PBS News Hour - Full Show - September 26, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: September 26, 2025

Friday on the News Hour, President Trump predicts more of his political opponents will face prosecution after his Justice Department indicts James Comey. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu divides global leaders at the United Nations General Assembly, vowing to "finish the job" against Hamas in Gaza. Plus, Scarlett Johansson takes on a role behind the camera for her feature film directorial debut. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett on the NewsHour tonight. I hope there are this case. You can't let this happen to a country. President Trump predicts more of his political opponents will face prosecution after his Justice Department indicts former FBI director James Comey, who's already pledging to fight back. I'm innocent. So let's have a trial. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu divides global leaders at the United Nations General Assembly,

vowing to finish the job against Hamas in Gaza. And actress Scarlett Johansson takes on a new role behind the camera for her future film directorial debut of Eleanor the Great. I have to approach my job with empathy and then let the audience, let them have their own feelings about the characters and what they do. Welcome to the News Hour. Former FBI director James Comey has been indicted by a federal grand jury, an extraordinary escalation in President Trump's campaign to prosecute his political rivals.

Comey, a vocal critic of Mr. Trump, was charged for what the Department of Justice says is false testimony to Congress five years ago around investigations he led into the 2016 campaign. Comey has long been at the center of one of the president's biggest grievances, investigations into Russian interference and potential ties to Trump's campaign. Our White House correspondent Liz Landers starts our coverage tonight. More fallout tonight following the Justice Department's near unprecedented felony indictment against former FBI director James Comey. Comey was charged late Thursday on two felony counts, obstruction of a congressional proceeding and making a false statement. It's a pretty easy case because, look, he lied. Mr. Trump, who is himself, the first former president convicted of a felony,

celebrated the move today on his way to a golf tournament. And he insinuated the charges won't stop with Comey. Frankly, I hope there are this, because you can't let this happen to a country. It's about justice, really. It's not revenge. It's about it. It's also about the fact that you can't let this go on. A defiant Comey responded to the indictment overnight.

My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump. But we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees. And you shouldn't either. My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'm innocent. So let's have a trial. The charges against Comey stem from an appearance before the Senate in 2020, where the prosecution alleges the ex-director authorized a leak of classified information to the media and then knowingly

told the Senate differently. Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, quote, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? You responded under oath, quote, never. He then asked you, quote, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration. You responded again under oath. No. I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017. All of this comes just days after President Trump called for Comey's prosecution, along with others, writing directly to his attorney general, Pam Bondi, on social media, quote,

We can't delay any longer. Justice must be served now. Adding urgency, the Justice Department faced a five-year statute of limitations for charges based on Comey's hearing that would have expired next week. Trump has long considered Comey a political enemy. Since firing him months into his first term, the president has been locked in a bitter feud with the former director for approving an investigation into Russian election interference and possible ties to Mr. Trump's campaign. Is there any cost to people trying to destroy President Trump's presidency? Defenders of the president took to the airwaves yesterday. calling the charges long overdue.

I think this is the beginning of the accountability and certainly not the ends for these lawfare Democrats. But opponents have criticized how the Comey case was brought. Lindsay Halligan, Trump's newly installed U.S. attorney, took the Comey indictment by herself to a grand jury because no other prosecutors would join her due to the reservations about the strength of the case. Previously, one of Trump's personal attorneys,

Halligan has never prosecuted a case. for predecessor Eric Seabert was pushed out of his job for not bringing mortgage fraud charges against another of Trump's enemies, New York Attorney General Letitia James. Democrats called the Comey charges part of a troubling pattern. These charges are going to be dismissed. James Comey will win in court. But what it reflects is a broader attack on the rule of law that should frighten every single American. The indictment comes weeks after Comey's daughter, Maureen, was fired from her job as a federal prosecutor in New York.

And just minutes after the charges were filed, Comey's son-in-law resigned from his post with the Justice Department. Comey will be arraigned in early October. The judge assigned to the case is a Biden appointee. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Liz Landers. For further insight into the legal and political developments, we turn now to Barbara McQuaid. She's a University of Michigan law professor and former federal prosecutor. Barb, welcome back to the News Hour. Let's just start with the charges here.

One count of making a false statement, another of obstruction of construction of congressional proceeding. What would convince a grand jury to indict on those? What could they have seen? Well, the standard, of course, at the grand jury is simply probable cause. Based on the reporting, it sounds like what they looked at were the grand jury transcripts of both Jim Comey and then perhaps Andrew McCabe, the deputy director. And so if there are discrepancies between those two things that could establish generously probable cause in the minds of a grand jury. Now keep in mind at a grand jury, there's no defense attorney. There's no cross-examination. And so it's just the prosecutor presenting one side of the case. So probable cause is the bar for a grand jury.

Where's the bar for the prosecutors? The allegation here is that Comey lied to Congress about authorizing someone to leak information to journalists. What do prosecutors have to prove here? Well, at trial, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jim Comey made a statement that was false, that the statement was material, that is determinative of something under their investigation, and that he then and there knew that the statement was false. The trial, they'll have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that decides it unanimously. What's also interesting is, although legally what's required at a grand jury stage is just probable cause, the Justice Department's policy manual says a prosecutor should not initiate a prosecution unless they believe the evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial. That means guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And you've heard there Jim Comey has said that he is innocent, that he welcomes a trial. What's his defense likely to argue here?

And is it possible that this never even makes it to trial? I think so. I mean, I think before the case goes to trial, he will likely find. some motions to dismiss. One grounds for a motion to dismiss would be selective prosecution. That means that a person was targeted not because of some legitimate law enforcement objective, but because of some arbitrary or improper objective. In this case, perhaps, political considerations. And Donald Trump's posts on social media would certainly be evidence to document that sort of a thing. It could also be an argument that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of due process violations

as to his right to a fair trial when you have Donald Trump telling the world the president of the United States that he lied or that he's a bad person, everybody's going to hear that and it potentially taints the jury pool. But then ultimately, if this case does go to trial, that's where Jim Comey will attack the evidence that the government puts in, will perhaps likely, I think, testify on his own behalf and deny the charges. And then it'll be up to a jury to decide whether the government has met its burden of proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Barb, as you heard Liz Landers report there, the fact that only attorney Lindsey Halligan's name is on the indictment, that none of the prosecutors in her office signed off on this.

How unusual is that? And what does that say to you about this case? It's extraordinary. I served as an assistant U.S. attorney for 12 years and signed many indictments in that capacity. When I served as U.S. attorney for eight years, I signed, exactly zero because it is the job of the line prosecutor to sign those indictments. The fact that she was the one who signed the indictment and the only one, and that she was the one and the only one who presented this case to the grand jury after four days on the job is truly extraordinary. What it says to me is that nobody else would touch this case with a 10-foot pole. Why? Because they don't believe in the case and they believe that they could perhaps have ethical concerns

and grievances against them even risking their own law licenses if they were to participate. And let's just revisit that timeline, as Liz reported it out to, this all followed. As you mentioned, President Trump publicly telling his attorney general to prosecute some of his critics, including Comey. The president said today he hopes that there are more people who could be prosecuted ahead. Barb, big picture, what is to stop President Trump here from using the Department of Justice as his own personal law firm to settle scores and suppress critics? Well, what's interesting is that since Watergate, there have been norms that prohibit conversations, communications between the White House and the Department of Justice. There have been policies that say prosecution should not be used for political purposes. But President Trump has busted

through all of those norms and now appears to be directing his Department of Justice to do his bidding. In many ways, he may feel empowered by the decision of the Supreme Court last summer that said he personally cannot be held criminally liable for acts that are conducted within the scope of his constitutional duties as president. I think these qualify. So what really is left is individual cases of acquittals if there is no evidence to prove these cases or impeachment by the Congress. And, you know, that's something that we have seen Congress loathe to do in recent years to impeach and then convict a member of their own party. But that is the recourse that we have. That's former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuay joining us tonight. Barb, thank you for your time.

Always good to speak with you. Thanks. For more on the indictment and its implications, we're joined now by Ty Cobb. He was a White House attorney in the first Trump administration, managing the response to the special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into alleged Russian election interference. Thanks for being with us. My pleasure. Thank you for having me. And I want to start with your reaction to the indictment of former FBI director James Comey

and to the way these charges were brought, both the substance and the process. So I think the process is more important than the substance. You know, this process was worse than unusual. It was wholly un-American and really despicable in the way it was done. America's long been a country where even-handed justice has been the standard and the goal. and that's all been abandoned under this president and his willing assistant attorney general. Keep in mind that career prosecutors, including a seasoned prosecutor of Trump's own appointment as the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia had concluded at the end of a long process, along with the FBI, that there was just insufficient. evidence with which to proceed against the former FBI director, Mr. Comey.

You know, in response, Trump fired that prosecutor. According to him, the prosecutor says he resigned and ordered in no uncertain terms his attorney general to punish his enemies, not just Mr. Comey, but Senator Schiff and Attorney General Letitia James, saying that, you know, these people had tortured him. You know, he'd been wrong, badly, and it was time for time for them to be punished now. And that historically is not the way America works. Now, that's the way Iyndi's Chile worked, Stalin's Russia worked, Hitler's Germany worked. But it's not the way America works. It's not the role of an attorney general to do what the president orders him to do in criminal matters.

Attorney generals with character historically, Elliot Richardson, and then his deputy William Ruckel's house had the appropriate response when President Nixon tried to strongarm them into firing the then independent counsel of Dr. Bull Cox. and they said no, and were forced to resign. They, you know, honored their oath to the Constitution. As we saw, sadly, at Great Hall of Justice shortly after Trump's inauguration, when Pam Bondi took over, she pledged the fealty of herself and her department to the president rather than the Constitution, and that sadly is the way this is gone. So I don't think this can be reported. as, you know, one or two degrees of standard deviation from the norm.

This is a wholesale 180 from the norms of what made America different from third world dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and tyranny. I think this case could well be dismissed because of vindictive prosecution standards or selective prosecution standards or prosecutorial misconduct standards. How do you assess the way President Trump in his second term has asserted control over the Justice Department and many of the prosecutors who work for it as compared to the first term? Well, he appointed people who, you know, were clearly, you know, slavishly devoted to him and willing to break any ethical barriers or legal barriers to do his bidding. That's much different than

the first term where, you know, Senator Sessions is the first Attorney General and Bill Barr is his successor, you know, people can quarrel with some of their decisions and, you know, some of their policies, but I don't think they can quarrel about the fact that they were men who had devoted themselves to public service over a long period of time and cared greatly about their country. Here, what we have is people who, you know, care less about their country and certainly less about the Constitution and more about their state. standing with the president whose crippling narcissism dictates his every whim, including this vengeance tirade that he's on in the Eastern District.

You worked closely with President Trump, as we mentioned, when he pushed for something that was clearly outside of the bounds of established norms, how did those conversations typically unfold in the White House? Well, I can't really go into my direct interactions with the president on legal matters. That would be inappropriate. But I can say that the difference between the people that were in the White House when I was there and what appears to be going on now is, you know, when he wanted to take a particular course of action, if it wasn't appropriate or if it was unwise, unethical, or wrong, there were people who would say that to him. He had very strong, capable people who were experienced in government, knew government much better than he did, and acted as an appropriate restraint when he suggested something that they perceived as perhaps out of bounds or inappropriate. I think now what you have is, you know, whatever his narcissistic whim may be, vengeance, power.

war crimes, whatever, people just say, yes. How quickly can we get that done for you, so I think that's a much different circumstance than what we see now. I have to ask, did you feel this way about the president when you worked for him? Or has there been a fundamental change? No, I was never a Trump supporter. I never voted for Trump. I took the position because I was asked to serve the country and the president at the time in a matter where I thought because of my strong relationship and long friendship with Bob Mueller, together we could find a path that would not divide the country through what was going to be a difficult time.

And I think we got that, you know, done largely. But, no, I was not a ideological match for the president, and I was not a personal supporter. But I'm very concerned. And frankly, I don't understand how anybody, you know, who cares about the country could not be concerned about the attacks on the rule of law, which has been so diminished now in our country. And to the point that it's a danger to not just Trump's enemies, but to all of us as, you know, he picks winners and losers. I mean, Tom Homan's went to McDonald's today and presumably spent some of the cash that he got as a bribe. And, you know, there are no consequences for that. You know, even the White House press secretary lies on his behalf, insisting he didn't take the money even though he's on tape taking the money.

And instead, James Comey is preparing for his arraignment. And that, I think is, I think that people should understand how wrong that is. The president, as we know, prizes personal loyalty above all. What's the red line that even loyalists should not cross and how should they defend that boundary? Well, I think the red line is really established for many of these people by the oath that they take. Not everybody takes an oath to be a federal employee, but certainly the Attorney General, FBI agents, prosecutors, cabinet officials, and others, you know, taking an oath to either defend and protect or preserve and defend the Constitution. and that should be their line. And the Constitution, you know, requires, you know,

a loyalty to a set of principles that have been abandoned by this administration. Ty Cob, thank you for your perspectives and for your time this evening. My pleasure. Good luck. Thank you. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly, touting his country's operations against Iran and its proxies in the Middle East, and vowing to press ahead with Israel's military offensive in Gaza. As dozens of delegates walked out in protest just before he started speaking, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a defiant speech at the United Nations.

Israel must finish the job. That is why we will. want to do so as fast as possible. A speech that at times included visual aids, placards, maps, and charts. Let's do a pop quiz. In defense of Israel's intensifying expansion into Gaza. But regrettably, many leaders who are represented in this hall, they send a very different message. He also delivered a sharp rebuke to nations that have acknowledged a Palestinian state. Your disgraceful decision,

will encourage terrorism against Jews and against innocent people everywhere. President Trump understands better than any other leader that Israel and America face a common threat. That says President Donald Trump today said he was close to forging a deal to end the war in Gaza, offering few details. It's looking like we have a deal on Gaza, and we'll let you know. I think it's a deal that we'll get the hostages back.

It's going to be a deal that will end the war. It's going to be a deal with, it's going to be peace. It's not going to happen. It follows the president's comments yesterday, vowing he won't allow Israel to annex the West Bank. For decades, the very idea of peace between... In an unprecedented move, the Israeli military today broadcast Netanyahu's UN speech into Gaza. I've surrounded Gaza with massive loudspeakers in the hope that our dear hostages will hear my message.

Meantime, in Gaza City today, the country. chaotic aftermath of another Israeli airstrike. They said they were going to the south. Then we heard they were bombed. They were all martyred. We are all displaced moving from place to place. What is our fault in all this?

What have we done? Hope for an end to the war, still nowhere in sight. Also today, the U.S. Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration move forward with freezing $4 billion in foreign aid that had been allocated by Congress. Mr. Trump said last month that he would not spend the money

and instead invoked something called a pocket rescission. That's a rarely used maneuver that allows Mr. Trump to bypass Congress to hold up the funds. Today's ruling is just the latest legal victory for the Trump administration and, in particular, the president's broader push to have greater control over federal spending. A wide range of industries are bracing for the latest round of President Trump's tariffs, which are set to take effect next week. Major pharmaceutical companies are hoping to avoid the worst of his planned 100% tariffs on imported medicine. Officials say there are carve-outs for companies that are already building plants in the U.S.

and for countries who already have deals with the Trump administration. President Trump also announced tariffs of 50% on kitchen cabinets, 30% on upholstered furniture, and 25% on heavy trucks all set to kick in on Wednesday. Federal officials say they've removed an immigration officer from his current duties after an altercation at a Manhattan immigration court. Video provided by ProPublica shows the officer shoving an Ecuadorian woman to the ground in front of her crying children after her husband was arrested. She had been pleading with him in Spanish, saying at one point, you don't care about anything. In a statement today, the Department of Homeland Security said, the officer's

conduct is unacceptable and beneath the men and women of ice. The incident is a rare example of the Trump administrations holding ICE officers accountable for their behavior. Sinclair broadcasting and Neckstar are ending their blackouts of Jimmy Kimmel's late-night program. That means the show is set to air across all ABC affiliates across the nation tonight. The two major broadcast owners had continued preempting Kimmel's program even after Disney ended its suspension earlier this week. Disney had suspended Kimmel last week for his comments following Charlie Kirk's murder. In a statement today, Sinclair wrote, quote, take seriously our responsibility to provide programming that serves the interests of our communities

while also honoring our obligations to air national network programming. Democratic Congresswoman Mikey Sherrill is calling for an investigation into the release of her unredacted military service records. The New York, the New Jersey Democrat is running for governor against Republican Jack Siddirelli. The documents came to light after an ally of Siderrelli filed a Freedom of Information Act request for her military file. The National Archives apologized. to Cheryl after releasing documents that included personal information like her social security number and home address. An official with her campaign says the Trump administration may have violated federal law with the release. On Wall Street today, stocks closed higher to end the week. The Dow Jones

Industrial Average gained roughly 300 points. The NASDAQ added around 100 points and the S&P 500 snapped a three-day losing streak. Activist and fugitive Asada Shakur has died. She was born, Joanne Chesemard, and in her 20s joined the Black Panther Party and later the Black Liberation Army. In the 1970s, she was given a life sentence for the fatal shooting of a New Jersey state trooper. She maintained her innocence and escaped from prison fleeing to Cuba, where she lived under political asylum for the rest of her life. Here she is in 1998, speaking to NBC News from Havana. I never received justice, and I escaped, A, because I was afraid for my life, and B, because I knew that I would never receive justice.

To her supporters, Shakur was a symbol of resistance. She was also considered a godmother to the late rapper Tupac Shakur. But to law enforcement, she was one of the country's most notorious fugitives. In 2013, she became the first woman ever on the FBI's most wanted list. Cuban officials said she died of health conditions and advanced age. Asada Shakur was 78 years old. And Robert Barnett, the Washington lawyer and power broker who helped shape book deal careers and contracts for some of the nation's most prominent figures has died,

Barnett built a reputation as one of the Capitol's premier dealmakers, advising corporations, journalists, and politicians across the political spectrum. He was behind multi-million dollar publishing agreements for the Obamas, the Clintons, and George W. Bush and his wife, among many others. Barnett was married to longtime CBS News correspondent Rita Braver, who confirmed his death but did not give a cause. And he was also a friend to many of us here at the News Hour, generous with his advice, quick with his wit, and always supportive of our work. Bob Barnett was 79 years old.

Still to come on the News Hour, ahead of consequential state elections, how the Trump administration is trying to change the way people vote. David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on Comey's indictment and the offending of Justice Department norms. Plus, Scarlett Johansson discusses her feature film directorial debut. This is the PBS News Hour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington and in the west from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. This podcast is supported in part by the New England Innovation Academy in Marlborough, Massachusetts, where today's students become tomorrow's innovators by discovering their passions and purpose while preparing for what's next, reimagining education with a future

focus curriculum, entrepreneurial mindset, and real-world application, currently enrolling grade 6 through 12, day and boarding students. Learn more at NEIacademy.org. In recent days, the Justice Department has sued eight states to compel them to share their voter registration lists with the federal government. Those lists include voters' personal data, like dates of birth and social security numbers. State officials oppose the move because of concerns about how the information will be used. That comes as President Trump continues to target election systems, including mail-in ballots. So Liz Landers is back now with a closer look.

Trump's targeting of mail-in voting is just one action he's been critical of. To discuss more, I'm joined by David Becker, the executive director of the Nonpartisan Nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research. David, thank you so much for joining us. The Department of Justice announced that they are suing after the states refused to turn over voter registration list. The Department of Justice sent us a statement and said, in part, that Congress gave the Justice Department authority under statutes, and they list out a few of these to ensure that states have proper voter registration procedures and programs to maintain clean voter rolls containing only eligible voters in federal elections. Do the states have the ability to refuse to send

this information over? So first of all, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, which are two of the statutes that they cite, do in a new. in fact, require and authorize the states to engage in list maintenance, voter list maintenance, to keep their voter lists up to date. But those responsibilities reside with the states and the states alone. What the Justice Department can do, and I know this because I worked for seven years as a lawyer in the Justice Department enforcing these statutes, is they can say to states, you have a program that does these things, that removes voters who have died, removes voters who have moved away, but it doesn't enable the Justice Department to seize that authority from

the states and do it for the states when they don't want to. Another big factor here is that a lot of this data is highly sensitive. Data like driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth, which are the holy trinity of identity theft, and states have very significant regulations to protect that data from disclosure. Remember, the federal government who was revealed just uploaded a huge amount of data from the Social Security database to a vulnerable public cloud server. So the states have a very good reason to want to protect their data and get more answers from the DOJ that the DOJ has not provided. It has not been clear what they're going to do with this data, how they're going to store this data, who's going to have access to

this data. In a separate action that the Department of Justice is taking, they sent a request back in August to access voting machines, specifically Dominion voting systems that were used in the 2020 election in two counties in Missouri. Neither of these county election officials have complied to turn over these voting machines. Does the Department of Justice have input on voting machines and maintaining the actual physical infrastructure for voting? With rare exception, the DOJ has absolutely no authority over voting machines. They might have some authority to ensure that the voting process is accessible to, for instance, people with disabilities or people who don't speak English very well. That's in the Voting Rights Act. But in general, they have no authority

to seize or inspect voting machines in any way. And the way that this was done in states like Missouri, there's also allegations this was done in Colorado, is it appears they went through some kind of third party to try to twist arms with local election officials and get access to those devices. It's even more troubling because there is federal law that requires these local election officials to maintain custody. Chain of custody is very important with voting machines. And if that chain of custody is destroyed, it could render those machines unusable in the next election. So there's no clear indication, again, what the DOJ is doing, whether it has any competence whatsoever to look at voting machines, and absolutely no federal statute that

authorizes them to do that. I want to play for you a soundbite from President Trump last month talking about mail-in ballots. Let's listen. Mail-in ballots are corrupt. Mail-in ballots, you can never have a real democracy with mail-in ballots. And we, as a Republican Party, are going to do everything possible that we get rid of mail-in ballots. The president has repeatedly attacked mail-in ballots and that form of voting. Are mail-in ballots secure? Well, we've had mail-in-balloting, mail-in voting, since at least the Civil War, so for over 150 years.

And in fact, the states that started making it more popular, extending it to more people, often tended to be redder states, states like Arizona, Utah, who are thinking about voters who might be older, who might be in rural areas, who needed to find ways to vote. It's absolutely secure. Every state has multiple protections in place on the voter registration side, once the ballots come back in to check to see the signatures are matching and the right person is voting. And also, if anyone ever tried to vote a ballot that wasn't theirs, it's likely they're going to try, that person's going to show up. And so there'll be protections in place to make sure male voting is secure. To the point that you were just making,

there are 36 states that allow no excuse absentee voting, including several that are almost entirely vote by mail. President Trump won 20 of those. Does the president have the power to get rid of this kind of voting? No, the founders were very wise when they constructed the constitution. Remember, they had just defeated a tyrant in England and achieved their freedom here in the United States. And one of the things they were really worried about was that a future despot, a future authoritarian, would try to seize power through some kind of populism or something like that. And so they decentralized the running of elections through something called the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which says that the time, place, and manner of elections

is regulated by the state legislatures. Congress can also regulate it, of course Congress being made up by the states. But the White House, the president, plays absolutely no role in elections. and if the president wants to change anything with regard to federal elections, he, of course, has to go through Congress to do that. David Becker, thank you so much. Thank you, Liz. Thank you, Liz. Much to discuss with our friends, Brooks and Capehart.

That's New York Times columnist, David, Brooks and Jonathan K. Part of MSNBC. It's great to see you both. So David, President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, Lindsay Halligan, had been on the job for just four days when she went before a grand jury seeking this extraordinary, unprecedented indictment of James Comey. How do you view the charges themselves and the process that led to these charges? I view it the way every other sentient human being views it as an erosion of our democracy, blatant one. You know, you want your prosecutors to ask themselves one question. Well, two. Did this person commit a crime, and can we prove it? And clearly, that's not the way you can think if you're

in the justice partner these days. The only question you have to ask yourself is, does the president want me to do this? And that's just a violation of our basic fundamental principles. And so I wish I had something sophisticated to say. But when you look at what the actual indictment is, it claims that he knew that somebody else did some leak. Well, it's so flimsy. You can see why they've been deciding not to prosecute this case over and over and over again, and to do it a week before the term runs out with the prosecutors never prosecuted anything before, it's the obvious. It's a violation of our democracy. Jonathan, how does all of this strike you? Look, when it comes to democracy and threats to democracy, there will be no, there will be no

daylight between me and David. I come at this with the same view. You know, justice is supposed to be blind. It is supposed to be meted out without fear or favor of the powerful and certainly without pressure from the president. And now what we've seen time and time again, this isn't the only time, but we've seen justice looking over her shoulder wondering what does the president want me to do. And the other thing about this indictment of James Comey, it's only two pages. And it's only two pages because it's double spaced. It is it is, it is literally so flimsy that it is no wonder that the former FBI director is saying, yeah, let's go to trial. Because I think he knows deep down if justice is to prevail, if the rule of law

is to be upheld, a jury of his peers will find him not guilty. And David, the president is predicting more prosecutions to come. He told a reporter on the South Law, and he doesn't have a list, but he says, I think there will be others. We pull together a list of all the people the president has targeted for retribution in varying degrees. You see them all there. Latisha James, you see Jimmy Kimmel, Adam Schiff, John Bolton. The list goes on. Stepping back, what does this moment mean for the Justice Department itself? It's independence, its credibility, and the way Americans view its role going forward. Gone. You know, and of course, it's not the first time the Justice Department has been used. You would say John F. Kennedy

shouldn't have appointed his brother as Attorney General. But it's, you know, one of the things I think we've learned is the Constitution is a magnificent document, but they made it too hard to change. And a lot of countries have independent prosecutorial systems, and they don't have a politician determining who's going to, and we relied, instead of a legal precedent, that it's going to be separate and independent, we relied on norms.

We relied on presidents restraining themselves. And it turns out, and we've learned this since the first Trump term, that norms that we thought were, We almost thought they were real, like concrete. And norms are really powerful, but if somebody destroys them, they've destroyed your system. And so the eruption of norms has really led to us where we are today. And then the final thing I'd say is that Lindsay Halligan, she might be a wonderful person. I don't know.

I don't know. But the quality of a job of a prosecutor, like the quality of a general, like the quality of a pilot, like the quality of a journalist, experience helps. And the people who were fired because they refused to do this were experienced prosecutors. I don't know their politics, but they lived up to the standard of their craft. And when you have somebody who's willing to betray the standard of their craft, you've got something bigger than one case.

You've got an administration where people are going to do the things that are disgraceful because they just don't see any disgrace in it. And Jonathan, building on David's point about the erosion of norms, How might this indictment influence America's credibility abroad, where the rule of law has long been the cornerstone of our democracy? Right. The answer to your question is in the question. The United States has been a beacon around the world for a whole host of reasons, but primarily because of the rule of law, that if you go before the judicial system, you go before a jury of your peers, you will, you will. you will have your day in court. And what we're seeing here is, I agree with David, the independence of DOJ, it is gone. And the one thing that, that in addition to the norms that David talked about, that the constitution relied on, that the founders relied on,

was leaders of good character. And that is what we do not have in the current president of the United States. And I say that because a person of good character would not single out his or her enemies for prosecution without evidence and just say flatly they're guilty of something and then demand that the people at the Justice Department go find that something. We are in a very bad place when it comes to the rule of law. And this is why the world is so worried about what is happening to this country, why they were so worried about a Trump 2.0. And we are also in this country days away from a government shutdown with no off-ramp insight. The OMB director, Russ Vote, he charged into this escalating shutdown fight,

warning of mass federal layoffs unless Democrats basically do what President Trump and Republicans want. David, what do you make of the way the Trump administration is playing hardball here? It was entirely predictable. Look, Donald Trump ran for office saying he was going to take a flamethrower to the U.S. government, federal bureaucracy. He hired Elon Musk, and Musk more or less failed. Those created a lot of chaos, but it didn't take a blowtorch to the U.S. government. It was mostly ineffective. And to me, the problem here is that Chuck Schumer's decided to pick up where Elon Musk leaves off. By shutting down the right, heading us toward a government shutdown, he will give the federal government, or the Trump administration,

incredible latitude to fire people, to decimate more agencies, to pour money where they need to for political support, to withdraw money where they want to because they don't think it'll politically hurt him. They are handing Russell Vaugh amazing power when they do this. And that's just not me saying. This is what Chuck Schumer said in May when he decided not to shut down the government. He said it would give carte launch for the Trump administration to destroy vital services. It would hand the keys to the city and the state and the country to Russell Vaugh. I don't know what's different from now from March. I think he made the right call in March. This is not the battle to fight because it will just lead to the destruction of the federal

government. And there is no upside here for anybody. People do not win government shutdown. So there's no upside for the Democrats. It's all downside. Jonathan, should Democrats adjust their strategy now to deal with votes playing hardball here? We had Chuck Schumer, Senator Schumer on the program before this threat. And he was saying that are going to hold firm, not compromise, on the, on the issues that they hold dear. And he's absolutely right. Here is where David and I are in complete disagreement. Look, Russell vote, President Trump, this has been their plan all along. Democrats have to play hardball with them, have to meet their hardball tactics with hardball tactics.

They, you know, they were always going to take a wrecking ball to the federal government. They're going to take a wrecking ball to the federal government and do all sorts of things, whether Democrats give them the votes needed to pass the CR or not. The one thing, Democrats are talking about they want to safeguard health care for 15 million people, from those who are about to lose their Obamacare subsidies, to those who are on Medicare. But there's something else that they are wisely demanding. They're demanding that the OMB director and the president dial back, Congress dial back the president's rescission power.

And what that means is, let's say Democrats give Republicans the votes they need to do the CR, to fund the government afterwards, do all those appropriations bills. Well, Russell vote and the president have time and time again gone to Congress. Congress and said the money that you appropriated for X, Y, or Z, we're not spending it that way, and we don't care whether you like it or not. And so that's the other thing that the Democrats are fighting for, and they are right to demand that. Because no matter what they agree to, the Trump administration is going to turn their back on it, no matter what, fight Democrats. Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, we're grateful for your perspectives at the end of a very long,

very busy week. Thank you. Thank you. Academy Award nominee Scarlett Johansson is known the world over for major roles in close to 40 films over the past three decades. Recently, she became the highest-grossing lead actor in Hollywood. She's now taking on a new role as director. Her debut film, Eleanor the Great, his theaters tonight. I met up with her in New York earlier. this week to discuss this latest chapter in her career. It's for our arts and culture series, Canvas. Because we've been coming here every Friday for the last 16 years. Can you count the 16, Charlie?

It's a celebration of deep devotion, a friendship for the ages. Paired with the grief that stems from sudden loss and a lie that ties it all together. Actress June Squib, who turns 96 this November, stars as Eleanor, who one day accidentally walks into the wrong room at her New York Jewish Community Center and ends up adopting her late friend's Holocaust story as her own. I was wondering if I could feature you in my article. I have to approach my job with empathy and then let the audience, let them have their own feelings about the characters and what they do.

It's the feature directorial debut for Scarlett Johansson. I hope that at the end of the film, the audience has empathy for Eleanor. You know, I certainly do. I think people are complicated. Eleanor can be bawdy and brash. Say goodbye to Melvin for me. Oh, we had such a wonderful time the other night. He's very strong.

strong you're so full of shit Eleanor yeah and an imposing often grating presence on the daughter and grandson she's staying with she's gonna live forever there is in Eleanor this main character who's not there to compliment anyone else or play off of someone else you don't see women like that a lot on the big screen why don't we Characters like Eleanor in real life are, you know, often invisible in communities. Why? I don't know. I think people are afraid of their own mortality and people that are aging are a reminder of that, potentially, for people. You know, and it's like, I don't know. I think we live in an aging society, and so there's more interest, I think, in aging now than has been in the past.

And I think movies like this film and actors like June, you know, help to move that, you know, cause forward. After the devastating loss of her best friend Bessie, Eleanor fills the void with an unlikely new bond, a college student reporter played by Aaron Kellerman. What's it like being 94? I feel the same way I did when I was 16. Who turns to Eleanor and other stories of survival from a Holocaust support group, to help her wrestle with her own grief after her mother's death.

You have to talk about the things that make you sad. Jews fled Poland and never talked about what they went through. They just kept it moving, and there's some good in that. But it can just eat you alive. Central to the story and to the character of Eleanor is her Jewish faith, right? Her relationship to her faith and your decision, in key parts of the movie, as I understand,

to cast real Holocaust survivors playing themselves in some of those scenes. Why was that important to you to do? You know, I never even questioned it. I just never thought about casting actors for those roles. You know, part of it again was just the desire to, to, yeah, ground the story in even a deeper, emotional significance. Several years ago, I participated in finding your roots, and I discovered that I, I knew that I had relatives that died in the Warsaw ghetto, but I didn't know the whole story of it. It makes me feel more deeply connected to that side of myself, that side of my family.

He presented me with a paper, you know, that had, it was essentially like a death certificate for all of the people in my family that I had lost there. How much did you think about your own family story as you were telling this family story? It was impossible not to think about my own family story because it lives within me. That's sort of all in my own DNA and all in all of my memories. And so the film is infused in with that. It's also informed by Johansson's own relationship with her grandmother, Dorothy Sloan, a kindergarten teacher, arts lover, and inspiration. We had such a, you know, such a deep friend.

friendship and you know feeling sense of like sisterhood between us you know we talked about everything we talked about our bodies we talked about our family we talked about our fantasies our we talked about sex we talked about politics like we really with your grandmother yeah with my grandmother we had such a such a deep friendship you know reading this script and and you know seeing this intergenerational friendship of celebrated and like out in the open, you know, it was, it was so unique. It felt like something I wanted to explore artistically and something I feel like we should see more of. That uniqueness is being well received. At the Ken Film Festival premiere, Eleanor the Great

received a five-minute standing ovation. I felt like the ovation was, it was for the film, and it was also for June, I think. She's so experienced. extraordinary in the film, and it felt like, you know, this really feels like a legacy performance for her. Tell me about working with her, what that was like and directing her in particular. Does she take direction well? Juna's, I mean, she's such a sharp, you know, very sinewy actor. She's just, you know, she comes to set. She's been preparing for months. she has an idea of what she wants to do and you know her first take is fantastic and then just keeps

getting better from there the 40-year-old johansson's evolution and dexterity have built a career most actors only dream of from child star and the horse whisperer with mentor robert redford were you a problem with that isn't it like obvious to films like lost in translation Marriage story and Jojo Rabbit, even extending to action films like Jurassic World and across the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but directing was a dream she carried for years. Part of my work is I read a lot of scripts and I think having done it for such a long time, you know, when I read a script like I see, you know, I see the entire film in my mind. You know this film inside and out, and it's my own, you know, perspective on storytelling. Me! Johansen says she hopes the connective tissue in Eleanor's story offers a window into her life and a mirror for the audience watching.

You know, we're all human, you know, and I think I would, I would, you know, hope that this story, you know, allows the audience to let go of whatever judgment that they, they may have of Eleanor initially, you know, and be able to reflect on themselves. Thank you, thank you. And remember, there's a lot more online, including a lightning round of questions with Scarlett Johansson, covering everything from her real-life superpowers to her latest Google search. That is on our YouTube page. And be sure to watch Washington Week with The Atlantic tonight on PBS. Jeffrey Goldberg and his panel to consider how President Trump's role.

in James Comey's indictment signals and historic shift. And watch PBS News weekend tomorrow for a look at the increasing popularity of egg freezing as a way for women to delay childbirth. And that is the News Hour for tonight. I'm Omna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us and have a great weekend.