it's working today. so for the first couple of weeks, this is what you're going to see. and yes, there will be more inconvenience on the front-end, there's no doubt about that. if you are in a small county, you have 3-5 locations, even in a midsize county, that will be much easier. in a larger county, yes. it's going to be more challenging. but we hope the way this works is that once people are not able to sign up, get a confirmation -- announcer: we will take you live to a conversation with former fbi director, james comey, who has a new book out about the u.s. justice system. he's being interviewed by the washington post. carol: we are going to talk about your book, "saving justice: truth, transparency, and trust." but i'm really glad you could join us. mr. comey: thanks for having me, carol.

it's good to be with you. carol: i think this is our second time in this kind of forum, but a lot of things have happened since we last site other. i think we have to immediately go to the astonishing few days we have just experienced. let's go right to some questions about the siege on the capital. tell me off, what is your reaction, what were you thinking when you saw this unfolding on january 6? >> -- mr. comey: i had two different reactions. one i hope every human being had -- i was sickened to see this symbol, this reality of our democracy under armed assault. the second reaction i had was from my career in law enforcement. that was growing anger that it was happening at all. i was mystified the hill was not better defended by a threat that seemed obvious. carol: with your past experience dealing with incidents not like

this, but similar, what do you think are the failures of law enforcement in this case? we have the capitol police chief, admitting he failed, but other people failed him. we have the fbi saying they got a warning the day before, but they did not really put it in people's faces. what is your thought about that failure? mr. comey: it is hard to answer from this vantage point, from the outside without a comprehensive investigation, but it seems it's not about a failure of imagination, which is what the 911 commission criticized the government for after 9/11, that we had not envisioned a way in which the attack might come, because this threat was so obvious and so transparent to the world, that it was not a failure of imagination, just a failure. but the why behind that, why the capital did not have the perimeters it needed and the officers and troops that it needed really has to be figured out through an investigation. i can't tell from here who knew what and when and who made what

decisions based on information, but we need to find the answers, because this threat is not going away. carol: one thing that tied your book so seemly 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 the disturbing instigation of a president and his group. do you feel there is a large group of people in law enforcement, the fbi, in the police forces that did interview this as a serious threat, because these were white, conservative, pro-blue line followers and friends? mr. comey: i don't know. i sure hope that is not the case. but it's a question that has to be asked. it's something about the way these people looked, that they are not people of color, that caused people of one enforcement to think about them differently -- i don't know.

i hope not, but you have to ask. that has to be part of the examination we have to do. carol: there have been some discussions about the insider threat, lawmakers, potentially aiding or encouraging donald trump, jr., rudy giuliani, and the president himself, encouraging this march, this 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? mr. comey: yes, i would be. and they assume the fbi and the u.s. attorney's office in d.c. are doing just that, looking not just at the point of the attack, who killed the law enforcement officer, who was involved in that assault, but who was part of it, maybe not physically, but by directing it, finding its, organizing it, and inciting it. he have to take all of that seriously. it's not just about what happened on the hill. carol: if you were the fbi

director today, are there other steps you feel would be important? are there things you think we should be prepared for, as the public, to see in the coming days and months? mr. comey: we want to be doing 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, understand who equipped it, who funded it, who conspired, but also looking forward, because the threat is ongoing, to what do we know about threats not just to the inauguration, but to other parts of the country, from people motivated by this sense they need to bring violence into our democracy? they have the resources to do both, but i assume around-the-clock, the bureau is squeezing sources and gathering collection points to understand the threat going forward and find evidence to unwind what went on before.

carol: i want to move now before we get to your book to this character, who is central to your first book, and is a key character in your second book, "saving justice." that is donald trump. how much do you put this at his feet? the undermining of faith in an institution that you revere and that honestly, i revere. i have covered this department. how much do you put solely at donald trump's feet? or do you think it is something else bigger than that? mr. comey: i think donald trump both reflects and furthers a trend in this country he did not start, but he's become the prime mover in the last four years, five years, to destroying norms and institutions he sees as threats, destroying the idea that truth can be found at all.

he is to blame for the flamethrower that's been taken to the institutions of justice over the last four years. the acolytes around him who echoed the lies, they have been heard sounds of times by american citizens, but donald trump is the one that has tried to burn down the justice department, with help from people like bill barr. for the same reason he's tried to burn down the media and portray it as the enemy of the people. carol: i think about some of the things you write about in both of these books, moments when the president did not face consequences. moments when leaders, who could have made a difference, did not step into the fray. what is our hope for returning to normalcy in the next presidency, for the presidency after that? -- for the presidency after that, if justice is so easily undermined, if the and

objectivity has so many forces working against it. if donald trump, was not the most organized tactician, could accomplish this, what hope do we have going forward? mr. comey: we have hope, because we have done it in the past. never more clearly than after watergate, which i write about in the book, when the department of justice had become a tool of nixon's partisan attack on many parts of our democracy. so we are reliving that history in a way. a different, demagogic leader who has poisoned minds with his lies. but the past is similar. we need to write leadership into the department of justice. i think the president has selected as his attorney general the perfect sort of person for that role. that is actually going to be easier to restore the department internally. the harder part is going to be winning back the trust of those who have been surrounded in a fog of lies over the last few

years about the fbi, the department of justice. and that is hard to change, because you can't get people out of a fog of fraud by yelling at them and telling them they are more rounds or their facts are wrong -- morons for their facts are wrong. -- morons or their facts are wrong. you have to show them why they are wrong. the new leader will do that. but that takes time. that is a longer-term struggle. carol: i really like that conversation. we will get to that, the future of what you call the long climb up and back. but let me ask you a few more things about donald trump, you said you don't think he should be impeached in the new presidency. again, i go to consequences. why do you view that as unimportant? why do you view that issue of consequence, something donald

trump has ever faced, as secondary? mr. comey: first of all, i think you misspoke. i definitely think you should be impeached, convicted by the senate -- he should be impeached, convicted by the senate, ideally before he leaves office, so he's removed, but additionally so he's banned from further office. i think the local prosecutors in new york are investing him for the fraud he was before he became president. the facts are there, send him to new york state jail for his crimes. what is a harder question for me, and i wrote about it when i finished the book in the fall, it was a hard question then, and it's even harder now, is it in the national interest to give donald trump centerstage in our national life in washington, d.c., through the drama of the united states versus donald trump? a prosecution that would take years to complete and that would put the spotlight -- for the spotlight away from the pump at 10 come on us leadership of new president biden and put it to be

-- put the spotlight away from the incoming leadership of the new president biden and put it on trump. the call is likely to become a don't give him that platform. let him go -- the call is likely to become i don't give him that platform. let him go to mar-a-lago. hold them accountable through impeachment processes and prosecution. but let biden heal our sick country. carol: thank you for clarifying. i would add it is pretty unusual for somebody in your history and position, the positions you have held, to let what you view to be a criminal, to let them go. the president has been considering this, there have

been aides around him telling him not to do it, that it will be crazy. do you think it will stand up in court? mr. comey: i don't know. it's not been settled. there's no court decision on that question. i think the better of the legal scholar arguments is that a self pardon would not be effective. but the only way to figure out whether that is true or not would be for the department of justice to charge him after he attempts to pardon himself and have a court decide that. i nor president is not a genius, but he can figure out that if he pardons himself, he will provoke the department of justice almost into being required to prosecute him so that we establish that a corrupt chief executive can pardon himself. i know i said this before, but i think donald trump along's in jail. the hard question for me is, is there a national interest that is better served by not pursuing that incarceration at the federal level in washington, d.c.? -- belongs in jail. i could easily be wrong about

that, but i'm trying to figure out, what is the best thing for the country despite my feelings towards his -- this corrupt chief executive? carol: in the question mark about letting bad guys go, the president has pardoned a host in recent days of white-collar criminals, primarily, operators, contractors and the murder of nationals, women, children, he has pardoned the largest medicaid fraud company in u.s. history. they spent time on those cases and it was decades of work when you put it together. mr. comey: it sickens them and concerns them we are led by a criminal chief executive, without any regard just for their work, but for how the rule of law is perceived and lived in

united states of america. it's disgusting. carol: you've talked a little bit about the long and steep road back. what donald trump reflect stand insights in our country about this trust -- distrust in fact, honorable servants doing their job. tell us about merrick garland , obviously in all marble -- obviously an honorable guy, cheered by democrats and republicans when he was nominated to the federal bench. he is viewed by people of different parties as a normal person, but he's been away from the justice department for a long time. is he the person that is going to be able to show his work and win back the trust of this group in the american public that is still distrusting?

mr. comey: -- so distrusting? mr. comey: i think so. i wrote in my book that we need annual attorney general and the mati of the one that the u.s. president chose -- in the model of the one that the last u.s. president chose. after watergate in 1974, president ford chose the president of the university of chicago, edward leavy, people couldn't figure out his politics, he'd never been involved in politics, and that was the reason he was the perfect person. he was apart from the political warfare in the u.s. he had not been the department of justice in decades. very similar situation with judge harland. who i don't know personally, but who by reputation is that kind of person, who was outside of politics. he knows the department and the way that matters. he knows its values. he's a very smart person. he will get up to speed quickly in modern challenges and techniques. but he knows what matters most, that the department must be seen

as an other in american life. it has to have a blindfold on the statue of lady liberty and not a mag ahead. -- maga -- not a maga hat. to make decisions people can trust. i think he's the kind of person to do that. he's an inspired to pick. carol: and he worked with sally yates, who was a contender as well. -- you worked with sally yates, who was a contender, as well. you both ended up getting removed from your positions. tell me, if she had been named ag, do you think she would have a road forward? do you think she would have been an inspired pick? mr. comey: i think sally would have been a strong attorney general, and still will be at some point. a person of deep principle and integrity who knows the department really well. i suspect that challenge for her nomination was that she spoke at the democratic national convention. it would be harder to say that

this is a pig entirely outside of politics, but she is somebody who ought to have a bright future in our justice department. carol: in my reporting, sources have told me that his series of federal prosecutors have their resignation papers ready, if donald trump had been reelected. how broken is our system, a federal prosecutors who do view themselves as objectives, hipsters, and dividers affect, where at that stage -- were at that stage, ready to throw in the towel? mr. comey: it just underscores the damage this president and his second attorney general did to that institution, that it could drain the morale of people who have devoted their lives to trying to do good through the institutions of justice. so it shows you how consequential the selected luncheon was -- this last election was for our country and the constitutions that are its bedrock. we came close to a situation where a whole lot of good people would have headed to the exits.

now i hope the reverse is going to happen. a lot of good people who left government after donald trump was elected president, we need them back at all levels and parts of the government. carol: you write with a lot of passion about chris wray, the man who replaced you. and you feel he has the job now to speak in a way that he was prevented from speaking. how worried should we be in the american public that chris wray was constrained from speaking the truth, as the fbi director? and that his only mission was to cower and to 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? mr. comey: i don't think you should worry about the person. chris wray is a person of integrity and principle in great inner strength. i think we should worry about

the circumstances in which he found himself, needing to protect an institution and the rule of lined the face of a lawless, dishonest president. i don't doubt he had to make tactical judgments about when to press bill barr or the president, and that is not of his doing. i think he was doing wise things to be careful about how he approached it. but that to me speaks to why it was such an enormous mistake for this country to have a corrupt chief executive. that is not chris wray's fault. carol: i've been asking you a lot of questions about your book , especially at the end of your book. let me talk a little bit about the beginning of your book. i want to hear some of these examples. you talk about key moments, where you had to basically grow in the job as a prosecutor. as a baby prosecutor and not so baby prosecutor. talk a little bit about your choice in prosecuting mr. fleet. mr. comey: i was a junior prosecutor in the southern

district of new york, and i was assigned a drug case that was ready for trial. there were two defendants, one of whom was clearly guilty and involved in this conspiracy. the other, henry, was a tangential figure in this case, all he had done was introduce a dea informant to the source. he was not involved in the deal. the situation where he was technically guilty, because he knew the dea's source was looking to buy drugs, so he introduced this to a fellow colombian, who he knew was a drug dealer and that was it for him. when i saw the case -- when i got the case, i saw that he was guilty, but i felt deeply uncomfortable with it, as a moral matter, it did not seem right this guy was going to go to jail for long stretches of time, and he was so low in the tone bull, not even on the pole, then he had nobody he could cooperate against, it just did not feel right to me.

i was new, so i went to my supervisor and explained to that. i feel wrong about this. and they asked, does he meet the requirements of the statute? i said yes. they said, well, it is your job to prosecute its. and they ordered me to prosecute it. and i didn't have the courage, the wisdom to say, no, i'm not going to do that, i became a part of the department of justice to do the things i believed were right, and this felt wrong. either reassign it, or let me dismiss the case against henry. instead, i went and tried the case against these two guys. the jury convicted the clearly guilty guy and the jury, i don't know what they read in me, but i did my job as ordered, and they acquitted henry. as they should have. they were a voice of american justice. they were wiser, maybe a little stronger than i could be. i learned a lesson from that. that part of my oath was to never make an argument i never

believed in, never take a position i was not comfortable with, and to advocate for justice, because my client was not the dea agent on the case, my client was not rudy giuliani looking to run for mayor, there was no way they were going to want to dismiss drug cases from the bronx, my client was the idea of justice. i could never forget that. it was a painful lesson for me. so i wrote about it. carol: i do enjoy a lot of the parts of your book where you take us behind the scenes, and cases that i either was tracking or writing about myself as a reporter, and i'd did not know -- i did not know things you were experiencing in real time. tell us about the quandaries for you about the suspects, that a judge was saying you did not handle properly and probably should be released. you decided that you would argue this case before the supreme court. argue the appeal. tell me why you chose to do that.

people will accuse you of being an attention hug. why did you decide to do that? mr. comey: i became district attorney in the southern district of new york, manhattan, by complete accident, without even applying, thinking about being part of the job. they called me out of the blue when i was assistant -- in the bush and ministration. i new york had an -- i knew new york had a history of -- that was in the interest not just of the district, but of the country. it was a tradition that went back to 1906, when henry stimson became roosevelt's pick to be u.s. attorney and changed the culture of the office to be fiercely independent. and i found out, from going in is the surprise picked to be

u.s. attorney, that part of the way in which u.s. attorneys maintained independence was that they all had -- rudy giuliani had all kind of political connections, or others who had been real superstars in the legal community, so they could stand up to the district in a way that this imposter, coming from a career in richmond, couldn't. i was very worried about protecting the independence, especially from maine justice, headquarters of justice. one of the ways i chose to do that was i would insert myself into the breach one main justice tried to take summer cases. the department of justice announced they would send one of their lawyers into argue the appeal on the case, and to stop that from happening and to show that main justice didn't take over the southern district's work, i said, i'm going to personally argue this appeal, and so i did. i wasn't doing it because i wanted to argue appeals, but i

thought it was important that i step in. for the same reason, i tried to generate press attention in the southern district of new york for me, not to run for office, but so that i could manufacture throw weights. i was not famous, not rich, i did not have a famous family, a long lineage, nobody with any connections, and i could sort of build my own juice to protect the district in that way. so i tried to do that. carol: jim, do you think this is the beginning of when you start to realize the press is part? of your throw weight? ? people in my business are salivating for the inside details and scope. you have been accused of using the media to their benefit, no doubt, and to yours, to rail against this president. your role in the information that got out about how you oppressed -- you were pressed for loyalty.

do you think in this moment, going to the media about the jordanian suspects, was when you realize press coverage could pull people in your direction, even if it was for the right purposes, even if it was for justice? mr. comey: i think it was both, but i thought about it differently than that. it was earlier than that that i realized it. i figured out when i was first a prosecutor that it was important to understand who your client was and to be truthful at all times, bedrock principles. but it was not until i went to virginia and was in charge of the richmond u.s. attorney's office that i realized that was not enough. to earn the trust of the american people was everything for the department of justice, because you couldn't be effective without their trust and confidence in you, and to facilitate that trust, you have to do the right thing at all times, but you also have to communicate with them, show them your work and tell them what you are doing and why you are doing it.

the way to do that is through the media. i came to realize, as an early low level supervisor at the richmond office, that we had to have an engagement with the media, because they were the people through whom we spoke to the american people. i did not see it as trying to use the media or trying to use the media for personal gain. i actually came to believe what i still believe, if you are going to work in the justice system, at a leadership level, you must communicate with the american people through the media, or you are never going to earn their trust. trust comes from truth plus transparency. you have to have both. carol: 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, and fbi investigation -- an fbi

investigation that you would not have talked about before? what are the things that ag merrick garland is going to have to talk about, and u.s. attorneys around the country are going to have to talk about that they never felt doing before to share their work and build trust ? mr. comey: in connection with what the new administration justice department decides to do about crimes committed in the jump administration, by people in government, including people in your government. take a look at a rudy giuliani, whatever they decide to do, and i'm not telling them what to do, they have to be transparent with the american people about that to earn their trust. so i think that judge garland and the u.s. attorneys are going to have to redouble their efforts to lean into the transparency piece and know their people are going to tell their truth. but you are not going to get trust without giving transparency to the american people. gerald ford that next jordan

everything after he decided not to pursue -- prosecution of president nixon after watergate. he went by himself, the president of the united states and sat alone at a witness table and told the american people why. i don't know how they'll approach the question of donald trump but whatever they decide to do, they have to share the why with the american people to generate that trust. >> it's a really interesting challenge. it's a very daunting one. i want to thank you for the time you've given us, jim. i want to and you one next question. what's next for jim comey? mr. comey: not this. i love you but i'm excited about not being part of public life any longer. i'm alonging forward to january 21, my first day teaching at

columbia university so that's what i'm going to do next. host: fair enough. thank you for the time. you made some news and answered some really interesting questions. thanks for your interest, your keen watching, thanks for being here, we'll look forward to the next time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> president-elect joe biden today will be talking about his covid-19 response and proposed legislation he'll be sending to congress. live coverage starts at 7:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span. you can also listen with the free c-span radio app. use our website, c-span.org /coronavirus to follow the freshman response to the coronavirus outbreak. watch our video any time on demand and track the spread with

maps. sunday night on q&a, a discussion on presidential inaugural addresses from j.f.k. to the upcoming inaugural address of joe biden. with the senior speech writer for barack obama and the senior chief writer for george w. bush. >> inaugural speeches have a feel, the am bans of where the new president takes to take america. with j.f.k., there was a feeling of freshness, of newness, of turning the page from an older generation and bringing in a new one. this is going to be an tun for the -- opportunity for president-elect biden to show what he thinks the tone of america ought to be. >> the best ones, the most

effective ones are the ones in which the new president points forward and talks about his agenda, not in great specificity but more of a thematic speech but clearly and point forward. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. ♪ >> you're catching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's table television companies in 1979. today we're brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. president elect joe biden has said his primary focus when he's in office will be the covid-19 pandemic. two members of his advisory

board