providing tv to yours as a public service. ♪♪ >> you are watching tv on c-span2 with cap nonfiction books and authors every weekend. book tv, television for serious readers. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪

>> good afternoon and welcome to washington post live. i'm a national investigative reporter here the washington post and i'm privileged to have with me today former fbi director, jim montgomery. welcome, we are going to talk about your book, saving justice, truth, transparency and trust but i am glad you could join us. >> good to be with you. >> i think this is our second time and this kind of forum. a lot of things have happened since we last saw each other and we have the last astonishing few days. let's go right to questions about the seat on the capital. what is your reaction? what were you thinking when you saw this unfolding january 6?

>> i had two reactions. one, when the hope every human had, i was sickened this reality of our democracy under on results. the second reaction was my career in law enforcement, growing anger that was happening at all. i was mystified the hill wasn't better defended the threat that seemed obvious. >> from your experience dealing with incidences a like this, what you think the failures are have the chief admitting he failed in others failed him. we have the fbi saying they got a warning the day before but they didn't put it in people's faces, what is your thought about that failure? >> that's hard to answer from the outside without a comprehensive investigation but

it seems not about failure of imagination which is what they criticized government for 9/11. we hadn't envisioned the way the company this was a transient world, it's just why the capital didn't have the parameters it needed and officers and troops it needed has to be figured out through investigation. i can't tell from here who, what and when, who made the decisions but we need the answers because this is not going away. >> one thing in your book so clean and this experience, you view many of the things you struggle with, failure on the hill and to notice the threat, would be the disturbing instigation of the president and his group with this group, you

feel there is a large group of people in law enforcement, in the police force that protects us, they view it as a serious threat because these are white conservative pro- new line friends? >> i don't know. i hope that is the case but has to be asked. is it the way people looked but they are not people of color causing law enforcement to think about them different? i don't know. i hope not but you have to ask that has to be part of the examination we have to do. >> there's been discussion about insider threat, lawmakers potentially aiding or encouraging donald trump junior, rudy giuliani and the president himself encouraging this march, this storm. if you were in charge, would you look at whether or not they

could be charged with a federal crime of inciting a riot? >> i would be. i assume the fbi and u.s. attorney's office are doing just that, looking not just at the attack talked and killed law enforcement officers, who is involved in the assault, who was part of it, maybe not physically but directing, organizing and inciting it. you have to take it all seriously, not just what happens on the hill in. >> if you were the fbi director today, on the other parts you feel would be important? are there things you think we should be prepared for us the public to see in the coming days and months? >> do two things at the same time, which i assume they are doing, looking backward at the attack and locking up everybody who dissipated, understand funded it and conspired but also

look forward, the threat is ongoing. what we know about the threat not just the inauguration brother parts of the country and people motivated by the sense that they need to bring balance into our democracy this way? they have the resources to do both but i assume around-the-clock, they are squeezing sources the collection points to understand the threat going forward and find evidence to unwind what went on before. >> before we get to your book, i want to go to this character, a key character in your second. donald trump. how much do you with this at his feet? the under mining of faith in an institution that i revere, i have covered this department

those working in the trenches, how much you put on donald trump what you think there's something else bigger than that? >> i think donald trump reflects and furthers a trend in this country, he didn't start it but it's the prime mover in the last four years, five years to destroy norms and institutions sees the trying to destroy the idea that the truth can be found at all but is to blame for the flamethrower over the last four years. they have been heard thousands of times donald trump is the one running down the justice department. with help from people like bill barr but to do that because he saw as a threat, for the same time he's tried to burn down the media portray as the enemy of the people. >> i think about the things you

do about in these books, moments when the president did not face the consequences. moments when leaders who could have made a difference didn't step in to the fray. what is our hope returning to a normal seat in the next presidency or the presidency after that? justice is so easily undermined, the independent objectivity has so many forces working against it, donald trump who wasn't exactly the most organized to accomplish this, what hope do we have going forward? >> we have hope because we have done it in the past. never more clearly and after watergate was read in the book, the department of justice has become a tool of nixon's partisan attack on many parts of our democracy. we are reliving the history

demagogue leader who's poisoned the mind of millions of americans with his lies. the past is similar. internally, we need the right leadership in the department of justice and i think the president selected the perfect person for that role and that will be easy to restore the department internally. the harder part will be winning back trust of those surrounded in a fog of lies about the fbi and department of justice and that is hard to change because you can't get people out fraud by yelling at them telling them they are morons in the facts are wrong. you have to do it slowly and showing them what leadership looks like. i'm optimistic the president will do that in his eternal attorney general will select but it takes time. the longer-term struggle even locking up the mystery tearing

down the u.s. capital. >> i like that conversation and we are going to get to that the long climb up and back but let me ask you a few more things about donald trump. he said you don't think he should be impeached, again echo to consequences. why do you view the as unimportant? something he's never faced as secondary. >> i think you missed spoke. i definitely thought he should be impeached and convicted by the senate and ideally before he leaves office so he's removed but at the minimum, banned from further office. i also think the local prosecutors and visiting him before elected president should continue their work in the facts are there, sent him to jail for

his crimes. a harder question for me, i wrote about when i finished the book in the fall, it was a hard question then and even harder now, is in the national interest to keep donald trump centralized in washington d.c. to the drum of the u.s. versus donald trump? prosecution that would take years to complete and pull the spotlight away from the competent honest leadership new president biden and put we don't want to be. that is a really hard call because it is important to vindicate rule of law and pursue corrupt executive but here's close but the medical is likely to be, will give him that platform. let him yell at cars in his bathrobe turn off the lights, hold them accountable through impeachment and conviction also single prosecution for let joe biden call about the work of

healing literally are sick and spiritually sick country. >> thank you for clarifying and i would like to add that it's unusual for somebody in your history, your position, the positions you held, what you view to be criminal, a person at the center of a multiyear conspiracy and let that person go. let me ask you about trump's apartment. the president has been considering this, there are aides around him telling him not to but it will crazy. you think it will end up in court? >> i don't know. there is no court decision on that. i think the better of the legal argument, they would not be affected but the only way to figure out whether that is true or not with be the department of justice to charge him after he attempts to pardon himself and

have a court decide that. i know our president is not a genius but he should be able to figure out if he pardons himself, it will provoke the department of justice almost to be required to prosecute him so we establish a corrupt chief executive can pardon himself. i think i have said this before but i want to be clear, i think donald trump belongs in jail. the hard question for me is, is the national interest that are served by not pursuing the incarceration of the federal level in washington d.c.? i could easily be wrong but i am trying to figure out what the best thing for the country, despite my feelings toward this corrupt chief executive. >> the question about letting them go, the president has pardoned recent days of white-collar criminals primarily, operators or contractors, the murder of foreign national children,

women, he pardoned the largest u.s. history. tell me how that hit the d.o.j. and fbi workforce. clearly has spent some time on those cases and may have been decades when you put them all together. >> it sickens them and concerns for them led by the criminal chief executive without any regard not just for their work but how the rule of law is perceived and lived in the u.s., it is disgusting. given the nature of the pardon power. >> you talked a bit about the long and deep road back, what donald trump reflects and instigates and incites our country about mistrust. just and honorable public servants during the job, tell me

about merrick garland and obviously and honorable guy, he was cheered by republicans and democrats when he was nominated to the federal bench. he is viewed by people of different parties as a noble person. ... >> he had never been involved

in politics and that was the reason why he was a perfect person. and judge garland i don't know personally and the reputation is that kind of person and in the ways that mattered and knows its value a very smart person and will figured out quickly on modern challenges and techniques and then to be seen as another in american life to have a blindfold and not wearing the maga and not regarding to create a color or partisan affiliation i think he's the type of guy to do that.

>> and you worked with sally yates who was a contender as well during a very tense time the first weeks and months of the trump presidency for both of you. you both ended up were getting removed from your positions you think she would have been the inspired pick? >> i think she would've been a strong attorney general and maybe will be at some point a person the principle and integrity i expect the challenge for her nomination as she spoke at the dnc's would be harder to say this is a pic entirely outside of politics and to have a bright future in the justice department. >> in my recording a series of federal prosecutors had papers ready if donald trump was reelected if federal prosecutors who do you themselves as objective and to

be at that stage and ready to throw in the towel? >> and underscores the president of the attorney general due to the institution to drain the morale of people who devoted their lives so it shows you how to consequential the last election was for our country and institution and the bedrock became close to a situation where a lot of people were near the exit now i hope it's the reverse many people that did not come into governor left after he was president and we need them back at all levels in all parts of the government. >> you rate with a lot of passion about chris ray and the guy that replaced you and you say now that he was prevented from speaking. how worried should we be that

he was constrained from speaking the truth as fbi director and with that mission and that they were pursuing and speaking truth to power. >> i don't thank you should worry about the person it is integrity and great inner strength usually about the cirque on - - the circumstances he found himself with an institution and the rule of law so i don't doubt he had to make tactical judgments that isn't the is doing and to be careful about

how he approached a book that speaks to why it is such an enormous mistake to have a corrupt chief executive. >> i have been asking you a lot of questions about your work especially at the end of your book. i want to hear these examples. so you basically as a prosecutor and not so baby prosecutor. >> i was a junior prosecutor southern district of new york i was assigned a drug case there were two defendants one that was deeply involved in the kilo cocaine drug conspiracy another was a tangential figure all he had done was introduce the dea environment to the source it

was who are not involved in the deal so it was a situation he was technically guilty because he knew the dea source was looking to buy drugs and introduce us to our fellow colombian he knew was a drug dealer when i got the case i saw he was guilty but it was like a moral matter he will go to a jail for a long stretch of time he had nobody to cooperate against it just didn't feel right to me i was new so i went to my supervisor and i explained that i just feel wrong about this and they said that the technically meet the requirements of the statute and i said yes and then he said then it's your job to prosecute him. i didn't have the courage or the wisdom to say no. i will not do that i'm only

doing what i think is right and this is wrong to me so either reassign it or let me dismiss the case so instead i tried the case the jury convicted clearly the guilty guy i did my job as ordered and they acquitted henry as they should have they were of course of american justice they were wiser or stronger than i could be and i learned a lesson from that part of my oath was never to make an argument i didn't believe in or take a position i wasn't comfortable with and to advocate for justice my client was not the dea agent or rudy giuliani working to run for mayor so that i want to dismiss drug cases in the bronx i couldn't ever forget that so was a painful lesson for me. i remember even now i'm an old

guy so i wrote about it. >> i did enjoy the parts of your book where you take us behind the scenes when i was tracking a writing about myself as a reporter, the country of the jordanian suspect and probably should be released and you decided you would argue the case before the supreme court and argue the appeal to me why you chose to do that why did you decide to do it. >> i became the us attorney southern district of new york in manhattan by complete accident without ever thinking about being a part of that job they called me out of the blue

and asked me to go to new york and this is a fierce independence it saw itself as something apart and i thought that was in the interest none of the district court of the country and a tradition going back to 19 oh six when henry stimson became roosevelt. >> to be us attorney and to be fiercely independent and i found out and going in as a surprise pick that part of the way the us attorneys had meant - - maintained independence's giuliani with all types of local connections with others had been superstars in the legal community so they could stand up coming from the imposter so was worried about protecting the independence

from headquarters of justice so i chose to do that to answer myself into the breach when they tried to take her cases and that's what happened in that circumstance. the terrorism case that the department of justice announced sending a lawyer and to argue the case and to stop that from happening and to show i said i will personally argue this appeal and i did i had done plenty of those play thought it was important that i step in for the same reason i tried to generate attention for me. not to run for office but so i could manufacture and then have a famous family of long lineage and i could build my own juice to protect the district in that own way.

>> so people in my business are salivating for the details and you have been accused to rail against the president with the information that i got out about being asked for loyalties so do you think this moment about the jordanian subject and it could pull people in your direction even if it was for justice? >> i think it slightly differently than that and earlier that i realized that i figured out when i was first a prosecutor it's important to understand who your client was

and then to be truthful at all times of the bedrock principles but not until he went to virginia and i was in charge of us attorney's office at that was not enough so to earn the trust of the american people was everything for the department of justice because you cannot be effective without their trust and confidence and to facilitate that you have to do the right thing but also communicate show them the way to do that through the media so i came to realize as a low level supervisor because the media was through home we spoke to the american people. so trying to use the media for personal gain if you work in

the justice system and at the leadership level you must communicate with the american people through the media you will never earn their trust. trust comes from truth plus transparency you have to have both. >> your point about showing your work is resonating with me because i think the undermining of the press also causes us to reassess we need to show her work more and more what are the specific things in a justice department case fbi investigation you never would talk about before. not talking about hillary clinton's e-mails what about merrick garland will have to talk about nus countries that they never felt comfortable doing to show their work. >> most importantly with connection with the new administration decides to do

about crimes committed in the trump administration by people in government including people in the near government looking at rudy giuliani, whatever they decide to do they have to be transparent with the american people to earn their trust. i think judge garland and us attorneys will have to redouble their efforts to lead into the transparency piece i know people tell the truth people not get the trust without getting the transparency to the american people. and extraordinary thing was done after he decided not to go after nixon after watergate. he went by himself to the house of representatives and sat alone at a witness table and explain to the american people why. i don't know how they will approach the prosecution or donald trump or whatever they decide to do they have to

share the lie to generate the trust. >> this is an interesting challenge. i will ask you one last question. what is next for jim comey? i am excited not being a part of public life anymore, go to jt which is my first day teaching at columbia university so that's what i'm doing next. >> thank you for your time i appreciate it and i went to think the audience a "washington post" live thank you for being here.

>> with the ethics and public policy center chronicles of american money thank you for joining us. >> i'm delighted to be with you. >> so how do you draw the theme of your book? >> basically in a very large diverse population like this that is multicultural, the common denominator from the very beginning has been money in some