Panel: Why did Trump fire Bondi?

[0:00] Ellie Honig is here with us in our fifth seat, former federal prosecutor [0:03] in his own right. Ellie, she's in the unenviable position of being hated by a lot of people for a [0:10] lot of different reasons. What do you think is the real reason that she shouldn't have a job right [0:16] now? Well, the reason she shouldn't have a job or the reason she doesn't have a job, the reason she [0:20] shouldn't have a job is because she carried out Donald Trump's overtly, overtly political agenda [0:26] to prosecute people who wronged him politically. The reason she doesn't have a job is because she [0:31] wasn't good enough at it. And I do think Pam Bondi can perhaps be a source of cross ideological [0:37] agreement. So we have Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives. Does anyone at this table [0:41] think that Pam Bondi was a good attorney general? Speak now. Yeah, I think in some cases she was [0:47] effective and others she wasn't. I think the handling of the Epstein files undoubtedly was [0:52] botched from the beginning. Donald Trump disagrees with you because he just fired her. So he doesn't [0:57] think she was any good. [0:58] Oh, no, he's not saying that she had a failed first year, clearly. Oh, it's a ringing endorsement [1:03] a long time ago. I mean, clearly she didn't do what he wanted to get done in that particular [1:08] position over the course of the year. But that doesn't mean that there were any successes. [1:12] What's the best thing she did? Specifically at crime. Crime is down. She's been making a point [1:16] to go after actual criminals, including cartel tied cells in this country. She also was the head [1:22] of the AG's office as we actually went after the Antifa groups that people pretended didn't exist [1:26] for about six years. These are great. [1:28] So those are. [1:28] Let me give you some stats. There's truth. Their crime is down across the country. That's a great [1:32] thing. That's a good thing. Pam Bondi presided over the dismissal and closing out of 23,000 [1:38] criminal cases, federal cases, gun cases, drug cases, violence cases, more than any DOJ since [1:44] 2004. She got rid of those cases. Why? So they could do more immigration prosecution. So yes, [1:50] crime rates fell. You can attribute that to a whole lot of factors. Never believe anyone who [1:54] tells you. And they were falling long before Trump. They were falling. But the fact is. [1:57] Immigration cases. [1:58] DOJ. No crime. Would you rather prosecute an immigration case or. Crime was falling at [2:02] historic rates before Trump came into office. That's also true. But I but I want to get to why [2:08] she was fired because I think this is important. She was fired because she didn't go after Trump's [2:13] political opponents. Now Trump has put in somebody, his former personal attorney, [2:18] who I presume he thinks at least on a temporary basis will do that. Is this where we're at right [2:24] now in this country where it's just like one attorney general after another? [2:28] Will he gets the prosecutions that he wants? [2:31] Well, I think that's a certain conclusion that you could jump to. I mean, yeah, this is the second [2:37] cabinet figure in a few weeks who's been fired. I think most Republicans would look at that, though, [2:42] and say, look, Trump is eager to find somebody who is competent. And when you look at the things that [2:47] a lot of Republicans are eager for the attorney general to do, I don't think the lawfare is. [2:53] And I think, as Jason mentioned, a lot of it's going after Antifa. That's a big part of it. A lot of it's going [2:59] after some of the foreign money that's funding Code Pink and some of the protests. [3:03] But he wants the lawfare. I mean, is that appropriate? [3:07] So no, but I wouldn't frame it that way. The same way that you guys didn't frame it when [3:14] Steve Bannon was targeted. No Democrat sent out a tweet asking to prosecute three specific people. [3:20] You had people who said that you wanted to throw Donald Trump in jail and you wanted to take him [3:24] off of a ballot so he could run for president. Who are these people? Who are these people? [3:29] You're talking about the Democratic Party. You're talking about the Democratic Party. [3:30] So clearly this idea, the framing, I think your point is a valid one. [3:35] But you understand that that is very different from the president directing his attorney general in public, mind you, as he did. [3:42] Pam, I've reviewed the 30 statements. What about Comey, Adam Schiff, Letitia? Publicly, right? He's doing this. [3:50] It's very different from a state doing whatever they're doing, from a local district attorney prosecuting a case. That is different. [3:59] When the president says, why are you not prosecuting these people who I hate? [4:03] Who he believes broke law. [4:04] Now, you can disagree as to whether or not they broke any laws, and you can have a fair argument, I think, about the appropriateness of the president doing it. [4:12] But I do think that the framing is important. [4:14] So you're defending it then. [4:15] I'm defending the president saying someone, in his view, broke the law and we should be targeting that person. [4:20] The same exact way Democrats said that about Donald Trump, and it wasn't framed as Donald Trump is being targeted as a political advocate. [4:26] Jason, you're making that sound as if it's reasonable, and it's not. [4:29] The president making a unilateral determination in his own mind that somebody has broken the law, without providing, by the way, any proof of that, and then directing an investigation into that person, that is not appropriate. [4:46] I'm sorry, if you don't like partisan prosecutions, you should also not like that. [4:52] Even if we take it as a given that there was prosecutorial overkill against Donald Trump, and I've said publicly that I believe there was. [4:58] Especially from the state. [4:59] And even to an extent from some of the federal prosecutions from Jack Smith. [5:03] That does not justify going out and charging Letitia James for mortgage fraud. [5:08] And that was rejected by a judge and a grand jury. [5:09] It does not justify charging Jim Comey. [5:11] I'm no fan of Jim Comey with an age-old, flimsy perjury charge. [5:16] It does not justify trying to charge Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin for something that is simply not a crime. [5:22] And if this is going to be the way things go, you did it to me, I'm going to do it to you. [5:26] Are you okay with, let's say there's a Democrat, hold on, hold on. [5:29] Let's say there's a Democratic president, there will be a Democratic president at some point in this country's future. [5:34] Are you okay with them saying, this is the game now, we're going to go seek out everyone on the other side who disagrees with us? [5:39] Unfortunately, that's already a talking point. [5:40] J.B. Pritzker is already talking about Project 2029 and trying to put Trump officials in jail. [5:45] I'm not okay with that. [5:46] Unfortunately, this seems to be a sort of tit-for-tat thing. [5:49] And I guess, to your point, I mean, the system is working, right? [5:52] So there was evidence that Letitia James may have committed some mortgage fraud that was looked into. [5:56] And ultimately, a jury of her peers decided that wasn't legitimate. [6:00] So I think there was... [6:02] I'm glad the system is working against the person who's actively trying to destroy it. [6:05] I mean, the beautiful part of America is that we have institutions and checks and balances that are separate from the president. [6:10] And you can see time and time again, Donald Trump is trying to bully other institutions under his wing. [6:15] So we can look at Jerome Powell at the Federal Reserve. [6:18] If you look at countries where the president is able to control monetary policy, [6:22] these are some of the worst countries in the world, right? [6:24] You do not want the president controlling monetary policy. [6:27] This is happening in countries like Venezuela. [6:29] Let's take this over to the DOJ. [6:30] You do not want the president directing the DOJ to prosecute people, to indict people. [6:35] And that is exactly what we saw. [6:36] We just watched a clip of Pam Bondi saying, [6:38] there will never be an enemies list at the DOJ. [6:40] Well, Abby just read off an enemies list that Donald Trump quite literally sent out. [6:44] Has any Democrat... [6:44] Did Joe Biden do that? [6:45] Is there any example of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or any of them having an enemies list? [6:49] Letitia James and Alvin Bragg, people literally ran on putting Donald Trump in jail. [6:55] I think we can all agree that there was politicization against... [6:57] But in answer to his question, which is... [7:00] Important. [7:01] Is there an example that you all can cite of the president directing the investigation or the prosecution... [7:06] Joe Biden's staff did not tweet on his behalf. [7:08] ...into anyone? [7:09] No, they didn't put it out there in public. [7:11] All right, what's up? [7:12] I'm glad that we're in agreement on that. [7:13] There is agreement on that. [7:14] The president is more public about this. [7:16] And I don't think that is a smart move from his... [7:19] It's not that he's more public about it. [7:20] It's that he is doing it when there is zero evidence that it was done by the people that he claims did it to him. [7:27] You guys are attributing investigations in Georgia... [7:30] ...and investigations in New York to Joe Biden with no proof. [7:34] That doesn't make any sense. [7:35] I'm sorry, it does not make sense. [7:37] There was a tradition that the president of the United States, the White House, did not talk to the Department of Justice. [7:42] When I was in the White House, literally you couldn't call the Department of Justice and ask about a press release... [7:46] ...without talking to the counsel's office first and getting clearance. [7:49] This idea that the president of the United States can direct the attorney general to go after his individual enemies... [7:56] ...is going to corrupt the entire system. [7:58] And it will go when it starts to be... [8:00] ...a Democratic president doing this. [8:01] People on the table will howl when they see it. [8:04] But I'll say this about Donald Trump. [8:05] Nobody can program the news better than this guy. [8:08] He flailed last night. [8:09] Last night he gave a horrible speech. [8:11] He's bad at doing it. [8:12] I understand why he doesn't do it, because he wasn't very good at it. [8:15] He didn't give us any headline about the war. [8:17] And this morning, or today, he dropped this news about Pam Bondi. [8:20] And now the headline of the news is about Pam Bondi. [8:23] And we're not talking about that bad speech he gave about last night. [8:25] Don't worry, we'll be talking about the war coming up. [8:27] Let me play... [8:28] This is Todd Blanchett, CPAC. [8:30] A couple of days ago. [8:32] Just to give you a sense of what kind of positioning he is in... [8:36] ...going into this new role. [8:38] There is not a single man or woman at the Department of Justice... [8:44] ...who had anything to do with those prosecutions. [8:47] Director Patel has cleaned house there, too. [8:49] There isn't a single man or woman with a gun, federal agent... [8:54] ...still in that organization... [8:58] ...that had anything to do with the prosecution of President Trump. [9:00] So, Ellie, I mean... [9:03] There are a lot of problems with that, including that many of the people that they're talking about... [9:08] ...are just regular civil servants doing their jobs. [9:12] People who are asked to work on cases and who did them. [9:15] And they were purged. [9:16] You know what galls me about that? [9:18] So, Todd Blanchett and I were at the SDNY together. [9:20] We were contemporaries. [9:21] We started within a year or two of each other. [9:23] And he is talking about and ginning up cheers... [9:28] ...for the fact that they fire people just like what he once was. [9:32] Third year, fourth year, fifth year... [9:34] ...line AUSAs, federal prosecutors, doing their job, doing their job faithfully. [9:39] I have problems with some of the things Jack Smith did. [9:41] But to fire the paralegals and the support staff and the FBI agents... [9:45] ...and the kid on a detail from the Eastern District of Missouri who's in his third year... [9:49] ...that's exactly what Todd used to be himself. [9:53] And to go in front of that crowd, it's a different person. [9:55] I don't recognize him now. [9:56] And I've defended Todd Blanchett publicly. [9:58] When he was representing Donald Trump in the Hush Money case... [10:01] ...I publicly said the criticism of Todd Blanchett... [10:03] ...for defending Donald Trump. [10:04] Is ridiculous and unfounded. [10:06] But he knows what he's doing now is dead wrong. [10:08] And to Jamal's point, the fundamental line that's been breached here... [10:11] ...you can argue about who did it, but it's getting worse now... [10:14] ...is crossing over prosecution with politics. [10:17] That's a dangerous mix, no matter who's doing it. [10:19] Yeah, I mean, look, one of the investigations was into Trump's role in January 6th. [10:25] And if I'm old enough to remember, Republicans said that that was the way... [10:30] ...that Donald Trump needed to be punished for what he did on that day. [10:34] And now, all of a sudden, it's some kind of partisan prosecution. [10:38] Mitch McConnell was on the Senate floor saying that that is the methodology, not impeachment. [10:45] Take him to court. Charge him with a crime. [10:49] And so that's how the system worked. [10:51] And now all of those people have lost their jobs... [10:53] ...because the DOJ is a very different place today than it has been in recent years. [10:57] Ellie Honig, thank you.