Brooks and Capehart on the Comey indictment and upending of DOJ norms

Geoff Bennett:

Former FBI Director James Comey's indictment and a looming government shutdown.

Much to discuss with their friends Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MSNBC.

It's great to see you both.

So, David, President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan had been on the job for just four days when she went before a grand jury seeking this extraordinary, unprecedented indictment of James Comey.

How do you view the charges themselves and the process that led to these charges?

David Brooks:

I view it the way every other sentient human being views it, as an erosion of our democracy, a blatant one.

You want your prosecutors to ask themselves one question — well, two. Did this person commit a crime and can we prove it? And, clearly, that's not the way you can think if you're if the Justice Department these days. The only question you need — have to ask yourself is, does the president want me to do this?

And that's just a violation of our basic fundamental principles. And so I wish I had something sophisticated to say, but when you look at what the actual indictment is, it claims that he knew that somebody else did some leak.

Well, it's so flimsy, you can see why they have been deciding not to prosecute this case over and over and over again. And to do it a week before the term runs out, with the prosecutors never prosecuted anything before, it's the obvious. It's a violation of our democracy.

Geoff Bennett:

Jonathan, how does all of this strike you?

Jonathan Capehart:

Oh, look, when it comes to democracy and threats to democracy, there will be no daylight between me and David.

I come at this with the same view. Justice is supposed to be blind. It is supposed to be meted out without fear or favor of the powerful and certainly without pressure from the president. And now what we have seen time and time again — this isn't the only time that we have seen Justice looking over her shoulder, wondering, what does the president want me to do?

And the other thing about this indictment of James Comey, it's only two pages. And it's only — it's two pages because it's double-spaced. It is literally so flimsy that it is no wonder that the former FBI director is saying, yes, let's go to trial, because I think he knows deep down, if justice is to prevail, if the rule of law is to be upheld, a jury of his peers will find him not guilty.

Geoff Bennett:

And, David, the president is predicting more prosecutions to come, he told a reporter on the South Lawn. He doesn't have a list, but he says: "I think there will be others."

We pulled together a list of all the people the president has targeted for retribution in varying degrees. You see them all there, Letitia James. You see Jimmy Kimmel, Adam Schiff, John Bolton. The list goes on.

Stepping back, what does this moment mean for the Justice Department itself, its independence, its credibility, and the way Americans view its role going forward?

David Brooks:

Gone.

And, of course, it's not the first time the Justice Department has been used, you would say. John F. Kennedy shouldn't have appointed his brother as attorney general. But it's — one of the things I think we have learned is, the Constitution's a magnificent document, but they made it too hard to change.

And a lot of countries have independent prosecutorial systems, and they don't have the politicians determining who's going to — and we relied — instead of a legal precedent that it's going to be separate and independent, we learn — we relied on norms. We learn — relied on presidents restraining themselves.

And it turns out — and we have learned this since the first Trump term — that norms that we thought were — we almost thought they were real, like concrete. And norms are really powerful, but if somebody destroys them, they have destroyed your system. And so the eruption of norms has really led to us — us where we are today.

And then the final thing I'd say is that Lindsey Halligan, she must — she might be a wonderful person. I don't know. I don't know her. But the quality of a job of a prosecutor, like the quality of a general, like the quality of a pilot, like the quality of a journalist, experience helps.

And the people who were fired because they refuse to do this were experienced prosecutors. I don't know their politics, but they lived up to the standard of their craft. And when you have somebody who's willing to betray the standard of their craft, you have got something bigger than one case. You have got an administration where people are going to do the things that are disgraceful because they just don't see any disgrace in it.

Geoff Bennett:

And, Jonathan, building on David's point about the erosion of norms, how might this indictment influence America's credibility abroad, where the rule of law has long been the cornerstone of our democracy?

Jonathan Capehart:

Right. The answer to your question is in the question.

The United States has been a beacon around the world for a whole host of reasons, but primarily because of the rule of law, that, if you go before the judicial system, you go before a jury of your peers, you will have your day in court. And what we're seeing here is — I agree with David. The independence of DOJ is — it is gone.

And the one thing that — in addition to the norms that David talked about, that the Constitution relied on, that the founders relied on, was leaders of good character. And that is what we do not have in the current president of the United States. And I say that because a person of good character would not single out his or her enemies for prosecution without evidence and just say flatly they're guilty of something, and then demand that the people at the Justice Department go find that something.

We are in a very bad place when it comes to the rule of law. And this is why the world is so worried about what is happening to this country, why they were so worried about a Trump 2.0.

Geoff Bennett:

And we are also in this country days away from a government shutdown with no off-ramp in sight.

The OMB director, Russ Vought, he charged into this escalating shutdown fight, warning of mass federal layoffs unless Democrats basically do what President Trump and Republicans want. David, what do you make of the way the Trump administration is playing hardball here?

David Brooks:

It was entirely predictable. Donald Trump ran for office saying he was going to take a flamethrower to the U.S. government, federal bureaucracy. He hired Elon Musk, and Musk more or less failed.

DOGE created a lot of chaos, but it didn't take a blowtorch to the U.S. government. It was mostly ineffective. And, to me, the problem here is that Chuck Schumer has decided to pick up where Elon Musk leaves off. He — by shutting down the — heading us toward a government shutdown, he will give the federal government or the Trump administration incredible latitude to fire people, to decimate more agencies, to pour money where they need to for political support, to withdraw money where they want to — because they don't think it will politically hurt him.

They are handing Russell Vought amazing power when they do this. And that's just not me saying this. This is what Chuck Schumer said in May when he decided not to shut down the government. He said, it would give carte blanche for the Trump administration to destroy vital services. It would hand the keys to the city and the state and the country to Russell Vought.

I don't know what's different from now from March. I think he made the right call in March. This is not the battle to fight because it will just lead to the destruction of the federal government. And there's no upside here for anybody. People do not win government shutdowns. So there's no upside for the Democrats. It's all downside.

Geoff Bennett:

Jonathan, should Democrats adjust their strategy now to deal with Vought's playing hardball here?

We had Chuck Schumer, Senator Schumer on the program before this threat, and he was saying that they are going to hold firm, not compromise on the issues that they hold dear.

Jonathan Capehart:

And he's absolutely right.

Here is where David and I are in complete disagreement. Look, Russell Vought, President Trump, this has been their plan all along. Democrats have to play hardball with them, have to meet their hardball tactics with hardball tactics. They were always going to take a wrecking ball to the federal government.

They're going to take a wrecking ball to the federal government and do all sorts of things whether Democrats give them the votes needed to pass the C.R. or not. The one thing — Democrats are talking about they want to safeguard health care for 15 million people, from those who are about to lose their Obamacare subsidies to those who are on Medicare.

But there's something else that they are wisely demanding. They're demanding that the OMB director and the president dial back, that Congress dialed back the president's rescission power. And what that means is, let's say Democrats give Republicans the votes they need to do the C.R. to fund the government afterwards, to do all those appropriations bills.

Well, Russell Vought and the president have time and time again gone to Congress and said, the money that you appropriated for X, Y or Z, we're not spending it that way. We don't care whether you like it or not. And so that's the other thing that the Democrats are fighting for, and they are right to demand that, because no matter what they agree to, the Trump administration is going to turn their back on it, no matter what.

Fight, Democrats.

Geoff Bennett:

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, we're grateful for your perspectives at the end of a very long, very busy week. Thank you.

David Brooks:

Thank you.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks.