that said, "Eighty-six forty-seven." So back in the summer of '25, there was tremendous pressure on federal prosecutors, career prosecutors, to pursue that case, and they and the FBI and the Secret Service all resisted opening an investigation on that because they just didn't believe it was a threat, that Trump made the argument that eighty-six meant that was a threat to kill 'cause it was, he argued it was mob lingo.

And forty-seven is a reference everyone generally understands in America to the 47th president, which is Donald Trump.

Career prosecutors and agents successfully resisted pressure to bring that case.

But the pressure was relentless, and it kept going until you fast-forward to this year, and you saw a different set of prosecutors, uh, in North Carolina in fact did charge Jim Comey with threatening the president for those seashells.

Is this period that we're going through exposing a weakness that we maybe depend on norms more than we realized? Or is it actually that those norms are so imbued in the career civil servants that you spoke to or have learned from that actually this is a phase and not a new era?

Where are we on that?

So this went out in written form on Thursday.

Both the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security have since said this isn't going to happen.

They're not going to do it.

But I think you have to keep in mind that there has been so much back and forth on federal policy of these the ICE enforcement operation that I think there's just so much tension, as you already reported and covered.

There's so much tension and disagreement inside federal law enforcement about these assault on a federal officer cases that I don't think this is the end of it.

Got

This is something fundamentally different.

Walk us through what your reporting shows you.

Right.

The reporting shows very clearly that Thursday written instructions were sent out to FBI managers in the field saying that going forward, the FBI would not investigate cases of what the law calls fraud.

assault on a federal officer.

The reporting also shows that that same day, similar written guidance went out to at least some of the ICE personnel.

So this exists in writing.

It was circulated.

Why is there so much contention?

Talk a little bit about that.

Right.

So one of the things I, I try to get to in, in the, the, the final chapter of the book is th- this whole p- argument about crime in the context of the Trump administration.

And, you know, Trump positions himself publicly as, "I'm tough on crime, my people are tough on crime, murder is falling." And I will just say, as someone who started out covering crime in New York City in the nineteen nineties, um, I never would have predicted or believed it if you told me back then how much crime, just street crime in this country, in this country has fallen.

Um, you know, New York City will probably this year have the fewest murders ever recorded in its, in its, in its recorded history of murders.

Um, that's an amazing thing.

That's an amazing accomplishment.

Weakening those functions of the agency in and of itself is a crime.

Does this make his confirmation thin ice?

Todd Blanche is dealing with a very thin margin to work with here.

The, the, you know, the Senate GOP, they are the majority, but they're a narrow mar- majority, and this issue has really angered and frustrated those Republicans.

And, and the, the prob- Blanche really has two problems.

One, this was sort of a shoddily constructed legal agreement to begin with, so there's a million problems just on, on, with the language of the documents on the surface.

Right.

That's what the judge said.

And, and everyone understands that logic.

Can you talk a little bit about that?

that?Sure, and it's a hugely important point to how, how the Justice Department, you know, changed and now works.

Um, because especially at the beginning, especially before there were as many political, uh, appointees running the department, the administration really wanted the, what I would call the, the appearance of credibility, um, for some of their decisions by having career Justice Department officials do these things, to essentially sign off on these things or put their name on these things.

And the, I think one of the big examples of this is what happens with the case against Mayor Eric Adams.

The New York City mayor, [smacks lips] who was w- waiting trial, he'd already been indicted when Trump was sworn into office, and he was awaiting trial on corruption charges.

And the administration worked very hard to force career officials to, uh, withdraw tho- that case and, and dismiss that case.

And what happened in that instance was the career prosecutors in New York who had originally, initially brought it just steadfastly refused to abandon the case or to say that it, it, it should be dismissed.

Um, what did you make of, of Todd Blanche taking that trip? Uh, was it as unusual from your perspective as it seemed to me, and why do you think he handled that himself?

Talk about the political litmus test that they established for, uh, for hiring, uh, Devlin.

Right.

So one of the things I get into in the book is from day one of the new administration, they are screening and trying to get pro-Trump people even into civil service jobs, jobs that are specifically by law not supposed to have that kind of litmus test.

So for example, one of the guys they are trying to get to, you know, uh, take over the deputy director job at the FBI, which is a civil position, it's not a political position historically, um, he has a bizarre conversation with a Tr- with a Trump transition official who asks him stuff like, you know, "What's your favorite Trump policy?" You know, "When was the last time you voted for a Democrat?" You know, all these baldly political questions.

And, and because that guy is, is, is no dummy, he immediately responds, "You know, you, you can't really ask me those questions.

That, that, that's not how this works." Um, and but that type of, um, questioning in, in their hiring process, uh, uh, sources tell me is going on all the time, and it's going on for career jobs, and they're trying to specifically find people who are pro-Trump, will praise Trump in their job interviews, and w- will sort of adopt this new brand, this new definition of their oath to the Constitution.

One of the things that, that is most upsetting to the people in the department that I talk to is that, you know, whether it's Todd Blanche or his deputy, Emil Bove, or others, they all insist that if you take an oath to the Constitution, that means you have to do whatever the president wants.

I hope I pronounced that name correctly.

And if I'm a judge, if I'm a defendant or defense counsel, if I'm a journalist, or if I'm just an American citizen, can I trust what's coming out of the RFK Building, the Hoover Building, and the various offices that support them both throughout the country?

I mean, it's a great question, and, and you're right, it does sort of get to the heart of what so much of the book is about.

You know, the, the last chapter is titled Credit and Credibility, and I think the credibility question is, is a huge issue for this department because of the changes in this administration.

And, and I, I think the short answer to your question is not as much as they used to, and particularly in some areas.

I think one of the things that's hard sometimes to convey to, to people who, you know, don't live and breathe this stuff is that the Justice Department and, and the FBI are, are vast organizations that do a lot of different things every day.

You know, I think sometimes in the coverage, it can start to feel like, oh, well, the Justice Department is what, 10, 20 people? It's, it's more than 100,000.

So one of the quotes that really stuck in my head, uh, in the course of the reporting for the book was someone who said, "You know, we're all kind of mole people now, and we're just keeping our heads down and hoping that, you know, we don't get tasked with one of these really ugly political unfounded cases." But we know, you know, that that's happened to, to people we know, and we know there's, there's, in some ways, there's, there may be no avoiding it if and when that time comes.

We, we are not gonna have a country for generations, if ever, where there is a quantum of apolitical positions at the Justice Department that do not change every four years.

And even for, even for people who are not involved in this work that we're talking about.

There are people who can still do their jobs, you know, without any sort of, you know, chaotic interference.

But even for those people, there's, there's two things that, that...

Well, three things really that change morale.

One is, if you talk about just the department, um, they have lost so many bodies.

Um, you know, there are US attorney offices in this country that, where every third desk is empty.

That is a huge, uh, change and, and complication, and creates major problems, um, for the, for the people who are still there trying to manage the same caseload or a similar caseload to what they had before.

Is that right?

Um, when you, when you were reporting on the case against Letitia James, for example, the New York attorney general, uh, you talk about something surprising about Blanche actually not, not being in favor of, of doing that.

Right.

There was a, a, a pretty critical meeting at the Justice Department, uh, last summer in which Todd Blanche made the argument- That, uh, the, the, the evidence compiled by the FBI did not support charges against Letitia James.

But I think it's a really telling sign of who really calls the shots in the Justice Department, that even the deputy attorney general, um, and in many ways the most powerful person in the department, wasn't the final word on that, and the w- final word really came from the White House.

So even when Todd Blanche made a presentation as t- a- and, and made an argument as to why sh- she should not be charged, um, that was overruled because the White House wanted her charged.

The president wanted her charged.

If you had to describe what it's like inside DOJ every day, what would you say?

Uh, I would say for the career people who work there, morale is terrible.

And who is Birkin?

Birkin is the Secret Service code name for Alina Haba.

And Alina Haba is a Trump lawyer who became a White House advisor to Donald Trump, who the president eventually sent to New Jersey to become the US attorney for that state.

And when she became the U.S. attorney for that state, it really caused a tremendous amount of conflict and consternation in New Jersey's legal community, not just among the lawyers who worked for her, but among

the lawyers who worked in private practice in New Jersey and among the judges in New Jersey.

My book sort of describes the arc of Alina Haba's tenure in New Jersey, and it's chaotic and alarming to law enforcement professionals.

She shows up, essentially, and right out of the gate is pushing for an investigation and arrest of the mayor of Newark.

uh seizure of mar of uh uh national security documents mothers and that he kept at mar-a-lago and the former attorney general uh merrick garland in his investigation of january 6 and other matters and i wonder if you could address this question of the limitations of process up against this uh raging uh political capture of the justice department

What happens to Mr.

Gilbert? So imagine it's your first day on the job as the U.S.

attorney.

You've never been a U.S. attorney before.

You've never been a federal prosecutor before.

That was the situation Todd Gilbert was in in July 14th, to be precise, of last year.

And his first day on the job, hours into the job, he gets a call from Kash Patel, Assigning him, telling him that he was now going to be working on this huge case.

Please tell us this story, what happens to Brian Driscoll, who he is, how he became, for a brief shining moment, the acting director of the FBI.

What can you tell us?

So I think there's, there's truth to both those things.

I...

Look, the, the original inquiry that started looking at the governor goes back years, and it go- and it goes into essentially state business.

But that inquiry, as far as, as we can tell, as far as our reporting shows, has really petered out.

It's this new inquiry into the personal finances and-

Mm-hmm

... and the per- what I would just call the f- the finances of, of his wife, th- that seems to be revving up.

flawedHow did the FBI and the DOJ respond to your book?

They argue that these cases are strong.

They argue that the case that they filed against Jim Comey over, uh, his, what they call, are lies to Congress i- was a strong case and a good case.

They argue that the case they filed against James Comey over the seashells case was, was a strong case.

But p- what the book really tries to do is explain, you know, we've seen those indictments, right? We've seen those charges, and those are flashpoints that point to, I think, serious problems inside the department.

But the book really sort of goes inside those decisions, what leads up to those decisions.

And in all those cases, what you see is career prosecutors saying, "No, this is wrong.

Talk to me about that.

[laughs]

... because the President feels very strongly that he wants his DNI to pursue voter fraud claims.

And, you know, he s- he did that with his last DNI, and now he seems poised to do it again with this one.

Um, I know plenty of law enforcement intelligence officials that feel like that's, that's a stretch for what the DNI is normally supposed to be doing, but that's what Trump wants them to do an- and I think Jay Clayton is signaling-

No.

But, um, the President likes him and the President golfs with him fairly often, and you, he's come back from the first administration.

Jay Clayton served in the first administration as well.

And I think what you s- what Trump sees in Jay Clayton is a guy he trusts and guy he believes will speak out for him and back him up.

... to sign-

... to go along with that.

They refused to put their names on a motion to dismiss their own case, saying that was wrong, um, and they wouldn't be a part of it.

So then Emil Bove takes that same demand to the public integrity prosecutors, and in a meeting he says, "I'll give you an hour, but I want two people to sign this motion." And he really wants career prosecutors to do it.

It's important to him to have careers do it.

And he says, "Whoever signs this will emerge as leaders of the public integrity section." And my reporting shows that everyone in that conversation understood that to mean, "If you sign this document for me in this, you know, very contentious issue in this, in this case, I will promote you."

Ca- can you quantify? What would you say is the current status of the Justice Department?

I mean, parts of the Justice Department are functioning almost like ghost ships at this point.

And they were forced out because they refused.

They refused to go along with that.

They refused to put their names on a motion to dismiss their own case, saying that was wrong and they wouldn't be a part of it.

So then Emil Bove takes that same demand to the public integrity prosecutors.

And in a meeting, he says, I'll give you an hour, but I want two people to sign this motion.

And he really wants career prosecutors to do it.

It's important to him to have careers do it.

Can you quantify it? What would you say is the current status of the Justice Department?

Can you, can you tell us that story and what you learned and sort of whose brainchild it was?

Right.

So, uh, this is sort of the, the 1.776 billion, uh, fund for what the president and Todd Blanche call the, you know, the victims of weaponization.

Um, that was essentially a settlement idea to end Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the government for his, uh, his tax returns being leaked years earlier.

Uh, so you had this crazy situation, this crazy basic factual situation of the president of, of the United States suing his own government to be paid taxpayer dollars to himself for something that he alleged was wrong within the government.

He had also filed more than $200 million in claims, by the way, for the federal criminal investigations of him, you know, going back to the classified documents by Jack Smith, going back to, uh, the Mueller investigation about Russia.

Um, and those claims were also wrapped up and, and du- done away with essentially as a result of this fund.

What do the people you speak with who feel that terrible things have happened say needs to be done, uh, in a revived department to return the DOJ to its prior integrity and dedication to justice?

Tell us about that.

So right.

So it...

when you listen to people like Kash Patel talk about what he calls the deep state, the-The, all these, uh, accusations are sort of built around this notion that government agencies conspired for years to block Donald Trump in various ways.

Um, the grand conspiracy case that Kash Patel initiated and has been pushing for the last year and year and change is, is really the culmination of that argument, but it's built on a, a, an incredibly flimsy evidentiary basis, a, a, but a set of evidence that career prosecutors have looked at over and over again and said they, they can't see criminal cases to be built from them.

But still, because the Trump administration has such a, a tight grip on the Justice Department, they keep pushing it forward, and they keep looking, searching for a prosecutor who will take it to the next step.

Uh, at what point when you're writing this up, being as fair as you are as a, as an objective New York Times reporter, um, do you also figure out how to say, not for political or partisan reasons, but on the evidence, um, this is unlawful? This is u- under the way that our system is set up, this is wrong.

So already you're starting to see judges move toward that.