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

Former FBI director James Comey's indictment and a looming government shutdown much to discuss with our 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 Lindsay had halogen 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?

I view it the way every other sentient human being views it, as an erosion of our democracy, 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 in 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 it's so flimsy. You can see why they've 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 it's a violation of our democracy Jonathan. How does all of this strike you?

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. You know, 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've seen time and time again, this isn't the only time, but we've 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 two pages because it's double spaced. It is literally so flimsy that it is no wonder that the former FBI director is saying, yeah, 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. 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?

Gone. You know, 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, you know, one of the things I think we've learned is the Constitution is 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 a politician

determining who's going to. And we relied, instead of a legal precedent that it's going to be separate and independent, we relied on norms. We relied on presidents restraining themselves. And it turns out, and we've 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've destroyed your system. And so the eruption of norms has really led to us where we are today. And then the final thing I'd say is that Lindsey Halligan, 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 refused 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've got something bigger than one case. You've got an administration where people are going to do the things that are disgraceful because they just don't see any disgrace in it.

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 the cornerstone of our democracy?

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 the DOJ, 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. 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.

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?

It was entirely predictable. David, what do you make of the way the Trump administration is playing hardball here? DAVID BROOKS, The Washington Post-Presidential Candidate for Presidential Candidate for President of the United States, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United States to the United States and U.S. Ambassador to the United States to the United States, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United States to the United States, Former U.S. And to me, the problem here is that Chuck Schumer has decided to pick up where Elon Musk leaves off. By shutting down, by 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'll politically hurt him. They're handing Russell Vaught 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 Vaught. I don't know what's different 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 is no upside here for anybody. People do not win government shutdowns. So there's no upside for the Democrats. It's all downside.

Jonathan, should Democrats adjust their strategy now to deal with votes 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.

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 CR

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, Congress dial back the

president's rescission power. And what that means is, let's say Democrats give Republicans the votes they need to do the CR, 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, and 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

Jonathan Capehart David Brooks for grateful for your perspectives at the end of a very long very busy week. Thank you. Thank you Thanks. ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪