the disbarment department of justice established after watergate special affairs unit whose only job port on allegations of misconduct for the department of justice attorneys. they have incrediblet power. this is to make sure they did not overstep their bounds. on october 3, which is two months ago i filed a formal complaint of attorney misconduct about what the watergate special prosecution did 50 years ago. i found it electronically same day i discovered this group. and the next day i sent them my books which detail the documents in the wrongdoing. and then about a week later i sent a registered letter and i think don't think you're going to be getting out of this because it's 50 years ago. because the same attorneys who did wrong who cut too many corners are the ones who took the documents osm prevented discovery of the wrongdoing. so this is right. all i have heardve back his official notice they have received theai complaint they won't launch an investigation. but this is really delicious. ordinarily when i'm at a cocktail party and people come up what about watergate? i start te

and jeff clark drafted a letter that was supposed to go out on department of justice letterhead. he was stopped from doing so by jeffrey rosen and his then deputy donahue. it culminated in what i call the oval office showdown on january 3rd where a number of department of justice officials are sitting in the oval office with former president trump saying to them, tell me why i shouldn't make jeffrey bossert clark the attorney general and allow him to send this to states that could swing the election to me? certain of his deputies, eric hirschman and pat saying to us, if you do that, you will have our resignation. this is not how the department of justice is supposed to be used. you recall i said a few moments ago that one concrete example the supreme court gave in its july decision of what had to go from the indictment were the former president's interactions with the department of justice officials with respect to putting a doj thumb on the scale for former president trump. it appears to me now that all of those allegations are now out of this superseding indictment. >> i just th

not maybe the most significant scandal but certainly a large scandal is the department of justice went after a life catholic -- a pro-life catholic father of seven for exercising his right to peacefully protest. the department of justice leadership had officers show up at this guy's house and treat him like a common thug for exercising his right to protest. i think every single police officer would agree with me when they say that we want these strong department of justices to focus on law enforcement. why don't they focus on shutting down the drug traffickers at the southern border and the sex traffickers and let americans exercise their first amendment rights? that is not with what the leadep of the department of justice should be focusing on but unfortunately under kamala harris it has. i think we are clearly the party and movement of law enforcement. you talk to the field guys in the fbi, the ones who are on the ground dealing with bad guys and they are as frustrated as we are. we just want to enforce the laws. any other folks from wisconsin? if not i will take from the national po

admissible as evidence because this shocking ruling by the supreme court decision prevents the department of justice from making any references to conduct conversations, engagement with jeffrey clark, who was a member of the department of justice this is at the time you look at the original indictment, there are about 30 references to the department of justice in this superseding indictment, there are zero references to the department of justice. so clearly, the justice department, jack smith has a very difficult task moving forward, trying to this case alive given this unity shield, i would trump soap, be able to use presidential immunity on the basis that he was president absolutely. max, i think we're going to see this case litigated further. and no matter what determination this trial court makes we should expect to see this court, case litigated all the way back to the supreme court in those six very conservative justices that made this initial determined nation about presidential immunity. no indication that they would rule any differently. so it's not clear that jack smith will ever achieved

what's this about that donald trump is talking about suing the fbi and the department of justice in the midst of the case that's still ongoing? >> so, he has announced that he intends to sue the department of justice in connection with the mar-a-lago search. i hate to give any oxygen to this, because it's such a distraction. why do i say that? why is it that this is such a distraction and there is no reason to be thinking about donald trump saying that he intends to bring a lawsuit? he hasn't brought the lawsuit, he intends to. it is a civil suit in connection with the mar-a-lago case. donald trump, if he brings the civil suit in connection with the mar-a-lago case, means that he has to engage in discovery. that means that he has to sit down and give a civil deposition, under oath, to the department of justice. he has to explain what happened at mar-a-lago. he has to explain the allegations of not one, but two allegations of obstruction of justice. he is not going to do that. the other is, if he brings a civil suit that is deemed to be frivolous, he can be sanctioned. he has already bee

the department of justice and the f. b i is attempting through their misguided enforcement of the 4 digit registration to have to define what journalism is, what constitutes journalism. there's a chilling effect on free speech. and if every journalist in america doesn't stand up, understand that eventually they're going to come after you and seek to silence you . this is about the defense of the constitution, plain and simple. you don't have to like me, you can hate me. you can disagree with everything i'm saying, but the key thing about free speech is that disagreeable speech. it's that it's free speech and the best antidote of speech you don't agree with is not suppression, but coming up with better speech, better ideas. and the us government is not cable. and the last thing i'll say is that the 1st amendment and derek g's, americans write a free speech and a free press. hugo, black and 1971. the justice of the supreme court said that it's imperative, it's paramount in the execution of free speech and a free press. one

the hartman of justice went after a pro-life catholic author of seven for exercising his right to peacefully protest, the department of justice showed up -- the department of justice leadership had officers show up at his house and treat him like a common thug for exercising his right of first amendment protest. i think every single police officer would agree with me when they say they want a strong department of justice that focuses on law enforcement. i don't they focus on setting down the drug traffickers at the southern border and the sex traffickers and let americans exercise their first amendment rights? that is not with the leadership of the department of justice should be focused on. unfortunately under kamala harris, it has. i think we are clearly the party and the movement of law enforcement. you talk to the field guys in the fbi, the people on the ground dealing with the bad guys, they are as frustrated with their leadership as we are. we want american leadership to empower law enforcement, to enforce the law. it will make us safer if we do that. any other local wisconsin folks? if not, a couple from the

on page 160, by the way, not a part of the chapter on national security, or the department of justicent of homeland security to reassess its quote, domestic terrorism lines of effort to align with the future republican president, resolutely donald trump's priorities. the blueprint on page 549 calls for a quote, immediate comprehensive review of all major active fbi investigations and activities, and proposes that the fbi redirect its focus to other threats. okay. so, what are the other threats? rather than domestic violence white nationalist extremism, the threats it would like the fbi to focus on our, affirmative action and diversity equity and inclusion initiatives, the fbi. the plan specifically calls for the department of justice to be reorganized to target entities that practice affirmative action or dei. in other words, today's republican party sees diversity at the top national security threat and plans to treat it as such. you cannot make this stuff up. the doj policing dei . last year, the southern poverty law center added 12 conservative so- called parents rights groups to i

this is a frontal assault on the free press, the department of justice and the f. b. i is attempting through their misguided enforcement of the 4 digit registration to have to define what journalism is, what constitutes journalism. it has a chilling effect on free speech, and if every journalist in america doesn't stand up, i understand that eventually they're going to come after you and seek to silence you. this is about the defense of the constitution, plain and simple. you don't have to like me, you can hate me. you can disagree with everything i'm saying. but the key thing about free speech isn't that disagreeable speech. it's that is free speech. and the best antidote of speech you don't agree with is not suppression. but coming up with better speech, better ideas, the american people are being actively deceived by the united states government. and this deception is being perpetrated and encouraged by a, a compliant mainstream media. and it's only through the actions of independent journalist, alternative media, people such as myself, that we, we can challenge thi

i don't believe the department of justice has taken a position. e only authority is a member of the office of legal counsel wrote that there is no self pardon authority. as far as i know, the department has not addressed it further and this cou had not addressed it either. >> when you address that question before, are you speaking in your capacy lely as a member of the special counsel's team or are you speaking on behalf of the justice department, which has special institutional responsibilities? >> i'm speaking on behalf of the justicrtment representing the united states. 't you think we need to ow the answer at least two the justice department's on on that issue in order to decide this case? because if a president has the authority to pardon himself before leaving office and the d.c.'s is -- d.c. circuit i right that there is no immunity from prosecution, won't the predictable result be that presidents in the last couple days of offil pardon themselves from anything they might have been concei charged with committing? >> i rdoubt that, it presupp

the supreme court had said that president trump's communications with his department of justice were art of his core constitutional authority and the special counsel responded to that by taking out of this superseding indictment over 15 paragraphs that just talked about the plan to use the department of justice to essentially put its thumb on the scale and tell state legislatures that they didn't have to accept their state's slate of electors, that includes a series of conversations with senior leadership at the department of justice who told the president in no uncertain terms that there was no evidence of widespread fraud. so that's all gone. in addition, there are some recharacterizations as you mentioned. there is an effort to try to refer to former vice president pence in his capacity as president of the senate, not as vice president where he could be considered a presidential adviser, but in his capacity as president of the senate it's clear that he and former president trump are communicating in a different way for which there wouldn't be necessarily presidential immunity. thos

against that case, which as you noted has been dismissed the notice that he served on the department of justice didn't a lawsuit yet, and under federal statute, it can't become a lawsuit until the department of justice tells him they reject the claims or until six months has passed in which case, trump is entitled to say your silence is a denial, and now i'm entitled to sue you. it's not clear to me that this will ever mature into a suit why? because on one hand, former president trump could end up being then current president trump. it's not clear he would sue his own department of justice but try and work out a settlement. the other thing is there are a lot of problems with the claims he has articulated today, and i want to pause to you allow to ask me what's important before i talk about all the times the filing is riddling with. >> i'm curious, and we don't have a lot of time, is there any indication that jack smith is going to appeal, number one, and any indication he could pass off this case to a u.s. attorney >> i don't think so. i think if jack smith were prepared to pass off his case t

joining me now is former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the department of justicet of "prosecuting donald trump" podcast. good to see you. i need you to tell me, what is different, what has happened? >> as you were just indicating, what the department of justice has done now through special counsel jack smith is really trying to bring this indictment into conformity with what they can glean from the supreme court decision on immunity. focused on the areas where the supreme court provided some guidance. for example they got rid of any kind of allegations involving former president trump's communications with his own justice department or executive branch, because the supreme court said that is within his constitutional authority. other areas such as his pressure on vice president pence, his pressure on state legislatures and state legislators and his statements to the public, they eliminated some things and added some things. they focused on the fact that the allegations involving pens involved him in his role as president of the senate, which is an article one role

he told them this was weaponization of the department of justice. he told them that these january 6 defendants had done nothing wrong and now here's the supreme court at least a subset of them agreeing that some of the charges need to be re-evaluated or dismissed. then finally or not finally, then you had the loper decision which cuts back on the ability of agencies to fill in gaps in the law using their expertise and judgment. this was a 40-year doctrine that basically said, if you have laws that are not -- that have not anticipated all circumstances, we are going to let the experts at federal agencies in consultation with the public and consultation with trade associates, interested parties, advocacy groups, we're going to let them interpret these statutes and we're going to defer to that agency interpretation. why is that important? it's because important because it recognizes that we should have government alymerrities, that we should -- governmental merit, that we should have people experts in laws and policies making decisionings. expertise in

she was probably most instrumental in getting him to step down as opposed to the department of justice. if harris wins, most of this bickering and the conversation, his reluctance will be forgotten. it will be seen as he did the right thing to put her in a position of power. if she loses, i think there will be questions about should he have stepped down sooner, should he have given the democratic party a chance to have a robust primary? i also want to address one more thing. the department of justice is really filled with a number of patriots work hard on behalf of the country. i think it's important to note, in the last couple of weeks, prosecutors have heard convictions against a democratic senator, bob menendez and hunter biden. if they are being waged against political figures, it is worth noting that those two are democrats. it's important for us to think responsibly about the department of justice. it is in office filled with a really good people who are doing their best. host: last call from south bend, indiana. this is adam. you are on with lindsay chervinsky. caller: thank you

she was probably most instrumental in getting him to step down as opposed to the department of justice. if harris wins, most of this bickering and the conversation, his reluctance will be forgotten. it will be seen as he did the right thing to put her in a position of power. if she loses, i think there will be questions about should he have stepped down sooner, should he have given the democratic party a chance to have a robust primary? i also want to address one more thing. the department of justice is really filled with a number of patriots work hard on behalf of the country. i think it's important to note, in the last couple of weeks, prosecutors have heard convictions against a democratic senator, bob menendez and hunter biden. if they are being waged against political figures, it is worth noting that those two are democrats. it's important for us to think responsibly about the department of justice. it is in office filled with a really good people who are doing their best. host: last call from south bend, indiana. this is adam. you are on with lindsay chervinsky. caller: thank you

jd vance actually sent a letter last year to the department of justice saying, enforce the comstock act, and

these congressional hearings helped lead to new laws and the creation of a new department of justice. they had a major impact on our country for decades. well, as part of our series congress investigates, we hear the story from professor sean lee alexander of the university of kansas. he's the author of the book reconstruction violence and the ku klux klan hearings. professor alexander, following the civil war, were freed. black slaves starting to make progress and changes in their lives. absolutely. in the immediate years of the emancipation, african-americans organized in tremendous ways and and began to build build wealth, own property. they began to set up schools and go to schools and began to exercise the franchise wherever they could before the 14th and 15th amendments were passed. and that progress in many ways challenged white perception of african-americans that they held in bondage and considered inferior to themselves. what size population are we talking about? freed black slaves at this point. you're looking at about a over 4 million individuals in the south at the time.

these congressional hearings helped lead to new laws and the creation of a new department of justice. they had a major impact on our country for decades. well, as part of our series congress investigates, we hear the story from professor sean lee alexander of the university of kansas. he's the author of the book reconstruction violence and the ku klux klan hearings. professor alexander, following the civil war, were freed. black slaves starting to make progress and changes in their lives. absolutely. in the immediate years of the emancipation, african-americans organized in tremendous ways and and began to build build wealth, own property. they began to set up schools and go to schools and began to exercise the franchise wherever they could before the 14th and 15th amendments were passed. and that progress in many ways challenged white perception of african-americans that they held in bondage and considered inferior to themselves. what size population are we talking about? freed black slaves at this point. you're looking at about a over 4 million individuals in the south at the time.

department of education. they want to convert the department of justice into an institute of political persecution under the president. so his friends are left alone in all cases and the political adversaries as he sees them are investigated and prosecuted. they are telling us what they want to do. the funny thing is when trump says i don't know the first thing about project 2025 and there is a lot of stuff i disagree with, too, though he has not said what. >> so you've got the sort of issues, things like getting rid of the department of education or using the long dormant, you know, ridiculous comstock act to essentially empower the department of justice to stop people from mailing birth control or medication abortion, right? you also have sort of the way the government works and i think this is an important place to highlight it. chief justice john roberts in his decision in the trump immunity case, donald trump himself, russell vought as you will hear in a second in this interview, and also project 2025 are all in agreement that any agency including the department of justice is the president's play thing to do wit

509 and 510, they grant the attorney general broad power, jack smith argues to operate the department of justice. they also authorize him to appoint the special counsel in this case. those provisions, first enacted as part of the law that created the department of justice authorized the attorney general to structure and staff the department in order to fulfill his law enforcement responsibilities. and attorneys general have long relied on sections 509 and 510 with congresses full knowledge and approval to create the justice department's institutional infrastructure and congress has long used similar provisions to authorize other department heads, such as the secretaries of defense, state, treasury, and labor to appoint inferior officers to carry out critical work. >> the second part of what you mentioned, analogizing to other departments in the executive branch is a really interesting argument because essentially they're trying to say, if you undo this, and you don't allow merrick garland, for example, to appoint special counsels, there will be reverberations not only across the department of ju

this is a frontal assault on the free press, the department of justice and the f. b i is attempting through their misguided enforcement of the 4 digit registration to.

that, that you don't want that politicized, that facts and law are what should govern the department of justicet you don't sense in any minute of this -- of these videos that sense of independence, that sense of the department of justice and the fbi being a check, that the intelligence community is a check, that facts that are sort of inconvenient for the white house are not things that you ignore that is an important part of the department of justice. the same way it's an important part of congress, of the media, of the ports, to be that independent check. as opposed to how do we have just one unitary authority to -- and this really is just a way of embroidering amanda's point, which i just completely agree with, about the entire tone of project 2025 in these videos >> it's amazing. and i'm grateful to all of you for -- i feel like i watched the fewest number of videos. i'm going to have to catch up. andy kroll, it's an incredible scoop, an incredible body of reporting. everyone needs to watch all of them everyone sticks around when we come back, tracing the through line from the white suprema

them very well from when i worked in the mueller investigation, we were still part of the department of justice all rules including coordination with other parts of the department that had equities. my guess as to what is going on, is there probably is some tension, jack smith is a very hard charging prosecutor. i'm sure that he wanted to actually meet this deadline and not ask for more time, but if the department of justice, they are a large place with a lot of pieces and a lot of people and merrick garland, the attorney general, is a very thoughtful and very cautious person, and i suspect there probably was a bit of a tug of war as to how to handle this, and the timing. here's the big picture, though, the downside of delay is that to the extent that people think there could be a hearing, a factual hearing where we hear from witnesses, the more there's a delay, the less likely that will happen before the election. >> andrew, let me get your take on this tweet from george washington university professor randall eliasson who tweeted, could he need more time because he's preparing a superseding i

a former acting assistant attorney general for the united states department of justice. she's the co-host of the prosecuting donald trump podcast. >> still to come tonight, totally normal, nothing to see here in the words of donald trump. george conway joins me next. george conway joins me next. y j. s shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. it's lying dormant, waiting... and could reactivate. shingles strikes as a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. and it could wake at any time. think you're not at risk for shingles? it's time to wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. sleep more deeply and wake up rejuvenated. purple mattresses exclusive gel flex grid draws away heat, relieves pressure and instantly adapts. sleep better. live purple. right now, save up to $1,000 during our labor day sale. visit purple.com or a store near you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist >>> donald trump was off the campaign trail today, but he was quite busy. on truth