Why Rachel Maddow thinks the Department of Justice is dead

[0:00] This is a rebuke of the president's party that we haven't seen since Watergate. [0:06] Joining us on the podcast today is host of the Emmy Award-winning show, The Rachel Maddow Show. [0:13] She's also a New York Times bestselling author. [0:16] Rachel, hi. [0:17] So good to see you. [0:17] Amna, it's great to see you. [0:18] Thank you so much for doing this. [0:20] I'm really, really excited to have this conversation with you. [0:22] I should tell folks that we are talking just two days after a seismic midterm election. [0:28] There's a lot to talk about. [0:29] We're going to talk about that. [0:31] I think both of us are very tired, too. [0:33] After the last two days of coverage and a very late, late night. [0:36] But you have a new book out. [0:37] I do. [0:38] You have a new book called Department of Fate. [0:40] It's out now. [0:40] It focuses on the Justice Department. [0:43] Tell me about why. [0:44] Why this focus on the DOJ at this moment in history? [0:48] So I wanted to write this book because I realized there was something I was super wrong about [0:52] in the Trump era of American politics. [0:57] At the end of the first Trump term, given what happened at the Justice Department there, [1:02] with you might remember the sort of witch hunt against FBI agents like Peter Strzok and [1:08] Lisa Page and the Durham investigation to try to find criminality in the Russia investigation [1:13] and the pressure on individual U.S. attorneys to prosecute people like John Kerry and the [1:20] botched prosecution of Obama's White House counsel, all that kind of stuff, which is now forgotten [1:24] now, at the end of the first Trump term, made me conclude wrongly, and I think made a lot [1:30] of people conclude, that the Justice Department, if Trump ever got back for a second term, would [1:36] be supersized, would become essentially a nuclear weapon. [1:41] A lot of people talked about how Trump wanted the Justice Department to be his sword and his shield, [1:47] and I think I thought, based on the way he went out with the first term Justice Department, [1:54] that he really would do everything he could to super empower that department of government, [1:58] and it would become the most important and most potent part of his administration to effectuate the kind of aims that he wanted in his second term. [2:05] And instead, we have seen the opposite of that. The Justice Department has lost thousands of headcount. [2:12] Even as the Department of Homeland Security has been supersized, the Justice Department has been shrunk. [2:17] The Public Integrity Division is essentially gone. The National Security Division is essentially gone. [2:23] The Tax Division is essentially gone. The FBI, you know, with no offense, but they had two podcasters [2:31] as the number one and number two people in charge of the FBI. [2:34] It became much more of a of a of a joke and a curiosity than a mega weapon. [2:41] And that was very much unexpected for me. And so I wanted to explore why that was and and what it costs [2:48] us to have had the Justice Department essentially sort of leveled the way it has been. [2:53] I mean, the questions you seek to answer in this, and I should note, it's sweeping. Look, [2:57] this is not just about Trump won by any stretch. This is really a deep dive into the history of the Justice [3:02] Department, about how it was established, about its original intent, about its various eras along [3:07] the way. Before we dive into all of that, though, too, because I love for our audience to better [3:12] understand sort of how your brain works and how you come to ask some of these questions, you are [3:16] you're one of the most recognizable people in media on the planet today. And you are known for asking these [3:22] tough questions and big questions and then seeking to answer them in a substantive way. For folks unfamiliar, [3:28] how did you kind of come to be you and the journalist you are today? How did young Rachel [3:34] from Castro Valley, California, make her way through Stanford and then end up in journalism? How'd that [3:39] happen? Through no deliberate path. Like all good paths. To be truly honest with you. I am not a planner [3:48] and did not have a sort of goal in mind. Really, I sort of still don't. I ended up, I grew up in the San [3:57] Francisco Bay Area. I was born in 1973. I came out as gay when I was about 17. So I'll do the math for [4:05] you. That means it was about 1990. And in 1990 in the San Francisco Bay Area, if you know your modern [4:12] American history, you'll know that that was really the apex of the AIDS epidemic. And so coming out into [4:18] the gay community as a young person at that time was really coming into something that was a unique [4:27] and existential fight. I think a lot of people in their teens and early twenties, unless you're [4:33] in a war zone or you're in the, in the military, don't know people who are, who are dying or losing [4:38] their lives or fighting for their lives. And I, and I did, and I became an AIDS activist and that was [4:43] really my identity for the next decade of my life. Um, I was a kid who was in ACT UP. I, um, [4:51] did a, uh, I went to grad school in England. I, I worked on AIDS in prison issues. Um, and I did a [4:58] doctoral dissertation about that and social movements and prison reform. And I came back and I worked for [5:02] the ACLU National Prison Project. And I mean, it was really, really what I was doing. And I stumbled. [5:07] I like how you just glided over a doctoral dissertation, by the way. I just want to, [5:10] just real quick. Yep. Sure. No problem. But while I was studying for my doctorate, [5:18] the most pedestrian of all problems befell me, which is that I ran out of money and I started [5:25] taking odd jobs, very odd jobs. Like I was the delivery person for a coffee company, except my car [5:33] had electrical problems. And if you know anything about electrical problems in cars, you'll know that [5:37] they are wildly unpredictable. So nobody ever knew whether their delivery would get there anytime [5:43] soon. Um, I got hired essentially like as a handyman, even though I have no idea how to fix anything. [5:50] I, um, I was eventually hired to pull thorny bushes and rocks and weeds out of a garden for a person who [5:59] had just bought a new house. And I lasted one day on that job, but I did end up marrying the person who hired [6:05] me in that regard. So I had this very serious, very serious, strange set of odd jobs. And my oddest job [6:14] is that I responded to a call for open on air auditions for the job of news girl on a local [6:25] morning zoo radio show. That was the news gal morning zoo radio. Yeah. That was the actual job title [6:30] was news girl. Um, which I don't even know if that, if that's legal, I don't know that I think about it, [6:37] but I got the job and started the next day and it was just a side hustle for me for a long time. But I, [6:45] something clicked for me and I decided to change paths. What did you do as news girl? What was that? [6:51] What was that job like every day? Well, it's what we do now. I'm not, you and me, it was just, I'm a news girl [6:55] today. You're still a news girl. We're grownup news girls. This is what you look like when you get [7:01] to be, yeah, you and I, um, I would, I had, uh, AP rip and read copy. It was what they called it. [7:10] So top of the hour, bottom of the hour, uh, before the weather, but after the traffic, [7:17] I would come in with rip and read AP headlines and the host who was name, whose name was Dave in the [7:22] morning. Uh, Dave and I would banter about the news. That was his government name, Dave in the [7:26] morning. Exactly. And you know, and we'd give away concert tickets. You go stand out on the traffic [7:32] median and you know, do, do trivia questions at the red lights. And, um, yeah. Fascinating. And you [7:38] loved it. Something clicked. Something about even in that morning zoo, or maybe especially in that [7:43] morning zoo environment, being responsible for giving people real information and telling them [7:48] something about what it means was something I really liked immediately. Like in the first, [7:54] in, in the first few seconds of the audition, I realized, Oh, I'd never done anything like that [7:59] before, but I thought I, I like this. Um, and that led to, I did that for about a year. I quit. I went [8:08] and, uh, did my oral exams to get my doctorate at grad school. Um, a couple of weeks after that, [8:14] nine 11 happened, I realized, uh, that I really in that environment missed getting, giving people [8:21] the news and helping people understand what was going on. So I volunteered at our competing local [8:26] radio station and said, I'll, I'll work for free. I'll fill in shifts. And that led to a morning show [8:31] that led to eventually an audition with a national talk radio network called air America that led to [8:38] me being on TV sometimes. And that led to a TV show. And that led to me here talking to you today. [8:43] I mean, it, it's, uh, it's a very unique path, surely in those, in those early years, but you, [8:51] so many people got to know you through those radio shows, right? And I'll, I should know it too, [8:56] hosting, hosting a radio show, hosting a TV show, like they're very social experiences, right? You rely [9:03] on a lot of people. It takes a lot of people to get things done. It's a very different experience, [9:09] it seems to me then writing a book and you have written several books and this new one now that [9:15] we're going to talk about more in just a second. Do you like one experience better than the other? [9:19] Do they kind of feel, do they feed different parts of you? [9:22] Oh, that's a really good question. I, um, the thing that makes me crazy about writing books [9:29] is that when you were writing for the eye rather than writing for your own voice. So when you're writing [9:36] something that people are going to read rather than something that you are going to say on the [9:40] radio or on the television, um, there is a commit, there is a commitment level [9:48] to those words, which trips me up every time when I'm writing scripts for myself and I'm writing for [9:53] something that's going to be in the teleprompter for me to do my show at MSNBC. Um, I know because [9:59] I'm writing it because I'm in charge of that material that I can ad lib, I can fix it. I can, [10:05] um, dive, I can, I can diverge from it and come back to the script as need be. But when you're writing [10:10] for the eye, you're it's, it's final. And that freaks me out. And I, I mean, you, I, do you have [10:17] any of that? Does that, do you identify with that at all? I think our writing is so different for the [10:22] products that we put out, but you are so good at writing in your own voice, right? The way that you [10:26] deliver information on your show, it is, it is clearly and uniquely your voice. And I think very [10:33] few people would even hear you and think, oh, that's been written because it comes across so [10:37] authentically. But yeah, having you point out what, what people take in from when you're saying it [10:42] versus what they read on a piece of paper, like though, you don't know how they're going to take [10:45] it on a piece of paper. You got to make sure it's exactly the right word. Yeah. And I, and I do [10:49] a lot when I, when I had my radio show and, and when I talk in television now, I do a lot with [10:55] intonation and implied punctuation in the way that you speak. And you can convey a lot in terms [11:02] of your tone and tempo. And when you're writing for the writing, the written word, you don't have [11:08] that. You have to depend entirely on your ability to craft in print. And I'm not that great at it. [11:15] Um, and it makes me want to die. And so even this is my fifth book, this will be my last book. I am not [11:21] going to write another book. This will be your last book. This will be my last book. Five is plenty. [11:24] Why? I, because I, the process is, um, it takes, it takes life. It takes years off my lifespan. [11:32] Um, and I, I just feel like I, the other, the other thing is that I, I have this great opportunity, [11:39] this great platform for reaching people, which is what I have at MSNOW. Um, and the, both the [11:45] anchoring that I do here on special, special election events and other events and, and breaking [11:51] news, but also what I do in my show. And I feel like that's, that's, that's plenty in terms of people [11:56] hearing for me and my take on things for the books that I have written for each of them. I felt like [12:01] I had something to say. Yeah. That's an argument. Each of my books is essentially can be seen as a [12:07] long essay. And in each of them, I had an argument that I wanted to lay out that is just longer than [12:14] it would take for me to lay out in an hour long show, or even in a documentary or something else [12:19] that I might presume I might need for TV. It's a, it's a 300 or 400 page length argument that I want [12:24] to spell out. And I just think that if I'm being honest and I'm trying to be humble about the [12:29] limitations of my brain and my contributions, I don't know that anybody should have more than five [12:35] book length arguments in them to present to the American people, particularly if they have another [12:40] job. So this is, this is it. This is the last one you're going to get from me. But I did, I did [12:45] feel at the end of the first Trump term that this argument, I just wanted to get off my chest. I, [12:52] I sort of had to get it out there and it took me this long to write it, but here it is. [12:57] I will say, I'm going to save this clip because I don't believe you. And I feel like there's just [13:01] going to be too much happening and you're too young and there's too much to be explored and [13:06] questions to be answered. And I feel like a couple of years from now, we're going to be back here and [13:09] you're going to be like, so I lied and my next book comes out next week. [13:12] No, I'm going to do like, it'll be, if I've got another big argument, I'll, I'll do an epic poem [13:17] or I'll write a rap opera, or I will, I will do, I will, I'll be like, Amna, I know this is unusual [13:25] for PBS NewsHour, but what I'd really like to do is have you review my interpretive dance [13:30] about what went wrong at the Department of the Interior. [13:32] I will show up. [13:32] Yes. [13:33] Tell me the time and place. I will be there for you. If there's one common theme, and you correct me if [13:39] you think I'm wrong here, across a lot of your work, across your book work in particular, [13:44] you focus on power a lot. You focus on who holds it and how it's gained and how it's used and how [13:50] it's abused. Is that a fair assessment, first of all? And if so, why is that idea interesting to you? [13:55] That's an interesting take. I'm not sure I've heard that take before, but I don't. [14:00] Would you agree with it? Does it feel off? [14:02] I think I do agree with it. Certainly this current book. I think you're right that it is about power. [14:07] But military power, economic power, political power, global power, right? [14:12] I'm not wrong. [14:12] No, you're not wrong. You're right. But I think when you put it through that lens, [14:18] I think the things that maybe the unique through line through all of that is that it's about [14:23] people in power being doofuses. It's about power not [14:32] imbuing us with any superhuman either capacity or superhuman ability to [14:40] overcome our human frailties. Just take Drift, for example, the one about the military. That's not [14:49] about there being some mastermind conspiracy to move the power to declare war from the article one [14:56] legislature to the article two executive branch. And who behind it? It was just about like, ah, [15:02] people made a whole bunch of dumb decisions and they all went in the same direction and look where we [15:05] ended up. It's called Drift because we, oops, ended up in a completely unconstitutional place. [15:10] Right. [15:11] I think that's the theme is that power doesn't make us smarter. It just makes our failures [15:17] and idiocy more consequential. [15:19] Oh, wow. That is a statement. That is a statement. Okay. Let's talk about this book. [15:24] Let's talk about the DOJ because the very, very first story that you tell in this book, [15:28] it is about power. It includes a 1940 speech by the then Attorney General Robert Jackson. It was [15:34] appointed by FDR. It's a speech called the Federal Prosecutor. Why is that an important place to begin [15:42] for the argument you lay out here? The Federal Prosecutor, that speech by Robert Jackson is [15:49] a complete cliche among people who opine on the nature of the Justice Department and the rule of law [15:57] in the United States. It is the ur text that everybody thinks bolsters their own argument [16:05] about whatever it is they think about federal prosecutions, federal law enforcement, and the [16:09] Justice Department. And I tried to not fall into the same trap as everybody else in citing it as if it [16:17] backed me up because everybody on every side of every important issue in this field does that. But I [16:24] tried to talk about why it is that we all think that that's so important, why it is that that's [16:29] become this sort of pivotal. At the time it was very little noticed. That speech didn't land with a [16:34] splash. But I think the key insight that Jackson shared in that speech, which is why everybody goes [16:41] back to it, is that he essentially talks about the federal prosecutor as being really powerful, [16:46] as being somebody who can turn your life upside down, who can empty your universe of its [16:53] meaning and fill it with new meaning simply by his legal actions. And that, I think, actually is [17:01] the central insight that we should take forward about the Justice Department. My basic thesis in [17:06] this book is that the Justice Department is a different kind of cat. That it is different than [17:12] every other institution in the U.S. government. And it's different than every other institution [17:17] in the United States period, in that its actions more than any other institution that we've got, [17:24] more than any other organization, its actions set the course for what's allowed politically, [17:31] for what's allowed criminally, for what's allowed in terms of the bounds of citizenship and who counts as [17:37] a citizen. And importantly, and I think this is really often overlooked, it sets the bounds for what [17:42] happens in this country economically, for who is allowed to compete economically and on what rules. [17:48] And so, you know, going back 100 years to, you know, what I think of as the golden age of bribery [17:55] at the Justice Department, going back to the robber baron era and using what are supposed to be the [18:03] powers of the law that were supposed to restrict businesses to instead restrict the people who worked [18:09] at those businesses to restrict labor, looking at some of the high points of what the Justice Department [18:16] has done in order to effectuate the constitutional protections that make us a republic, and also the [18:21] worst things they have done. I'm just trying to make a case historically in this book that the Justice [18:26] Department is more consequential than any other institution that we've got. And now that we've got a [18:31] real problem with it, when we re-found it, when we rebuild it, we need to have that in mind when we [18:40] very carefully set up a new Department of Justice that will be more resilient against the kind of [18:47] things that have taken it down. We need to be really careful with this as an institution because more than [18:51] anything, it determines who we are as a country. So before we get to how it's rebuilt, or if it's [18:57] rebuilt, what that looks like, talk about how we got where we are now. And specifically around the role [19:04] of the attorney general, which you explore in here. You had a line in here that said, [19:07] from the start of the American republic, the attorney general of the United States had been the redheaded [19:12] stepchild of the cabinet. And this is a role that had very limited power at the beginning. And we went from [19:19] that to, let's go to the most recent example, you have Attorney General Todd Blanche essentially saying, [19:24] I work for President Trump. If you can, how did we get from one to the other? [19:30] Well, we've had a lot of terrible attorneys general over time. And we've had a lot of attorneys [19:36] general who have had totally inappropriate relationships with the president. We had, [19:41] I mean, John Mitchell was Nixon's campaign manager. John Mitchell, you might remember from his mugshot. [19:47] He was a bad choice for attorney general. Whether or not Robert F. Kennedy comported himself well as [19:55] attorney general, it was wildly inappropriate for the president to appoint his brother as the acting [20:00] attorney, as the attorney general of the United States, just as, and even I would say more inappropriate [20:05] than the president appointing now his personal lawyer, who considers himself, I think, to be the [20:11] president's personal lawyer in the role. We've had a lot of bad attorneys general. Attorney General [20:15] Richard Olney, for example, gets a lot of attention in the book. He was a real baddie. [20:19] He was the, he was, uh, you don't mean that in the way the kids mean it today. [20:23] No, no, no. I mean, I think the, I think the phrase that I use about Richard Olney is that he turned [20:30] the department of justice into a multi-story bribe department store, where you could like go to [20:36] different floors of the department of justice with different bribes to effectuate different outcomes, [20:41] depending on who they're paying for. I mean, there's been some really bad ones. Um, and that's, [20:48] I, I don't want to lionize the department of justice as if it used to be great and now it's bad. [20:54] But the justice department, I think it's important to recognize, wasn't founded when the country was [20:58] founded. The justice department was founded after the civil war essentially to make the promise of [21:07] reconstruction real. When the country was trying to reintegrate formerly enslaved Americans as full [21:15] citizens, at least male voting citizens, um, into the Republic. When the North was trying to ensure [21:23] that paramilitary murderous mob rule would not become essentially the governing force of the [21:30] Southern United States. When we had to, I mean, we as a country in the civil war were almost destroyed by [21:39] fire. And when we decided that we would have to rebuild ourselves as a Republic in the wake of that [21:46] hellfire to create ourselves a, to create in this country, a multi-racial democracy in which the [21:54] protections of the constitution of were afforded to everyone here, not only protected from their own [21:59] government, but protected from each other. We formed the justice department to do that. And the first [22:04] attorney general, once we had a justice department was named Amos Ackerman. Nobody remembers him. [22:09] But his heroic effort, um, in the, in the reconstruction era to try to make sure that the protections of [22:18] the constitution were extended to black Americans is I think an, um, an archetypal example, an example that [22:26] more Americans ought to have front of mind in terms of why we have a justice department and what it's for. [22:32] Yeah. You talk a lot about, you write a lot about the, the department's fight against the KKK, [22:37] for example, right? The, um, securing more than 3,000 indictments against Klansmen, more than a thousand [22:44] convictions during that first attorney general, um, Ackerman's tenure. Why, why is that fight, [22:50] fight against the KKK? Why is that so critical to what the DOJ would become? [22:55] It was really foundational as to why we had a justice department. I mean, we, it, [23:00] the department of justice is not a department of lawyers. Um, the, the attorney general position [23:07] preceded the justice department. And before there was a justice department, the attorney general was [23:12] just kind of the general counsel of the federal government, essentially giving legal advice to [23:17] cabinet advice to cabinet officials, um, and to the president. The reason we got a department of [23:22] justice was for a different purpose, was to make sure that the rule of law extended to Americans in [23:29] places where local law enforcement couldn't be counted on to ensure that. And so there was state [23:36] government in the south. There was local law enforcement in the south. There absolutely were [23:40] sheriffs. There was even an occupying military force in the south after the, after the civil war. [23:45] But the justice department came in, Amos Ackerman came in essentially through his own personal [23:50] conviction and, and initiative, even though he was the only southerner in the cabinet at the time, [23:54] even though he personally had been previously a slave owner, he took the outcome of the civil war to [24:01] heart and believed that the republic that stood after the civil war would have to not only bind up its [24:08] wounds, but extirpate the thing that had caused the civil war in the first place, which was this idea [24:13] that there was a massive class of Americans who should not count as citizens and shouldn't be [24:18] protected as such. And the south was very willing to carry on with that MO, with that modus operandi [24:25] in terms of how, um, the southern states operated both in terms of civil and criminal law. Um, until [24:32] Ackerman came in and said, no, the federal government created this department for a reason and it's to make [24:37] sure that this constitution applies everywhere. And I just, um, I think that that mission [24:45] is, uh, it's actually something that attorney general Merrick Garland talked a lot about while [24:49] he was, um, while he was in office, which I credit him for. Um, but that mission, I think also the, [24:55] the way the civil rights, the civil rights division of the justice department, um, conducted itself, [25:01] um, during the, during the civil rights era in the 1960s, I think there are moments when [25:08] the justice department does what only it could do and it changes the course of a nation in a way [25:13] that brings us closer to our constitutional protections and our constitutional ideals. [25:17] The justice department can also really do the wrong thing. Um, and when it allies itself [25:25] with the predatory powers, with, um, its political masters, with those who would deprive civil rights [25:32] to others or constitutional rights to others, it's an unstoppable force. And, um, we're seeing [25:40] certainly, I think that in the last decade. Um, and I, and I just think that when the justice department [25:48] is refounded, we need to understand how potent it is that we can't have a constitutional republic without [25:55] it. And if the justice department is sort of leveled, like it has been now, or if it's turned [26:00] against the democracy, if it's turned against the republic, it's a death ray. And, uh, we need to [26:07] treat it very, very differently than we treat every other element of our government. [26:11] So let's talk more about one of those sort of eras of predatory power, if you will, [26:15] because there are, there's so much in the book, but obviously the example that most folks will know [26:19] about is J. Edgar Hoover taking, you know, a single justice department agency, completely transforming [26:26] it into what is now the modern sort of centralized FBI. What, looking back now, what was his impact [26:33] on not just how that power could be wielded from within the department, but also how systems could [26:39] be set up so the power can be checked? Yeah. The, the story, the early story of J. Edgar Hoover, [26:44] I think a lot of us know the later story of Hoover and we know about the, uh, you know, profound [26:49] impact that an individual had on this whole very important part of the American government, having [26:54] been in power for so many decades. But the origin story for J. Edgar Hoover, I think is really instructive [26:59] because what, what Hoover sort of made his bones doing in his earliest days in the justice department [27:06] was, um, participating in what we now think of as the Palmer raids or the first red scare in which, [27:12] um, leftists and immigrants, and in particular, leftist immigrants were scapegoated and hunted in [27:19] a way that would be, would feel very familiar, um, for people who are watching some of that scapegoating [27:24] and hunting happening, um, in, in 21st century America today. But Hoover's, um, comeuppance in that [27:33] story was when there was judicial review of what the FBI or what, what the justice department was doing, [27:41] what federal agents were doing, when there had to be a factual check on whether or not the accusations [27:48] that were being made were accurate and whether or not the due process guaranteed by the constitution [27:53] was being followed, even for these scapegoated and demonized immigrants and, and, and leftists. [28:01] And Hoover was humiliated. He, he lost and he was humiliated and it brushed back the Hoover, that, [28:10] that early red scare era justice department in a way that I think Hoover never forgot. [28:16] And in the short term, that was really important in terms of thinking about the resolution of the [28:21] red scare. The reason we call it the red scare today, it led to, um, some, I think really admirable [28:28] heroics. There's one person we ha that I try to, I'm trying to sort of bring forward using the book, [28:34] um, a man called Lewis post in the book who's, who behaves incredibly boldly and admirably in a way [28:41] that I think ought to be remembered more closely in that time. But the lesson that Hoover takes from it [28:46] is to become more than anything, a bureaucratic infighter and master of bureaucratic intrigue and [28:52] blackmail. And so he never wants to be humiliated again. And if you want to understand something about [28:57] how Hoover used the powers of the FBI that he built in order to protect himself, to protect his kingdom, [29:04] to keep himself in power, I think those seeds were planted early in his career when he was humiliated [29:11] for his failings, um, in his, uh, rash on American and incredibly damaging targeting of immigrants, [29:20] um, in the, uh, in the early stages of his career. [29:23] Now, the Justice Department today, I think, has come under frequent criticism for becoming [29:31] politicized, for being weaponized, right? Not just in this modern Trump 2.0 era we're in, [29:38] but certainly during the first Trump administration, but also going back to Obama. I mean, [29:41] I recall Republicans saying that the DOJ had been weaponized under Eric Holder, and [29:45] this is just the kind of line that's tossed around these days. Has it always been that way? [29:51] Certainly there has always been available to both good faith and bad faith political actors the [30:01] argument that the Justice Department was being used inappropriately as a political weapon rather [30:05] than as a tool of law enforcement. That is, I think, both been a good faith and bad faith accusation [30:10] against every administration. Um, that doesn't mean that that's always what's happening, but it does [30:17] tell you that that's a value that we share left, right, and center. That the Justice Department [30:23] shouldn't be that. The Justice Department shouldn't be a weapon. Um, and I think you can factually [30:29] interrogate whether or not there's been abuses or, uh, line crossing, um, in terms of whether or not [30:36] Justice Departments were being used not just to pursue a President's broad policy priorities, but to, [30:41] um, pursue a President's political aims or personal aims. Um, and certainly I think it's very hard, [30:49] it's, your mileage may vary, but my take is that right now we've entered into an era in the Justice [30:54] Department when all bets are off in terms of how it will be used to benefit the President and his family. [31:00] Um, say more about that, and in particular the Bill Barr era of this all, which you talk about, [31:05] to you. This is someone who really advanced the whole unitary executive power idea, um, quite [31:11] aggressively. How, how did that kind of get us to where we are right now? [31:15] One of the other attorneys general who I highlight in the book is Ed Meese. Um, and Ed Meese was a [31:22] Reagan era attorney general. And, um, one of the things that I, I mean, maybe this is just for nerds, [31:29] but with the unitary executive theory- You're talking to the right people. [31:32] Yes, exactly. You know me, Amna. And I know you. Um, I think that people think of the unitary [31:40] executive theory, this idea of essentially a power, a President with like king-like powers. [31:45] Yeah. Basically the basic idea. We think of that as this, like, long-standing North Star of the [31:50] American right. And if there's one thing, that's, that's their gospel, that's what they believe in, [31:55] that's where they've always come from. Ed Meese kind of stumbled into the unitary executive theory. [32:01] Um, he is the most important early proponent of that theory and making it an, uh, making it a [32:07] operating rule of, of, of American governance. And he ended up there because he thought of [32:14] Ronald Reagan as his friend and Ronald Reagan did a whole bunch of stuff as president that [32:18] really seemed criminal. And Ed Meese really wanted to protect him. And when it came to defending [32:25] himself against, again, what is a, in a, a, a bipartisan American value, a bipartisan critique [32:31] of, Hey, you seem to be doing the president's bidding rather than doing the work of the people [32:36] here at the justice department. Meese freely conceded that when he did the things he did for [32:41] Ronald Reagan, he was not acting as attorney general. He was acting as the president's counselor [32:46] and friend, even though he was using the powers of the attorney general to do the kind of favors [32:51] that he did for Reagan. So, um, that the origin of this idea that the president has papal infallibility [33:00] and King like powers, uh, is a little fuzzier and sadder than I think most of us, um, have been led [33:08] to believe with given the degree of reference that it's paid in modern, in modern politics. But, um, [33:14] Bill Barr was certainly a fully dyed in the wall, um, believer. And in his first go round as attorney [33:24] general, um, you absolutely saw that in terms of him cleaning up the fallout of the Iran Contra affair. [33:30] Um, and in his second go round as attorney general, you saw it with him interceding to [33:36] protect the president from the Russia investigation. Um, and ultimately to turn the justice department [33:42] into the first inklings of what we see it as today, going after, you know, interceding in Roger [33:49] Stone's sentencing, interceding in Mike Flynn's guilty pleas about communications with the Russians, [33:55] interceding to try to get people like John Kerry prosecuted or Barack Obama's white house counsel, [34:01] Gregory Craig, or, uh, although Bill Barr gets so much credit for having supposedly balked at Trump's [34:08] worst, um, insistences, uh, in the wake of the 2020 election, um, Bill Barr absolutely did bring [34:16] the justice department deep into those murky waters, um, before he ultimately balked. [34:23] And when Barr did that, um, when he went after Pete Strzok and Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe, when he, [34:30] you know, pursued the Durham investigation, when he did all of those things, [34:33] I think he essentially turned the key off in the justice department in terms of it functioning as the [34:40] kind of law enforcement organization and constitutional organization that we consider it to be. It took [34:46] until the second term to really die, but I think that Barr deserves more credit for having killed it. [34:52] What's left of the department now? We began the conversation talking about the, the mass exodus [34:57] of staffers. There's, um, you know, just entire divisions that have been totally hollowed out or [35:02] completely cut. What is it today, the Department of Justice? What's left? [35:07] I think it is kind of the department of lawyers now, um, which I joked about before. That's not [35:14] what it is. It's kind of, I think the justice department is effectively gone and will need to be [35:18] recreated from, from scratch. Um, but with the national security division gone with the public [35:25] integrity division gone with the tax division gone with the civil rights division turned into an [35:32] unrecognizable caricature of, um, what it was founded to be. The justice department has essentially become [35:40] a place for performative pseudo legal maneuvers to demonstrate to the president that there are [35:48] efforts being made to lock up his opponents. Um, it's also become a place where you, um, cash in your, [35:57] poker chips to get money. I mean, to have in the second Trump term, you know, the, the parent company [36:05] of crypto.com, uh, just a few days after the inauguration gave a $5 million donation to MAGA Inc. [36:12] And then 25 days later, the justice department intervened on behalf of crypto.com and a major federal [36:18] lawsuit. This is an administration where you had a woman in Florida pay a million dollars to go to a [36:24] Mar-a-Lago sort of fundraising dinner, benefit dinner of some kind. Um, and then her son was [36:31] pardoned, given a free and full pardon by the president of the United States. So it's become [36:34] that, that, that department store is open again that I talked about. Um, but the justice department, [36:41] the, the thing that it hasn't become is a fearsome legal weapon. I mean, and there are exceptions. I mean, [36:49] invest criminal investigations and, and prosecutions are [36:53] absolutely punishing to the people who end up in their crosshairs. And there have been some very [36:58] scary successes. I would, I would argue from this, uh, era of the justice department, the Prairie View, [37:04] Texas, um, um, convictions, I would say would fall, fall into that category of the protesters there who [37:11] were given, um, sort of Al-Qaeda level sentences for their involvement in a protest that went very, [37:18] very wrong in Texas and anti ice protest. But, um, mostly what the justice department is right now [37:24] is a, is a place where people go to set the stage for getting disbarred. Um, it's a place where lawyers [37:32] go for, or maybe like third, fourth and fifth chance lawyers who can't get hired anywhere else [37:36] to go exhibit misconduct before a grand jury that gets them hauled before their, their state bar [37:42] association. I mean, it's become a, uh, legally it's become a disaster. Um, and that is an absolute [37:51] shame in terms of what we need the justice department to be and a blessing in terms of what I think the [37:56] president would like it to be capable of. Are there, from your research, from your sourcing, [38:02] like a lot of government agencies, I think, where people felt they devoted their lives to this mission [38:07] and they weren't going to leave, even if they didn't agree with the direction it was taking, [38:12] are there still those staffers inside? And if they are there, what do you think they should take away [38:18] from all of this? The folks who believe it can be rebuilt, I am going to stay, I'm going to be part of [38:22] the solution. I think it's a really, really, really, really hard decision for these, a lot of [38:27] these folks. I mean, sometimes the decision is made easy. Like there were prosecutors, for example, [38:34] the prosecutor, the U S attorney in, in, in Minneapolis, um, who was told after Renee [38:40] Good was killed by a federal agent that not only was the justice department not going to open any sort [38:48] of investigation into the killing, but the investigation they were going to open was going [38:52] to be into Renee Good's widow. That I think that, that U S attorney, however committed he was to his [38:59] career at the justice department, didn't have a very hard decision to make in terms of leaving rather [39:04] than doing that. Similarly, you saw at the, um, Southern district of New York, which used to be called [39:09] the sovereign district of New York because of its famed independence, not only it's, and not to mention [39:14] its importance at SDNY, um, this justice department waded in and told them to drop a well predicated [39:22] corruption investigation of New York city mayor, Eric Adams for explicitly political reasons, [39:28] because the president wanted political assistance from Eric Adams unrelated to his criminal case. [39:35] And so therefore the criminal, the well predicated, um, and at that point, legally well advanced [39:40] prosecution of Eric Adams, they were told to drop it. And those prosecutors resigned as well. And so [39:44] some, in, in some cases, the decision I think has been effectively made for you. If you have, [39:50] if you have a moral bone in your body, but then there are other people who are not being necessarily [39:55] asked to personally cross an ethical professional and legal red line. Um, but nevertheless realized [40:02] they are part of an organization that's no longer doing what the justice department is supposed to be [40:07] doing. And they have to decide whether to stay there and to act with integrity and thereby deliberately [40:15] or not sort of slow the role of what this department is trying to do, or should they get out and tell [40:21] what they know? And you see individual principled American justice department officials, lawyers, [40:27] line prosecutors making very hard decisions along those lines every day. And I don't, I don't deign to [40:33] judge, um, anybody individually for their, for their decision. But I, I do think that when it comes to [40:41] re-founding the justice department, we're going to need veterans of every era of DOJ, every living era [40:48] of the department of justice, we're going to need veterans, um, who have served, who have seen the [40:53] worst and who have seen the best of the department to come in and help us re-found a department in a [40:58] way that's going to make it more resilient in the future. [41:00] LESLIE KENDRICK When it's become so gutted, so politicized, so weaponized, um, so, it's lost so [41:07] much credibility, right? I think like all American institutions right now, in terms of how the general [41:13] public looks at it, how do you begin to rebuild that kind of institution? And what does it take for [41:21] that to happen? I mean, are you assuming this has to be, um, a new president in office, uh, an entirely [41:27] new Congress, which we'll get to in a moment as well, about the impact they could have here? [41:31] What, what does it take? [41:32] LESLIE KENDRICK Well, um, I don't mean to wade too much into kind of current events, but [41:38] LESLIE KENDRICK Yeah. [41:39] LESLIE KENDRICK Purely from the perspective of what I see as the history of the justice department for the [41:47] past, from when it was founded 150 years ago to today, um, I think that one of the things that [41:53] needs to happen needs to happen right away, right now, which is that I think Todd Blanche as attorney [41:59] general should be impeached. And I don't say that out of any animus for Mr. Blanche. Um, I say that [42:06] because I think it's really important, particularly because Donald Trump's going to be president for [42:11] another two years, that a message be sent that actually, you know, you can't do this stuff. [42:16] You can't, um, use the powers of the justice department completely in contravention of justice [42:24] department policy and, um, uniform criminal procedure. You, you can't use the powers of the [42:30] justice department to harass democratic candidates for office and their families in the days leading [42:37] up to elections. You can't use the powers of the justice department to try to seize the control of [42:43] elections, uh, seize control of elections or to, um, harass, intimidate, and hamstring local election [42:50] officials in the conduct of their duties. Like you just, you can't, you can't get away with that. [42:54] And, um, I, I think that if the Congress wants to protect the rule of law and wants to get us back [43:04] to a justice department that operates the way a justice department ought to operate, they need to [43:10] start by making clear that the stuff that justice department has been doing these past two years [43:14] is stuff that nobody's going to get away with. And, um, the way that you should do that is by impeaching [43:19] the leadership of the justice department. Harmeet Dillon, as we speak today, um, who's the head of [43:23] the civil rights division has just resigned. She can no longer be impeached because she has resigned. [43:27] Um, but Todd Blanche can be impeached for, I mean, pick it, let's pick one. Todd Blanche goes and meets [43:36] with, um, Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted for her role in the Jeffrey Epstein child sex trafficking [43:43] scandal. Um, he interviews her specifically about the culpability of the president of the [43:49] United States. She, without evidence and without any factual cooperation, asserts that the president [43:55] of the United States is white as the driven snow, absolutely in the clear, and a really great guy [44:00] to boot. She is immediately then apparently rewarded with being moved to a minimum security [44:05] prison where she gets to have a puppy. I mean, just pick that. Like that's, um, let's start there. [44:12] Like you don't even need to get to election day. Um, but Rachel, do you think Democrats coming in, [44:18] we're going to talk more about the Democrats and what they do with their new majorities and their [44:21] power? Is this a priority for them? You think to impeach Todd Blanche given the slate of issues [44:27] that they say they want to address even in the first hundred days? I think they should. I don't [44:32] know if they will. I think that it's important if we want to try to make sure that our country isn't [44:37] going to be a kleptocracy, um, that we punish stealing, um, and that we punish corruption and that [44:45] we punish abuse of power and abuse of authority. And, um, the thing about the impeachment process [44:51] is that it doesn't need to be a big public shaming or a big spectacle. The point of the impeachment [44:57] process is to not only turf somebody out of office, but to ban them from office for life. And in the [45:04] case of Todd Blanche, I think that that is the right remedy to a really big problem. And I think it would [45:11] draw a line, a hard line, under what we've seen in these past couple of years and make sure that the [45:17] Justice Department has refounded along lines that won't ever allow this to happen again. [45:21] Can I just ask you briefly about the amount of research that went into this book? I mean, [45:25] I know you said earlier that every book takes years off of your life, but man, what did it take to pull [45:33] this level of detail over the span and the scope that you cover into this one department? [45:38] Amna, when I die, I can tell you right now, I am going to die because I'm going to be crushed [45:44] under a toppling pile of paper. It'll either be a bookcase tipping over, or it'll just be one of [45:53] these leaning towers of paper. I mean, I am, I'm also old enough that I don't just don't do everything [45:58] digitally. I have to like print everything out. Do you really? Are you, you're a hard copy kind of, [46:02] I mean, I'm holding papers in my hand as we speak, so yes. Exactly. I mean, while I'm talking to you, [46:06] yeah, like, yeah, yeah, correct. This is me. And so like, you know, Susan will come in to like, [46:12] come get me like, honey, it's 11 o'clock. Are we going to have dinner? And I'm like laying on the [46:17] floor with my back pillow, rereading Debs's testimony to the railroad commission investigation [46:23] and the, you know, like I just, uh, I get obsessed with this stuff. And, and the, and the nice thing, [46:30] I will say the, the nice thing about working on this book is that it's, um, it's divided into parts [46:35] and each part is kind of an era. So this isn't a uniform tip to tail history of the, and everything [46:40] the justice department has ever done. It's essentially like seven instances in the justice department [46:45] history. Um, you know, there's a Hoover one, there's this guy Olney, highly recommend the Olney [46:51] section. Ackerman, the Ackerman stuff from the reconstruction is the most moving stuff I've ever seen [46:56] in my life. Yeah. Lewis post there's, there's just these few characters in these few anecdotes. And [47:01] rather than trying to do, you know, like the Ken Burns 20 part, um, documentary series in which you [47:08] hit every single thing that this department ever did. I didn't just, I think we could do this. [47:15] I mean, I shouldn't even deign to put myself in the same sentence with him, but, um, it lets, [47:20] it let me just dig into these stories that I really care about and swim around in them. [47:26] And tell you everything that I think is important about them. Um, and so I basically [47:31] divided it into seven parts and spent months on each part. And, um, then I really enjoyed picking [47:37] out pictures of each of my attorneys general for each of the sections, start of the sections [47:42] of the book, including my favorite picture of Bill Barr ever in which it looks like he's just [47:47] swallowed a tasty child. Sorry. I love that picking the photos was one of your favorite parts. [48:03] Okay. Okay. Listen, you've been so generous with your time. I have to ask you about these midterm [48:08] elections. What were they? Midterm? What? Rachel. Yes. Rachel Maddow. Have you slept? [48:15] Uh, a little. Not much. A little. How late was your coverage on Tuesday night? We actually went till a [48:20] little before one. So it wasn't as bad. I know you, your team over at MSNOW and other folks are [48:25] going 24 seven just kept going and God bless you. And I know people out there were interested because [48:31] what we just saw is unlike anything we've seen in modern American politics. And I just, [48:37] what, what was your reaction as you were watching results come in? What were you thinking? [48:40] I kept thinking this is something that I think Chris Hayes, my colleague, Chris Hayes has gotten, [48:47] rightfully gotten some attention for, but I started to get a little like, oh my God, [48:54] I didn't study enough. Like a little panicky as the night went on because the Democrats, [48:59] anytime like a Democrat is flipping a seat, like a Republican held seat is going to a Democrat. It's [49:05] news because it matters in terms of the overall balance of power. It matters in terms of, you know, [49:09] individual states, what it means about the politics. There matters about the balance of [49:12] power within the congressional delegation of what we previously thought of as red states. [49:16] Like it's really consequential and lots of food for discussion. And that's kind of my job [49:21] on anchoring on election night and all these things. And we're, we're getting to these races [49:26] where it's like, who McGillicuddy now? You're saying, I'm sorry, Indiana's fifth district and his name [49:35] is J.D. Ford. And he names his cat who is Sir Aaron Purr on his campaign bio sheet. And I did [49:44] not study J.D. Ford because I did not think that Ms. Sparts, the Republican, the safe Republican incumbent [49:50] in Indiana's fifth district was going to be on the table tonight. I just thought like, oh my God, [49:56] I didn't read enough. I love that that was your first instinct. Yeah. I am unprepared. You're so, [50:01] you're so like me, the kid in the front row with her hand up, like, wait a second. I have questions. [50:06] Like, I don't know that much about the Louisiana Senate race. I'm sorry. [50:11] I know. Like, am I pronouncing this name correctly? I really hope so. But what, I mean, the scope of the [50:17] wins and we're still, we should, as you and I speak now, we still don't know the size of the entire [50:22] majority, right? Because some of these things are still coming in. But what, what did that, what does [50:26] that say to you about where we are, about the message that Americans are sending right now? [50:33] This is a rebuke of the president's party that we haven't seen since Watergate. And Watergate [50:39] included the president resigning. And I really think that we have underappreciated [50:48] what the Republican Party has done to itself during the Trump era, in terms of being able to present a [50:58] face to the American public, either after Trump is gone from the scene, or once the American public [51:04] has decided they are done with him. When you've organized yourself in something that, you know, [51:10] has a little touch of the cult of personality, when, you know, you're inventing fake awards to declare [51:16] him, man of the century, and you're literally rolling out golden statues of him at CPAC, which [51:21] they did. When you've, when you've got that kind of a leader-driven, personality-driven transformation [51:30] of the party, you are setting yourself up for really, really unprecedented chaos and disorder [51:42] and ultimately political failure when either the public sours on that figure or he's gone. [51:48] And we just got there faster than, than I think they thought that we were going to. I think they [51:53] thought they would have until Trump was out of office. When they said that, you know, we should [51:58] imagine Trump on the ballot in, in, in 2026, I absolutely think people did. And this is what it, it [52:08] got them. So it's really important for our country that we have healthy political parties that compete [52:15] on earnest territory, that compete not in terms of just attention and not in terms of provocation, [52:24] but in terms of ideas for governing. And we don't have that right now. But the Democratic Party is [52:32] intent on being a governing party. And they're now going to get to demonstrate that, both in the [52:36] the legislative branch in Washington and in states all over the country. And they got a lot to prove. [52:42] But I think all of us who hope for the best for our country are hoping for either the Republican [52:49] Party or its successor. Maybe it goes away and there's some successor party that arises out of this. [52:54] But there has to be earnest competition in governing terms. And for, in order for us to get the best [53:03] policy outcomes and the best outcomes for the American people. And I think we're all hoping [53:06] for a return to that after whatever's happening in the Republican Party runs its course. I don't, [53:12] I don't think the bottom, I don't think we've found the bottom yet. We'll see what happens for 2020. [53:15] Well, that's my next question. Is this, is this sort of the end? I'd be glad, [53:18] is this the end of MAGA? Is it the end of Trumpism? And also, you just said, [53:22] if the Republican Party goes away, if there's some other version of it, I have not heard that view [53:27] articulated yet. You think this could be the end of an entire party or just, it recalibrates, [53:33] finds some other way forward? I mean, well, first I'm sort of quoting Ron DeSantis there, [53:38] the Republican governor of Florida, talking about this being an all but extinction level [53:42] event for the Republican Party. I think that's right. So there's, there's that. But I also think, [53:49] you know, when I go back to like that, the golden statue of Trump that was rolled out at, [53:54] at CPAC not long ago, is that Republican Party, the same Republican Party that elected Richard [54:01] Nixon, you know, that elected Dwight Eisenhower? I mean, so maybe, maybe it's still called the [54:08] Republican Party, but there, it's so radically transformed that it's effectively a different [54:13] kind of party. Whatever the distinction was, the, whatever the, the degree of distinction was [54:21] between MAGA Trump Republicanism and pre Donald Trump Republicanism. I think we're going to need [54:29] to see that distinction again, in the other direction, in order for the Republicans to get [54:34] back to being a governing entity. And that may, I mean, I don't know if they're going to change their [54:39] name as a party, but it's going to have to be a pretty radical transformation. I mean, I think if, [54:43] if you held the presidential election, um, right now, today, and JD Vance were the Republican, [54:53] were the Republican choice, and literally any of the governors who just won on the Democratic side, [55:01] any governor from any Democratic state that won anywhere in the country where the Democratic nominee, [55:05] I think JD Vance would get 35% of the vote. Um, I think right now they are at a political, [55:13] um, a, a low ebb, but I don't think they're at their, at their nadir. [55:20] What do you think the next two years hold? Because let's remember, Donald Trump still has two more [55:24] years, um, in this term, and the Democrats have strong majorities, but he has reminded everyone [55:32] that he has a veto power. He is not afraid to use it. Uh, what do you, what do you think the next two [55:38] years could look like for us? And we'll circle back in 28 and see if you were right. [55:42] Yeah, exactly. Well, they're definitely going to result in me not writing another book. [55:48] Again, I refuse to believe that, but go on. Um, I don't know. I mean, [55:52] we'll see what the Democrats got in them, but I, I do think that it is not a, an either or choice [55:59] between governing in a way that is designed to make people's life better. Like the Medicaid cuts, [56:05] Medicaid is health insurance and the Medicaid health insurance cuts are an, an almost [56:14] unimaginably, um, like magnificently destructive blow to the finances of the poorest people in [56:24] the country. Like there's healthcare is so expensive and is something that you can't choose [56:31] not to need and to have the skyrocketing numbers of people without health insurance, starting with, [56:39] with Medicaid health insurance, but also everybody's got insured through the affordable care act and [56:43] everybody else who's being priced out of insurance right now, specifically because of things the [56:46] Republicans did under Trump in his first two years in this term. I mean, those are policy decisions that [56:52] the Democrats can reverse, and those will save many, many lives and turn around the fortunes of [56:59] many, many families in ways that will have multi-generational impact. And I just think they've, [57:04] they've got to do that. I mean, I think in states like Pennsylvania, where Democrats now have a [57:08] governing trifecta where they haven't in, in years and years and years, I think you are going to see the [57:13] minimum wage in Pennsylvania no longer be $7 something an hour. I think that they're going to do [57:20] practical, I think that, I think they're going to practically come up with ways to constrain the [57:25] disastrous tariffs that have been so ruinous to American farmers and small businesses. I just, [57:30] I just, I think those things are going to happen. I think they, they may either through political [57:35] suasion or through the power of the purse, they may figure out a way to bring an end to the Iran war. [57:40] It doesn't seem clear to me at all that that will result in a return to this, to normalcy in this, [57:46] in the state of Hormuz. I think that Donald Trump may have broken that in a way that can't be [57:50] repaired, but they will certainly stop it from getting, I think they could stop it from getting [57:54] worse. And that'll have a big impact on energy prices, which has a big impact on everybody else's [57:58] prices. So there's, there's stuff that they can start working on immediately, student loans, rent, [58:04] housing, healthcare, all of those things. And, and in order to hold on to your democracy, [58:13] in order to hold on to your constitutional republic, you must also police the rule of law. [58:18] You must also make it so that there isn't a market for pardons so that the president's sons [58:25] and sons-in-law aren't personally invested in companies and other entities that are benefiting [58:31] from us government policy so that the president isn't able to, um, offer, um, access to people who [58:39] literally give him money through his cryptocurrency schemes. Um, there, there is an element of, [58:46] uh, you can't get away with this stuff anymore that needs to happen, not just for revenge, [58:52] but so that we don't have another two years of it because it is ruinous to the government and to [58:56] the country. And I, I really think that the impeachment power, um, that starts in the house and, [59:04] and, and goes to the Senate is a power that Democrats ought to be thinking about, not necessarily, [59:10] I don't know if they're going to think about it for the president. Um, but there's a lot of [59:14] Senate confirmed positions, um, whether it's Pete Hegseth, whether it's Robert F. Kennedy, I, [59:20] I would strongly argue for the consideration of, of Todd Blanche, given what's happened at the Justice [59:25] Department, where a line can be drawn to say, you can't actually get away with what you've done [59:30] and what you've overseen the last two years. You're not going to do more of it. And you, [59:33] in fact, are barred from public service for life. And I think that founders wanted [59:39] the legislative branch to be the first among equals. They wanted that to be a really robust power source [59:45] in our country, the most robust power source in our country. And I think Democrats should rise to that [59:51] occasion right now. I don't know, Rachel, sounds like a lot of good fodder for another book. [59:56] Rachel Maddow, you are, um, such a joy to speak with. Thank you so, so much for making the time. [1:00:09] Your new book, Department of Fate, is out now. Thanks again. I appreciate it. [1:00:14] Thank you so much. It's a blessing to have this much time with you, my friend. Thank you so much.