leadership, a look of the life of malcolm x, former chairman ambassador to the u.s. wolfgang on the challenges facing europe, and catherine flowers on her efforts to improve water and sanitation conditions in rural areas across america. for more schedule information at booktv.org or consult your program guide. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> good afternoon and welcome to washington post live i am a national investigative reporter at the washington post you're not privileged to have with me today former fbi director jane m comey saving justice, truth transparency and trust but i'm really glad that you could join us. >> thanks for having me it's good to be with you. >> this is her second time in this form but a lot of things have happened since we last saw each other and i think we have to immediately go to astonishing few days from what we just experienced. let's go right to questions about the siege on the capital. tell me first off what is your reaction what were you thinking

when you saw this unfolding on january 6? >> i had two different reactions one i hope is that every human being in washington had that i was sickened to see the symbol, reality of our democracy under armed assault, the second reaction was for my career in law enforcement and that was growing anger that it was happening at all, i was mystified that the hill wasn't defended against the threat that seemed obvious. >> from your experience in dealing with incident not like this but similar what do you think are the failures of law enforcement in this case we of the capitol police chief admitting he failed and other people feel him, we have the fbi saying they got a warning a day before but they didn't really put in people's faces, what is your thought about that failure. >> is hard to answer from this

vantage point from the outside and without a comprehensive investigation but it seems is not about a failure of an imagination which is what 9/11 commission criticize the government after 9/11 that we haven't envisioned a way in which the attack might come because the threat was so obvious and so transparent to the world it was not a failure of imagination it was a failure but the why behind that and why the capital did that and the perimeters it needed in the officers and troops that it needed really has to be figured out through an investigation i cannot tell from here who knew what when and who made what decisions based on information that we need to find the answers because the threat is not going away. >> one thing that ties your book so cleanly to this experience is that you view many of the things you are struggling with the failure on the hill and to notice this threat with his disturbing instigation of this president with this group, do

you feel there is a large group of people in law enforcement and the fbi and the police forces that protect us that did not view this as a serious threat because these were white conservative pro-blue line followers and friends? >> i don't know, i sure hope that is not the case but it's a question that has to be asked was it something about the way that these people looked that they're not people of color that cause law enforcement to think about them differently, i don't know, i hope not but you have to ask in the has to be part of the examination we have to do. >> there has been discussions about the insider threat, lawmakers potentially aiding or encouraging donald trump jr., rudy giuliani and the president himself encouraging this march and storm, if you were in charge

would you be looking at whether or not they could be charged with a federal crime of inciting a riot? >> yes i would be and i assume the fbi in the u.s. attorney's office in d.c. are doing just that looking not just at the point of the attack who attacked the law enforcement officer and killed along for small office or who was involved in that assault but who is part of it maybe not physically but by directing it, finding and organizing it and inciting it you have to take all of that seriously not just about what happened on the hill. >> if you were the fbi director today are there other steps you feel would be important and are there things you think we should be prepared for as a public to see in the coming days and months? >> you would want to do two things at the same time which i assume they are doing, looking backwards at the attack and

trying to lock up everybody who participated, understanding who funded and conspired as part of that and be looking forward because the threat is ongoing to what we know about threats not just to the inauguration but other parts of the country from people motivated that they need to bring violence into our democracy in this way, they have the resources to do both but i assume around-the-clock the bureau is squeezing sources and various collection points to understand the threat going forward and to find evidence to unwind what went on before. >> i want to move now before we get to your book to this character who is central to your first book in a key character saving justice. donald trump, how much do you put this at his feet, the undermining in an institution i

have covered this department in the ausa's that work in the trenches, how much of this to put solely at donald trump's feet or do you think there is something bigger than that? >> i think donald trump reflects and furthers the trend in this country, he did not start it he's become the prime mover in the last four, five years to destroy norms and institutions that he sees as threats and trying to destroy the idea that the truth can be found at all and he's been simply blamed the institution of justice over the last four years. he has lots of acolytes around him to echo the lies and he's been heard thousands of times by market citizens but donald trump is the one who has burned down the justice department. and with help with bill barr to do that because he saw as a threat the same reason he tried to bring down the media and portrayed as an enemy of the

people. >> i think about the things that you write about in both of these books, moments when the president did not face consequences. moments when leaders who could've made a difference did not step into the fray, what is our hope for returning to her normalcy in the next presidency or the presidency after that if justice is so easily undermined, if the independent objectivity has so many forces working against it, if donald trump who was not exactly the most organized fact tatian could accomplish this what hope do we have going forward? >> we have hope because we've done in the past, never more clearly than after watergate which i read about in the book when the department of justice has become a tool of nixon's

partisan attack on many parts of our democracy, we are reliving the history in a different demographic leader who is poisons the mind of millions of americans with his life but the path is similar internally we need the light and turn right leadership and i think the president has selected as his attorney general nominee the perfect person for that role, that is actually going to be easier to restore the department internally, the harder part will be winning back the trust to have been surrounded in a fog of lies over the last few years about the fbi in the department of justice, that is hard to change because you cannot get people out of a fog of fraud by yelling at them and telling them they are morons or their facts are wrong, you have to do is slowly and show them honest leadership looks like and i'm optimistic the president, new president will do that and the attorney general another leaders

he is selecting but that takes time that is a longer-term struggle even then locking up who's trying to tear down our united states capital. >> i like that conversation and we will get to that the future the long climb up and back but let me ask you a few more things about donald trump, you said you don't think you should be impeached in the new presidency, again i go to consequences, why do you view that as unimportant, why do you view the issue consequence for donald trump, something he's never faced and secondary. >> i think you misspoke i definitely thought he should be impeached and convicted by the senate and he should be ideally before he leaves office or he's removed but at a minimum so is banned from further office i also think the local prosecutors in new york investigating the fraudster he was before president should continue their

work in the facts send them to new york state jail for his crimes, what is the harder question for me and i wrote about it when i finish the book in the fall instead it was a hard question then and even harder now is in the national interest to give donald trump center stage international lives in washington, d.c. through the drama of the united states versus donald trump. a prosecution that would take years to complete and pull the spotlight away from the competent honest leadership of new president biden and put it right where we don't want it to be in the light the donald trump craves and that's a hard call because i do think it's important to vindicate the rule of law and pursue a corrupt executive but here to think it's close but the better call is likely to be don't give him a platform let him go mar-a-lago and yellow cars at his bathrobe but turn off the lights, hold them accountable for the

impeachment conviction process and through local prosecution and let joe biden go about the work of healing literally are sick and spiritually sick country. >> thank you for clarifying and i would add is pretty unusual for somebody in your history and your position, the position you have held to let what you view to be criminal a person at the center of a multiyear conspiracy to let that person go let me ask you about self pardoning the president as we have reported has been considering this there have been aids around him telling him not to do it that it will be crazy do you think it'll stand up in court? >> i don't know it's not been settled there is no court decision on that question. i think the better of the legal scholar argument is a self party will not be effective but the only way to figure out whether that is true or not is for the department of justice to charge

him after he attempts to pardon himself and have a court decide that, nor president is not a genius but he should be able to figure out if he pardons himself he will provoke the department of justice almost to be required to prosecute him so that we establish a corrupt chief executive can pardon himself. i think i've said this before but i want to be clear i think donald trump belongs in jail, the hard question for me is there a national interest that is better served and not pursuing that incarceration at the federal level in washington, d.c. i could easily be wrong about that and i'm trying to figure out what's the best thing for the country despite my feelings towards corrupt chief executive. >> understood, and the? about letting bad guys go, the president has pardon a host in recent days as white-collar criminals primarily, operators or contractors and in the source

query murder of several national children and women, he's pardon the largest foster in u.s. history, tell me how that hits the d.o.j. and fbi workforce who must've spent some time on those cases and it may have been decades of work when you put all those people together. >> it sickens them in concerns that were led by the criminal chief executive without any regard not just for their work by how the rule of law is perceived and lived in the united states of america. it is disgusting but they feel parallel to do anything given the nature of the pardon power. >> you talked about the long and steep road back, what donald trump reflects and instigates and insights in our country about distrust and honorable

public servants trying to do their job, tell me about yourself on merrick garland and obviously an honorable guy, he was cheered by republicans and democrats and nominated to the federal bench, he is viewed by people of different parties as a noble person buddies been away from the justice department for a long time, is he the person that will be able to show his work and win back the trust of this group in the american public that is so distressing? >> i think so, i wrote in the book that i thought we needed a new attorney general and the model of the one that the united states president showed the last time the department of justice needed saving. that was after watergate. . . .

in politics and that was the reason he was the perfect person. he was apart from the political warfare in the united states. and he had not been in the department of justice in decades. very similar situation with judge garland who i do not know personally. but by reputation is that kind of person who is outside of politics but he knows the department and the way, is very smart person he will get up to speed quickly on modern challenges in modern techniques. he knows what matters most. the department's best seen as another an american lyford has have a blindfold on the statue of lady liberty and not a mega- hats. must make decisions that people can trust not with regard to race, or creed, or color, or partisan affiliation. i think he is the kind of person to do that, it is an inspired pic. through it and you worked with sally yates who was a

contender as well during very tense times the first weeks and months of the trump presidency for both of you. you both ended up getting removed from your position. tell me, if she would have been named a g which he also have a road forward? which had been inspired pic? >> i think sally would been a strong attorney general, maybe still be at some point. a person of deep principle and integrity knows the department and its work really well. i expect a challenge for her nomination at this point as she spoke of the democratic national convention pretty will be harder to say this is a pick entirely outside of politics. she is somebody ought to have a bright future and leadership in the justice department. stuart sources have told me that a series of federal prosecutors had their resignation papers ready if donald trump had been reelected. how broken is our system, jim, a federal prosecutors who do

view themselves as objected and at fact were at that stage , were ready to throw in the towel. >> just underscores the damage that this president and his second attorney general, bill barr commented to that institution. that it could drain the morale of peoplehood devoted their lives to trying to do good to the institution of justice. and so it shows you how consequential this last election was for our country and for the institutions that are its bedrock. we came very close to a situation where a whole lot of good people would have headed for the exits. now i hope the reverse is going to happen for the whole lot of good people did not come into government or left government after donald trump was elected president. we need them back at all levels and in all parts of the government. we want to write with a lot of passion about chris ray the man who replaced you and you feel he has a job now to speak in a way that he was prevented

from speaking. how worried should we be, in the american public that chris ray was constrained from speaking the truth as the fbi director, and his only mission was to cower and try to protect his people, try to protect the mission that they were pursuing. and not speak up to the president, speak truth to power. how worried should we be that that happened? >> guest: i don't think you should worry about the person. chris ray is a person of integrity and great strength. think we should all were about the circumstances which he found himself was needing to protect an institution and the rule of law in the face of a lawless, dishonest president. so i don't doubt that he had to make tactical judgments about when to press against attorney general barr when to press against the president. that is not of his doing pretty think he was doing wise things to be careful about how he approached it. but that to me speaks to why

such an enormous mistake for this country to have a corrupt chief executive breed that is not chris ray's fault. >> i have been asking a lot of questions about your book, especially at the end of your book. we talk a little bit about the beginning of your book pretty want to hear some of these examples. you talk about key moments when you had to basically grow in the job as a prosecutor. as a baby prosecutor and a not to baby prosecutor. talk a little bit about your choice in prosecuting mr. fleet. >> is a junior prosecutor in the southern district of new york. i was assigned a drug case that was ready for trial. there were two defendants one of whom was clearly deeply involved in this kilo conspiracy the other a guy name henry was a tangential figure in this case, all he had done was introduce the dea informant source and does not appear he got paid for pretty

is 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. so we introduce this to a fellow colombian who he knew was a drug dealer. that was it for him. when i got the case jaisol that he was guilty. but i felt deeply uncomfortable kind of as a moral matter it just did not seem right. this guy was going to go to jail for a long stretch of time produce so low on the totem pole, not even on the pole had no when he could cooperate against but it just did not go right to me. i was new so i went to my supervisor i explained that senna just feel wrong about this. they asked a seat technically meet the requirements of the statute? and i said yes. and they said well it's your job to prosecute it. and they ordered me to it prosecute. i did not have the courage, the wisdom to say no, i'm not going to do that. i became part of the department of justice only to

those things i believed were right. this feels wrong to me. so either reassignment or let me dismiss the case against henry. instead i tried the case against these two guys. and the jury convicted, clearly guilty guy pretty jury i don't know what they read in me, but i did my job as ordered. they acquitted audrey. as they should have. they were a voice of american justice. they were wiser and may be a little than i could be. i learned a searing lesson from that part part of my oath was never to make an argument i did not believe in. never to take a position i was not comfortable with and to advocate for justice paid my client was on the dea agents on the case. client was not rudy giuliani who was rudy giuliani looking to run for mayor they were not going to dismiss drug cases in the bronx. my client was an idea of justice in my could not ever forget that. it was a painful lesson for me one i remember even now that i'm an old guy so i wrote about it.

>> i do enjoy a lot of the parts of your book where you take us behind the scenes in cases that i was either tracking or writing about myself as a reporter. and i did not know everything you were experiencing in real-time. tell me what the quandaries were free on the case after 911 as a jordanian suspect that a judge was saying you did not handle properly and probably should be relieved. you decided that you would argue this case before the supreme court. argue the appeal. to me why you chose to do that. sort of a little bit of attention hog, people would usually of that but why did you decide to do it? >> i became u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york, manhattan complete accident without ever applying , without even thinking about being part of that job. they called me out of the blue winners assistant u.s. attorney in the bush administration asked me to it go to new york.

i knew new york had a tradition of fierce independence where it was of the department of justice but never entirely. it saw itself as something apart. thinking that was in the interest not just of the interest of the country it was a tradition that went back to 1906 when a man named henry stenson was roosevelt pic, theodore roosevelt pic and change the office to be fiercely independent. i found over being an assistant u.s. attorney there and from going in as a surprise pic to the u.s. attorney, that part of the way in which u.s. attorneys had maintain the independence was that they all had throwaway of a certain sort their regional falcons of political connections printer others have been real superstars of the legal community. they could stand up to the district in a way that's this imposter coming from a career job enrichment couldn't. i was worried about protecting the independence especially

from maine justice so one of the ways i chose to do that was i would insert myself into the breach when justice try to take some of our cases breed that is what happened in that circumstance. a terrorism case of the department of justice announced they were going to send one of their lawyers into argue the appeal of the case. and to stop that from happening and to show the main justice did not take over the southern districts worksite do know what a person going to argue this appeal. and so i did for not doing it because i want to argue appeals identity plenty of those without is important that i step in. for the same reason i try to generate press attention in new york for me, not to run for office of that i could manufacture throw weights but i wasn't famous, i wasn't rich, i did not have a amos a family of long lineage by the wonderful family but no one with any connection. i could sort of build my own juice to protect the district

in that way. so i tried to do that. >> host: jim do you think this is the beginning of when you start to realize the presses part of your throw weights? people in my business are validated for the inside details and scoop. you have been accused of using the media for their benefit no doubt and yours. to rail against this president. the role and the information that got out of how they got prepped for royalty. you think this moment going to the media about the jordanian suspect was when you started to realize some press coverage could really pull peopling or direction. even if it was for justice. >> i think us both i thought about it slightly differently than that. and it was earlier than that. i figured out when i was first a prosecutor it was important

to understand who your client was. too never take a case you do not believe in and be truthful all times. bedrock principles but it wasn't until i was in virginia i was in charge of the richmond u.s. attorney's office i realized that was not enough. that you earn the trust of the american people was everything for the department of justice because you could not be effective without their trust and confidence in you. to facilitate that trust you had to do the right thing at all times. you also had to communicate. show them your work and show them why you're doing it. the way to do that is through the media. so i came to realize is a fairly low level supervisor of the richmond office that we had to have engagement with the media they are the people with whom we spoke to the american people. i did not see it as trying to use the media are trying to use the media for personal gain, i actually came to believe but i still believe. if you are going to work in the justice system you must

communicate with the american people through the media or you are never going to earn their trust but as i say in the book with the subtitle, trust comes from truth plus transparency pretty have to have both. >> host: your point about showing your work is resonating with me. because i think the undermining of the press also is causing us to reassess. we need to show our work more and more. what are the specific things in a justice department case, an fbi investigation that you never would have talked about before but i'm not talking about hillary clinton's e-mails here. what are the things that ag merrick garland is going to have to talk about an u.s. attorneys around the country are going to have to talk about that they never felt comfortable doing before to show their work and build trust? >> i think most importantly in connection with what the new

administration justice department decides to do about crimes committed in the trump administration by people in government including people in near governorate. take a look at rudy giuliani. whatever they decide to do, i'm not telling them what to do but they have to be transparent to the american people about that earn their trust. i think judge garland and the u.s. attorneys are going to have to redouble their efforts to lean into the transparency peace. i know there are people who going to tell the truth. but you're not going to get to trust with out also giving transparency to the american people. gerald ford did an extraordinary thing after he decided not to pursue criminal prosecution of richard nixon after watergate but he went by himself to the house of representatives the president of the united states and sat alone at a witness table and explained to the american people why. and i don't know how they will approach these prosecutions, how they approach the question of donald trump for the whatever they decide to do,

they have to show the y with the american people to generate that trust. >> it is a really interesting challenge for it is a very daunting one. i want to thank you for the time you have given us, jim. going to ask you one last question and it can be just one phrase, what is next for jim comey? >> not to this. [laughter] i am i love you, but i'm excited about not being part of public life any longer. i'm looking for january 21 which went the densely my first day teaching at columbia university so that is what i'm went to do next. >> fair enough. thank you for the time think you made us some news and answered some interesting questions. i appreciated what he think all of her audience at "washington post" life, thanks for your interest, your keen watching, thanks for being here we look for to the next time. ♪ ♪ >> you're watching book tv

on cspan2. every waco villages nonfiction books and authors, tv on cspan2 created by america's table television company today were brought to buy these television companies provide book tv to viewers as a public service. >> ever your book tv asked members of congress about the books they are reading. >> joining is now on book tv is representative tom cole, a republican from oklahoma. congressman cole we've asked his question before you've always had a large reading list, what is on your current reading list? >> well i just finished the splendid and the vile by eric larson, wonderful account of churchill and his family. really in the worst year of the work, right after he becomes prime minister may tenth