The Problem With Jon Stewart - A Former US Attorney on How Trump Politicized the DOJ

Episode Date: September 22, 2022

Jon is joined by Geoffrey Berman, a former US attorney from the Southern District of New York—and author of the new book Holding the Line: Inside the Nation’s Preeminent US Attorney’s Office and Its Battle with the Trump Justice Department. They dig into how Bill Barr tried to have Berman fired, why nailing down powerful guys like Trump is so hard, and whether better guardrails could protect our democracy. Berman also happened to be Jon’s neighbor growing up in New Jersey, so they reminisce about old neighborhood gossip. Plus, writers Jay Jurden and Tocarra Mallard trash-talk Ron DeSantis and Brett Favre, who fully deserve it.CREDITSHosted by: Jon StewartFeaturing, in order of appearance:Tocarra Mallard, Jay Jurden, Geoffrey BermanExecutive Produced by Jon Stewart, Brinda Adhikari, James Dixon, Chris McShane, and Richard Plepler.Lead Producer: Sophie EricksonProducers: Zach Goldbaum, Caity Gray, and Robby SlowikAssoc. Producer: Andrea BetanzosSound Engineer & Editor: Miguel CarrascalSenior Digital Producer: Frederika MorganDigital Coordinator: Norma HernandezSupervising Producer: Lorrie BaranekHead Writer: Kris AcimovicElements: Kenneth Hull, Daniella PhilipsonTalent: Brittany Mehmedovic, Marjorie McCurry, Lukas Thimm Research: Susan Helvenston, Andy Crystal, and Cassie MurdochTheme Music by: Gary Clark Jr.The Problem with Jon Stewart podcast is an Apple TV+ podcast, produced by Busboy Productions.https://apple.co/-JonStewart

So you should hear it through the cans. Oh, OK. If you hold them tight enough against your ears. I am hearing the ocean. That's weird. Hello, everybody. Welcome to the podcast, The Problem with me, John Stewart, the TV show also back on Apple TV Plus for season two

on October 7th. Oh, my God, that's almost now. And if you haven't seen the first season, you can look at that too. There's a link, I guess, for it. Today, we got a great show. We're going to obviously be talking to a couple of our writers. Today, we have Jay Jordan and Dakar Mahler

are going to be talking to us. And our guest, Jeffrey Berman. He's a former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, the author of Holding the Line, Colin, Inside the Nation's Preeminent US Attorney's Office and Its Battle with the Trump Justice Department. Basically, he got fired, let go, for not bending to the politicization of the DOJ.

He's a Republican, by the way. Fucking crazy. Jay and Dakar, are you there? Yeah, what's up? We're here. Oh, for God's sakes, I got, I panicked. Our guest today, let me tell you guys something. I grew up two houses away from this guy.

It was my house, then the Goldman's, and then the Berman's. We lived in the Jewish shtetl in Lawrence Township. We were the four families. The four families lived there. Occasionally, we get together and break Matze together. It was delicious. So it's going to be fun. It's an incredibly interesting book,

but also I'm excited to see him again. He was a couple of years older than me. This is your life, John Stewart. The next guest is a childhood friend. A little family reunion. Let me tell you something. From now on, I only interview people from the neighborhood. I'm like Scorsese.

I do films, and I interview people from the neighborhood. How are you guys doing? What do you guys got today? What's cooking in your heads? OK, are you ready for some? Jay. Some crazy, righteous outrage? Jay, I am ready.

I've got some news straight out of my home state, the Sunshine State. What's up, 727? Represent. What? OK, Ron DeSantis. Yes. In a bid to own the Libs and step out of Trump's shadow,

decided to trick some asylum seekers. Yes, yes, yes. And to get him on a plane and go into Martha's Vineyard. We have to talk about it. The first thing I thought was, you know, after Labor Day, it's really just working class people. 100%. Trying to fix the damage that's been done

over the summer season. That's what Takara said. Takara said, do you want to bother fishermen? It's fishermen and crafts people. So the population is over the summers, like over 100,000. But then off season, it shrinks to 20,000 people who are literally trying to fix their beaches, get their wares together, go out and fish.

But maybe that's DeSantis' point. Absolutely. Maybe there's a lot of vacancies up there and he's thinking, well, I'll send some people up there. Clearly, the island has room now. Oh, yes. Well, the craziest part about this is, technically, did he human traffic these people?

These people, not these like faceless brown masses, did each one of these individuals get coerced to go on a plane to Martha's Vineyard? That's crazy. Not for nothing. Martha's Vineyard is pretty nice. Like, I'm assuming that if they were in a thing, even if they were like, look, isn't the larger point this?

We don't have a functioning system for people who are either immigrating or seeking asylum. And so in the chaos of that system, I understand he doesn't have the empathy or compassion that these are human beings and that their lives are already chaotic and turned upside down. And he doesn't really give a fuck.

As far as he's concerned, it's like when a mayor loses a bet to another mayor and has to send him 50 pounds of sausage, he couldn't even care less about these lives. But unfortunately, the underlying principle of this, the chaos of the American immigration system is absolutely a disgrace. Absolutely.

And I think we could acknowledge that. Yes. But not doing like reverse freedom rides. Like this is the height of the 1960s. No, you're right. But what are the people we supposedly believe are doing this right? How are they treating these immigrants?

I think the big difference with this case though is the memification, the gotcha aspect of it. The owning the lives. It's someone who really wants this to go viral. Whenever policy is just you trolling people. And these were people who were in Texas. That's the other thing. Well, that I'd never even understood.

The country has a history of putting non-white people on vessels and going, yeah, yeah, it'll be fun when you get wherever you're headed. Oh my God. Yes, this all started with slave labor. Turn with me to your textbooks. That was not allowed to be taught at my school. So I don't even know what it was.

If that's that CRT, I don't want any part of it. Well, it's very obvious at this point that the path to Republican power lies in dickishness. And I don't know that there is a political platform or an ideology other than dickishness. And this stunt did exactly what he wanted it to do, which is jumped his profile, made him a hero amongst those for whom dickishness

is one of the sole characteristics that they're looking for in their leaders. It probably angered Trump because nobody's gonna be a bigger dick than me. Like this is going to be, imagine the season that we're in where they are trying to one up each other in utter cruelty. And that's going to be the thing.

And this country does a shitty job of taking care of the people that are already here. So there is a much larger issue here of cooperation and consideration. Clearly though, can't we have a sane immigration policy that doesn't rely on the demonization? Yeah. Like, is that really beyond our grasp?

And the kind of subterfuge and the coercion aspect of it. If you are actively coercing people, then you've put yourself in legal peril. You have this dishonest system. So you're taking advantage of something that's already broken instead of trying to fix it.

Jay, what's easier? Is it easier to govern and solve problems? Or is it easier to meme? Jay made a great point. It's the memification of politics. I mean, they gave fuck's news the heads up but didn't notify any local officials. So talk to me about that.

Yeah, man. What? Because they don't give a fuck. They don't give a fuck. But they give a fuck in the way that they go, did I get eyes? This is about their brand. Yeah, did I get eyes on it?

That's right. Did people see this happen? What's the brand now about? Immigration is out of control. They found groups of people that they can demonize and that their base gets excited about. And so it's all about finding a way to amplify their brand at the expense of real people

and real problems that are solvable. Yes. Solvable. Or at least you can have a discussion concerning these things. No, no, no. They would in the... No, no, no, no, no, no.

Well... Democrats want open borders and they want to teach your children about, ain't a lingus, that's what they want. They want open borders and ain't a lingus. Well, John, if you're talking about the Southern border being open and the lingus, we've kind of walked into that.

Well, Jay, you did it. So now what you're gonna have is a moment of media attention unless the queen dies again next week. But, and she may. We don't know how long that's gonna go. But so you have a moment of attention. In that moment, isn't that an opportunity? An opportunity to bring a sane conversation or policy

to this rather than just the, all they're covering is the show biz aspect of it. What you just said, John, like, that doesn't sound interesting. I don't want sanity, I don't want wisdom. I want great ratings. John, we can't retweet what you just said. Exactly.

That's not tweetable at all. Abba got 300 plus segments on Fox News just talking about this bussing stunt. You know that? Over 300 segments on Fox. Do you understand how many catheters he sold, John? You need to get your shit together. So they're like, oh, that's gonna move some units

on some catheters we can't talk about. And some setter awnings. We have so many products that we're so happy to display. Do you have any hope that some of this, in its, you know, there's that initial pop and like you owned them and you fucking got them. But that there will be some consideration when the dust settles of, oh, these are human beings

and we are failing in this system. The saving grace of all of this is that Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, they're all auditioning for second. Like when big daddy comes home, you're gonna have to get out of his lazy boy and get him the big piece of chicken. The minute, the minute.

So this is all in fealty to the new Trump mandate of, you know, showbiz and dickishness. 100%. Even Trump came out and said that Ron DeSantis stole his idea. So now you have this going up being like, DeSantis is trying to beat Trump. So it's happening already.

These guys are like fucking comics now. So now it's all about like this, hey, this guy, this Carlos Monsilla, this Daniel, they're stealing my shit, they're stealing my ass. John, John, okay, I'm not pointing fingers, but tell me if this sounds familiar. Just tell me if someone's done this before. Police.

Oh God. And I'm like, yeah, you know who did it? The Amsterdam trading company in 1619. That's who did it. Synapse. Another hot one. Yeah, that is another hot one. This is just a continuation.

And now look at us bringing it all together with the Queens funeral. This is just colonization and exploitation and all the aspects of what is ultimately the exploitation of resources that aren't yours. Boom. And a lack of accountability as well. Well, there's never, when is there a,

I mean, that gets us to what we're doing today. I mean, how many fucking, how good are we at throwing people in jail? It's the best thing we do in this. We're better than any country in the world. And yet all you hear about with these things is every time I get another piece of information, like if that's not obstruction of justice,

then there is no obstruction of justice. And you relate it all to that poor kid who jumped a turnstile and got sent to Rikers Island for six months and ultimately ended up killing himself. Like if that's the calibration on our justice system, boy, we don't really have a justice system. There doesn't seem to be any clear, fair application of the law

when you have political power and resources. So I'm going to get to the guest. I'm going to bring on a young Jeffrey Berman. We're going to talk to him and then we'll come and we'll wrap it up there. So thank you guys both very much. Welcome. Hi, our guest Jeffrey Berman,

author of Holding the Line, Inside the Nation's Preeminent US Attorney's Office and it's Battle with the Trump Justice Department. We were going to talk a little bit about the main accusations in the book that Trump was trying to use the Justice Department like a kind of a personal law firm. But there's an awful lot to talk about

with our guest Jeffrey Berman, not the least of which is this. I could have thrown a rock when I was growing up and hit Jeffrey Berman's house with it. We lived what, a hundred feet from each other. That's right, that's right. Now, Jeffrey, you're two years older than I am. Right.

And you did not go, I went to Lawrence High School, which is the public school. You went to the better school. I went to Lawrence High School for a couple of years and then transferred to the school that your brother went to. Lawrenceville Prep. Lawrenceville Prep, yeah.

He was, I think you were in his grade. Yeah, we were together. He was a very smart guy. See, I had the same problem with him. He was a very smart guy. I didn't care for that growing up. You got accepted. By this point, I think you can get over it.

You know what it was? He would come home with like silver trophies for his Latin score. And I thought, well, this guy is so smart. I'm clearly gonna have to go in a different direction. And I think it led me to where I am. Now, your older brother, Michael, how much older was Michael?

Michael's two years older than me. Than you, and then your younger brother, Danny. And Danny was four years younger than me and two years younger than you. And we were right across the street. The Goldman's were in between us. And the Litterwitz, you know, I once... He was a judge.

He was a judge. And, you know, I was practicing with golf clubs when I was a teenager. And, you know, he had the wiffle golf balls, right? And they weren't going anywhere. They were going like five feet. And so without permission from my parents, I took out a real golf ball and I let it go

and it smashed the Litterwitz's big plate window. I don't know if you remember that huge... Sure I remember it. And so I did what only, you know, what any kid would do is I immediately like ran in the house and hid. And, you know, the judge comes out. The judge comes out holding the ball, you know, looking for who did it.

Yes. And, you know, ultimately, I think my mother got involved. The picture window at the Litterwitz's house was the envy of the neighborhood. It was a large, luxurious picture window. What people don't understand is we lived in like little Haifa. There were these four Jewish families

that all lived catacorn from each other and then surrounded by basically Lawrence Township. It was mostly Italian, Irish, blue collar, blue collar, African-American. And then there were like these four Jewish families who lived in like the Warsaw area of Lawrence Township. Judge Litterwitz was obviously the superstar of the area. And then everyone else was school teachers, I imagine.

The Goldman's and my mother. My mother was a school teacher. Was a school teacher as well. But we didn't really see you because you went to that Lawrenceville prep with my brother and where did Danny go? Danny. He went to Lawrenceville too.

He went to Lawrenceville too. Neither of my brothers went into comedy. We all, you know, went to Lawrenceville. My mother makes it very clear, you know, the Berman kids, all very successful. Well, you know, it's unbelievable, and your brother. So my older brother, Michael, is a big-time publisher. He co-founded George Magazine.

And Daniel bought a bunch of radio and TV stations in the South, and he's very successful. He's the Rupert Murdoch of Southern, whatever, the Confederacy. Worse, worse than that. And, you know, and I know, you know, Larry is extremely successful. He did very well.

I don't ask him what he does. He doesn't ask what I do, and we just go along. My whole family, we were watching when you received the Mark Twain Award. Yes. And, you know, because we wanted to see you, you know, your whole family was there. Your mom was there.

My brother. I just wanted to let you know that, you know, we just want to congratulate you on that. Thank you so much. This is our new Hanukkah podcast. It's, we're just going to go over all the holidays. But I want to talk about what you're doing. The Southern District of New York

is sort of a legendary, I guess, I don't know what they call attorney jurisdictions. It's a district, it's a district of a state and it's the Southern District of New York. But why is the Southern District office considered so legendary? It's because it's downstate and it's in Manhattan. So you have to deal with whether it be Costa Nostra

or these kind of terrorist cases. That's exactly right. We're at the hub. We're at the foot of Wall Street. No financial crimes can be really committed in the entire United States without some of the money running through Wall Street. So we've got jurisdiction over that.

Unfortunately, we have the history with the terrorism cases. So we have one of the finest national security units in the country. Public corruption is not unheard of in New York. What? In the Southern District of New York? How dare you, sir? How dare you?

It goes on. How did you end up there? What did you, how do you end up prosecuting Mavi cases, terrorist cases in Southern District of New York? How did your law career move to that? So I was hired to be a prosecutor on the Iran Contra cases. Which was- What?

Yeah, that was extraordinary. So you dealt with, for those who don't remember Iran Contra, we sold missiles, I guess, to Iran and then took that money and it was diverted to the Contras in Central America for their civil war. That's right. And there was a congressional prohibition on the US funding the Contras.

It was called the Boland Amendment. Right. And the money that was funneled by Oliver North and others was in contravention of the Boland Amendment. So that's the first case I've worked on. We also prevented from selling arms to Iran at that point because this was post Islamic revolution. The Shah was no longer in power.

So this was the Ayatollah's regime. And I think America was not allowed to sell them weapons. Well, this was a clandestine sale. I don't think it was necessarily illegal. I believe Iran and Iraq were in a long-term war together. That's right. And I think that was probably in the interest of the United States that that war continue

as long as possible. The United States big fan of continuing wars that they're not involved in but send arms to. Now, you were, though, not to be too political, but you are a Republican. And so that was a Republican administration. That was, I believe, H.W. Bush, no? Yes.

I mean, it was the Reagan administration. It started under Reagan. Right. And then George H.W. Bush won the election. And then when the charges ended up being brought, it was under George H.W. Bush. But it was there I learned early on. It doesn't matter what your political affiliation is.

You do the job. You look at the facts. You look at the law. And you're unbiased. That's like the cardinal rule of the Department of Justice and one that I learned very early on. Did your parents know that growing up, you were living that close to a communist?

Do they have any idea? What was happening just up the street? No, I, you know, word never got out. And thank God the judge didn't find out. If the judge had found out, I'm not sure I would have made it through, let alone that time I shot a BB gun through my mother's van window. But that's a whole other story.

So you end up, you're in the Southern District. And I think the point you made about you learned early on that it didn't matter what your affiliation was, these things should not be politicized. Iran contras another example of the difficulty. How long was the prosecution of that case? And ultimately, Oliver North was convicted, yes. But only of, wasn't it only a perjury?

Well, it was also interesting enough with the news in the headlines today, it was obstruction as well. I worked very closely on the Oliver North obstruction case. Do you remember Fawn Hall? Sure, I remember Fawn Hall. She was an assistant in that office. And ultimately ended up very glamorous,

dating, I think, Rob Lowe. So people don't remember the 80s in any way, and they shouldn't because it was a nightmare. So she was a cooperating witness. How difficult was it to get the records that you had required from the administration, from Oliver North, from Fawn Hall? How did this case turn?

So on the obstruction part of the case, it was probably the most straightforward case because this was at the very origins of email. And he was using an early email system of the US government. And so he spent like a couple nights at his computer deleting emails thinking, oh, well, they're deleted, they're gone.

Right, didn't understand. Well, nobody understood that. In fact, when it became public that the FBI was able to resurrect every email that he deleted, people were like amazed. And they're thinking, oh my God, when I deleted something, it's not really deleted? No, it's there forever, essentially.

So this gets us now to where you're at. Trump, all these administrations followed this same sort of pattern. There is a whiff of a corrupt, let's say it's a quid pro quo, let's say it's an underhanded dealing. We have to understand all governments, Republican, Democrat,

there are ways in which they conduct business that are always tiptoeing on the line of what we would consider corruption. And the job of the prosecutor is always to go back and say, give us the records, let us look through. And invariably, the records are not given with any kind of alacrity.

There is shenanigans, people try and delete them, they won't give you the phone, they delay, they deny. And it's very unusual that to gain a conviction in these cases, is it not? Yeah, no, it's very hard. And you have to show a corrupt intent through the whole process.

And we had a very hard time collecting documents in the Iran Contra case, because so many of them were classified. And it was very difficult. So even in Iran Contra, they were stored at Mar-a-Lago. Isn't that, I believe that's where our nation's secrets are now housed. It's the Fort Knox of American secrets.

But Fort Knox with a view. Yes, beautiful, beautiful place. So in the Iran Contra case, we were stymied because the administration, what wasn't letting us use the classified documents at trial, because it's ultimately up to the discretion of the administration, whether to declassify the documents

for purposes of a trial. And so we had to drop a couple of prosecutions. One that I was intimately involved in because they wouldn't allow us to divulge the classified documents. That's right. So generally though, and this gets us to maybe the crux of the conversation,

the thing that I think people are curious about is this, because I'm curious about it. America is, if there's one thing that we do well, it's incarcerate people. I mean, we are numero uno, as far as jailing people per capita, for any industrialized nation. Man, you know, you got guys, they come in,

they jump a turnstile, they're doing four months at Rikers in a terrible situation. But when it comes to political crime or white collar crime, it seems that the advantage flips that in general crime, the crimes of chaos or direct crime, the defendant is really, and maybe it's resources,

is behind. But when it comes to white collar crime and when it comes to political crime, their strategy is delay, deny, don't give access, fight everything until the attorney at this other district gets pushed out or it seems that we are not necessarily well equipped to prosecute these crimes.

Well, that's what's so extraordinary about the Southern District of New York. And it really is one of the country's great institution. And I was at, right after Rand Contra, I was in AUSA in the Southern District of New York in the early 90s and learned to do things, you know, the Southern District way. And the reason the Southern District is so extraordinary

is we are going toe to toe with the biggest, most formidable law firms in the country. And we take them on and we're not afraid and we have the talent. And they could make a bunch of money doing corporate law, doing a lot of other stuff. They've got to be dedicated. They are completely dedicated.

They could make a lot more money on the outside, but they don't because they love their job and there's nothing more rewarding than public service. And we take it on and we take it on really well. And obviously you can see what they're up against, but then why does it take so long? Cause I, let's use Trump as the example now. I'm from New York.

So we've known the guy for 30 or 40 years. Everybody knows the type of guy he is. Any contractor that ever worked with him knew, I'm going to get paid 80%, 75% of what I'm owed, just to the point where it's too expensive for me to try and claw it back in court. You know, he's notorious for his abusive and kind of exploitative business dealings.

But as far as the legalities of it, his lawyer Michael Cohen goes to jail, his CFO, Allen Weisselberg goes to jail. What does he do that allows everyone in his satellite orbit to be prosecuted for very clear crimes? How does he end up unscathed? Well, look, I, you know, in my book, I don't talk about investigations

that the office undertook when we didn't indict, right? Cause it violates department policy and it's not fair. But what I can tell you is that after Cohen's guilty plea, the office investigated thoroughly the campaign finance violation charges. And I can tell you that the Southern District doesn't pull punches. And if there was a case to be brought,

the Southern District would have brought it. But what you have to do is you have to examine in a kind of granular way the evidence against somebody, you know, look at the elements of the charge and be confident that, you know, if the admissible evidence is put before a jury, that you're going to get a conviction that people are going to say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's a high standard. And, you know, we don't have a different standard for, you know, some people as opposed to other people. Everybody is treated the same. Well, in some ways though, they're not because, you know, he clearly has the resources to delay. Anybody else in that situation, and I'm not just talking about Trump,

I'm talking about generally people of means and people who are politically connected. It's pretty clear that they make it much harder for folks like you to indict them because in any other case, so imagine you're just dealing with regular Joe on the street. And let's say that regular Joe on the street pays off a adult film star, not to talk based on-

It's a hypothetical. It's a hypothetical. And the lawyer who executes that deal is found guilty. But the person at whose behest that lawyer is operating, you know, the Southern District just says like, ah, what are you gonna do? You can't get that guy.

I don't think the Southern District of New York ever said that, you know, we had a dedicated team of our best prosecutors. And they pursued those allegations thoroughly. So is the idea there that Cohen acted on his own? Is that the thought? That doesn't mean that's what happened, but when it comes to-

That's only when you approve. When it comes to indicting, you have to look at the admissible evidence against a particular individual. And so we looked at the evidence against Michael Cohen and it was there and he pled guilty. And, you know, no other prosecutions were brought because, you know, there wasn't a case to be brought.

So even if Michael Cohen said, I will testify and say, Donald Trump told me to do that, that's not enough. That's not the end of the analysis that's required to have a successful trial against someone else. I guess that's my point is what can we do to make political crime and white collar crime of the big fish, you know, there's so many tactics that they can do the bar of prosecution

for these people of means, let alone a former president, seems like it's so high as to not make a lot of sense. Because it doesn't, isn't it beyond your comprehension that Trump isn't the ringleader of the fraudulent case against the CFO Weisselberg and the case against Michael Cohen? You know, I just believe in the professionalism of prosecuting case and building a case brick by brick

and not letting other thoughts or, you know, politics enter into it, you know, and as far as, you know, the Southern District just indicted the former lieutenant governor of New York, right? So Southern District is not afraid of taking on powerful people. You know, I'm looking at the case now in Mar-a-Lago. When you're in a situation where you can get a case

heard before a judge that you appointed and they don't have to recuse themselves, does that put prosecutors at a disadvantage? In other words, the disadvantages that prosecutors face in these cases versus the cases that they're looking to prosecute against people of less import or less means, what does a district attorney in that position,

what are the tools that you can do to use to get the corroborating materials that you need? Because it's pretty clear they fight tooth and nail to keep you from the evidence. So in this case with Mar-a-Lago, right, you know, the Justice Department just filed an appeal seeking immediate access to the classified documents that were seized in the search.

And there's an urgency to what the Department of Justice wants and that's to move forward with the investigation. And I get it. I mean, it was an incredible revelation when the Department of Justice announced that they were investigating Donald Trump and those around him, not just for the mishandling of classified information,

but for obstruction of a subpoena seeking requiring disclosure of those classified documents. That's a very, very important charge. I mean, if that were in the Southern District, we would be moving really quickly on it. It would have the highest priority. And here, Merrick Garland is, and he can't move forward with the cases he wants

because he can't have access to those seized documents. So I get why he wants to move forward. I understand the importance and I think he's justified. Now, again, I guess I look at the bar of this. I look at when he says, I guess the archives call him and they say, we want our documents back. And he says, no, they're mine. And then they meet with his lawyers

and they come up with a plan and they say, there's no classified documents here and we're going to give you this stuff. This is all of it. And then I guess they find out- And it wasn't a meeting, they got a subpoena. And so the idea, the people who receive it better be thorough and complete and take it seriously.

And if they didn't, very, very serious charge. But I would imagine that most people, regular Joe's again, who get a subpoena, don't get the kind of leeway that these politicians are getting. Subpoenas at this point, there's a lot of them that say, I'm not sure I'm going to abide by it, I may. I'll think about it. A subpoena in my mind is not,

hey, we'd love to talk to you someday. No, it's not discretionary. It's a mandate and nothing should focus the mind of anyone powerful or not powerful like receiving a subpoena. But there seems to be a gap in accountability of receiving a subpoena where it now appears to be like getting a jury duty summons. Like you get a jury duty summons and you think like,

well, I'll just go in there and tell them I have a job and everything will be fine. I think if you're the public, there's a real frustration that the rule of law doesn't necessarily apply equally to- No, I get it. And I saw it happen in my experience when Trump, as you said, would use the Department of Justice, like his own law firm, to target political enemies

and benefit his political friends. And that eviscerates the rule of law and people then lose faith in the critical institutions in our country. That's right. Like the Department of Justice, like the FBI, like the judiciary, and it's awful. It's destroying the fabric of our country.

And we really have to fix it. Then what is that accountability piece? For instance, and I don't even understand this one, you've got Matt Gaetz, who is a congressman down in Florida. He's been apparently under investigation for two years for sex trafficking of a minor. He asked the president for a preemptive pardon. Is there a scenario there that makes sense to you

as to why that's two years? And there seems to be, I mean, he's running again. He's gonna win more than likely, I guess, because he's in a pretty safe seat. How do you unpack what goes wrong there? Listen, you know the priority that I gave and that the Southern District had on sex trafficking case, right?

We're the ones who corrected the injustice of Epstein. Another example of someone with means who is caught red-handed in a thing and the accountability piece isn't there. So what goes on? The one case where we were delayed in the trial, not the indictment, but we brought a case against Chris Collins, who was the Trump's earliest backer

in Congress. It was an insider trading case. He was a Republican congressman from upstate New York. And we brought the indictment 60 days, right? The 60 day rule. You gotta bring an indictment outside of 60 days before an election. Now, is that a rule rule?

Is that like a baseball rule where they're like, you can't steal a base when it's 10-nothing? There's no crying in baseball? Right, I mean, is that a real rule? It's not a written rule. It's a rule of thumb, but it's been around for a long time. And in the Chris Collins case, we indicted him and it was a pretty strong case.

He won re-election. He then had to resign into his next term because he played guilty and admitted to his crimes. He, I think, had the legal ability to appeal that to the Supreme Court and delay his trial. So that's an example of someone who's wealthy and powerful being able to delay the case. But think of the exceptional effort

that you have to make there. Like, I'm just imagining, like, let's say, you know, somebody hits me on a felony drug charge and I'm like, wait, it's 60 days before the start of football season. Where's my 60-day rule? You know, when you look at these unwritten rules that regular people can't get, that all these avenues,

like, I'm not convinced, and I know maybe you can't say it, but I'm not convinced that you don't think Trump was guilty in the Michael Cohen case. I'm not convinced that you don't think he's not guilty in the Weisselberg case. It's that the bar of prosecution, of getting all the evidence together against people that, you know, have the means to delay it, is so high.

And also, it is true that powerful people, people of means have potential influence over other witnesses that the, you know, normal Joe in the street won't have. Right. And that's true, and you've got to push through that. But they sound like mafia cases. I mean, for God's sakes, the prosecutions of politicians

really do bear a tremendous resemblance to the prosecution of mob bosses. I mean, Donald Trump is out there right now saying, boy, if you come after me, streets are gonna run red, and I'm not gonna, imagine a gang leader says, if you prosecute me, there will be, I will have my gang members do that. Most prosecutors would just go, pardon the language,

fuck you, I'm taking you down. How much do, in the behind the scenes, how much conversation is there to the political and social ramifications of these kinds of prosecutions? And how much conversation is there about the frustration of all these really dedicated and amazing attorneys swimming upstream against all the difficulties

of fairly prosecuting these cases? Well, you know, it can sometimes get frustrating for the AUSAs, they work so hard, and it's a team effort there. Let's talk about your situation in particular. So you're a guy, you're fighting the good fight there, and Bill Barr, who is the attorney general of the United States at the time, I believe,

when you were at the SDNY, is leaning on you. Leaning is a polite way of putting it. A polite way of putting it, threatening you to use the SDNY to Trump's advantage. That's absolutely correct. And how unusual is that? Because what it says to me is, I mean, he wanted you to investigate John Kerry.

He wanted you to lay off of Michael Cohen. They want all these things. It certainly can't be the first time. It leads me to believe, generally, it's like a roach. When you see a roach, you don't think, oh, there's one. When something like that happens, yeah. John, you know, it was the things that happened to me

when I was at the Southern District, the political interference by main justice into our cases was unprecedented. We'd had people in the office for 40 years. No one had ever seen anything like it. But did that interference occur in other offices while it was happening at the Southern District of New York? I don't doubt that for one minute.

When Barr tried to get me to resign by dangling some jobs in front of me and trying to put one of his, an outsider who he trusted in charge of the Southern District, I said no. But a few months earlier, he did the same thing in the District of Columbia. And the U.S. Attorney took another job at Treasury

and Barr put in a very close ally. And then it was basically a hostile takeover of the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney's Office by main justice. And they've made motions in various cases, including Roger Stone and Manafort. And it was an absolute disgrace. So we know it happened elsewhere.

I don't think we know everywhere where it happened because present and former Department of Justice employees are bound not to disclose conversations with other DOJ employees, not to disclose cases and investigations. The only way I was able to come out with this book is because I went through the pre-publication review process at the Department of Justice.

But if somebody doesn't go through that process, they can't do it. You know, they're not permitted to do that. I was raised during water. As you know, like we came up during Watergate. And there's not a moment of anything that you described that makes me not think of John Mitchell and Richard Nixon firing Mitchell and getting the FBI and obstruction of justice.

Like, how is any of this legal in a democratic system and how do we bring some form of accountability? Because to my mind, if somebody sees what happens to you, right, and you're able to speak about it now, but if I'm working now in the SDNY, or I've got some ambition to rise up through the ranks, I'm looking at these examples and saying, I better keep my nose clean

and I better do what's right along these people of power, or I'm not gonna be able to get there. And it really undercuts what you think about the fairness of justice. No, it's absolutely right. And, you know, after Watergate, you know, people in the Department of Justice, the leaders, you know, went to jail.

And many thought that that lesson would be learned by people coming after them. And I think to a large part, it was, I think this is the first instance since that Watergate period where the Justice Department was politicized to the extent it was. And that's why I thought it was so important

to come out with the book to let people understand the first scope of what happened so that, you know, hopefully something like this will be less likely to happen again. Although if we have the same characters, you know, in office, you know, there's no stopping them. Now, what are you hearing from those that are behind the scenes for all these, you know,

you come out with a book, do they give any indication to you that now there's a different administration? Have they reassured you that accountability is coming in some way? Or is all this going to be, again, another Tempest in a teapot that we're gonna see a raid and a subpoena and a thing?

And accountability is put off because there's a 150 day rule before a rally. Is there, are you hearing anything that gives you confidence that accountability is coming? You know, once you leave the Department of Justice, the door shuts and it's... Well, they're like the Avengers. You can't even get back in.

That's a great analogy. All right. And so I can't get back in. And really the information that you would have if you were in the office is really no longer available. I never ask people for information and they never provide it because we follow the rules.

Here's the terrible part. They're not. And because they're not, you know, in the same way that finally to get their way through the mafia, they had to use the RICO Act and they had to do other things of conspiracy. At some point, somebody's gonna have to stand trial, it seems.

Well, we'll see what happens. Look, the Congress, the Senate Committee of the Judiciary has initiated an investigation based on what I have in the book. Yeah. So, you know, I welcome that. Did they not have that information prior? I don't think they did.

No one had. I was prohibited from disclosing it until there was a pre-publication review from the Department of Justice. So they have the information now. They've initiated an investigation, I welcome it and I'm gonna cooperate obviously fully with it. And that's gonna hopefully help shed more light

on the conduct of Trump's Justice Department. Right. How do we bring white collar and political crime more in line with the way that other people are prosecuted? Because it does seem like, look, you know, after 9-11 law enforcement infiltrated mosques, the January 6th committee apparently discovered all kinds of things that the Justice Department was like,

I never heard that. Can you send that over? You know, can you copy that memo? How do we bring the two tiers of justice closer together? Unless you believe that they are closer together, but it seems pretty clear to me that we have one sort of set of rules for the powerful and one set of rules for everyone else.

Well, you know, as I've been saying, I don't think that applies in the Southern District of New York because the units that we have that address like serious white collar crime, serious public corruption, financial crime, I mean, they're the highest units in the office and attract the best prosecutors. So we make it a mission to treat those cases,

you know, give them the attention that they deserve. And I think, you know, one thing that other, you know, US Attorney's Office might think about is beefing up those units in their offices. So if their white collar unit has 10 AUSAs, you know, throwing in another five or 10 people and have them be more entrepreneurial about finding the cases.

So- Oh, that's interesting. You know, when Trump said, oh, I'm canceling the government's subscriptions to the New York Times and the Washington Post, you know, I increased our budget for newspapers in the office because it's reading those newspapers

that give our AUSA leads to pursue this kind of public corruption and financial crime. Do you think it's because, I wonder if it's this, because right now in New York City, there is an enormous hullabaloo about the increase in crime. Is it that people don't view political and white collar crime, people don't want chaos and people view their own personal safety

different than what these incredible corruption cases may do to the fabric of society. It's not an immediate chaos. And do you think that that plays into why white collar and political crime is so much more difficult because the public outcry is also not really there? Well, you know, it is true that, you know, the first order of business in a city is to keep people safe

and people want to be kept safe. And so, and then now you're really talking about the DA's office, right? You're not talking about the U.S. Attorney's office, which- That's right. Higher level, you know, more significant cases. So, you know, I can understand that the NYPD and the mayor,

you know, you know, want to make people feel and be safe in the city. But I can tell you from my experience, when we would bring like a big public corruption case, or we would, you know, you know, that got a lot of attention. I mean, certainly something like made off and things like that. They hate people getting paid off.

They hate people being given special privileges. And we brought a lot of those cases. Right. So, I think it's a, you know, it's a little, it's once removed from the safety issue, but I think people still think it's very important. And they can understand that it can hollow out the fabric of society.

It can cause chaos in that, like it's a loss of resources. It's a loss of trust. What for you now, do you feel like you've blown up your career? Like how do you, what, I mean, you did this at, a high personal risk. You know, you could have done what Bill Barr asked. You could have just accepted the other position

and kept your mouth shut and gone along to get along. How does that personal toll and professional toll sit with you now? And do you still stand by your decision and all those things? You know, John, it never was a decision for me. You know, I had first and foremost, the only thing I cared about during my entire tenure at the Southern District was protecting the integrity

and independence of the Southern District. Every decision I made was looked at through that lens. So when, you know, when I was dangled these other jobs by Bill Barr, it was an absurdity. I mean, to me, it was an absurdity and it would never have happened. And so the book and my decision to, you know, throw a light on this was an obligation that came out

of my love for the Southern District of New York and my love for the Department of Justice. And I'm hoping that it'll help reestablish the rule of law and cause the Department of Justice to become independent and unbiased, which the country desperately needs. Was there any thought when all this happened, any talk in the office,

sitting by the microwave making that cup of noodles, hey man, let's all walk out, let's all in protest. Let's all do that, captain, my captain, let's stand up on the desk and let Bill Barr know that we won't take this. Would that be the kind of gesture that would expose this? If everyone had just said, you know what? We're walking out.

I mean, he said you resigned, clearly you didn't. But what if everybody had just stood in protest and said, not doing this? Well, walking out or quitting is exactly what they wanted me to do because that would have opened the opportunity for Barr to appoint someone from the outside who he trusted to take over the office.

So that was never something that I felt comfortable doing and never something that would have been appropriate. So like many who stayed in their positions, despite misgivings, I took the appointment and I decided to fight to stay in the appointment because I thought it was best for the Southern District of New York and the country and because the AUSAs who didn't quit,

they needed somebody to lead the office. Do you see this as a singular threat from Trump in that manner of doing business or is this endemic in the political system right now? I think it was unprecedented with Trump and that Trump was able to put people in these positions who were doing his bidding. I mean, when Barr first came in,

I was like, great, we're getting an institutionalist, right? We're getting someone from the, you know, George H.W. Bush administration, fantastic. Well, now he's come out as an institutionalist. Apparently while he was there, he was doing the bidding, but now Barr has come out and it turns out he's the hero of this story. Yeah, okay, all right, give me a second here.

You know, when you look at whether people followed their oaths while in the Trump administration, you got to look prior to the November 2020 election. After the election and after Trump lost, people recalibrated what was in their personal interests and Barr and many with him at that point after Trump lost, scurried off the ship. Right.

But before then, Barr was doing the bidding of the president and undermined the rule of law and corrupted the Department of Justice. Do you believe that there is anything in place that can prevent this from rerunning, that there will be any accountability? You know, look, we live in a system where you can't vote if you've been convicted of a crime,

but you could still be president. You could do it from jail if you wanted to. You know, do you have any faith that the guardrails that need to be bolstered will be so before this guy comes back and runs roughshot over any of the things that are the tent posts of a solid democratic system? Yeah, no, it really concerns me

because what I've seen is how vulnerable our system is if you have people intent on destroying it. So if you have a president who moves the levers of government for the acquisition and maintenance of power and personal aggrandizement, and you have people in the top of these agencies who are doing his bidding and they have people, you know,

Barr couldn't have done it alone. He had people who were willing to go along with his machinations even when it meant interfering in the Southern District's cases. When that exists, you could have all the guardrails you want. And ultimately it depends on the integrity and the honesty of the people in the jobs. And so the only thing I would suggest is that, you know,

the Senate and the confirmation process be extra vigilant to ensure that the people who are appointed as U.S. attorneys in the various offices and at the Department of Justice are prepared to follow their oaths. And in some ways, the courage of those in your party to stand, you know, he can't do this without their submission. And in some respects, maybe it's a moment

where they have to, not about Republicans and Democrats, it's about having a republic or not. You're exactly right. I was in a non-political position and my problems with the Trump administration, with Bill Barr, are non-political. It's about the destruction of the rule of law and both parties, both sides of the aisle,

should be able to agree upon that. And I'm hoping, and I have faith that leadership will emerge in the Republican Party that respects the rule of law and seeks to restore confidence and faith in all of our critical institutions. Thank you so much, Jerry. It's such a pleasure to catch up with you again.

It's been many, many years. I do wanna thank you. Your family on Halloween always delivered. You know, there were, I'm not gonna, I don't wanna say anything about, you know what the Bartolinos were up to. You could get an apple for God's sakes or like somebody would throw a couple of pennies

in your back. That's exactly right. But let me tell you something. You guys always delivered. We gave you the full bar, not those little Halloween bars. Just know this, it was not in vain and we were much appreciative.

We held the line on Halloween. No, there's, I don't think there's any question about that. Jeffrey Berman, the author of Holding the Line, Inside the Nation's Pre-Eminent U.S. Attorney's Office in its battle with the Trump Justice Department. Please give my best to your family. And ours, yours. Thank you so much and lovely to see you.

Take care. Thank you. Bye-bye. Huh, okay. That was a lot to chew on there. Let's bring Jay and Takara back here who were probably still mad. Not mad, I'm just surprised at the amount of faith

that he has in all of this. But don't you think he has to, to some extent? Oh, 100%, he's been, since I ran Contra, faith that can move mountains. When I looked at Takara when we were listening to the interview and I was like, and then when are they gonna get to talking about how they dropped crack in the hoods?

When are we gonna get to them dropping the cocaine into the hoods? Guys, no, that was the Western District, the Eastern. That wasn't the Southern District. My favorite thing is it's all about like, these people are great and they work really hard. And you're like, right, but it's a hamster wheel. And you're just going around in circles

and these guys are playing, they're playing the system. Like Donald Trump is playing this, like the thing I will never figure out is, so let me get this straight, your lawyer went to jail and your accountant went to jail and you're fine. Cause we don't have enough on you. And both of them said, yeah, we did this from his behest. Yeah, not enough.

And you're like, there are people in jail like for so much less in terms of, that's what I was trying to get at is like, is the bar of just bringing this to trial just too fucking high? Cause you're too nervous about the political implications. And even Stormy Daniel was punished cause she had to do a couple of road gigs,

I think as a standup. Did she really do stand up? Yes, you didn't know? I didn't know she did stand up. Oh, she did stand up for real. I heard she did something in Indianapolis and it was pretty good. See, that makes me sad to some extent.

Like I worked my whole fucking life to get like pretty decent at this. And she's like, yeah, I'll try that. Goes to fucking start selling out places in Indianapolis. Yeah. I was really surprised by how even killed he was during this interview because if this were me and there were folks of this political power

and influence, you know, just skirting through law and order, I'd be like, you're playing in my face. You're playing in my face and I'm upset. And I'm really surprised he didn't heighten a little but even towards the end where you were questioning him, I was surprised. I do think that the bar situation upset him.

I think he thought, I think he expects it from Trump. I think he views the guardrails more passionately than the actual perpetrator, which is Trump. But the one thing, and I enjoy talking to him, but the one thing I still couldn't wrap my head around that seemed very unsatisfying was this idea like, hey man, look, we're just justice. We're blind.

We just go where the evidence tells us to go and it has to raise to a certain level or we can't bring the case. And everything in my body, in my bones, in my soul tells me that's not true. That's, you're telling me to, are you gonna believe me or your lion eyes? There is no way that there is a fairness

to bringing these guys to justice at all. I think he did wanna insult any of the attorneys, but his whole stance was, of course, when people have power and influence, they do have means and access to things that can belabor process and kind of stretch things out. If you have the financial means to do so, then you can hamstring an investigation.

And you offered all those things and he was like, oh, I agree completely. And you went, so it's different. And he went, no, it's the same. That's right. Look, Trump's methodology is simple. Delay, delay, delay, delay, delay, delay, delay, delay. As long as I can, when I finally get called to account,

I take the fifth. And distract, delay and distract. That's right. So it's gonna take you three to five years just to get me to the point where I can take the fifth. And nobody's got the stamina or the money to keep up with that. I mean, if you don't have the fucking text messages

that say, oh, you're gonna give me welfare money to build the volleyball stadium, I sure hope, I sure hope no one finds out about that. Okay, well, John, as a Mississippi native, let me tell you something about the favorite son of our state behind Jerry Rice and Eli Manny and Brett Farve. For those who don't know, it's Brett Farve, the former quarterback of the Green Bay Packers,

and I believe Minnesota Vikings and New York Jets. Yeah, we really don't think that's the last two, but okay. First thing is he was given money that was in a block grant, I guess for welfare funds for Mississippi to give speeches that he never gave. So he had to pay that back, like a million dollars. But he didn't have to pay back the interest. Because the interest is innocent.

The interest is innocent, no harm, no foul. He didn't know what it was supposed to be used for. First of all, I think we get a sense now why Mississippi has such poverty. Yeah. Wow, we're keyed in. You come down and you're like, all these people are poor, but that volleyball stadium is lit.

Oh my God. It is fire. People get married there, it's so nice. It's a destination wedding spot in Hattiesburg, Mississippi to go to the Oak Grove High School Volleyball Stadium that he built the first time, and to go to the USM Women's Volleyball Stadium that he was just built.

Why not do like what normal corrupt people do, which is give a shit ton of money to there and build the stadium and put your name on it. And everyone you ever know will get into that college and that's the end of it. Do you understand how good Brett Favre had it? Also, these text messages, I know for a fact they were sent on a Nokia brick

or like a Blackberry. There's no way this was sent on anything updated tech-wise. You think flip phone? You think this could be a? I think it could definitely be a flip phone. I think it could easily be a flip phone. You think when he would get one,

he would just hear, brrr, brrr. Next tell church. Actually, yes, let's talk about those text messages for a second. Because Brett Favre texted the assistant to the governor and said, is there any way the media would find out about this? Right.

Now, for those of you who don't know, Brett Favre is also the dude who like text his dick to a woman who was covering news. If anybody should understand that embarrassing text messages can sometimes get out to the public, including pictures of your packer. Thank you. Like, does anything land with this cat?

Like no learning curve. Zero learning. I don't think so. And that was point one. What's point two, Takara? Point two is that he was wanting to know if the media could find out about this. Not the police.

Not the, not anywhere in the justice system, the medium. And I think that really goes back to Trump and thinking that like, you know, that's not a problem for me. Law and order is not a problem for me. I'm concerned about being prosecuted by the court of public opinion. Because if he knows when this goes to trial or whatever,

he will be just fine. But he doesn't want his legacy tarnished at all. And that's what that text message said to me. I gotta tell you though, I don't know that he's gonna be fine. Like this is one of those that's so outright. Like this is diabolical in almost a cartoon villain sense. Like it's one thing if he was,

he committed a little bit of insurance fraud and he used that money to pay the thing. Like you stole $5 million of money that had been dedicated to those who are suffering the most in your state. The state in which you're a hero. That's dick dastardly, big mustache twirling, you know, tying Penelope to the tracks kind of shit.

You know what it is? It's sloppy Trump. He's sloppy Trump. Like Trump would never let this shit get tied back to him in that way. And it just shows you the high level that Trump has to function to skate above the law. I mean, for God's sakes,

Trump's cancer charity stole from kids with cancer. But John, it also shows the good old boy state. Like there is a level of like handshake politics in some of these state governments that is so casual and so cavalier about the way that they handle millions of dollars that you go, how did this even come about? How did you even think that this would work?

How are we at the point where you're going, oh, I guess we have to really do this because Takara was talking earlier, Brett Favre didn't drop the schematics. Brett Favre didn't say, oh, we can use this block grant and hide it as a lease instead of a brick and mortar. So we know what to do with the $5 million. I know for a fact, I've seen sacks.

I've seen NFL footage that lets me know he cannot come up with that plan. I know that for a fact. You know what though, it's what's so interesting is it's so reflective of his NFL career, which is greatness, but reckless. Fucking reckless. And in a big spot, risk and reward.

And he was just like, hey man, I'm just gonna continue. I'm just gonna scramble and see if I can make something happen. Boy did he, my God. And it's not him to the hall of fame, but now. I'm gonna send my dick to a reporter and I'm gonna get $5 million for a volleyball stadium and just top it off with some wink, wink emojis

that I sent for my Nokia. Oh, well, John, this brings me to my next point. Who's your favorite problematic NFL player? It can be current or retired. It's Colin Kaepernick. For him to take me at a distance. Oh my God. Guys, this was fantastic.

Fantastic talking to you guys, as always. It's Karl Mallard, Jay Jordan, Jeffrey Berman. That's the podcast. It's The Problem with John Stewart. This is the podcast. The show is on Apple TV. Plus it's coming out October 7th for season two. There's a link somewhere on this.

I can't figure any of it out, but that's why you're you and I'm me. Somewhere down there. And we'll see you guys. We'll see you guys next week. Bye-bye. Bye. Thanks, John. Bye, y'all.

The Problem with John Stewart podcast is an Apple TV plus podcast and a joint busboy production.