Strict Scrutiny - Introducing Runaway Country: Justice Has Left the Building

Episode Date: December 29, 2025

Alex digs into the destruction of due process and rule of law under the Trump administration. First, she hears from Judge Anam Petit, a recently fired immigration judge who explains how the legal system is being quietly dismantled to prioritize deportations. Then, Alex speaks to Andrew Weissmann, former lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office, about whether our system is forever changed, and what it’s like to be in President Trump’s crosshairs. Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hey, it is Leah, Kate, and Melissa here. Each week on strict scrutiny, we cover the legal cases and questions shaping all of our lives. But rarely do we get to hear directly from those experiencing the news firsthand. We're taking a break today, but we wanted to bring you something a little different. We're excited to share a recent episode of Runaway Country with Alex Wagner that sheds light on a conversation that feels especially relevant in today's chaotic political climate. In this episode, Alex digs into the destruction of due process and the rule of law under the Trump administration and speaks with Judge Anam Petit, a recently fired immigration judge about her personal experiences with ICE and ongoing deportations.

It is a great episode, and you definitely don't want to miss it. We love Alex Wagner. She's one of the most talented journalists working in the business. And this episode really brings you up to speed firsthand on how the immigration legal system is being dismantled. So we sort of know on the streets the outrageous overenforcement of the immigration laws that we are witnessing, but I don't think people really appreciate what is happening. inside immigration justice, as this administration also takes aim at that aspect of our immigration

system. So this is a harrowing listen just to hear Judge Pettett's experience with masked men showing up in her very courtroom. You can feel the direct impact and fear that people face, so it is a must listen. And if you enjoy this episode and watch story-driven expert-led reporting that goes beyond the headlines, make sure to check out Runaway Country every Thursday on your favorite podcast app or YouTube. Hi, everyone. Welcome to my new show, Runaway Country. We are less than a year into the Trump administration,

and I don't know about you, but I barely recognize this place. National Guard troops are invading blue cities. Citizens are being snatched off the street. And the east wing of the White House is being ripped off and turned into apparently a corporate event space. What the hell is happening here? Everything is unfolding at such a rapid clip that it all just bleeds in together into one extended chaotic moment

and one that you might actually become a little numb to. And when you hear the same voices weigh in on all of this and when the cycle of outrage is never ending, well, then we miss what's really going on. This show is about shaking that up. I'm Alex Wagner. I am a Pod Save America contributor and a senior political analyst at MS Now.

And on this show, I'm going to bring you voices, you don't often hear from. People whose experiences at the center of these headlines will offer you a way to shake off that numbness. And to better understand this seemingly incomprehensible moment we all happen to be living through. And then we're going to pair that storytelling with analysis from some of the smartest people I know in order to put it all in context. All of this so that we can keep this country within our grasp. This week, we wanted to say, start with a minor development, President Trump's full-blown assault on the Department of Justice and the crumbling authority of rule of law. Between the president's political hit list and ICE agents

in courthouse hallways, all of a sudden it feels like we are in an inverted America where justice has basically left the building. Faith in institutions has been sliding for some time now, but at the end of the day, it seems like most of us, Democrats and Republicans, were operating under the assumption that ours is a country that guarantees due process, a place where the courts and the political motivations of the White House were separate things. Well, not anymore. This is runaway country. In today's episode, we'll be talking about how Trump is abusing the government, and specifically the Justice Department, to consolidate power, to target his critics, to purge his enemies, and to line his own pockets while he's at it.

Here's the latest from CNN. The New York Times is reporting this afternoon that President Trump is moving to demand that the Justice Department financially compensate him for the various federal investigations into him. What exactly does he want? Nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, $230 million to be exact. We've seen Trump replace DOJ officials with lackeys and use bogus lawsuits to go after. political adversaries like former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. And we've seen him threaten a whole lot of other people just for what they've said about him publicly, including former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissman, who worked on the Mueller

report and who will be hearing from later on in this show. Andrew shared with us his story about being personally targeted by Trump. I hope they're going to look into Weissman too. Weissman's a bad guy. And what it's made him think, not just about his own future, but the future of the justice system and rule of law in America. But even Andrew's story has a lot more visibility than what's happening much more quietly

and much more insidiously every single day. The firing of not just career prosecutors, but the judges themselves, the very people who uphold the rule of law. You almost certainly

already know that the immigration court system here is a nightmare. There are masked ICE agents standing outside of courtrooms, terrorizing the people who are just trying to follow the rules. Those wrenching

clips have gone viral. That was an ICE agent in a New York City immigration court tackling a woman whose husband was essentially stolen from her as he showed up for his scheduled court date. But that drama does not begin and end

in courtroom hallways. The Trump administration is working to make the hearings themselves increasingly difficult if not actually impossible. They're overwhelming judges with thousands and thousands of more immigration cases. And then they're pushing the judges to dismiss the cases so that the migrants can be put into expedited removal hearings. And then they have those ICE agents in the hallways ready to grab those migrants, almost all of whom have no criminal

records. So judges see all of this happening and they are in a bind. Most of these undocumented migrants, after all, have no legal representation. And judges are not allowed to give legal advice. If all of that sounds insane, there's also this. The Trump administration is firing these immigration judges at a rapid clip and working to replace them with military lawyers. As of this week, there are only 600 immigration court judges left for a backlog of cases that number somewhere around 3.8 million and is just going up.

You can do the math here. The system, as it is now, cannot hold. So to understand what's happening on the front lines of all of this, we're going to talk to immigration judge Anam Rahman Petit, who worked for the executive office for immigration review. That's the agency at the Department of Justice that oversees the immigration courts. Like many others in her line of work, Judge Petit was fired in September, seemingly for no reason or for no reason having to do with her actual job performance. But obviously, there is a whole lot more to this story. Here's my conversation with Judge Annam Petit. First of all, just based on the videos, it's been wrenching to see what's happening in these courtroom.

So let's start there, I guess, which is you were up until very recently an immigration court judge. What has this year been like at immigration court? It's been a lot. You know, watching a video is one thing. are traumatizing enough just as a bystander, let alone imagining what that person is going through who's being detained, the family members who are crying on the sidelines. I mean, that's the principal person being affected by that, right? But then it widens. There are the immigrants who are appearing in court who are also watching this happening, which creates a chilling

effect, right? It affects people's ability and willingness to come to court to show up for their hearings. It affects the interpreters who have to interpret really difficult discussions. It affects the attorneys, including the ICE attorneys, who are, they're kind of following orders and coordinating with ICE about the detentions. And then, of course, it affects the judge who's presiding over this hearing, which is supposed to be a neutral and fair and just proceeding. But then you have this, like you said, heart-wrenching, traumatizing incident that's occurring and disrupting what is supposed to be happening. You're like in there trying to give people due process effectively, right? These are huge life decisions. Do you stay, do you go, whatever? Right. And like,

children are screaming, people are sobbing, and it's your courtroom. What is that like on a human to human level? Yeah, I mean, it's hard to wear all the hats that you kind of need to as an immigration judge. There's the hat, which is the neutral arbiter, who just needs to stay unbiased and give objective, fair advice and reasoning in a case. But you can't separate that from being a human. And as a human, it's devastating. And I've been a practitioner in this field for a long time. They never did this.

There was never a risk of detention when you went to court. You knew that when you go to court, you have your hearing. There's a very low risk of detention, if any. The only people who really had a risk of detention were people who had really serious criminal issues or national security issues. But for everyone else, you knew that there was a protection there at the court and for you to just be able to appear for your case. And so it's this new era of immigration court where enforcement is front and center. And what used to be a protected space for justice just isn't that anymore. I mean, you talk about other immigrants, even ones who

aren't being targeted by ICE. As, you know, they watch people get seized in the hall. and ripped away from their families. Can you just describe what those reactions are like from people who were not even centrally involved but are just part of the same process? I mean, I think the primary reaction is fear. When you see that happening, you don't know the difference between that person's case and your case or your family member's case. All you see is the detention. All you see is the crying. And so then when your case gets set for another hearing, that image, that visual is going to be running through your head when you're deciding, do I go back to court? And I think that's an especially difficult decision when people have family members. In a lot of these cases, there are children

who are dependents or riders on a parent's claim. A lot of us judges waive the appearance of these minors so that they can stay in school. They don't have to come to court. The parent can focus on their hearing. So for a mother or a father who has children at home, who's also in that case, it has to run through their head. I could go to court today and I could never come home and see my child. I have a question about the ICE agents. You know, so these ICE agents are masked outside of the courtroom. Are they masked inside the courtroom?

And did you recognize, I mean, would you recognize them from time to time? Were there familiar faces among them? So you would see the same ones occasionally, but there are just so many ICE agents now that you wouldn't necessarily see repetitions. I mean, they just have a flush of money right now and they're hiring ICE agents at such a fast clip. Generally, on my courtroom, if anyone was wearing a hat or a mask or anything, I would ask them to remove it. I think a lot of judges were in that boat as well. But there is this unsettling feeling to have anyone in your courtroom who isn't there for a case and isn't there to support someone on a case because you don't really know who they are. And

in these times where there's an increase in political violence, there were times where I was very uneasy and scared because you don't know if they're actually even ICE agents. They can be anyone. And one of the issues at the immigration courts is that there isn't a high level of security. There aren't bailiffs in every courtroom like you have in other courts around the country. So for a lot of these cases, it was just me and the people appearing before me. Oftentimes they didn't even have a law clerk or a legal assistant. And so you feel quite unprotected in those moments, especially when you kind of hear the commotion in the hallways, which are quite disruptive to cases, not only to me and to the attorneys and interpreters, but also to the

respondents who are here testifying about really traumatizing parts of their lives, and they can hear someone getting detained right outside the courtroom. Like crying and screaming? Yeah. Yeah. God. I guess I'm wondering if the new dynamic in these courtrooms, you deny someone, or you're you dismiss their case because that's what the law requires, and they walk out unsuspecting and

get taken by ICE. Do you have, like, are there moments in that new dynamic that stick out to you? So I had one of the first detentions in the country. So this was when people didn't really know that this was happening and that this was going to be a new policy that really defined the Trump administration with enforcement. And so I showed up for a hearing. expecting the respondent, the immigrant, in the proceedings to appear. And instead, I'm told by the ACC, the ICE prosecutor, that they were just detained. Instead, I have to have a conversation with his sobbing, wailing mother who accompanied him to court. And I'm talking to her through a Spanish interpreter. And again, I have to be quite careful in what I'm saying, because DOJ and the immigration

court isn't a part of that arrest detention process. And, you know, to just be able to answer her questions and say, you know, you can follow up with ICE to find out where he's detained. I really don't have much more information for you. And just think this was a time where this wasn't really happening. So everyone at my court was kind of surprised that this had even happened when a person was just showing up for their final day in court. And it was the last step of the process. So it was a case that had been pending for a long time. I had prepared the case. I had refute it. I would have almost certainly been able to make a decision that day. Instead, that person was detained. They were sent to the detained docket of the court. And then another judge would kind of have to start that process all over again.

So in addition to, you know, the detention being what it is in and of itself, it's also just inefficient for a system that has a crushing backlog. Can we talk about that backlog? Because you, you are. one of many immigration judges who have been fired. The Seattle Times is reporting this week. I think that the Trump administration has fired more than 83 immigration judges since Trump took office. There are less than 600 immigration judges nationally to hear, I think, roughly 3.8 million pending cases. So you're talking about math that in some parts of the country could look like one judge for 42,000 cases. Do you have any idea why you were fired?

I have no idea and no reason was given to me. I was a probationary judge. So they were looking at my performance. I had multiple performance reviews over the two years. I received nothing but glowing feedback. And even after I got fired, I had a conversation with my assistant chief immigration judge, who was my direct supervisor. And he advised me that there was no performance-based reason for my termination. So that kind of leaves the agency needs bucket. And there's no agency need to fire immigration judges. We had a crushing backlog. We received so much training. And by all accounts, I was a high performing judge. I had a high number of completions. I have a theory on why you were fired. I mean, it just like, well, what we know is that in the absence of having enough judges,

the Trump administration is calling up military lawyers who haven't been trained in the, you know, the skill set that you were trained in and the law that you were trained in to deal with the shortage of immigration judges. I mean, they're decidedly less qualified. The requirements are lower. Perhaps they'll be more allegiance to the goals of this administration. And, you know, there's no better way to, you know, creating crisis on the bench allows this administration to come up with a solution that serves their purposes. I mean, I just, I guess I wonder if you think, overwhelming the system was maybe sort of the point of your dismissal? I think you're right. You know, the cynic in me believes that this is all being done very

purposefully and that they're trying to break the system so that they're able to implement whatever reforms they see fit, which will be at the expensive due process. And it sounds like even when you were on the bench, the directives you were getting from the Department of Justice about how to adjudicate these cases was changing, right? Absolutely. So we are completely at the political whim of who is ever in the White House and then who the AG is. There were so many policy memoranda that completely undid what our prior guidance was on a

full range of issues. And so we just have to keep up with all of the changes. But literally overnight, a decision could be issued and has been issued that completely upends decades of jurisprudence in asylum law or other areas of immigration law. So there's a lot of legal whiplash within judges and attorneys who have to appear in the system. Did you at any point feel pressure to be more hardline because of the directives coming out of the Attorney General's office? No one ever explicitly told me you have to rule on this case in my way, or if not, you'll suffer A, B, and C consequences.

Thankfully, that never happened to me. There is an unspoken pressure to abide by the agenda of this administration. I mean, we are part of DOJ. Pam Bondys are boss, and you'll, you see the decisions coming out of the Board of Immigration Appeals are from the AG's office that greatly limit certain relief paths to immigrants and are just stricter in general on a lot of procedural issues. You also see the and feel the unspoken pressure of a lot of the policy memoranda that are issued, which tell us to decide cases in certain ways and identify issues that they see and really put a lot of those errors on the backs of the immigration judges and not leadership or directives that kind of control our dockets. But I never was told to decide a certain way.

And when I look back on every case I've decided, there isn't one case that I think. that I ruled on because I felt like I had to rule a certain way based on leadership. I always decided every case based on the law and the facts. I felt more stress and anxiety when I had a week where I maybe graded more cases than I had the week before or if I didn't get every case done that week because I needed more time for testimony or decision knowing the emphasis on case completions. So I've put more pressure on myself and I worked my butt off all year just to make sure that my case completions were good. I worked so much more outside of hours than I ever had because I knew

I was on probation and I didn't want to give this administration any reason to fire me. Turns out that didn't matter anyway, but there is that unspoken pressure for sure. And a lot of judges are feeling it right now. Were you relieved when you got fired? There was a slew of emotions, as I'm sure you can imagine. I was devastated. There were a lot of tears the day that I got fired. I was furious and angry at the injustice of it all, like knowing that I was a great judge. And I did walk out of that courthouse with my head held high. But I would be lying if I said that there wasn't a little bit of relief that was tinged into that. Because I lived the last several months with a lot of anxiety, with a heaviness that any day I could be fired.

And so I was thinking what that would look like for me and my family. But I did feel some relief. At least I knew, right? At least I knew, okay, I'm fired. I need to focus on the next chapter instead of wondering whether that would happen on any given day, which was not a good place to be in. What's your assessment of if you're in this country

and you're trying to get due process? Like, is that possible? I mean, how much has this administration eroded that? Due process still exists. It's getting harder. getting harder and harder to maintain in a courtroom because judges are bound by precedential decisions and directives from the DOJ and leadership. And what I worry is that the emphasis in this administration for case completions and the number

of cases you get done are going to override those due process protections that every immigrant is entitled to under our constitution. And also, maybe don't fire the judges if you want the cases to be completed. It's insane. We need judges to get through the backlog. And we need qualified judges who have the experience and expertise in immigration law or litigation or administrative law. And they've gotten rid of all those qualifications.

They're posting for immigration judge positions right now. And they have gotten rid of all of the requirements that have. always been required for that position. So I'm a little worried about the folks that they're going to be hiring to replace me. I mean, I feel like that's the point, right? I mean, what's your level of confidence about the rule of law in America? Any public trust or confidence that people had in the immigration court system and rule of law in general in the United States has greatly eroded. You know, the question I've been asked is, would you become an immigration judge again? And it was a dream job for me. But I would be so reluctant to accept that job again because it used to be such a stable

position and now it's just anchored in instability. I don't know if we're ever going to get trust back in that federal sector employment. And then I don't know if we're ever going to get trust back in justice and the rule of law and to know that, you know, all of the checks and balances and the levels of review are going to work the way that these democratic institutions, are supposed to be working. Jeez. That's the cynic in me. You know, you caught me at a bad time.

I just got fired. Judge Petit, thank you for answering these questions and sharing your wrenching experience. I started with the word wrenching. I'm ending on the word wrenching. Good luck out there. Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure. We reached out for comment from the Executive Office for Immigration Review where Judge Petit worked,

but they have not responded. as of this recording. And we should note that defending our neighbors fund is a sponsor of this podcast. When we come back, my conversation with Andrew Weissman. Runaway Country is brought to you by Zbiotics pre-alcohol. I know we have all tried ways to be functional adults after a night of drinks. I know I have. However, I have now found something that actually works and helps me be that functional adult. It is a pre-alcohol probiotic from zbiotics. I do not bounce back the next day like I used to, friends, so I have to make a choice. I can either have an amazing night or can I have an amazing next day. That is until I found zbiotics pre-alcohol. So zibiotics pre-alcohol,

a probiotic drink, is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists, rough mornings after drinking. This is how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in your gut. It is a buildup of that toxic byproduct and not actually dehydration that's to blame for those rough days after drinking. And pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. You just have to remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, that's the name pre-alcohol. And then, of course, drink responsibly. you're going to feel your best tomorrow. I genuinely texted John and Tommy, who you may know from Pod Save America, about Zbiotics, because I'd heard about it on Pod Save America. And I was like,

guys, what's the deal? And they were like, Alex, legit, no joke, it works. And I was like, you know, I'm not going to lie, I was a little skeptical. I ordered some. I tried it out. and it has actually changed my ability to have a good time, have a nice time, have a cocktail or two, nothing bananas. It actually works. So I got to say, guys, Zbiotics, pre-alcohol, no lie. Fall is here, and that means it's wetter weather, and it's time to enjoy cooler weather. And we probably some drinks out with friends, whether you are enjoying that glass of wine at a fall festival or a spooky cocktail at a Halloween party. sexy kitten style do not forget to drink pre-alcohol before drinking you're going to be able to celebrate

and still wake up feeling great the next day so go to zbiotics.com backslash alex a l-ex to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use alex at checkout zbiotics is backed with 100% money back guarantee so if you are unsatisfied for any reason they will refund your money no questions asked Remember, head to zbiotics.com slash Alex and use the code Alex at checkout for 15% off. Thank you, Zbiotics, for sponsoring this episode and my good times. Andrew Weissman, it's always a delight to talk to you, even under duress, which is where the country is. And to some degree, maybe you are, given what Trump has been saying. But we'll get to that in a second.

Okay. Well, it's nice to be here. So we just talked to Judge Anam Petit, who is a now-fired immigration court judge, who has let go for seemingly no reason at a time when immigration courts are in crisis, literally and figuratively. About 60 other judges have been fired or forced out over the last few months. That leaves, I think, roughly 600 judges nationally to deal with a backlog of nearly 4 million cases. In some areas, you're seeing single judges have a caseload of like 42,000 cases. The Trump administration strategy here seems to be overwhelm the system and hollow it out at the same time, which I don't know. I don't know anything about war strategy. I feel like Napoleon probably had this strategy. Like, it's a full-on assault on the justice system.

Immigration court is housed at justice. Is it a foregone conclusion that this is all, it's going to? going to work the strategy? Well, yes, so let's start with. It makes no sense whatsoever to sit there and say, we really, really want to get these people out of the country. There's an immigration process, and we're actually going to get rid of immigration judges. That's usually when you want to have more immigration judges.

So the theory has to be on the most optimistic, positive, polyanish theory, which obviously you can tell I don't agree with is, is that, you know, the judges who they let go of are somehow slow, you know, not doing their job correctly, and they're replacing them with just more efficient and better judges. But, you know, that just does not, that does not seem to be the facts on the ground. So that's like the only positive theory. The other theories are you want people, in there who are just going to do your bidding and you're going to have the veneer of due process with that actual due process and you're going to stack the courts in some ways like putting

Emil Beauvais on the Third Circuit in my view is a way of hollowing out the courts in a way if you if you think about there's a three three parts of the government so there's you know there's like going back to grade school and you have the executive the judicial the legislative. Well, they've gotten rid of Congress, right? Because they're just asleep at the switch as they're Republican controlled. And if you're trying to deal with the pushback that we're seeing over and over again by lower court judges, whether any president has appointed them, including Donald Trump himself, if you're trying to deal with that one way is to just put in people who are just going to do exactly what they're essentially hired to do.

And then the other, so that's what a terrible theory, right? And then the third theory is that it doesn't really matter if you have a court system because they're not really planning on using that. And that is what we saw. And I, that's actually my, I think it's a combination of two and three because I actually think there's just so many times we've seen as Judge Wilkinson, the very conservative judge in the fourth circuit said, as we're just seeing people being extracted. He wouldn't even use the term sort of legally removed, like going through the legal

process. He was like saying they've been extracted and stashed in a prison because you don't even want to sort of give it the veneer of the legal system. And so if you're not really planning on using the legal system, you can go ahead and fire good reputable judges like the person that you just spoke to. Yeah. And they're bringing into your sort of second point. They're bringing in far less qualified military lawyers to do the work of these judges and to expedite the process. I mean, it's the veneer of due process without the actual practical process itself. So the one thing I will say about military judges and sort of military justice is, and I don't know if it will play out here, but I do want to speak up for jags in military courts because sometimes people might

think, oh, they just railroad people and, oh, they don't really understand rights. That's not my experience. And I do think that this could backfire. Like, they may be planning to do all that, but you could end up with people who are very much like Mr. Rivenny, the attorney who was, you know, fired in that Brego-Garcia case because he was not going to call Mr. Brego-Garcia a terrorist. without there being evidence of being a terrorist, and he was fired for that. And so I think military people are trained in the rule of law. It's not exactly the same system as ours, but they may not get what they're thinking they're going to get, that they're in the Trump administration.

But it does get to your broader point that, you know, there's a question of whether they're actually that interested in the courts to begin with, right? Because you put all of this together, and I was talking to this judge, and it's like, You don't even have to be one of the people that's on having a hearing. You could just be there in the courtroom and you see what's unfolding, both in terms of the judges being overwhelmed, the length of time it takes to even get there. And then these ICE agents who sit and prey upon people who are trying to work within the system to gain asylum. And, you know, at one point she says they're, you know, it's incredibly disruptive to the process to literally hear the screaming and crying on the other side of the wall as these families are. ripped apart. And if you're like debating, do I stay in the system or go outside of it, the system

clearly is stacked against you or is going to end, you're going to end up getting fucked in that system in ways you cannot even imagine. And that then encourages people to just miss their court dates. And then we are left with the reality that we see now, which is people just getting snatched from on the streets outside of their workplaces on their way to drop off their kids to school. Absolutely. I mean, you know, we've had this situation where courthouses have said, and judges, you know, including chief judges have said, like, that's not happening in the courthouse. Like, there is a legal process here. People should feel like they can come here and, you know, and have their rights adjudicated without having to worry

about, you know, being arrested outside. It's going to interfere with not just the peace of mind, but, like, can you imagine if you're a witness? And, you know, so, so, so, That is something where we are seeing some pushback. I'm told the Southern District of New York, or it's say heard that the U.S. attorney there has a commitment that those kinds of things won't happen, sort of on his watch while he's the U.S. attorney. We'll see how much that lasts. But with immigration, I think the administration is banking on the fact that

they think that Americans won't care about due process if we're talking about people who they can label as bad people and that they're not sort of, you know, rich white Americans. They're people who are more disadvantaged or from black and around communities. And people will be thinking, well, if they say they're bad people and, you know, they don't look like me, that somehow the Americans, you know, won't take it as seriously. I actually, and this is my Pollyanna part, I actually think Americans do care about that. I can tell you really, when I started out as a lawyer, I was not a prosecutor, I was just starting out at a law firm, and we had a death penalty case. And our client was on death row, and we were making this claim in Georgia state court. And we were

trying to get to federal court and without unscathed because it's very hard. State court we thought would be terrible for us and eventually you go to federal court. And we were, we remember the tension between Georgia courts and national courts. So this is a really interesting story that might sort of be appropriate for today. So we're in Georgia, the Georgia state courts, and we have dispositive proof that, and I'm going to use a term that we don't use anymore, but it was the term at the time. So I have to use it. that he was diagnosed since he was eight years old as mentally retarded. I know this is not the term we use, but it was the diagnosis that he was given.

And even the state had to concede that in fact he was mentally retarded. But this is what the Georgia state judge said is, you know what? In Georgia, we protect our communities. We care about crime, but we're fair. And the Georgia State Court said it is unconstitutional under the Georgia Constitution to kill somebody who is mentally retarded. And, you know, so meaning that I do, like, there was a sense of fairness. And it somewhat goes to my point about the military tribunals. A friend of mine had a, the first ever cooperator out of Guantanamo and the, the,

suite of sort of 9-11 cases. And when he was sentenced, there was an advisory jury of just people from the military, and he described what had happened to him. The first time ever, it was on the front page of the New York Times, described what happened to him on Black Sight. And the jury wrote this lengthy letter to the judge saying that this was completely un-American, what had happened to him, and recommending that he'd be given leniency. And it wasn't because they were embracing his acts.

They were deploring what had been done to him. And to me, that I do think that questions if there are enough people like that. Yeah. But I do think that there are people who can, you know, who are principled who are sitting there going, that's not how we behave. It's so heartening and important to hear about your sort of fundamental belief, which I agree with, that there are good people in the system and that a sort of the agreement we have about what it means to be in this democracy still holds even in like corners that are under greatest stress right yeah there is though i mean i guess you talk about the the chasm that separates people who are the victims in a lot of these

cases and the rest of the american public and the thing i worry about is that even if you aren't paying attention to what's happening to undocumented migrants and you're not particularly engaged in how that's tearing apart communities where they're mixed families or people even who are American citizens. There's this unbelievable effort on the part of the administration to destroy the notion of trust in the justice system as being an impartial one and one that operates with integrity. And I point you no further than that Trump is demanding the Justice Department pay him $230 million in compensation for the federal investigations into him. I mean, this is literally the like, dictionary definition of the fox guarding the hen house i mean trump's own lawyers who now run the

doj are the ones that i think have to sign off on this to begin with and and like donald trump not known to be a particularly introspective person recognizes how on its face corrupt this is this is what he said in the white house let's just take a listen to that sound it's awfully strange to make a decision where i'm paying myself in other words did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you're paying yourself in damages. But I was damaged very greatly. Any money that I would get, I would give to charity. Even Trump recognizes that it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself. First of all, what was your reaction to that? Why doesn't he just go rob Fort Knox? That was my reaction. I mean, he's just be like, you know what? Go to the Fed. I'm the president.

It's all mine, right? And I get to decide. So, you know what? That was his view in Marrow. where the cases, you know, when he had the document there, he was like, well, they're all mine. As a friend of mine said, why doesn't he just take out the portraits from the White House and take them with him and just say, well, you know what, I just decide they're mine. And this is one where I have to say, I mean, I don't think Todd Blanch and Pam Bondi are going to do it, but they have no business sitting and deciding that. The idea, you know, this happens a lot where people who are the subject of criminal investigations will at some point say, you know, I'm entitled to money because I won. Now, he did not win on the merits. So he's not going to be able to claim that.

And the standard to be able to do that is not one he's going to meet. But this is where what I actually think should happen. It's not what's going to happen is I think I would be, you want to make these claims, let's leave aside that the statute of limitations, like the time to make some of these claims is run. But you want to make these claims? Let's have a hearing with evidence. So let's, you know, you put off, you didn't want to have the insurrection case. You didn't want to have the Mar-a-Lago case. But now you're the plaintiff and you're saying that you want to get $230 million. Let's have a factual hearing to just say the public can see and a judge can decide what's going to happen. That's what would, that's a kind of thing that would normally happen

in these kinds of situations if you were making sort of a credible claim. But I just can't imagine that, I mean, there's so many ways that this should not pass muster. And it's just such a wonderful example for any dispassionate person to understand the venality and the corruption that is going on. I mean... Right. If the crypto hustle didn't get yet, like this is... It's so easy to see.

It's like the plane. It is like the plane, but worse. I thought the same thing. It's way worse. He's paying him, trying to pay himself. Wait, and it's our money. Wait, let's just remember. This is our money.

The funds that would be used, this is not Cutter giving the money. No. This is us. American tax fares lining the pockets of the president and precisely the moment that inflation is ticking up, groceries are more expensive, and people's health care premiums are about to go up.

Great political strategy. And there's a shutdown. Yes. And we just- Federal employee is not being paid. And we, right, so you have career people not getting paid where the president is going to get, would get an unearned $230 million.

And we just had seven, seven million people approximately marching against having a king. And then you have somebody's acting exactly like a king to go into you know wherever the in the castle they kept the gold bullion and saying you know what i think this i'm entitled to all of us just to be clear it with countries like if you're thinking about western countries like england and france even a king couldn't do that i know they don't have that much capital at their access i mean That is just,

um, surreal. Surreal, Alex. I mean, I'm sorry, but like, did anyone have this on their dance card? No. When it's like, this is what a president of the United States is going to do is be like an, it's sort of an extortion artist, but he doesn't even need to do the extortion here because he's the, he's on both sides. He's writing a check on, yeah, on our, on our account.

I mean, what I don't, I mean, I think the thing I worry about is, if you're on the outside of this, like, it's disgusting. It's so Trump. But what does it mean that the Department of Justice would sign off on this, right? This is to the larger question of, like, the utter corruption of these institutions. At the same time that they're launching political hits on Tish James and Jim Comey and, you know, to some degree, John Bolton, there's a looming one from at about Adam Schiff. I mean, can I ask you as someone that go just someone with people who's just, someone who's, maintains like a line in like how what's happening in there like what are people saying how are they looking at all of this well the the career i mean this is for the career people who are still there it is the most demoralizing thing ever and um what people need to understand is these are people who have served under republican and democratic administrations and they just put that aside. And people are used to the idea that, you know, elections have consequences, policies change, their priorities that might change. Sometimes you're going to do

more drug cases or more immigration cases or more civil rights cases. You know, that happens. And people are used to implementing the policies within the law and within the ethical norms and constraints. But those just are not being followed. You know, one of the things I was thinking about, if this happened in any other administration, I mean, obviously, this is like a crazy thing because it's like, when would this ever happen? But there would be a professional ethics officer who you go to at the Department of Justice who would say, like, okay, these people can't, you know, are recused. They can't decide it. This has to go to an independent person and it will be handled, you know, in an independent way. It won't be from a former defense lawyer for the president

who's got a continuing duty of loyalty when, you know, because just, you know, when you've represented somebody, it's not like it ends. You actually have a continuing duty to your client. And so this is just so beyond the pale. And so for career people, this has to be just unimaginable pain. But I would say the same for, you know, I do this podcast with Mary McCord. Oh, yes, main justice. And we were, collectively, we were like, you know, it's like a gazillion years because both of us are old, at least I am. Or I make up for hers not being so old. And, you know, it's incredibly painful to experience. But again, I actually think it's important to not have

the story be just about the Department of Justice because I think the bigger story is the Department of Justice, yes, it's terrible what's happening. But it's terrible because it affects the rights of people. I mean, the people who are being harmed, like in this situation, yes, there's ideals and principles being harmed, but it's my view, if it goes forward, it's theft from the American public.

I mean, you're creating victims. And, you know, we talked about immigration and the issue that's going on with the judges there, again, the issue is the people who are being affected by it. You're creating a class of victims.

And, you know, that's why Abrago Garcia is, is such a great illustration of the problem of somebody who was extracted against a court order, removed from this country, shoved into a prison, and as rights continue, according to different judges, continue to be violated. And so that is, it's, you know, sometimes you need an example of one to make people understand the systemic, a little like you're having on a judge who's been fired so they can sort of put a face to a huge problem. Yeah, I think that's one of the things that is most useful in this moment is having a real

human being who's at the center of it, explain to you what it's actually like and what it's like to hear those screams, what it's like to deal with families as they're being ripped apart, trying to manage a caseload of some 10,000 cases, and like what it means when the system cannot hold, right? Right. runaway country is brought to you by wild alaskan company so when was the last time you truly trusted the seafood you brought home he said shrimp can i trust you tuna can i trust you i used to question everything from nutrition to taste to sustainability which is a huge concern until i discovered wild alaskan company wild alaskan company is the best way

to get wild caught, perfectly portioned, nutrient-dense seafood delivered directly to your door. Honestly, I have not tasted fish this good since I was in Alaska. I got a box of this amazing fish, and I made dinner for my mother and stepfather, who are fans, and we had coho salmon, I believe. It was gorgeous, that deep, like, orangey salmon color, to know that this was from a reputable source and wild caught, awesome. The seafood here is 100% wild caught. It's never farmed. That means there's no antibiotics in it, no GMOs.

There are no additives. It's just clean, real fish that supports healthy oceans and also fishing communities. This is like a huge win, these things all together. Nutrient rich and full of flavor, wild Alaskan fish, it's frozen off the boat so that locks in the taste and texture and those nutrients like omega-3s. It's sustainably sourced. It's wild caught from, as the name would imply, the state of Alaska. And every order supports sustainable harvesting practices and your membership delivers

flexible shipments, expert tips, and truly feel-good seafood. That is not a phrase I thought I would ever say, but it really does describe this product. My favorite fish variety, it's like very hard to single, you know, there's so many vision to sea. But the salmon's amazing. And it's so good for you. And it makes you feel good. So try it risk-free. You have a 100% money-back guarantee. If you are not completely satisfied with your first box, Wild Alaskan company will give you a full refund. No questions ask, no risk, just high-quality seafood. Bet my mom and stepdad loved and their tough customers. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to wild-alaskan.com backslash,

Alex, for $35 off your first box of premium wildcaught seafood. That is wildalaskan.com slash Alex for $35 off your first order. Thank you, Wild Alaskan Company, for sponsoring this episode and for making delicious, sustainable, feel-good seafood. I said it again, feel-good seafood. Thank you. You interviewed Special Counsel Jack Smith in London a few weeks ago. first of all, what amazing, but also why did he do it? And what were you most surprised by in that

conversation? Um, so, you know, I don't know exactly why he did it, but I do think it helped that it was an academic institution. Um, it said, you know, a lot of times it really helps when there's students there and you want to impart to them, uh, and model for them. Um, and, and model for them normalcy and being upstanding. I'm not sure, but, you know, when I was deciding when I left the department to, and I came to MSNBC, part of the reason was I was like, if I'm going to be vilified, I'd like to be vilified based on like who I am. Like maybe people won't like me, but I'd like it to be based on me. People like you. And people assess me for who I and not a caricature. And the reason I thought it was so wonderful he spoke is that more

than any substantive thing he said, and there was a lot, I mean, it was an hour-long conversation, but I thought the most important thing is that people could get the measure of who he is. And, you know, I actually think the department needs to be doing more of that and speaking out, even when they're in the department. Can they do that, though? I mean, yes, that's, Look, this is what's so crazy is, let me just, there's like a little bit of a bugaboo. Obviously, they should not do the following. And, you know, we see it all the time now,

but they should not do the Jim Comey. Let me, we're not charging Hillary Clinton, but let me just tell you why she's such a bad person. That is, violates every, the sort of put up or shut up rule, which is like you don't get to do that. You're not there to give your personal views and opinions. That is totally wrong, so you can't do that.

But remember, Archibald Cox during the Watergate investigation gave a very famous press conference that you can still watch it, by the way, on YouTube. So if people who are not as old as I am and don't remember it, that you can go and listen to it. And again, what was so great is it turns out he wasn't this like horrible figure that was being portrayed. he was this very mild-mannered, thoughtful Harvard professor who was explaining why the tapes were so important and why he was getting them. But at no point did he say, let me tell you why Richard Nixon's guilty.

This is the crimes he committed. That's the line that you shouldn't do. But my example, which I wrote about, was I thought, for instance, that Jack Smith, when the Mar-a-Lago case was indicted, and people were talking a lot about is the selective prosecution. I thought he could have talked about, you know,

I just want to talk to you about what's in the public record about what the Department of Justice has done in the past. These are the kinds of cases that we have brought that are commensurate with what's been alleged here. Instead, Ryan Goodman and I at NYU did something like that for just security, this legal forum. A great forum. But that's not quite the same thing as Jack Mick.

It sure isn't. No, exactly. To just security. I mean, we were trying to make that point, but it's like that we don't have the megaphone. And I thought, I thought by having him make that point and then also being himself an exhibit. In other words, having people be able to see him would be useful because all we were getting is one side of the story, which in terms of vilification. And Trump wins from the abstraction of the enemy, right? He just gets to superimpose whatever he likes on that.

person and says Jack Smith's a wacko, complete lunatic, he's off the rails. And then when Jack Smith isn't out there showing us that he's quite clearly not off the rails, you know, some part of the American public accepts that. By the way, I don't think I answered your question, which is what most surprised me. What surprised you the most other than him saying, sure, Andrew, I'll do it. Yeah, I was going to say that that might have been the, you're like, here goes nothing. Hey, Jack. I think that that probably was the biggest surprise because, you know, um, you know, he's a career, DOJ person to his core. He comes off as an Eagle Scout because I think he is an Eagle Scout.

And so I'm not sure I really was surprised by that. I think I can tell you something that sort of moved me, which was at the end I was asking him about sort of what it's been like for his team or himself in terms of the sort of the aftermath once he ended. And he choked up when he talked about Walt Jardina, the FBI agent who was fired in spite of the fact that senior people at the FBI pleaded with Cash Patel not to do it because his wife was dying. I know Walter.

He worked also on the Mueller investigation. I can't put my self. I can't fathom the cruel thing. that goes into that kind of determination. I just can't even, I can't, a lot of times you can sort of see, oh, let me try and understand why somebody's doing something.

I just can't even begin to understand how you would make that decision consistently. I think it's maybe if you can successfully dehumanize other people, right? Like, New York Magazine has a spread of pictures of these immigrants at the courthouses being ripped from their families. And that, to me, is the same kind of narrative like disassociation that you have to do to be like Walter is his wife is dying he has served

this country remarkably but we're going to fire him because he's not convenient to her and we've successfully as a sort of monolith the Trump administration managed to make our enemies subhuman and so we can dissociate the wrenching decisions we're making about their futures and they're present um and be completely cutthroat I guess I guess I don't know I don't know the particular and twisted psychology of all this. Yeah. So the other thing that Jack said, because he was only talking about other people in his team, and, you know, I think I might have said something like, and you, like, trying to, and he just said, well, the one thing I will say is you really end up learning who your friends are.

And I could relate to that, this idea of the people who, rise to the occasion and surprise you in rising to the occasion, even if there may be not people who know you that well, and other people who you are surprised the other way. And it sort of hurts because you always thought they were a different type of person. I do want to turn to that because you have been singled out by President Trump by name saying he hoped that you, you know, you would be in the he hoped, aka issued a directive that you should be investigated along with special counsel, Jack Smith. First of all, how'd that feel and how is it going? Well, so it's interesting. So let me just first say, I generally tried not to talk about that. I'm going to answer

your question, but let me just tell you why I don't like answering that question is when I decided to work for MSNBC, I'm obviously, you know, I'm not in the media. I'm not in the media. I wasn't a journalist. But, you know, I took seriously, like, my role as a legal analyst in trying to be objective and impart to people what I think is going on. And that means you're not the story and you're not part of the story. And I don't want Donald Trump to steal that from me. And so that's why I've usually just tried to explain that up front, like, as to why that's not

sort of front and center of, like, what I deal with because I feel like that's taking something from me that he has no right to take. And so that sort of, and then the thing that makes it more, get at it more targeted this time, because, you know, he has been saying that with respect to me, and frankly, a whole host of people, I'm like an extremely good company. And there are lots of people with much more exalted, uh, people than, than me. But, um, is that you see it in action now. I mean, you know, I, I, I think of the three charges that we've seen in the last, you know, two weeks, the James Comey case in particular strikes me as no there, there. Um, and that's why you saw not just every, every single person in the Eastern District of Virginia, every AUSA, every

career person is not on this case. I mean, like, the people who say they need to speak up, oh, they've spoken up. If people aren't focusing on this, it's because we're not picking up what they're putting down, which is they are not on this case. They had to staff this case from another district because the career people could all be fired, and by the way, a number of them have been, because they're not willing to do this. Even the Trump appointed U.S. attorney resigned under pressure. If you ask the president, he was fired. And so he stepped down rather than do this. And so, you know, now the targeting becomes a lot more sort of like, you know, who cares? He, you know, he goes off on all sorts of people, but, you know, there's no facts and there's

no law to support it, except but C. James Comey. But you know what? I still think let's take a deep breath because I think that the Comey case is going to implode. I think, I think from a Trump perspective, he wins no matter what, because he gets to say, I inflicted pain, I have a chilling effect on people. And if it implodes, he'll just attack the judges or juries who rule in Jim another part of the justice system. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Well, but yeah, I'm so, Thank you for putting into context why it's difficult or why you're reluctant to talk about your sort of centrality in this. I mean, I've talked to judges who feel the same way, right? They're impartial.

They don't want to be the story. I've talked to reporters at the local level who've said, I'm not the story. I'm reporting the story. And the very, the discomfort. And I think the real apprehension that this moment requires people to get over is that, like, people who are not in it, for themselves and who don't want to talk about themselves and who don't want to be in the center of it are increasingly for the sake of the larger system being forced to get personally very honest about and put themselves in in the story and I think that it's like it's a it's an

incredibly unfortunate development right like you shouldn't have to do that and he is stealing that from you he's stealing that from the the journalists in the fourth estate and he's stealing it from our blind system of justice. Yep. But, I mean, hats off to you for saying what you do say and doing podcasts and also going out there and being like, I'm going to interview Jack Smith, knowing full well that that could bring, you know, unwanted attention on you, but that the words that Jack Smith has to share with those students and the world are important enough to warrant that kind of event, you know?

Yeah, and this is where what I would say is, like, you know, facts matter. So I would say for people who are listening to this, you can go find it on. YouTube, the UCL, the University College of London, was the sponsor. As I said, it was an academic event. Go listen to it and see just how how incendiary it was.

I mean, this is an hour that's quite, Alex, you know me well enough to know. It's quite polite. Well, it's very, it's a little dry. You know, it's like, I mean, you have two you know, people who are career, DOJ people. Yes,

exactly. So it's not exactly. you know, made for TV. Exactly. So it's, you know, in many ways. It should be boring. All of it should be boring. All of it should be very regimented. There are very clear rules of the road where all of this stuff is concerned. And it should be in many ways, not formulaic, but like the parameters have been established. This is not a time for coloring outside the lines or like ripping off the guardrails, as it were. Yeah. Let me just ask you one more question. Like, what's your level of confidence as we go through, you know, the erosion of due process as we go through the corruption of the Department of Justice, at least at the top tier of it, as we go through, you know, the acceptance of the president executing on a targeted hit list of enemies? What's your level of confidence about rule of law here in America?

Not good. I, I, let me just tell you the things I'm worried about. I know that I could be thinking about this from a law point of view, and I know one answer deals with, like, what to expect from the Supreme Court, et cetera. But I don't really think that's the, the more that this past year I've been on, the less I've, I've used, I always come on and talk about, like, you know, the one expertise I have, which is, you know, the law part, but I feel like that misses the bigger picture. I am particularly worried about whether we will ever have a free and fair election again

and whether there will be steps to gerrymander, whether there will be the military called out to press the vote in cities, in cities, in black and brown communities, whether arrests will be made. that are illegal, but by the time they're adjudicated, the damage will have been done because it will be a deterrent for people to show up. And I'm worried about the Department of Justice seizing ballot boxes claiming that they're evidence of fraud and the votes don't get counted. And so, by the way, I'm not saying any of this is going on. I thought the same thing. I thought the same thing.

That for the same reason that I was extremely worried in the past election, that I was thinking, you know what, if Donald Trump doesn't win this, he knows that there's a very, very good chance that he is going to go to jail in the Manhattan case where he had been convicted. And understandly, there's an appeal and, you know, he would have every right to say it was an improper conviction. But then he was also going to be, I think, facing not just the D.C. trial, but I thought the Mar-a-Lago case was clearly going to be resurrected because it was improperly dismissed by Judge Cannon, in my view. So I just thought that he had every incentive to not abide by the law and the rules. And let's remember, he's an adjudicated criminal. I mean, it's like this is, I'm always surprised when people just don't say that. which is, I mean, he is a, at least until he is appeals over, he is currently a convicted felon.

Yeah. And so we're not dealing with the most upstanding person. And again, I'm just basing that on just taking what's been adjudicated. We can add in all of the things that we know, which is, you know, the, what is the Washington Post reported? Was it 30,000 lies during just this first term? Oh, I mean, good on them for trying to keep track. Yeah, exactly. So anyway, that's a long way of saying there's a lot to worry about.

Okay, well, I mean, I think the first step to getting a better solution is to be engaged in it and maybe to worry about it. So that's where we are going to leave it. I totally agree. Well, this is my big thing to, I'm constantly telling people stay engaged. Yeah. Do not turn it off. I don't think people understand, even if you're in a blue state, There's like speaking up is really, really important.

The immigration judges we're talking about are in New York City. So it is all happening right at our front doorstep. You're a busy person with a lot going on. And I'm so grateful. You're welcome. It's my pleasure. You're doing more important things. Thank you for doing this.

And really good luck out there. It's great to see you. Take care. Before we go, I want to hear from you. Have you been impacted directly? by the Trump administration and or its policies. Maybe you've experienced changes to your job or to your health care or stuff happening at your kid's school.

If so, I want to hear it all, whether these policies have impacted you for better or for worse. So send us an email or a one-minute voice note at runaway country at crooked.com and we may be in touch to feature your story. Thank you in advance for the help. Runaway Country is a crooked media production. Our senior producer is Alona Mankovsky. Our producer is Emma Ilich-Frank. Production support from Megan Larson and Lacey Roberts. The show is mixed and edited by Charlotte Landis.

Ben Hethcote is our video producer, and Mad DeGroat is our head of production. Audio support comes from Kyle Segglin. Our theme music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. Katie Long is our executive producer of development. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.