Pod Insights On with Kara Swisher How Trump Dismantled the Department of Justice with Carol Leonnig About this episode Under President Trump, the Department of Justice’s long-standing mission to uphold the law “without fear or favor” has been turned on its head. Attorney General Pam Bondi has followed Trump’s directives to target his political enemies and help his allies. But in their new book, Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America’s Justice Department, investigative journalists Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis show that the erosion of the DOJ’s independence began long before Trump’s second term.
Kara speaks to Leonnig, MSNBC senior investigative reporter, bestselling author and five-time Pulitzer Prize winner, about how internal pressure campaigns in Trump 1.0 prevailed, despite the noble intentions of prosecutors; the many red flags that were missed by the FBI ahead of the January 6th Capitol attack; the stubborn bravery of unsung heroes in the National Archives Department during the Biden administration; and how the DOJ’s loss of political independence will impact the country.
Questions? Comments? Email us at [email protected] or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript 9,925 words · 10 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:00 Speaker 00 I remember sitting with a source high up in the Justice Department who said, "This place is going to get shredded."
0:19 Kara Swisher? Hi, everyone. From New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. A core principle of the Justice Department used to be the pursuit of justice, "without fear or favor." Well, those days are clearly over, as fear and favor are in vogue. President Trump, together with his Attorney General Pam Bondi and the FBI Director Cash Patel, is using the DOJ to target his enemies and help his allies. They claim it is retribution for the weaponization of the Justice Department under President Biden. But the erosion of the Justice Department and the FBI's independence started long before inauguration day 2025, way back in Trump 1.0. That's what I want to talk about with my guest today, MSNBC's senior investigative reporter, bestselling author,
1:04 Kara Swisher? and five-time Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, Carol Lenick. Together with her co-author Erin Davis, Lenick is out with a new book called, "Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America's Justice Department." I have known Carol for a long time. She's an amazing Washington Post reporter. She worked there for 25 years, covering the Justice Department and the White House. In 2022, she was part of the Post team that won the Pulitzer for Public Service for the coverage of the January 6 Capitol attack. And I want to talk to Carol about a lot of things, including why so many people dropped the ball before or during January 6, how the fear of retribution planted in Trump 1.0 impacted the Biden administration, and how we got where we are now. Our expert question this week
1:48 Kara Swisher? comes from former Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division at the DOJ under President Biden, Jonathan Cantor. Stay with us.
2:08 Kara Swisher? Support for this show comes from The Guardian and their new show, Stateside, where journalists Kai Wright and Carter Sherman use the entire independent reporting resources of The Guardian to slow down the news and wrestle with the questions we all have about what is actually happening in the world. Join Kai and Carter three times a week as they utilize all the reporting resources The Guardian has across news, international coverage, climate, culture, wellness, and more. And The Guardian's not owned by a billionaire, they fearlessly report the facts without interference. Go to theguardian.com/stateside to learn more and listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube. That's theguardian.com/stateside.
2:52 Kara Swisher? Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow, none of them ever talk to each other. That's where Odoo comes in. An all-in-one business management software that brings every part of your business together. From sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try it today for free at Odoo.com/Kara. That's O-D-O-O dot com slash Kara.
3:35 Speaker 03 This podcast is supported by Anthropic, the public benefit corporation behind Claude. Everyone's got a hard question about AI. Anthropic was built to surface those questions and share what it finds along the way, because there's hope in hard questions. Ask yours at claude.ai/spotify and keep thinking. That's claude.ai/spotify.
4:05 Kara Swisher? Carol, thanks for coming on, on again, I guess, right?
4:09 Speaker 00 Again, always good to be with you.
4:11 Kara Swisher? How's it going?
4:12 Speaker 00 I mean, it's crazy. It's fun. We're landing a story, a big book, in the middle of a time period when some of the worst things our sources predicted are coming true.
4:24 Kara Swisher? Absolutely, absolutely. And you yourself have had a big shift in your career, too. Now you're a TV star.
4:30 Speaker 00 Well, we all work with facts on different platforms.
4:34 Kara Swisher? That's true. But let's talk about your book, Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America's Justice Department, which is out this week, which is a pretty heady title. It's a whopper. You and your co-author, Aaron Davis, interviewed more than 250 people for this book, including senior officials inside both the Trump and Biden administrations. Before we get to how we got here, it's been exactly a year since President Trump was reelected. What's the word you would use to describe his impact on the Justice Department in this administration today?
5:05 Speaker 00 Devastating. I don't mean that emotionally, Cara. I mean that in terms of the structural wrecking ball he's taken to the things that protect Americans from a terror attack, the things that protect us from corrupt public officials accepting bribes, the things he's done to frighten prosecutors from saying the truth in court filings.
5:30 Kara Swisher? Or not frighten them, just eliminate them. They aren't that frightened to say them. They just have to go then if they do.
5:36 Speaker 00 Yeah, well, he's fired enough people that he's sent that message, right? So would you put your name on a filing that says there is no evidence that James Comey lied to Congress? No, you wouldn't.
5:49 Kara Swisher? But in your book, you chronicle the erosion of the DOJ's independence since the first administration. Recently, in an op-ed, you wrote that, quote, "A mixture of fear and stubborn bravery, gutter politics, and noble intentions ultimately paved the way for the unraveling of the Justice Department we are now witnessing." For each of those four categories, fear, stubborn bravery, gutter politics, and noble intentions, who specifically are you thinking of?
6:11 Speaker 00 You know, let me start with the best of those. I'm so glad you asked. Noble intentions, Merrick Garland, the Attorney General for Joe Biden.
6:20 Speaker 00 Had a had a noble goal when he took over the Department of Justice. He wanted to recover it essentially and restore its its independence, which had been strained after Trump's first presidency. Trump had tried to get all sorts of enemies prosecuted, called for his attorney general to jail various people that he didn't like. And Biden let Merrick Garland run that show by himself. And Garland, a respected jurist, I think, really did have good intentions. They just happened to be of an antiquated time and no match for what Trump was throwing at his own FBI investigators and agents and prosecutors.
7:03 Kara Swisher? Because he thought you could you could go back to normal.
7:05 Speaker 00 He actually pulled a playbook, Kara, out of, you know, post Watergate, when he had first been a prosecutor and and then eventually a supervisor in the Department of Justice, trying to go back to that time, post Nixon, when the whole country, Republican and Democrat, wanted to stop those kinds of abuses in the Oval Office. Well, we have a very different country now.
7:28 Kara Swisher? Who is stubborn bravery, then?
7:30 Speaker 00 Stubborn bravery is a group of prosecutors who insisted that they were going to do what the evidence required, regardless of the fact that it pointed at the likelihood that Donald Trump, a former president and likely future candidate, had committed crimes. I mean, that that group is very broad, but I'm thinking especially of a team that was under Assistant Attorney General Matt Olson. He is responsible in 2022 for the lead up of the investigation of the mishandling of classified documents when the Department of Justice and the FBI get this referral from the National Archives, saying, hey, there's a lot of classified documents in these boxes that Donald Trump returned,
8:14 Speaker 00 and we're worried that there are more back at Mar-a-Lago. Olson says to his team, you know, we have to be brave enough to do what we would normally do, regardless of the fact that this is Donald Trump.
8:26 Kara Swisher? Okay, gutter politics?
8:28 Speaker 00 Donald Trump.
8:30 Speaker 00 This is a person who Personalized his attacks in his first presidency on individual agents by name. You know, Carol, we may, maybe people have forgotten, but in the first Trump presidency, Trump was so angry about the investigation of Russian operatives connecting with his campaign. And ultimately, as you know well, he was so furious at the suggestion that Russia got him over the line to become president and he didn't do it all on his own. The way they stoked Facebook, the way they pushed these messages, the way they tried to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign and ultimately released a lot of damaging emails of hers that hurt the Democratic Party when she was running.
9:14 Speaker 00 He was so furious about that, that campaign. People may have forgotten how, how much he went into people's lives that were just career public servants. He imitated the orgasm of an FBI lawyer as, you know, as he learned through information that she was having an extramarital relationship with one of her colleagues. He essentially put a bullseye on different agents' backs who had been involved in investigating him. He threatened that the deputy director of the FBI, who opened an investigation into whether or not Donald Trump was obstructing that Russia probe, Andy McCabe, you know, he basically said, you're going to indict him. I want you to indict this guy.
9:58 Speaker 00 That we learned, Erin and I, that just had such a scarring effect on the Department of Justice that we didn't really appreciate at the time. Right. What about fear? Fear, I have to say, is a combination of people. No one likes to be called afraid, but there was wariness, especially within the FBI. I'll never forget when we sat down with sources who were very pivotal, let's just say, I'm not going to name them. But they were very pivotal in the classified documents case. And we learned about a scene where Matt Olson and his team are pushing and pushing for the FBI to do this search.
10:41 Speaker 00 Merrick Garland, heck, he is pushing for this search. He thinks that, you know, it's very worrisome that top secret documents that could put a national security at risk are in the wind. And in this meeting, they're fighting with the head of the FBI's Washington Field Office and saying, you got to do a search. We got probable cause. Trump is clearly lying to his lawyer. We see the tapes where his valets are moving the boxes of records. We've got the justification to do this. It's totally legal. It's appropriate. And it's really not just appropriate, it's necessary for national security. And the head of the FBI's field office says, I'm not doing it. I'm not doing it unless somebody orders me to.
11:26 Speaker 00 My boss has got to order me to. And as Olson and his team walk out, they confront Allen Kohler, kind of a demigod in counterintelligence investigations in the FBI. He's at this point, the assistant director. And Olson knows that Allen Kohler is on his side. So when they're alone together outside, he says, what is going on? And Kohler says, these agents are afraid. They are stepping over the bodies of FBI agents in their office.
11:57 Kara Swisher? Right.
11:57 Speaker 00 Who went down, right? Whose careers are ruined because they've been under investigation by Republicans after being targeted by Trump.
12:06 Kara Swisher? Yeah, for doing their jobs. And these are just career officials, not running for office, or they don't have cushions or anything else. So let's get into more detail, starting with Trump's first administration. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, played by the rules by recusing himself from the ongoing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein then appointed Robert Mueller, a special counsel. But there is still a lot of pressure from the Trump DOJ appointees, including the FBI. Talk about this dynamic in Trump, one point, between main justices, as it's called, and the FBI, and how it set the groundwork for what happened later.
12:44 Speaker 00 I'm grinning right now because that was, from my perspective, some really satisfying reporting. You know, everyone thinks they know everything that happened with Robert Mueller. And that investigation feels like a million years ago, right? But what we learned was that Mueller, Mr. Institutionalist, and as he was, you know, missing a few steps, getting older, and eventually, you know, showing some of the signs of the Parkinson's he would eventually develop, which really nobody knew about until this year. He was offloading a lot of his responsibilities to his deputy, Aaron Zebly. And Aaron Zebly was an institutionalist, too. Good on him.
13:27 Speaker 00 He was deferring, just as his boss would, to their colleagues at the Department of Justice who worked for Bill Barr. Well, we all know Bill Barr was trying to help Donald Trump get elected and had no apologies or regrets about that. And indeed, his deputies were, Eddie O'Callaghan, were also trying to steer the ultimate report to be as mild as possible in terms of finding any wrongdoing by Donald Trump. And they tried to discourage Aaron Zebly from including things that were unflattering, anything to suggest, for example, that Russia may have wanted to help Donald Trump get elected and may have had an impact on the election of 2016.
14:12 Speaker 00 And you ask the question. Mueller and his team's view was, these are our buddies. These are our colleagues. But what they really didn't fully appreciate, and what some of them now regret, is that Barr's team was really working against them.
14:28 Kara Swisher? Right, absolutely. Do you think his Parkinson's disease influenced the outcome of the report?
14:33 Speaker 00 The way that this has been described to us by multiple sources is that Mueller certainly was stepping away, but that his deputy was channeling overwhelmingly the caution and the carefulness and the methodicalness of Mueller. And instead of the firebrand, you know, there are two parts of Robert Mueller. Aaron Zebly and his team were definitely leaning on this other side, which was, let's be careful. Let's avoid any drama. Let's not color outside the lines. Let's just give what we can give. But, you know, even some members of Mueller's team, as we reveal in this piece. You know, Jeannie Rhee, Andrew Weissman,
15:17 Speaker 00 they were not in agreement with
15:20 Kara Swisher? with the way he worked. Now, Trump publicly and privately reamed Sessions for not doing what he wanted him to do. And ultimately, as you said, replaced him with Bill Barr. You write about Barr swearing in, quote, "It was the beginning of a political marriage in the very room that both men viewed as an epicenter of unequal power in the US government." Talk about his understanding of the role of Attorney General vis a vis the President and how it impacted the department, his role. Because he's gone back and forth on Donald Trump, although mostly he's benefited from the association.
15:53 Speaker 00 I think Bill Barr is a fascinating character for lots of reasons. But one of them was he's totally unapologetic about, "I'm going to get this guy reelected. It's my job. I'm not supposed to be some Caesar's wife. You know, I'm supposed to be engaged in politics." In fact, Bill Barr goes to Trump in the spring of 2020 and says, "You're going to lose this election. And I'm warning you. You've got to do something different. You've got to stop going back and forth on vaccines and bleach and hydrochloroquine. And you've got to really like communicate to people what your agenda is and your policies and give them comfort. Because right now, you're freaking them out."
16:37 Speaker 00 These are paraphrases, of course. Barr was really a person in the slog of partisanship and not worried about doing it. However, he had a line, right? He had a line he wasn't going to cross. He wasn't going to pretend there was fraud in the election when he knew there wasn't. And ultimately, Trump asks, in a furious meeting, as we all know, with Trump in December of 2020, asks for Barr's resignation on the spot.
17:23 Kara Swisher? Support for this show comes from The Guardian. Trying to locate news sources that reliably separate fact from fiction can seem like looking for a needle in a haystack these days. Social media feeds, cable news, and subscription-based news outlets might be able to give you one version of the news, but not in the way that you need. You want news fast, but slow enough to actually absorb the information. Stateside with Kai Wright and Carter Sherman is here to do just that. The podcast tries to slow down the news and wrestle with the questions regarding the world at large at your own pace. Three times a week, hosts Kai Wright and Carter Sherman bring their expertise together to showcase different and engaging perspectives regarding the world today. They will use their collective knowledge to discuss the news, international affairs,
18:06 Kara Swisher? climate, culture, sports, lifestyle, fashion, and wellness. Plus, The Guardian wants to emphasize they're not billionaire-owned, meaning they're free to report the whole picture without interference. Go to theguardian.com/stateside to learn more and listen wherever you get your podcasts, or watch on YouTube starting May 13. Support for this show comes from Delete Me. Have you ever Googled yourself and found your home address, phone number, or the name of a family member? It's unsettling. Here's what you do to clean up your online data footprint. Go to joindelete.me/kara and enter the code Kara. You get 20% off Delete Me. Delete Me removes your personal information that's being sold online.
18:49 Kara Swisher? Delete Me was named the top pick for data removal services by Wirecutter, so you know you're in good hands. I really like Delete Me. I use it all the time. It's always surprising how much data people have about me. I am very privacy-forward, and I still find so much stuff of mine online, some of which is incorrect, some of which is compiled in a really disturbing way. And you have to sort of control it like weeds. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now, at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindelete.me/kara and use the promo code Kara at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindelete.me/kara and enter the code Kara at checkout. That's joindelete.me/kara, code Kara.
19:40 Kara Swisher? Support for this show comes from Hers. Losing weight on your own can often feel like a fight you never win. Luckily, weight loss by Hers offers access to the FDA-approved Wegovy pill and the Wegovy pen. Wegovy is the first-ever GLP-1 weight loss medication available in a pill, but also comes as a pen, so you've got options. With Wegovy, you can lose up to 20% of your body weight. People lost an average of 14% body weight at 64 weeks in a clinical trial of Wegovy alongside diet and exercise. To get started with Wegovy, just go to forhers.com and complete an online consultation with a licensed provider who will determine if your prescription is appropriate. And Hers doesn't stop there. Nutrition and lifestyle guidance are part of the plan, along with access to 24/7 messaging
20:25 Kara Swisher? with your care team, so support is always in reach. Ready to reach your goals? Visit forhers.com/ Kara to access personalized, affordable care for weight loss, hair, menopause, and more. That's forhers.com/ Kara. Individual results may vary, and stopping treatment may result in weight regain.
20:48 Kara Swisher? You dedicated a portion of the book to the Capitol attack on January 6 and the red flags that were missed or ignored by the FBI. You're part of the Washington Post team that won the Pulitzer Prize in 2022 for your reporting about January 6. Talking to people with this book, was there anything new that you found out that surprised you? Give me some examples they should have been flagged and why they weren't.
21:08 Speaker 00 You know, when we did our series for The Washington Post, of which I'm so proud, about the before, during, and after of January 6, I worked primarily with Erin on the series that was about before. What happened before January 6 in the lead-up? Who was stoking this? And what were law enforcement doing or seeing in real time? What's new in our book, Kara, is really shocking descriptions of how much the FBI was warned ahead of time and how almost paralyzed they were to acknowledge that there was a
21:45 Speaker 00 domestic terror threat, extremely obvious, extremely articulated, in open media sources, on dark web.
21:56 Kara Swisher? Yeah, it was.
21:56 Speaker 00 And they had been flagged repeatedly about people.
22:01 Speaker 00 Planning where to bring their guns, planning to shoot police, planning to coordinate because Donald Trump called them to try to block the certification. I think the most shocking things are how bumbling, and I say that carefully, how bumbling the FBI was when you and I know what would happen if they saw radicalized online conversations by Muslim teenagers. We know what would have happened in those situations. And some of these people didn't even get a knock on the door. Like, what are you doing? Why are you talking about guns, staging areas, how to get, you know, your riot gear into
22:46 Speaker 00 Washington DC?
22:47 Kara Swisher? So why? Is it bumbling or because they just didn't believe they would do that? Or because they kind of wanted it to happen?
22:55 Speaker 00 I don't think anybody wanted it to happen. I really don't. I don't want to name names here, but FBI agents that we spoke to said it was a combination of things. And they guilt themselves a little bit about this. One, it was incomprehensible to them that
23:12 Kara Swisher? It would happen.
23:13 Speaker 00 White guys from Kentucky and Ohio who love the police would beat on them with fire extinguishers and flagpoles, just incomprehensible to them. And second, they acknowledged that the FBI leadership and the DOJ leadership were a bit hangdog, I hope that's the right word, because they were dealing with Donald Trump on a daily basis. Remember, three days before January 6th, Donald Trump tried to fire his attorney general and replace him with somebody who was going to block the certification of the election by sending a note to Georgia.
23:55 Speaker 00 That was, you know, this attempted coup on a Sunday night. I'm going to get rid of the new replacement for Bill Barr, Jeff Rosen. I'm going to put in this guy Jeff Clark. And that Sunday night, half dozen DOJ officials at the highest levels of that department came to the White House to try to beg Donald Trump not to do it. They succeeded in convincing him. But imagine, like, how do you lead? Your protest planning when you've just survived that.
24:23 Kara Swisher? Right, right. So people who were brave, the officials of the National Archives were sort of unsung heroes in your book, another example of stubborn bravery. They flagged the fake electors' documents as potential election interference even before January 6, and they kept flagging them despite getting blown off again and again. Why were they dismissed and who should have been following up on this?
24:44 Speaker 00 This is also a new revelatory detail that's never been reported before, and I am, you know, really glad you noticed it. So Waleska McClellan and her team are investigators at the National Archives. And a lawyer who's an expert in the elector certificates, because the National Archives is responsible for storing these when they come in every four years for presidential election, says to them, hey, I've got like five, now six, now seven certificates that are completely bogus. They're signed by Republican Party officials, but they claim that Donald Trump is the president. We know that wasn't the result. What's going
25:24 Speaker 00 on? So Waleska McClellan, this investigator for the Archives, doesn't usually investigate electoral politics.
25:31 Kara Swisher? Right.
25:32 Speaker 00 Goes to the Department of Justice prosecutors that she has met and knows in DC and says, hey, guys.
25:39 Kara Swisher? What's happening?
25:40 Speaker 00 Anybody interested in this? It looks coordinated. All these certificates look the same. There's this funny boilerplate. It's like, it's like a kid, you know.
25:49 Kara Swisher? Right.
25:49 Speaker 00 Found them with some sort of app and reproduced them.
25:54 Kara Swisher? Yeah, probably they did.
25:55 Speaker 00 Prosecutors on January 8 turn her down and say, eh, we don't know what the crime is here. Maybe have some states look into it. Have those swing states look into it. And again, you gotta, it's sort of a little bit like that January 3, January 6 moment. Those prosecutors in the US Attorney's Office all of a sudden have a thousand potential rioters in a violent bloodbath on the Capitol to investigate.
26:21 Speaker 00 And
26:21 Kara Swisher? We can't get to that. That's the least of our worries.
26:23 Speaker 00 They're not looking into some documents that look funny.
26:26 Kara Swisher? Yeah, but then President Biden takes office and you make it clear there were prosecutors in the DOJ who wanted to look at the potential coordination between Trump's and his circle and the January six protesters from the get go. But there were others who refused to expand their investigations. They're still scared of Trump, despite the fact that he was at the lowest point of his political career. Who was pushing for investigating and who was against that? And what the crux of both arguments, like move along or he can't hurt us again? What's the diff or what?
26:55 Speaker 00 Yeah, well, in the stubborn bravery category, I'd put a prosecutor in DC, federal prosecutor named JP Cooney. He used to work in the Public Integrity Section in Maine Justice. And now he's a supervisor over in the DC US Attorney's Office. By the way, I should say, then he was a supervisor in the US Attorney's Office in DC. He was fired by Trump about, I don't know, two weeks in to Trump's second presidency. So Cooney, you know, knows how to investigate and he sees what everybody sees and what The Post is reporting at the time and that The New York Times is reporting at the time. That's just all this forensic imagery of Roger Stone at the Willard and hanging out
27:40 Speaker 00 with Proud Boys, same with some Ali Alexander Stop the Steal protest organizers. And what he wants to do and what he proposes to the FBI team that he works with all the time is let's investigate these people that, yes, they're in Trump's orbit, but they seem to have a link to this violent attack. Were they engaged in starting it? Were they engaged in financing it? And let's figure that out.
28:05 Kara Swisher? That would be a normal thing to do.
28:07 Speaker 00 Totally normal and follow the money also, like classic Assistant US Attorney 101. But it makes the interim team before Merrick Garland is confirmed uncomfortable and it makes the FBI's.
28:24 Speaker 00 Field office chief in DC, very uncomfortable. He flags DOJ higher levels and says, I don't like this. My lieutenants don't like this. It looks like we're going after Trump's campaign.
28:36 Kara Swisher? Yes.
28:37 Speaker 00 That's political free speech. And of course, you know what happens. They kill that plan by Cooney. And when Garland is in office and Lisa Monaco is the deputy attorney general, the US Attorney's Office tries to bring it up again and also gets batted back. Like, that's not the course.
28:54 Kara Swisher? By the FBI.
28:55 Speaker 00 Well, by main justice.
28:58 Kara Swisher? By Merrick Garland himself.
28:59 Speaker 00 By his team, yes.
29:01 Kara Swisher? By his team, including Lisa Monaco.
29:03 Speaker 00 Yes.
29:03 Kara Swisher? Because we don't want to stir the pot or what's done is done. He won't be back. Same idea that he won't be back, right?
29:10 Speaker 00 You know, Monaco and Garland haven't told us personally why they weren't into this idea, other than, over and over again, the people they confided in told us Garland wanted to turn the page.
29:24 Kara Swisher? Turn the page, that's right. Yeah. And of course, now Lisa Monaco is getting attacked by Trump. What a surprise. Biden tapped Garland to renew faith in the Department of Justice as independent, as you said, from the executive branch. But it seems like he was almost a dead weight in these. Of all the people, I was, I was reading it and someone said, well, who's the villain? I go, kind of Merrick Garland, you know? But he seemed like almost dead weight in these investigations. You describe him as being very methodical, wanting everything to be reviewed and rewritten multiple times. You also, you were glacial, by all means, moved at a glacial pace when it came to investigating Trump. Overall, do you think he helped or hurt the DOJ's image as independent? Does he deserve any of the blame for Donald Trump being in office now? Because it feels like you have focused on him quite a bit in this book as the real
30:09 Kara Swisher? problem.
30:10 Speaker 00 I feel really torn about this as a reporter, as opposed to as a human. I, I used to cover this federal court where he was on the bench and the court below him. He has enormous, broad respect among Republicans and Democrats, among a pantheon of judges. I respect his work. I think he was a stunning lead. Good judge, down the middle, thought about what he was going to do every time, methodical. What I have heard over and over again from the people who worked for him is that they adored him as a human being. He's a gentle and a very smart person, a gentleman and a very smart person. But they have also said that they do not think it was the right person for this moment.
30:55 Speaker 00 I wonder who was the right person for the moment, Cara? I really wonder because I would not, as a journalist, recommend we bust up precedent. I've covered enough federal prosecutors to know that that's
31:06 Kara Swisher? Sure.
31:06 Speaker 00 That's not the route. But the method here made it impossible. We will never know what could have happened, but this made it impossible to get close.
31:17 Kara Swisher? Right, right. I mean, I think they probably thought, again, that he was gone. I thought they, that's my impression, is they thought he was done. And I was like, no, Surrattu is getting up again, like that kind of thing. I kept thinking, like, hey, don't, like, you don't have to say that I'm saying that. But what was interesting is when you go back to the House Select Committee's investigation of January 6th, the DOJ was dragging his feet and the lawmakers put on a show. And the committee's investigation was six months ahead of the DOJ. Usually, these House committees are relying on investigations of the DOJ and of the FBI, not the other way around. Talk about how unprecedented this was, that Liz Cheney was sort of running the show here and what it said about the state of the DOJ at this point, because they were running
31:59 Kara Swisher? circles around the, you know, that was, that was a show. That's the kind of thing you were expecting after an attack on the Capitol like that, presumably.
32:08 Speaker 00 Dead on. I mean, I don't like to say villain, but if we're going to say heroes, the investigative team that worked on this, dang, they definitely get that label because they dug in. And I think you know congressional investigations are often a joke. I mean, they're often like
32:27 Kara Swisher? They can be, not always.
32:28 Speaker 00 Yeah, not always, but they often can be a joke where it's not very thorough. It's for political theater, a particular party wants a particular outcome. And in this case, a former US attorney comes in as Liz Cheney and Benny Thompson's investigator, Tim Hafey, from Charlottesville originally, and he brings in
32:48 Speaker 00 A crop of of former prosecutors, some corporate lawyers, but mostly just amazing investigators.
32:55 Kara Swisher? A little like the Watergate investigation, right? Like that gang, including Hillary Clinton was in that crew.
33:00 Speaker 00 That's right.
33:01 Kara Swisher? Back when lots of people.
33:02 Speaker 00 That might be the closest comparison, actually.
33:04 Kara Swisher? Yeah, that crew was full of people who later either joined the Supreme Court or became great, big lawyers, et cetera, et cetera.
33:11 Speaker 00 And this investigative team got right to the point. And then within days, they were on the fake electors issue, right? And there's one guy who gets hired to lead the team to look at potential interference by Trump and his campaign in the election. And within about five days, he has decided that the fake electors is part of the coordinated plan. It's part of the conspiracy. And that team ends up, you know, embarrassing the Department of Justice. Nobody at Justice wants to admit that. Nobody in Garland's office, you know, wants to say, oh, we were embarrassed. But we learned that specific things the investigative team for the House did prompted instantaneous action by the Department of Justice. And happy to go into those if you want me to.
33:56 Kara Swisher? Yeah, please do. I mean, now they're trying to bring it back, right? They're trying to pretend it didn't happen.
34:00 Speaker 00 Right, like the rewrite of history, right? Well, the televised hearings is one thing. But in terms of the investigation, January 2022, let's go back there for a second. This committee begins putting together the fake elector plot and figuring out that Rudy Giuliani was kind of arm twisting Republicans in different swing states to sign on to this. And this news leaks out in January. January 11th, there are spate of news stories about what this committee is finding. They were a leaky little boat in terms of news things coming out, but whatever. I think that was primarily not their fault. But anyway. January 2022, on the 14th,
34:42 Speaker 00 Thomas Wyndham, who's the lone prosecutor that the Justice Department has chosen in November of 2021 to start looking around the edges of Trump's world and how this, how they might be connected to the riot. Thomas Wyndham reaches out to that National Archives investigator, Waleska McClellan, and says, hey, I think we're actually going to investigate this. Can we get together and chat? Because at that point, Kara, the FBI is still resisting investigating Trump's campaign and its role in election interference. So Thomas Wyndham only has one investigator to turn to, you know, a little-known office in the National Archives.
35:23 Kara Swisher? Right. Now, in the classified documents case, it was, again, the National Archives officials who flagged Trump had taken the boxes with him to Mar-a-Lago and who ultimately made the referral to investigate him. Meanwhile, there's a huge dispute, as you said, between the DOJ and FBI over the raid. They were fearful of being made a scapegoat, or they didn't want to get in trouble the way previous, like Andrew McCabe and others were. And from your reporting and others, it seems they were almost an obstruction to the process. You know, the Archives keeps doing the right thing and doing all the correct referrals. Hey, you might want to go get these boxes. The DOJ drags its feet and the FBI is like, yeah, well, let's hope the Chinese spies don't get down to, under the pool anytime soon, right?
36:07 Kara Swisher? But I mean, that's pretty much it, right? Like, if I'm the Chinese, I'm like thrilled with this entire situation. And whatever reasons Trump had keeping them, you can say all kinds of things, I think he just wanted to have them. That's my, that would be my guess if I had to pick of all the different things.
36:23 Speaker 00 Right. It's, what is his famous line? These are my documents.
36:26 Kara Swisher? These are mine. Like, I can see it. Like, they're mine, and I'm going to write a book, or whatever the heck. I'm going to make a museum someday, or whatever, a theme park.
36:33 Speaker 00 Right. Well, like, when the investigators from the Department of Justice learned that he's waving them around at a table in Bedminster, saying,
36:39 Kara Swisher? You know, it's a show, mom.
36:40 Speaker 00 Right. Hey, I, I've got the proof that Mark Milley proposed bombing Iran. Oh, I can't declassify these documents now, but they're really secret.
36:48 Kara Swisher? Right, right. So what is the dynamic here with the Archives seeming to be the heroes and the others either feckless or sinister, almost?
36:59 Speaker 00 There were two things that were painful to watch in real time as we're reporting and writing these, these. I guess, better excavated descriptions of what happened at the time. One of the things that's going on is the classified documents investigators at the Department of Justice think this is a big freaking deal. The FBI agents keep referring to it in the Washington Field Office as, we're not the records police. They think this is about presidential records, right? Right. And the Department of Justice says, no, we think he's still got more classified records. That is the worry. The FBI says, you don't have any proof of that.
37:42 Speaker 00 Well, that all changes on May 18th. The FBI goes down with the Department of Justice lead prosecutor on the case to interview a woman named Molly Michael. And she had been a Trump insider, you know, one of the many very attractive women that worked just outside the Oval Office in his first presidency. And in this case, she had gone on to work for him in his post-presidential office at Mar-a-Lago. While they're sitting there in this freezing rented legal office in Lake Worth, talking to her, you know, she's loyal to Trump, she's shivering in the air-conditioned cold, but she is not going to lie for him. Right. And she says, look, there are a lot more boxes of documents, same boxes that we use to pack his stuff, there's a lot more.
38:27 Speaker 00 And then she's got the picture that's worth 1,000 words, a picture of 80 to 90 boxes, which tells the FBI and the Justice Department, he has so many more records than 15. Right. This still does not persuade the FBI, however. That Washington Field Office chief, Steve D'Antuono, is like, we don't know what's in them. Like, why do we have to do this? And to his credit, to his credit, Merrick Garland keeps pushing for a search. Here is a place where he is, he's very firm that there is a reason to be concerned about national security information out in the wind. Anyway, eventually, they get Chris Wray, the Director of the FBI, and his deputies
39:10 Speaker 00 to overrule this Washington Field Office Right. leader and force him to do the search. This Field Office leader just didn't want what? What's his name again? Steve D'Antuono.
39:21 Kara Swisher? Where is he now?
39:22 Speaker 00 He's retired. And I, his view is not cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. You know, initially, it wasn't crazy to say, how do we know there are classified records? And indeed, you know, there was worry early on. Maybe, maybe he has a lot of records, but it's a bunch of junk. The only problem was the National Archives knew things were still missing. Right? They knew things were still missing.
39:47 Kara Swisher? Right, well, the Archives knows that. He's like every FBI director that gets run over by Bruce Willis in a movie and is wrong, like profoundly wrong, and then loses his access to the jet.
39:59 Kara Swisher? We'll be back in a minute.
40:12 Speaker 04 Support for this show comes from Indeed. When the pressure's on and you need to hire the right person for the job, Indeed Sponsored Jobs has got your back. Instead of forcing you to spend tons of time searching, Indeed Sponsored Jobs matches you with quality candidates fast. According to their data, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed are 95% more likely to report a hire than non-sponsored jobs. Join the 3.3 million employers worldwide that use Indeed to connect with quality talent that fits their needs. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results. When you need the right person to cut through the chaos, this is the job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.
40:54 Speaker 04 And listeners to this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at indeed.com/podcast. Just go to indeed.com/podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. That's indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need the right hire fast? Then this is the job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.
41:24 Speaker 03 Now for a quick message from Anthropic, the team behind Claude, the AI built for businesses. Customers count on their bank and banks count on their most important systems. Now those systems count on Claude and nine of the Fortune 10 companies use it for critical work. See why leading companies trust Claude at claude.ai/span.
41:49 Speaker 05 When everyone's finally together, what makes mornings even brighter? Keeping things deliciously simple. Whether you're pouring up a glass of morning refreshment or topping off festive drinks for a family brunch, Simply Orange brings that 100% fresh squeezed taste to every moment. Deliciously bright and delightfully easy, Simply Orange is made for all your seasonal gatherings. Simply Orange, say yes to simple.
42:19 Kara Swisher? So after all of Garland's fastidiousness to ensure the investigation didn't appear to be political, which he was very fastidious to do, he ended up putting one man, Jack Smith, in charge of special counsel for both investigations. Even people in the department said it made it look like an anti-Trump investigation. Analysts like Ellie Honig said Smith didn't have a chance because he didn't have enough time. Should there have been two special counsels? And I just talked to Ellie about that. What impact did that have, for better or worse, on the investigations?
42:50 Speaker 00 You know, I have never seen a prosecutor on a complex drug case bring an indictment as fast as Jack Smith did. So I don't know that appointing two would have changed that. I think he was up against a horrendous clock when he's beginning to look at these, you know, a fledgling election interference case, which Merrick Garland froze for two months before the election in a way that kind of disturbed a few prosecutors because Donald Trump wasn't on the ballot, but... Merrick Garland wanted to be very conservative and recognize that he was leading Republican, so he froze the investigation right before the midterm
43:35 Speaker 00 elections. So Jack Smith, what does he have? He has a very early premature election interference case, and he has a pretty well baked classified documents case in terms of evidence when he takes over in November of 2022. It's a sprint, though, because what is, what is he doing? He's got six months, seven months, eight months to bring a case. And there are already primary battles that are being formed. There is a very active election campaign going on in the middle of all this. And that helps enable and propel Trump because it fits beautifully into his narrative, which is they're prosecuting me now intentionally to hurt my campaign.
44:18 Kara Swisher? Right. So Smith led to two indictments of Donald Trump, but he also flubbed key decisions. This, when I read this, was just, of course, it was obvious. But when he decided to bring the classified documents case to Florida, where he got Trump-appointed Judge Eileen Cannon. Now, it was sort of a luck of the draw kind of thing, and they thought, we can't possibly get her, but they did. And they thought it was a real miscalculation not to bring the case in DC, correct? What was the thinking? Like, if there's any chance of getting her, like the doormat of all judges for Trump, why, why even take that very slim chance?
44:55 Speaker 00 So Smith's team had a, a legal analysis done of where is it the fairest and the most appropriate to bring the case? And their conclusion was simply Florida, because some of the withholding classified records evidence was the strongest, and the case was stronger in Florida. But that doesn't mean you couldn't bring it in DC. And it's easy in hindsight for us all to say, why didn't you bring it in DC? But I'm saying it. It's easy to do. And I'm saying it because I didn't know until we began reporting this book that two critical things happened. One, his team Had some dissension about this. You know, a prosecutor with a ton of national security experience from the Southern District
45:39 Speaker 00 of New York basically said, you all are effing insane to go to Florida. That's an existential threat to the case, just as you have outlined, Cara. An existential threat, if you get canon, it's over. DC judges, no classified records cases. We have a, we should-
45:55 Kara Swisher? I mean, say nothing of her doormat, she seems incompetent, but go ahead.
45:58 Speaker 00 Right. So there's that dissension, which we didn't know about, that nobody knew about until we began this reporting. And then the second thing we didn't know about was, Smith's office had done a calculation. There's a thing called the wheel in every courthouse. Who are you going to get on the wheel? The judge's wheel.
46:14 Kara Swisher? Right.
46:14 Speaker 00 And on the wheel, they had figured out that it was a one in six chance of getting canon. A little later, after they've already pretty much made the decision, but not begun presenting evidence to the grand jury in Florida, they find out it's a one in three chance. Well, that's pretty existential, because you know where canon is coming from. She handled the original grand jury search issues and she leaned heavy for Trump and against all case law.
46:45 Kara Swisher? Yep. I mean, you know, honestly, and a lucky son of a bitch like Donald Trump, who seems to get every turn his way, I would, ah. But was there any way to stop that? Was Jack Smith's decision, correct? Fatal. And that's why he is where he is now.
46:59 Speaker 00 Jack Smith's decision, he presented it to Merrick Garland, who wanted to vet that, wanted that checked out. But they both concluded, okay, if you think that's where the law favors it, that's fine. He wasn't going to tell Jack Smith, you can't do that, because the legal analysis suggested it. I remember a couple of people telling us that in the presentation, when asked, like, what about canon? David Newman, who was a national security prosecutor for the Department of Justice, and in the meeting where Jack Smith's making his presentation for how we're going to indict him, where we're going to do it, and Newman says, your biggest risk is canon, you get her and the case is over. What about that? And Smith's response was, I'm not worried about Florida.
47:44 Speaker 00 You know, like, the facts are on my side. Once again, a Justice Department institutionalist saying-
47:51 Speaker 00 You know, this is the way it works and we're going to be okay.
47:53 Kara Swisher? Right. Now he knows. Of course, the last straw was on the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity in response to the election interference case. The judges overturned decades of precedent. Supreme Court had been dragging its feet and Justice Roberts signaled the way the wind was blowing. Was there anything that Smith could have done differently, knowing that immunity ruling was a real possibility?
48:13 Speaker 00 I can't see another path. The only thing that could have helped Jack Smith is if he had been able to start sooner. You know, I think it's important to underline here, it's possible the immunity decision would have forestalled ever bringing that election interference case in our lifetimes. No matter if Merrick Garland had authorized it on day one in March when he was confirmed, or his interim had confirmed it on January 21st, there's no way to know. But the classified documents case was a slam dunk and that's where he didn't have the same kind of presidential immunity claim.
48:51 Kara Swisher? So here we are back in gutter politics. Even before President Trump returned to the White House, he had vowed to go after his political enemies. He's using the Department of Justice via Pam Bondi to do that. Obviously, there were recent indictments of James Comey, Letitia James, and John Bolton. But all year, there's been a purge going on at the DOJ. Hundreds of employees have been fired, including all the prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases. Many others have quit in protest. And Bondi has said the DOJ works at the directive of Donald Trump. She's not even pretending. These are just a few touch points of all the things Trump has done at the DOJ. The internal pressure campaigns, attacking his enemies. Every week, something happens and letting his friends off the hook. What do you think is the most lasting damage on the DOJ? Like, what's the impact over the long term?
49:36 Speaker 00 A two-part answer. As a reporter, not as a person, this makes me really sad. I have covered prosecutors, court cases, congressional investigations that stemmed from DOJ work since I was 30 years old. I don't know how this institution is going to recover. And the people who work there and are trying to hold it together, even though they're disgusted by what's happening around them, they tell me the damage is hard to recover from in a generation or two. Not only have you taken away centuries' worth of expertise by getting rid of
50:21 Speaker 00 the entire public integrity section, by getting rid of some of the most senior representatives at the Department of Justice for fighting counterterrorism. You, in one fell swoop,
50:34 Speaker 00 Donald Trump and his deputies got rid of everyone at the leadership level of the FBI who know how to oversee complex conspiracies, who understand how to investigate a mass casualty event, who are leaders who've grown up for 20-plus years. That's like impossible to replace. The second part is, and you hinted at it, Kara, when Pam Bondi's gone and there's a Democratic president and a Democratic appointee, how are they now supposed to operate? They're not going to take the Merrick Garland playbook, but what are they supposed to do to affirm trust in this, you know, very noble institution? Are they supposed to have a purge of Republicans who've been appointed?
51:19 Speaker 00 And when will Americans believe again, regardless of what side you're on, right? Politically, ideologically? When will Americans again believe that criminal charges are justified? Not the bidding of the president, right?
51:37 Kara Swisher? Right, right.
51:38 Speaker 00 Because he's already, as you said, they're not even embarrassed about it. Donald Trump told Pam Bondi who to indict.
51:44 Kara Swisher? Yeah, so every episode we get a question from an outside expert. Here's yours.
51:48 Speaker 06 Hi, my name is Jonathan Cantor. I was Assistant Attorney General for antitrust at the DOJ from 2021 to 2024. We can all agree that Donald Trump has obliterated the norms that stood as the foundation for the Justice Department since the Watergate era. My question is about what happens next? If and when the country decides that it's ready to rebuild the DOJ, how does it do it? Does it go back to the norms that seemed fit for a purpose in the Watergate era? Or do we reimagine the Justice Department for new era, post Donald Trump, and new political environment where the Justice Department needs to move more quickly, more decisively, and with greater independence?
52:27 Kara Swisher? There's the perfect question. And include the FBI in that.
52:30 Speaker 00 The only thing I can envision, and I've talked to a lot of people who are DOJ and FBI alums about this, they are envisioning something the same, is that there's going to be a post-Watergate-like moment and a post-Trump moment in which people realize that the trust is so important in this institution, that it's so critical to the principles of the founders about fair and equal justice, and that we need to trust that, that there's going to be some incredible impermeable line in between the White House and the Department and the FBI. You know, in the end of the first Trump presidency, we had sources telling us that Chris Wray
53:12 Speaker 00 had been warned over and over again by Bill Barr, "I am protecting you from Donald Trump firing you. He wants to fire you because you haven't indicted, investigated, swooped up this person." And Chris Wray was in a little bit of a defensive crouch, right? There's got to be a world in which the FBI director and the Attorney General can be impervious from a president who's willing to break the founders' promise.
53:42 Kara Swisher? So, speaking of that, in a recent op-ed, you explain all the things that happened in the country without a real Justice Department. At the end, you write, "Finally, without a real Justice Department, a president holding the reins of a corrupted institution can remain president permanently, free to manipulate election results with no real threat of being dethroned." You're using, obviously, a king reference. Is that where you think it's heading?
54:05 Speaker 00 I'm not trying to be suspenseful, but there's some really active reporting on this that I don't want to get into.
54:12 Kara Swisher? Well, you're being suspenseful then, but go ahead.
54:14 Speaker 00 I think that there are reasons that people are quite worried about a permanent non-dethroning. And I think I should stop there.
54:25 Kara Swisher? Meaning, and he's mentioned it himself, people want me to stay, and obviously Bannon has mentioned it, there's lots of people who.
54:31 Speaker 00 Sure, there are people mentioning it, but what's important, it's important how it could be possible. And I think the how it could be possible is where I have my eye.
54:41 Kara Swisher? And can you give an idea of that it is, then therefore it is possible if you're looking at it?
54:47 Speaker 00 I mean, it's possible to indict a ham sandwich. We never expected we would be indicting, you know, Letitia James for mortgage fraud based on documents that show she repeatedly said, this is not my primary residence. We never expected somebody would be indicted for that.
55:06 Kara Swisher? Right.
55:07 Speaker 00 Except for a president demanded it, fired everybody who resisted it, installed somebody who would do it. And we never expect that an election can be rigged or manipulated. We never expect that machine.
55:21 Kara Swisher? I expected that one, but go ahead. That one I expected.
55:25 Speaker 00 It's the how, Kara, it's the how. And I promise, when we know the how and what the details are, we'll be back with you.
55:34 Kara Swisher? Will they continue with these ridiculous prosecutions? Because in this case, it's a joke, I mean, he thinks himself his prosecutions were a joke, but these are an actual joke, you know, as you said, with those documents. Would Hillary Clinton be in his sights? Would others that he's talked about?
55:49 Speaker 00 Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Brennan, the list goes on and on. You know, I have seen internal documents about meetings that involve these subjects and where they want to go with these investigations. There have been discussions about Chris Wray and his deputies and his other leaders for allegedly withholding documents or destroying them, no evidence to back that up. There are a lot of people on Donald Trump's target list.
56:18 Kara Swisher? Very last question, when you look at all this, I mean, you've been covering institutions forever, right? When you look at all this, when you started covering this, did you ever imagine? This much shift because I think one of the things that goes through this book is, you know, every time Donald Trump does something, I have some liberal go, can you believe it? I'm like, yes, yes, he's done it 10 times. If I can believe it. And they're like, can you believe it? I'm like, yes, again, can you believe it as a reporter watching this happen?
56:50 Speaker 00 We put down the pen on this book, Injustice, in mid-April, first couple of weeks of April of this year. And I would never have imagined some of the things that have happened. I'll tell you, the sources we talked to warned us that it was possible. They were definitely in your camp. They were like, it's coming. You just wait. I remember sitting with a source high up in the Justice Department who said, this place is going to get shredded. And I thought it was
57:23 Kara Swisher? Dramatic?
57:24 Speaker 00 Scary sounding, close to possible, but it's all happening months after we put the pen down in such horrific fashion. The idea that US Attorney's Offices are being ordered to indict specific people without a public interest and without facts. I'll just quote John Keller, former head of the Public Integrity Section, who said, when I called him, and by the way, he's never talks to the press, but now he was forced out after he refused to get rid of New York Mayor Eric Adams bribery case, refused to
58:07 Speaker 00 dismiss it because he knew the evidence was very strong, wasn't going to do that political errand. And he said, charging people without factual basis, based on a politician's wish, this is the hallmark, you know, of a dictatorship. And he's totally right. And I never would have thought that I was quoting someone as saying that when we put the pen down to injustice. We were warned by our sources that this was coming, but even some of them, I don't think they knew it would be this bad.
58:40 Kara Swisher? Yeah, that's absolutely true. But thank you.
58:43 Speaker 00 Thank you for such a thoughtful conversation, Cara.
58:50 Kara Swisher? Today's show was produced by Christian Castor-Russell, Kateri Yoka, Michelle Aloy, Megan Burney, and Kalen Lynch. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Bradley Sylvester. Our engineers are Fernando Aruda and Rick Kwan, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you are stubbornly brave. If not, you get Judge Eileen Cannon, and good luck with that incompetent jurist. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Monday with more.
59:37 Speaker 05 What's the secret to being a great host this season? Keeping things deliciously simple, like mixing Simply Cranberry into a festive drink as guests arrive, or serving up a warm mug of Simply Apple on a chilly night. That means less time behind the scenes and more time in the moment with everyone. Crafted with real fruit, Simply juices and fruit drinks make any holiday drink effortless, inviting, and completely delicious. Simply. Say yes to simple.
1:00:06 Speaker 07 Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com/switch.
1:00:27 Speaker 08 Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.
1:00:36 Speaker 09 Observe. The North American Dad. 50s. Great polo collection. He enters his vehicle information on Carvana. An offer appears in minutes. Remarkable. He squints, reads it again, smiles and says, dang, that's a good offer. The highest form of approval. No haggling, no hassle. No one called him boss. He's still on the couch. Astonishing. Sell your car today on carvana.com. Pickup fees may apply.
Previous Why Scott Galloway Wants Us To Celebrate Masculinity, Not Diminish It Next What Everyone Gets Wrong About the Future of AI with Nick Foster Page updated October 31, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated