The Daily Beast Podcast - This Is How Bondi Can Face Justice On Epstein Lies

Episode Date: March 19, 2026

Our listeners get the Flamingo Starter Set for just $7 at https://www.shopflamingo.com/beast #ad Joanna Coles speaks with legal analyst Glenn Kirschner about the legal chaos surrounding Donald Trump, as Chief Justice John Roberts issues a pointed but likely ineffective warning about attacks on the courts, underscoring a Supreme Court struggling to assert its authority. Meanwhile, Kristi Noem faces mounting scrutiny over potentially false testimony and a spiraling credibility crisis that could make leave her legally exposed, while Pam Bondi’s Justice Department is cast as an extension of Trump’s inner circle—accused of shielding allies, dodging accountability, and rewriting the rules of prosecution in real time. As legal norms erode and pressure builds across multiple fronts, Kirschner lays out how these converging flashpoints could determine whether the rule of law bends—or finally snaps under the weight of power. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We have to go into court and we have to fight corruptly delivered pardons. Even Bill Barr testified when asked that if Donald Trump delivered a pardon to somebody who was covering up evidence of wrongdoing by Donald Trump put another way, using the pardon to perhaps curry favor with or by the silence of somebody who could implicate him. Bill Barr said that would be improper. That would be a crime. A president can buy a co-conspirators' silence by delivering a presidential pardon, then, you know, we continue to move in the direction of the end of our republic. Right.

That is not what the pardon power ought to be able to do. I'm Joanna Coles. This is the Daily Beast podcast. And feel free to share this episode with a friend. Don't forget to subscribe to The Daily Beast. And please, when you've reached the end of this conversation, We would love you to leave a comment. It's an important conversation about just what's going on at the center of our government,

how much criminality and how much grift is going on. And today's guest is Glenn Kirchner, the host of Justice Matters. Yes, it does. And, well, see if you recognize this voice from the clip. And it's important that our decisions are subjected to, scrutiny and they are. The problem sometimes is that the criticism can move from a focus on legal analysis to personalities, that it's more directed in a personal way, and that frankly can be actually quite dangerous. Judges around the country work very hard to get it right,

and if they don't, their opinions are subject to criticism, but personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it's got this out. Come on, John Roberts. I know you are the Chief Justice, but don't be so mealy-mouthed. You're thinking about Donald Trump and his attack on you and your colleagues in the ongoing, well, what should we call it now, soap opera of the supreme. Court of the United States versus Donald Trump. Just say it like it is. You don't want to be picked on by the president. Well, there's so many things to discuss. There's Christy Noem and whether or not

she perjured herself and whether or not Corey Lewandowski was actually calling the shots at the Department of Homeland Security. There's Pam Bondi, who's being hauled before Congress now to talk about the Epstein files. There's just so much going on. legally that we need to get a grip on. So who better to discuss this with than a wildly experienced U.S. attorney Glenn Kershner, who was expecting to retire after 30 years, first as a JAG and then as a U.S. attorney working in D.C. and spent time with his grandchildren. Instead, he created Justice Matters a huge platform on both YouTube and substack and well, we really get into what is likely to happen and how do you handle all the,

what one assumes are going to be corrupt pardons that Trump will be handing out like Easter eggs as he comes to the end of his second term to all the cabinet ministers around him. Let's get into it. Glenn is a one man crusade for law in a lawless world, or that's at least what it. feels like we have a lawless president right now. So, Glenn, so many things I want to talk about, not least Justice Roberts and his apparent slapback at Rice University this week against Donald Trump. The Pam Bondi subpoena, the ICE Barbie requirement that she show up accused of perjury in her hearings two weeks ago. And just in general, the Trump legal losses, which just seem to be

piling up at this point and his determination to do everything according to what's going on in his head. Can we start with John Roberts and the issues for the Supreme Court here with the president who appears entirely quixotic in his attitude to them? Yeah, Joanna first, thank you for having me on the podcast. I've been looking forward to this. And, you know, I guess my first thought when I saw Chief Justice Roberts criticizing, though not by name, what Donald Trump has been doing and saying and posting, just sort of recklessly and dangerously about the Supreme Court and really any judge that displeases him in some ruling or another, my first thought was Donald Trump doesn't care one bit. what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court says. Now, I am thrilled that the tariffs ruling apparently got Trump's attention and really was a brushback of Trump's attempt to consolidate all power,

whether it's lawful power or unlawful power, constitutional power or unconstitutional power, consolidate it all with the chief executive. And I have to tell you, Joanna, was so disheartened when it seemed like, even if only in preliminary rulings on the shadow docket, the Supreme Court seemed forever willing to let Donald Trump expand presidential power really beyond all constitutional constraint, you know, whether it was the presidential immunity ruling in the case that is aptly titled Trump versus the United States because it has felt

like Trump versus the United States for a very long time. You know, I maintain that that ruling, the presidential immunity ruling, is contrary to the express language of the Constitution. But I'm not a constitutional scholar. I always rely on a quote from one of our preeminent constitutional scholars, Professor Akiel Rita Marr up at Yale, who said that in that Supreme Court ruling, the Supreme Court announced. that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional. That and that what does that even mean? So they're sort of protecting the president in a way that feels anti the spirit of the Constitution.

The spirit and the express terms in that the president has a constitutional obligation to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. How can a text? Look at that language and say, that means a president can violate all of the laws of our nation, victimizing wide swaths of the American people, and he can do so with impunity and immunity from prosecution. And the problem is there is no appeal from a Supreme Court ruling. Now, we know that Supreme Court rulings can be revisited and overturned over time. So my hope, maybe this is only a fever dream, Joanna, but my hope is that we can get a case in the near future.

I hope we don't have to wait 50 years. Back up to the Supreme Court where they can reassess and rethink and hopefully, if not outright, overruled and modify their own horrific presidential immunity ruling. Because it could prove to be the undoing of American democracy. I know that sounds hyperbolic, but it's really not injustice. So to Mayor, I think, signaled that very potential in her dissenting opinion. So you know what? Chief Justice Roberts' criticism of Donald Trump, I think, means exactly nothing to him. But their rulings mean something.

And the tariff's ruling was a really important step forward for the Supreme Court. So I hope that the justices, you know, really take to heart. the fact that they're going to cut off their noses to spike their faces and they're going to lose all power. If they enable Donald Trump to become the dictator, he so desperately wants to become. Before we go on, I want to tell you about a great deal from this great brand, Flamingo. For years, women have had to navigate a ton of hassles when it comes to shaving, redness, ingrown hairs, not to mention those flimsy razors that somehow cost more just because. because they're pink. Then I heard about Flamingo. They offer an incredibly smooth shave,

no irritation, and a razor that feels balanced in your hand. Flamingo was created by the women behind Harry's razors who were tired of companies hastily repackaging men's razors. The Flamingo team built a product specifically designed for women's bodies. Their starter set is a huge value with their five-blade Flamingo original razor, foaming shave gel, and a shower holder to keep everything in place for just seven bucks, free with shipping. So go to shopflamingo.com forward slash beast. That's shopflamingo.com forward slash beast to get the flamingo starter set for just $7 and use Code Beast at checkout to tell them we sent you.

So Glenn, you mentioned that John Roberts didn't call Donald Trump out by name, but he said these attacks on members of the Supreme Court are dangerous and they have to stop. Do you think John Roberts is afraid of Donald Trump? You know, I'm hesitating because I've heard judges hundreds and hundreds of times tell my jurors when I was trying cases. Ladies and gentlemen, there's no way to look into the inner workings of the human mind of the defendant. That is why the law allows you to, infer motive and intent from what somebody says and what somebody does. We can only draw inferences about what is in the mind of another unless that person tells us what they're thinking.

But what I have to- That is such a legal response. Yeah, I know. And I don't like lawyers any more than anybody else. No, no, listen, I expect nothing else from you. But the fact he didn't mention Donald Trump's name when it's completely obvious who he's talking about, I mean, Maybe some of the cabinet members, too. Do you think he's afraid of him? I think he's afraid of them. And I think the majority, if not all, of the Republicans in Congress are afraid of him. And that is why they refuse to break from somebody who is beyond unfit at this point to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, for sure.

I was on active duty for six and a half years as an Army JAG prosecutor. He's unfit to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and he's unfit to serve as president. I think he should be removed. I think he should be impeached by the House and convicted in a Senate trial on the articles of impeachment. And I think most folk who are paying attention to what he's doing and saying can't help but reach that conclusion unless they are on Team Trump, which begins to feel more like a cult, the more we live with. it. But if I had to guess, I would say John Roberts is absolutely afraid of him. I think John Roberts' retort would be, no, it would be sort of indelicate for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to call out the president by name. But, you know, in this day and age, I don't know that those old

rules of civility really win the day when we are fighting and scrapping every day to save our democracy. So, Glenn, let's assume that the Democrats win the midterms and possibly even the Senate. Do you think impeachment is actually possible? Oh, I think impeachment is all but certain in the House of Representatives if the Democrats take control. Conviction on the articles of impeachment and removal, you know, maybe it's unlikely. But just as I, I said during Donald Trump's first two impeachments, it really is not the end that we're playing for. You know, you can, this is going to sound trite, but you can never make the shot you don't take. You can never win the prosecution you don't bring. That's why, to me, justice doesn't look like a

result. Justice looks like following the process in place to try to get to the right result. That, to me, militates in favor of absolutely passing articles of impeachment. The only question is we have like a buffet of high crimes and misdemeanors to choose from, which ones do we pursue. So, yeah, I think he will be impeached. He will be tried on those articles of impeachment in the Senate. And my hope, Joanna, has always been that there will be a bridge too far for the Republicans in Congress. and I have preached to them, not that they listen to me, but as best I can, saying, you know,

there were other times in our nation's history where things were very, very dark. And in order to save the Republic, it required men, not often women, but men stepping out onto open grassy fields with muskets, at sometimes fighting brother on brother, risking life and limb. And what did they do? They saved the Republic. You know, for us to save the Republic, all it takes is the Republicans in Congress crossing the aisle to save the Republic. They're not putting life and limb on the line other than they're going to have to survive Donald Trump's threats and the actions of his angry base when he lodges those threats. But, you know, if that is keeping you from doing the hard work of saving the Republic, then please get out of the business of representing constituents.

Well, and to be fair, we should give a shout out to the four Republicans who crossed the House over the Epstein files. I mean, three women, interestingly, one of whom is no longer there, Marjorie Taylor Green, Nancy Mace, Lauren Bobert, who as we know, was taken into the situation room and yelled at by Donald Trump over this whole decision. And of course, Thomas Massey, who joined with Rokana to get the Epstein files released. Pam Bondi is now being called for her decision to release them in the way that she did. What do you think of how she released them, the dumping of the three million files? And there's another three million still to come, so we're led to believe. And do you think she should face some kind of reckoning over how she's handled the files frankly from the beginning. Yeah, I think the inarguable reality is that she has violated the federal law, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, every day since December 19th,

when she missed the deadline. She has violated the law by continuing to withhold roughly half of the Epstein Files, 3 million based on the reporting, have been disclosed. there's another three million. She is withholding in violation of federal law. She has redacted things that the law does not allow to be redacted. She has failed to redact things, which really feels intentional. It almost feels like she's punishing the victims to this old prosecutor by revealing their names and identities in violation of the law. So, you know, accountability has to come when you have an attorney general of the United States.

violating federal law casually, recklessly, perhaps intentionally, obstinately, given the tone she took in her prior appearance before Congress. And, you know, eventually I do believe, Joanna, the entirety of the Epstein files will be released. I am anxious for the day when a lawsuit is filed and I fear it will probably have to be filed by the Epstein survivors. The victims who really most directly have standing. That's a fancy legal word for a dog in the fight of wanting the law complied with, wanting the files fully released. And, you know, then we'll probably get a special master appointed who will have to be provided by court order. All of the Epstein files and that person will be in a position to assess what should be released and what

shouldn't be released in accordance with the law because Pam Bondi has not applied the law. And, you know, it's hard to get around the fact that Pam Bondi lied in her congressional testimony when she said there is no evidence in the Epstein files that Donald Trump committed any crime and everyone knows that. And yet thereafter, when she was caught not disclosing something, the law required her to disclose, we saw staggering, horrific evidence alleging that Donald Trump had committed a crime on a girl who was between 13 and 15 years of age, something the FBI seemed to credit for lots of different reasons. And they actually interviewed the same girl four times, right? And these files, I think there's 50 pages of them, were actually missing from the big 3 million file dump. Yeah, and that is, it's sort of a kissing cousin to the crime of perjury. It's called a 1001 false statement to Congress.

1001 false statement to Congress. Yes, and that's interesting. We call it a 1001 statement because that is the statute that anybody violates when they lie to Congress. It's not technically called perjury. It is in violation of 18 United States Code, Section 1001 for anybody's scoring. at home and it carries a five-year maximum prison term. This is a felony. This is not, you know, small potatoes here. So that's something that she's going to have to be held accountable for. Now, will a Pambandi Department of Justice hold Pambandi accountable? I think that unlikely.

Will any, if there is another attorney general eventually appointed to serve during the Trump administration, will that person go about the important work of holding prior capital? cabinet officials accountable for their crimes? Probably not. But the good news is there's a statute of limitations. That is the timeline by which we have to bring a criminal charge. And it's five years. So it will well outlive Donald Trump's term. And the next Department of Justice, and this is something that starts to get my blood pressure up, will have to sort of be the opposite of the Merrick-Garland Department of Justice. We have to go scorched earth in the direction of accountability from day one.

But Glenn, let me ask you something. Isn't it likely to be the case that Donald Trump will just pardon everybody on the way out? Highly likely. And then you know what our challenge will be? And I hope we're up to the challenge. We have to go into court and we have to fight corruptly delivered pardons. even Bill Barr, and I almost never cite him as authority for any proposition, even Bill Barr testified when asked, testified before Congress that if Donald Trump delivered a pardon to somebody who was covering up evidence of wrongdoing by Donald Trump put another way, using the pardon to perhaps curry favor with or by the silence of, somebody who could implicate him, Bill Barr said that would be important. that would be a crime, that would be an impermissible use of the pardon power.

What we have to do, Joanna, is take these things into court and fight them because it's the right and righteous thing to do. And if the courts, trial court, court of appeals, and the Supreme Court all say, no, a president can buy a co-conspirators' silence by delivering a presidential pardon, then, you know, we continue to move in the direction of the end of our Republic. Right. That is not what the pardon power ought to be able to do. So Pan Bondi is being hauled in front of Congress. If you were a congressperson, what would you be asking her?

I would be cross-examining her, which is what you do to a hostile witness, because she is hostile to the rule of law, to the Constitution, and to the law. the interests of the American people. She is like the zenith of a government official who was supposed to act in the interest of the American people, and yet we all see her acting in the interest of one man, Donald Trump. But what I would do is I would use her own words against her. I would quote her prior testimony that there's no evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime. Then I would put up on the screen as so many of the accomplished members of Congress do, The Epstein files were a 13 to 15-year-old girl laid out in excruciating, horrific detail what Donald Trump did to her that represented a sexual assault and then a battery when she did something he didn't like any hitter.

And that's something that was included in FBI summaries. And as you say, Joanna, she was interviewed four times. Take it from this old career prosecutor. I don't interview an incredible witness four times. There's no point. I have other important work to do. And I would say, you know, Attorney General Bondi, it is beyond dispute that you lied to Congress in your prior testimony.

And let me tell you, the only thing she would do at that point if she was smart would be to plead the fifth, invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Because if she doesn't and she lies again, guess what? that's another five-year potential penalty on top of the first five-year prison term. So what you have to do is box people in using their own words and the hard evidence, the provable facts like the FBI 302s, the write-ups of the victim's testimony, and then hope that they have a change of heart and begin telling the truth, though I think, you know, few things are less likely than that when it comes to Bani's testimony.

Are you surprised that Donald Trump was able to stack the Justice Department in the way that he did with his own personal lawyers? So you have Pam Bondi as number one, Todd Blanche as number two. You have Emil Beauvais, who's now on the appellate court, who was also one of Donald Trump's personal lawyers. I mean, how is this even possible? It is possible because you have a one major political party. that enable Donald Trump to do it. You know, there is such a deep conflict of interest when a president of the United States

was formerly represented in criminal matters by a person he then wants to, you know, put in the upper ranks of our law enforcement officials because people may not know when you are a criminal defense attorney representing a client, you are the keeper of that client's criminal secrets. that client, if he or she wants that attorney to represent them, you know, as thoroughly and as well as possible, tells the attorney about all of the potential crimes that they've committed, that they've been accused of,

that they are now defending against. And that attorney for the rest of his or her life is the keeper of that person's criminal secrets. because the attorney-client privilege outlasts the attorney-client relationship. So Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and Emil Bovet, who's now a court of appeals judge, at this moment, are still the keepers of Donald Trump's criminal secrets. That is, I'll use a non-legal term, that's insane that we allow people like that to then serve as high law enforcement officials when they're still keeping Donald Trump's criminal secrets. it makes no sense for a healthy democracy. It's so interesting.

Glenn, I am so impressed by the toughness of certain judges and their incredibly careful, long considerations and deliberations that they write in the most incredible verdicts in cases. Do you think that does it become much harder as a justice these days, knowing when you get a controversial case that you may be the center of all sorts of doxing and personal attacks, very possibly from the president. Does it make it much harder for justices to actually make justice? I think it depends on the individual judge or justice. And I would my answer, I want my answer to be that they put that out of their mind and they make their,

rulings based only on the facts, the law, and the Constitution. And I think that's true for most of them. You know, look at, I mean, if we look at the federal trial court judges, really from coast to coast, judges appointed by presidents who are Democrats, Republicans, Trump appointed judges for the most part with a couple of outliers. They have been, you know, sort of sawing the legal wood in front of them and ruling in accordance with the law, the facts, and the Constitution, and ruling against Donald Trump more often than not, it's staggering to see how many times Donald Trump and his Department of Justice have lost. And it's gotten so bad that we prosecute, federal prosecutors have now lost the presumption of regularity, which is a fancy term for saying judges will believe us when we make

representations. That is no longer the case. Judges have said, you all have have, have, have lost the privilege of having us assume that you're being straight and candid and truthful with us. And it's going to take a long time to rebuild that. But I do think, you know, there's so many judges who rule in accordance with the evidence and the law. And then they have Donald Trump's base go after them. Why? Because Donald Trump posts something, calling them names, radical left-wing lunatics, even the judge is appointed by, you know, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, probably not radical left lunatics, I would guess. And they get docks. They get swatted. They get, you know, threatened. That has to make it harder. That has to weigh on judges

and justices. I still think that they make their rulings without being swayed or influenced by that. but it has to impact their day-to-day lives. Right. I mean, I was thinking of the Massachusetts judge who wrote, I think it was a 27-page judgment against RFK's vaccine, you know, his new vaccine protocols, just completely just wiping them, wiping them off the table. And I wondered how much courage that must take to write something, although it's clear that even Trump himself is beginning to move away from Mahas' stranger, non-scientific ideas around vaccines. But just the sheer courage that it must take to know that you may be headed into a political battle

where you personally will be exposed feels so counterproductive for any kind of democratic culture. Yeah, or a system of justice. And, you know, I don't think the judges are altering their opinions because they know that the threats and the danger will likely come. And in the past, certainly in my lifetime, I never for a minute entertained that a judge would, you know, come into harm's way because of the way he or she ruled in a case. Now, with the exception that if you had a really, really dangerous defendant, let's say serial killer, I was in the homicide practice for 22 of my 30 years as a prosecutor in Washington, D.C., you know, yes, we have had incidents where folks who were accused of or convicted of horrific violent crimes might try to get after a judge. But that was kind of our frame of reference.

Now, ordinarily those people were incarcerated long term, so there was not much of a risk. But, you know, what we are dealing with now is, you know, it has the potential to kind of undo our systems of government. The good is we at least have one, one branch of government that is still taking its co-equal responsibility of checking another branch of government. One branch is holding strong, the judiciary. The legislative branch under Republican control has decided to lay down and basically just, you know, let Donald Trump use them as an Ottoman. Just prop up your feet, dear leader, be comfortable. We are not going to check executive branch abuse overreach crime or corruption. And, you know, what is most important from my perspective now, Joanna, is when the rule of law comes back into the light of day, we need to go on

a scorched earth accountability mission. We, you know, we're putting together loosely something called the American Accountability Project. And that is not to replicate what Project 2025 tried to do, because It's not tied to a year or a person or a party, but it really is to begin going scorched earth in the direction of accountability from day one when there is, again, a legitimate attorney general and president in the Oval Office. Then we need to fight for accountability. We've blown it twice previously, at least in recent history. Richard Nixon, when we decided to give him a pass for his crimes against the American people,

and we did it again in 2020 when it was too little too late to play catch-up when the Department of Justice opted not to go after the hierarchy of the insurrection. If we do it a third time, Joanna, I don't know that we deserve to keep our republic. If we drop the accountability ball a third time, because you're just paving the way for the bad actors of tomorrow to do it all over again. The point is going to be how do you undo the corrupt pardons that probably will have been made by this president going out? I'm sure you like me were gripped by Christy Noem and her hearings 10 days ago. And actually the rigor with which Tom Tillis, outgoing senator and John Kennedy from Louisiana, Anna went after her. I mean, two, you know, old pretty right-wing Republican men who'd clearly had enough of the way she'd been running the Department of Homeland Security.

She's now being called for perjury for her responses during the hearings. What happens to someone like Christyne Hume, who's overhead, first of all, who appears to have told untruths in her own hearings, certainly of about whether or not the president knew about her quarter of a billion dollar ad campaign, warning people not to come here by riding around on a horse in front of Mount Rushmore looking fabulous. And as John Kennedy pointed out, probably more about her than about anything else. And also, where is the accountability? What happens in the process for the two people who were shot in cold blood in Minneapolis,

list, Renee, Nicole, Good, and Alex Preti for simply, well, in Nicole's case for just driving away. And Renee, Nicole's case for driving away. And in Alex Prettie's case for protesting. Yeah. So taking the perjury question on first, I know it was a joint referral by Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Jamie Raskin. They laid out basically four different alleged areas where she lied in her congressional testimony. I actually think the one. about the quarter of a billion dollar commercial, where Christine Oams riding around on a horse, you know, with her hair kind of all blown out,

looking fabulous. And somebody posted, you know, that's the entire budget of the blockbuster movie, The Avengers, for her to film that commercial. Wow. So when they, I think they included a referral on that alleged lie to Congress, really just almost to be funny, because think about how you would have to prove,

that she lied about the president knowing about it. You'd have to call Donald Trump to say, I didn't know about it, but nobody's going to credit Donald Trump. That's not the perjury charge that I think is strong. But I do think the one that's really strong, and I think easily proved in court, is the one where she said, Corey Lewandowski took absolutely no role in approving contracts at DHS. And my goodness, when I read the pro-publica reporting, where he was signed, literally signing off on contracts and checklists and he was the last stop as kind of a de facto approval authority on contracts before they went to Christy-Nome. I mean, that is a laydown winner on the perjury or false statement 1001 front. But then the question becomes, Joanna, I think as you,

you know, you predicted, what does the accountability look like for that? Because that criminal referral is going to whom? Pam Bondi. Will Pam Bondi launch a full, fair, impartial investigation of suspected perjury by Christy Nome? I can't imagine she will. I hope she does, but I can't imagine she will. But Glenn, is it possible that, I mean, because one of the things that's so interesting about Donald Trump is he demands absolute loyalty from people, right? But he has zero loyalty back. So he may realize at this point that Christy Nome becomes a complete liability for him, especially in the run-ups to the mid-terms. So is there a, is there a realty-a-oldy-oldy-old. So is, is there a world in which Pam Bondi does go after Christina, because actually she's the sacrificial lamb

here. She's the cover for Donald Trump pretending that he abides by the law. Maybe if Donald Trump gives her permission, because it is Donald Trump's Department of Justice, as we see from his picture kind of limply hanging off the side of the building. I celebrated when that picture went up because I said then at least there's truth in advertising that this is not the people's law firm. It's Donald Trump's law firm. Maybe he gives her permission and say yes, Christyneau made me look bad. Please take her down. And then there's ample evidence to charge her with false statements to Congress. So yes, I would love to see that. That would be like justice by default, really not for the right reasons, but for the wrong reasons. Right. But I suspect my my strong suspicion is that, Pam,

PAM Bondi will bury this investigation. And then that opens another area of potential criminal culpability for Pambandi. Because if you do something to assist anybody who has committed a crime against the United States to avoid detection, apprehension, trial, or punishment, guess what? You've committed the crime of accessory after the fact. And that's what Pam Bondi would be. And I just recited the federal law on accessory after the fact. That is what Pam Bondi would be doing. So listen, we're, again, we're going to have a full buffet of potential crimes. We will have to combat the corruptly delivered pardons, but that's not going to

stop us. A court may stop us in the end, but we can't edit ourselves up front and say, well, so many obstacles to overcome, we're not going to take the first step on the road to accountability. We have to take the first step on the road to accountability. And then you mentioned Alex Pretti and Renee Good. So part of what I did when I was chief of homicide at the DC U.S. Attorney's Office is I would at times become part of a team of prosecutors that would look at officer-involved fatal shootings. And the reason I got involved, that was our civil rights section. I was not assigned to the civil rights section, but I was the homicide guy. I had the relationship with all of the forensic pathologists, the medical examiners. I, you know, knew autopsy

reports inside out. That was kind of where I lived professionally. And so they would bring me in, including I once had the opportunity to interrogate the police officer who shot and killed one of our citizens in D.C. about why he did what he did. So it is such an abdication of the responsibility of our civil rights division at the Department of Justice to refuse to fairly investigate the fatal officer-involved shootings of Renee Good and Alex Prattie. And I have a set, I have watched and re-watched every available camera angle. And my conclusion is both of these are unlawful uses of deadly force. I think there's potential criminal liability for both of these, much more so in Alex Prattie. He was executed while basically being forced down to the ground on his

stomach after having been disarmed. And 10 shots, Glenn, 10 shots. And then people running away, people running away knowing that something had gone wrong. I mean, I too have studied those videos. And it's incredible to think they could have happened in broad daylight in an American city. And not to discount what they did to Renee Good because her last words were, hey, dude, I'm not mad at you. And then you see her waving other cars on to go in front of her. until she opted to pull out and try to make her way around the vehicle that was stopped in the street, obviously turning to avoid striking anyone. And also even, I mean, the thing I find incredible, having grown up in a country where policemen are not armed,

is why wouldn't you shoot the tire of the car if your goal is to stop the car and even arrest her under whatever grounds? Why would you shoot her in the face three times? And here's where the prosecutor and me will kick in. If there is an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others, you don't shoot to disable. You don't shoot to slow a vehicle's progress. You shoot to kill. Because the only reason you're permitted to discharge your weapon is if there's a provable,

imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury to you or another. So that's why if that's present, well, you don't start shooting at tires. You shoot to save your life and the life of others. But, you know, there are circumstances where there's somebody in a vehicle who is wanted. Let's assume for committing several homicides and it's rolling down the highway. We don't shoot at the car to disable it. We do things like throw out rumble strips. So we will blow out the tires.

Then it will slow and then we can safely stop and make an arrest. But so, you know, the shooting out of the tires is not really an accepted law enforcement. Okay, but let me just ask you then, how on earth is shooting the driver acceptable? Because then you have a driver who's incapacitated at the wheel of a car. So you have no one driving. How is that safe? It's unacceptable and it's criminal because two things. One, he intentionally positioned himself at sort of the front driver's corner of the vehicle.

officers are trained you never never position yourself in front of a vehicle right that vehicle is moving or not he's holding a gun in one hand and a cell phone in another i don't even have to talk about how improper and unsafe that is but most importantly he is standing perpendicular and holding his hand with his weapon perpendicular to the driver's door when he fires into the vehicle um that is an unlawful of deadly force and it's criminal. And what they're doing by blocking the state investigation, and I know DA Moriarty is working her way through that admirably, but what they are doing to shield those federal agents from being fully and fairly investigated by the state for violations of state law, because, you know, murder can be a violation of federal law, but it's

certainly a violation of state law in the state where the homicide was committed. And by them blocking, it feels like they're part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. That's what it feels like to me. And again, this is on the list of our American accountability project when we have an opportunity to put it into effect. And what happens to Bevino, the sort of commandant who is in charged striding around in his long black coat, who was technically in charge and then quickly removed and dispatched back to California from whence he had come. He should be investigated for crimes and violation of the civil rights of the people of Minneapolis and anywhere else he was seen where we can prove he was using, for example,

tear gas unlawfully, as courts out there have ruled over and over. and over again and tried to issue injunctions, tried to stop him from doing it, tried to prohibit him from doing it moving forward. There's enough evidence that's been caught by citizens who decided to capture in real time the abuses that they saw. There's plenty of evidence to investigate

and potentially bring charges against Bovino and so many others. I can't tell you how many, and I'm sure this happened to you too, lawyers told me that if they, If Hillary had been elected or if Carmelah had been elected, they would have been their choice for Attorney General. From how you're describing it, the appointment of Attorney General is almost, if not as important as the next president of the United States. Who do you see out there who would be tough enough and fast enough and unafraid? enough to move quickly and create this scenario where corrupted pardons could be challenged

and where people, formerly important people, would genuinely be brought to justice. You know, I have a couple of candidates in mind. I think essentially we need a department of justice that is led by folks like Jack Smith rather than Merrick Garland. People who really move in the direction of accountability without fear or favor, without timidity, without political influence, and perhaps most importantly, because I think Merrick Garland is a very good man who was ill-suited to the job. You can't say we're going to make investigative and prosecutorial decisions based on how the public will perceive the legitimacy of the Department of Justice. And Merrick Garland was determined to rebuild the legitimacy of the Department of Justice,

with the way he went about deciding what he should do with Trump and company for the insurrection, for example, the January 6th attack on the Capitol. And it seems like his decision was somehow the public will perceive that the Department of Justice is more trustworthy if they decline to pursue people who committed potentially democracy busting crimes if those people were political. Because if we go after them, we're going to be accused. of launching a political investigation or prosecution. The exact opposite happened.

And listen, if his quest was to rebuild the legitimacy of DOJ, look at where we are today. Look at where it got us. But what I've told people is for 30 years, I sat across tables, desks, conference tables, or kitchen tables, because I always tried to go where the victims were most comfortable. And I talked to victims,

and you know what I never said to a single one? the way we're going to achieve justice here and the way we're going to help you move through your long personal nightmare, the way we try to move countries through its long personal nightmare, we are going to decline to investigate or prosecute your attacker. Yeah, yeah. Some really great point. Great analogy. That point is the opposite of justice.

It's the opposite of building legitimacy of an institution. It's destructive. And I wish we had learned that lesson from Richard Nixon when we gave him a pass and from Donald Trump when we de facto gave him a pass because we didn't get off the dime quickly enough. If we do it a third time, again, I don't think we get to keep our republic. Glenn, what a joy to talk to you and you lay everything out so clearly. And the law, I think, to lots of us who aren't lawyers, often seems impenetrable. It seemed detail, clauses, all sorts of things that require. an enormous amount of attention and understanding.

And yet, as you say, a lot of it's very clear. It's justice. Are you going to do the work that is required to bring justice to bear? And that's what people shouldn't be afraid of. And, you know, I feel even more grateful to the brave justices out there who are making decisions they know in advance will be unpopular, but are sticking to the facts and not. not cowering under the appalling bullying that's going on for so many justices now. Well, Glenn Kershner, thank you so much.

You have made it very clear that justice matters, and we would love to have you back on the Daily Beast podcast. Couldn't be more interesting. And unfortunately, as you say, there is a buffet of criminality and grift going on that we need to sort through. Promise me you will come back. I will. Thank you for inviting me. This was a pleasure.

So I think my favorite part of that conversation with Glenn, well, first of all, I just love the fact that he can take something as complicated as the law and just break it down into very understandable portions. But I love the way he described the evidence they basically have that Corey Lowndowski was running a large part of the Department of Homeland Security when he wasn't appointed to the job. wasn't even a proper employee. He was a special advisor who flew around with Christyneau, with whom it is wildly and widely alleged. He was having an affair. And of course, they both deny it. Well, they would, wouldn't they?

But I thought that was a very interesting point. And also his point that if the Democrats win in 2028, they're going to have to appoint a very robust attorney general to ensure that corrupt pardons are challenged and that people are brought to account for such things as the shooting of two American citizens in broad daylight in an American city. Leave us a comment on what your favorite part of the conversation was.

Feel free to share this with friends. And don't forget to join us for our next episode of Inside Trump's Head. Michael Wolf will be in the studio, me back from his excessive travels to London and we will be going at it once again, Hammer and Tongs to find out, well, what is inside Trump's head? And don't forget, next Tuesday, Tom Sykes's Royalist, our wonderful new podcast, which takes you inside Buckingham Palace, Sandringham, Balmoral and Windsor Castle.

So the good news is we have so many Bee Beast tier members now. There are too many names to read out and we really appreciate your support. Thanks to our production team, Devin Roderino, Ryan Murray, Rachel Passer, Heather Pissarro, Neil Rosenhaus.