Fmr. Federal Prosecutor on the Turmoil Inside Trump’s Justice Department

>>> OUR NEXT GUEST IS SUING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AFTER WHAT HE SAYS WAS A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED DISMISSAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

FORMER ASSISTANT U.S.

ATTORNEY MIKE GORDON BELIEVES THAT HE WAS ABRUPTLY FIRED BECAUSE OF HIS ROLE AS A SENIOR PROSECUTOR ON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S JANUARY 6th CAPITOL RIOT CASES.

GORDON IS ONE OF MANY IMPACTED BY THE DOJ'S FIRINGS, AND ITS PROBES INTO THOSE WHO HAVE OPPOSED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

ON FRIDAY, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS LAUNCHING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO MINNESOTA GOVERNOR TIM WALZ AND MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR, JACOB FRYE OVER ALLEGEDLY ING FEDERAL EFFORTS THERE.

MIKE GORDON JOINS, HARI TO DISCUSS HOW THE NEW PATH COULD INFLUENCE JUDICIAL ORDER.

>> THANK YOU.

RECENTLY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS GONE AFTER WHO THEY PERCEIVE TO BE POLITICAL RIVALS, AND THE LIST IS VERY LONG NOW.

I MEAN, WHETHER IT'S JAMES COMEY OR LETITIA JAMES.

I WANT TO WRITE THAT SOMEONE SAID THESE ARE DRIVEN BY NOT POLITICS.

WHAT'S YOUR ASSESSMENT?

>> I DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD BE TRUE.

I SERVE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR 8 1/2 YEARS, AND WHILE I WAS THERE, THERE WAS A MANTRA.

THAT IS THAT WE FOLLOW THE FACTS AND THE LAW, WHEREVER THEY LEAD, WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR.

THAT'S WHAT OUR TASKS WAS, AND MEANT THAT INVESTIGATIONS BEGIN WITH THE FACTS.

THEY BEGIN WITH FBI AGENTS AND PROSECUTORS SEEING WHEREVER THEY LEAD, AND IF THEY DO LEAD TO A PROMINENT PERSON, RIGHT?

TO SOMEBODY THAT'S GOING TO GET A LOT OF MEDIA ATTENTION FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE CHARGE THAT PERSON WITH A FEDERAL CRIME, THEN THERE ARE MANY LAYERS OF REVIEW THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AS A PROSECUTOR TO GET APPROVAL TO CHARGE THAT PERSON.

SOMETIMES ALL THE WAY UP TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THEMSELVES.

AND THAT TAKES A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME.

SOMETIMES THOSE RESULT IN SERIOUS PUBLIC CORRUPTION PROSECUTIONS, BUT WHAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IS THE REVERSE, AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SEEING CONSISTENTLY FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS IS STARTING WITH THE TARGET, AND THEN WORKING BACKWARDS TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT CRIME THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO CHARGE.

>> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SITTING ELECTED OFFICIALS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE BEING TARGETED.

SENATOR MARK KELLY, SENATOR ELISSA SLOTKIN, FOR MESSAGES THEY SENT OUT TO MILITARY MEMBERS, RIGHT?

AND I WONDER, WHAT'S THE LEGAL RATIONALE HERE FOR THESE TYPE OF INVESTIGATIONS?

>> WELL, THERE'S TWO THINGS AT PLAY.

ONE, THE CONSTITUTION HAS A SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE THAT COVERS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND LARGELY INSULATES THEM FROM BEING PROSECUTED OR OTHERWISE HAVING LEVERS OF GOVERNMENT BROUGHT AGAINST THEM FOR THINGS THAT THEY SAY WHILE EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS PART OF THEIR DUTIES OF DELIBERATING AND LEGISLATING, AND BRINGING ISSUES TO LIGHT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T SEEM TO GIVE ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE IN THESE CASES.

IN ADDITION, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS ITS OWN GUIDELINES, AND THOSE DEAL, THOUGH, WITH ELECTION YEAR CONCERNS, AND ESSENTIALLY THEY SAY WE DON'T CHARGE PEOPLE WITHIN CERTAIN TIME FRAMES AS -- IN THE LEADUP TO ELECTIONS, BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN TARGETING ARE CURRENTLY IN ELECTION YEARS.

>> SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF NEWS AND CONCERN ABOUT A HIGH-PROFILE INVESTIGATION INTO FED CHAIRMAN JEROME POWELL.

THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN MAKING SEVERAL COMMENTS OVER MONTHS -- AGAIN, THIS IS SOMEBODY THAT HE APPOINTED AS FED CHAIR THAT HE HAS DISPLEASURE OF WHAT CHAIRMAN POWELL IS DOING.

WHEN THIS INVESTIGATION WAS LAUNCHED INTO CHAIRMAN POWELL, WHAT DID YOU THINK?

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY TRANSPARENTLY MEANT AS AN ACT OF COERCION.

THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE NO SECRET THAT HE WOULD LIKE INTEREST RATES TO BE LOWER, AND IT'S NO, YOU KNOW, IT'S OBVIOUS WHY BECAUSE DOING THAT USUALLY BOOSTS THE ECONOMY IN THE SHORT-TERM.

IT CARRIES LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES THOUGH FOR INFLATION.

THOSE MAY TAKE EFFECT AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S ALREADY LEFT OFFICE.

SO HE'S BEEN TRYING TO LOBBY, YOU KNOW, CHAIRMAN POWELL TO LOWER INTEREST RATES FOR YEARS, EVEN GOING BACK TO HIS FIRST TERM.

THAT HASN'T SUCCEEDED BECAUSE THE FED IS AN INDEPENDENT BODY THAT'S BEEN SETTING MONETARY POLICY BASED ON WHAT THEY THINK IS BEST FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

SO PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TURNED IT APPEARS TO INSTEAD USE THE LAW AS A BILLY CLAW TO USE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS MEANS TO EXERT COERCION OVER CHAIRMAN POWELL, AND THAT, TO ME, IS NOT ONLY NOT WHAT THE JUSTICE OF DEPARTMENT IS, AND SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT IT SHOULD ALSO SCARE ALL AMERICANS BECAUSE CHAIRMAN POWELL IS THE TARGET OF THE PRESIDENT'S IRE TODAY.

IT COULD BE ANY OF US TOMORROW.

>> REGARDING THE POWELL CASE, WE SHOULD NOTE THAT U.S.

ATTORNEY IN D.C., JANINE PIRRO SAID ON X "THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CONTACTED THE FEDERAL RESERVE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS TO DISCUSS COST OVERRUNS BUT WERE IGNORED.

NECESSITATING THE USE OF LEGAL PROCESS WHICH IS NOT A THREAT.

THE WORD INDICTMENT HAS COME OUT OF MR.

POWELL'S MOUTH.

NO ONE ELSE 'S.

NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THEY WOULD HAVE JUST RESPONDED TO OUR OUTREACH."

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN INTERESTING TO WATCH IS WHEN JUDGES HAVE THROWN OUT INDICTMENTS AGAINST JAMES COMEY AND LETITIA JAMES IN NEW YORK, BECAUSE AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATISTICS ARE, BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'M USED TO SEEING, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATIONS, YOU KNOW, USUALLY THE HOMEWORK IS DONE BEFORE YOU GET TO COURT, RIGHT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

FOR MY ENTIRE CAREER, I NEVER ONCE HAD A CASE REJECTED BY A GRAND JURY.

I'VE NEVER SEEN A COLLEAGUE HAVE A CASE REJECTED BY THE GRAND JURY.

COVERS HUNDREDS OF CASES AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS NOT A SHOOT FIRST, AIM LATER ORGANIZATION, OR AT LEAST IT NEVER HAS BEEN.

THE WAY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORKS IS YOU HAVE TO DO ALL THE WORK ON THE FRONT END AS A PROSECUTOR AND THEN ALSO HAVE IT APPROVED BY A SUPERVISOR, AND IF YOUR TARGET IS SOMEBODY THAT IS A PROMINENT PERSON OR IF THE CHARGES YOU'RE BRINGING ARE THOSE THAT ARE PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE, THOSE USUALLY HAVE TO GET APPROVED AT MULTIPLE HIGHER LEVELS INCLUDING ALL THE WAY UP IN D.C., AND BECAUSE OF THAT LEVEL OF VETTING BY EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE TAKING CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS, WE DON'T BRING CASES THAT THE GRAND JURY'S GOING TO REJECT.

THE FACT THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED IS AN INDICATION OF SLOPPINESS.

IT'S AN INDICATION OF A DEPARTMENT NOT GIVING PROPER LEGAL OR ETHICAL CONSIDERATION TO WHAT IT'S DOING, AND WHAT I'M SEEING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.

THE ACTUAL OUTCOME OF THESE CASES DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THE PRIORITY.

>> WHAT DOES THIS DO TO I GUESS, THE OVERALL CREDIBILITY OF DOJ LAWYERS?

I DON'T KNOW HOW UNIFORM IT IS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, BUT I JUST ASSUME THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN DEFERENCE THAT JUDGES GIVE TO SAY, OKAY.

THIS IS A SERIOUS PERSON.

THEY HAVE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK.

I SHOULD TAKE THIS PIECE OF PAPER SERIOUSLY, BUT WHEN WE SEE CASES LIKE THIS COME OUT, WHAT DO DGES START TO THINK?

>> THE CREDIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN JUST GUTTED OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST FEW MONTHS.

BEING A DOJ LAWYER FOR MANY LAW STUDENTS IS THE BRASS RING.

IT'S A THING THEY ASPIRE TO BECAUSE THEY WANT TO USE THEIR LEGAL DEGREES TO DO GOOD, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHEN YOU STAND UP IN COURT, YOU DON'T SAY, I'M MIKE GORDON, REPRESENTING A PERSON.

YOU SAY, I'M MIKE GORDON REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES AND ALL OF ITS PEOPLE, EVEN THE DEFENDANT, EVEN THE JUDGE HIMSELF.

THAT'S A HIGHER CALLING.

EVERY DOJ LAWYER CAN MAKE MORE MONEY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, BUT THEY CHOOSE NOT TO.

THEY CHOOSE TO GIVE UP THAT MONEY IN ORDER TO DO WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT, AND THAT'S THE CHARGE.

DO WHAT'S RIGHT EVERY DAY.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SEEING ANYMORE, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS HEMORRHAGING PEOPLE.

JUDGES ARE NOTICING.

THEY'RE NOTING THE CHANGE IN THE DEPARTMENT.

THEY ARE NOTICING THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER RELY ON THE FACT THAT EVERYTHING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAWYER SAYS IS THE TRUTH OR CAREFULLY VETTED.

THAT KIND OF EROSION OF CREDIBILITY IS GOING TO TAKE DECADES TO UNDO.

I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT WHAT I THINK IS HAPPENING TO THE CONFIDENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO COUNT ON THE IDEA THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS INSTITUTING OR ENFORCING THE LAW WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR.

BUT NOW WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMATICALLY GUTTING THE PROSECUTIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION CASES, OF WHITE-COLLAR CRIME, AND A FOREIGN BRIBERY OR LOBBYING.

THOSE FIVE AREAS OF PROSECUTIONS ARE WHAT GIVE THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE THAT EVEN THE RICH, EVEN THE POWERFUL, EVEN FOREIGN LOBBYISTS WILL BE HELD TO ACCOUNT IF THEY COMMIT CRIMES, BUT THROUGH MEMOS ISSUED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDI, FIRING OR RE-ASSIGNMENT OF PROSECUTORS, AND THE DEPARTMENT'S HIGH-PROFILE DECISIONS, AMERICAN PEOPLE NO LONGER HAVE CONFIDENCE THE LAW WILL BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY TO EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF THEIR WEALTH OR POWER, AND THAT IS DEVASTATING.

>> JUST RECENTLY IN MINNEAPOLIS, WE HAD SIX CAREER PROSECUTORS SAY THAT THEY RESIGNED, AND I -- I HAVE TO -- I HAVE TO SAY THAT THEY SAID THAT BECAUSE THERE IS SOME CONFLICTING INFORMATION.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAYS THERE WERE NO RESIGNATIONS AT ALL, THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE FIRED, BUT THEIR CONCERN WAS AS THEY SAY, LOOK.

THEY WERE SET TASK TO INVESTIGATE THE WIDOW OF RENEE GOOD, THE MINNEAPOLIS WOMAN WHO WAS SHOT AND KILLED BY AN I.C.E.

AGENT, WHILE DECLINING TO PURSUE A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE I.C.E.

AGENT WHO SHOT MS.

GOOD, RIGHT?

AND I WONDER, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE DEPARTMENT WHEN YOU HAVE LAWYERS AT LEAST IN GROUPS AT A TIME, ECIDING TO RESIGN OR LEAVE?

>> THE DEPARTMENT'S LOSING SOME OF ITS BEST, MOST ETHICAL, MOST EXPERIENCED LAWYERS, AND THE PROBLEM HERE TO BE CLEAR, ISN'T THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ASKED TO INVESTIGATE THE WIFE OF RENEE GOOD.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY WERE ASKED OR TOLD OR DIRECTED NOT TO INVESTIGATE I.C.E.

OFFICER JONATHAN ROSS.

ALL RIGHT?

THE MANTRA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS TO INVESTIGATE AND FOLLOW THE FACTS AND THE LAW WHEREVER THEY LEAD, WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR.

THAT SHOOTING IN MINNEAPOLIS REQUIRES THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAWYERS INVESTIGATE ALL OF IT, THAT A CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION OCCUR TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT RENEE GOOD'S CIVIL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A GOOD-FAITH INVESTIGATION OF THAT SHOOTING WOULD RESULT IN A DECISION NOT TO CHARGE OFFICER ROSS WITH VIOLATING HER CIVIL RIGHTS.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A GOOD-FAITH INVESTIGATION OF RENEE GOOD'S WIFE WOULD LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT SHE HAD DONE SOMETHING TO CRIMINALLY OBSTRUCT THE I.C.E.

OFFICERS, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS DIRECTED TO OCCUR HERE.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYERS IN THAT OFFICE WERE DIRECTED TO NOT EVEN LOOK AT WHETHER THAT SHOOTING WAS AN UNAUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE, EFFECTIVELY A MURDER.

NOT EVEN LOOK AT IT, AND INSTEAD, TO TARGET RENEE GOOD'S WIFE, AND SO I AM PROUD OF THOSE SIX PROSECUTORS.

I'M PROUD TO CALL THEM COLLEAGUES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THEIR ACTIONS SHOW ME THAT THEY CARED ABOUT THEIR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, AND TO ENFORCE THE LAW WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR MORE THAN THEY CARED ABOUT THEIR OWN PERSONAL SECURITY OR JOBS.

>> AS SOMEONE WATCHING THE CONVERSATION MIGHT GOOGLE YOU AND SAY, WAIT.

THIS IS A GUY WHO WAS FIRED WHILE HE WAS HANDLING MAJOR CASES INCLUDING THE JANUARY 6th RIOTERS.

WHAT HAPPENED?

AND THEN YOU CHOSE TO SUE BECAUSE YOU FELT LIKE YOU WERE UNFAIRLY OR ILLEGALLY FIRED.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT, AND WHERE IS THE CASE NOW?

>> SURE.

SO I WAS THE SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL FOR JANUARY 6th PROSECUTIONS FOR TWO YEARS FROM 2021 THROUGH 2023.

THEN AT THE END OF 2023, I RETURNED TO MY HOME OFFICE IN TAMPA, FLORIDA WHILE I PROSECUTED WHITE-COLLAR CASES, PUBLIC CORRUPTION, CYBERCRIME, ET CETERA.

I HAD BEEN SECUTING THOSE CASES FOR 18 MONTHS WHEN IN JUNE, 2025, I WAS GIVEN A LETTER INDICATING THAT I WAS BEING FIRED, AND NO REASON WAS BEGIN WHATSOEVER, NOR ANY WARNING NOR ANY DUE PROCESS.

REGULAR FOLKS MIGHT BE AT-WILL EMPLOYEES IN THEIR JOBS.

I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT PROSECUTORS LIKE ME ARE ACTUALLY COVERED BY A LAW, THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT.

THAT MEANS YOU CAN'T JUST FIRE US AT WILL.

WE'RE NOT SOME PEOPLE THAT CAN BE FIRED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, WITHOUT NOTICE, WITHOUT ANY MERIT-BASED CAUSE, AND SO MY FIRING WAS ILLEGAL.

IT WAS OBVIOUSLY RETRIBUTION FOR MY WORK PROSECUTING JANUARY 6th CASES AND THERE HAD BEEN NEWS REPORTS SINCE THEN THAT HAVE INDICATED THAT'S THE CASE.

I SUED BECAUSE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DID WAS ILLEGAL.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE VERY PART OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS TASKED WITH ENFORCING THE LAW, WAS BREAKING IT TO FIRE ME, AND WHILE I HAD SPENT ALMOST NINE YEARS FIGHTING TO UPHOLD THE LAW BY REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT, BY FIGHTING FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN COURT, I DIDN'T CHANGE.

THE GOVERNMENT DID.

SO IN ORDER FOR ME TO CONTINUE FIGHTING FOR THE LAW TO UPHOLD IT, IT REQUIRED NOW I GO AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, AND I SUED THEM.

SO THAT'S WHAT I DID.

THE CASE IS ONGOING.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS MOVED TO DISMISS IT, ARGUING THAT I'M IN THE WRONG COURT, THAT I DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE WHERE I DID, AND MY LAWYERS HAVE RESPONDED AND SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG, BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS SHUT DOWN THE OTHER AVENUES TO BRING THIS KIND OF CLAIM, AND SO THE JUDGE HAS THE RIGHT TO HEAR.

SO RIGHT NOW IT'S DING AND THE JUDGE IS DECIDING WHETHER SHE EVEN HAS THE POWER TO HEAR THE CASE, JUST NOT WHETHER OR NOT I WAS ILLEGALLY FIRED.

>> WE REACHED OUT TO THE DOJ ABOUT YOUR CASE AND AS OF NOW WHEN WE'RE SPEAKING, Y HAVE NOT YET RESPONDED WITH ANY COMMENTS.

WHAT WENT THROUGH YOUR MIND WHEN YOU SAW THE PRESIDENT PARDON EVERYONE FROM JANUARY 6th?

>> IT WAS SHOCKING TO ME, AND DEVASTATING.

JUST EIGHT DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WAS INAUGURATED, VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE OR INCOMING VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE, WAS ASKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ISSUE PARDONS TO JANUARY 6th RIOTERS, AND VICE PRESIDENT VANCE HIMSELF SAID, WELL, OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T PARDON PEOPLE WHO ASSAULTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

OF COURSE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

AND YET THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID.

WE EXPECTED HIM TO PARDON THE MISDEMEANORS, BUT PARDONING PEOPLE WHO ASSAULTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, WHO STOLE THINGS FROM THE CAPITOL, WHO PLOTTED TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT, WHO WERE CONVICTED OF SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY?

A PLOT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT, PARDONING THEM JUST THROWS THE COUNTRY INTO CHAOS.

IT SHOWS THAT NOTHING MATTERS IF YOU SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT.

IT SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT BACK LAW ENFORCEMENT, THAT IT'S OKAY FOR THEM TO BE ASSAULTED IF THE PEOPLE ASSAULTING THEM SAY THAT THEY SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE DOING IT.

THOSE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE HEROES.

WE SHOULD BE HAVING A PARADE FOR THEM EVERY JANUARY 6th.

INSTEAD, THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THEY PROTECTED CONGRESS.

THEY PUT THEIR BODIES ON THE LINE, AND THOSE SAME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE WILLING TO NOT ONLY SIT BY WHILE THEY'RE PARDONED, BUT ALSO REFUSE TO HANG A PLAQUE HONORING THEM.

>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW THE ADMINISTRATION HAS TREATED THE PEOPLE WHO WENT INTO THE CAPITOL ON JANUARY 6th VERSUS CALLING RENEE GOOD A DOMESTIC TERRORIST, IT SEEMS TO BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS HERE.

>> IT DOES.

THE ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO BE SUPPORTING A RULE OF OBEY OR DIE WHEN IT COMES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND THEY APPEAR TO BE PAINTING RENEE GOOD AS SOMEONE WHO DESERVED WHAT SHE GOT.

I DON'T SEE HOW THAT VIEWPOINT HOLDS CONSISTENT WITH PARDONING JANUARY 6th RIOTERS WHO ASSAULTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

FOR EXAMPLE, OFFICER MICHAEL FANONE WAS TASED IN THE BASE OF HIS SKULL.

ANOTHER OFFICER WAS CRUSHED AND HIS SHOULDER RIPPED TO THE POINT LIGAMENTS WERE DAMAGED AND HE CAN'T LIFT HIS ARM ABOVE HIS HEAD.

OFFICER DANIEL HODGES, CRUSHED BETWEEN TWO DOORS, AND ANY OF THOSE SITUATIONS, THOSE OFFICERS COULD HAVE DRAWN THEIR WEAPONS, BUT THEY DIDN'T BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT IF THEY DID, IT COULD HAVE INSTIGATED A MASSACRE.

I DON'T SEE HOW THE ADMINISTRATION CAN CELEBRATE THE PARDON AND CALL JANUARY 6th RIOTERS PERSECUTED, POLITICAL PRISONERS, OR HOSTAGES, AND YET VIEW RENEE GOOD AS A DOMESTIC TERRORIST WHO DESERVED WHAT SHE GOT.

>> MIKE GORDON, THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> I APPRECIATE IT.