Trump's FBI Shakeup, Equal Justice, and the Weaponization of the DOJ
44:18 Share

The most wonderful time of the year. Although, let's be honest, around the holidays, things really add up. But here's the good news. Only at Verizon, you can get a single line for $50 per month when you switch and bring your phone. So while ice skating for two is definitely costing more, here at Verizon, you can save. Gifts for your third cousins? Steep. A

A single line with Verizon, not so steep. A real tree, pricey. A single line with Verizon, less pricey. Flights to see Meemaw and Pops, those are up. A $50 per month single line, that's down. Even a trip to the San Francisco holiday market will cost you more. But with Verizon, you can switch and bring your phone for just $50 per month for a single line on unlimited welcome with auto pay plus taxes and fees.

All this to say, during the holiday season, when everything is costing more, you can get more for less right now at a local Verizon store. $15 monthly promo credit supplied over 36 months with a new line on unlimited welcome. In times of congestion, unlimited 5G, 4G, LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic. Domestic data roaming at 2G speeds. Additional terms apply.

Hey everybody, Jon Stewart here. I am here to tell you about my new podcast, The Weekly Show, coming out every Thursday. We're going to be talking about the election, earnings calls. What are they talking about on these earnings calls? We're going to be talking about ingredient to bread ratio on sandwiches. I know you have a lot of options as far as podcasts go, but how many of them come out on Thursday? Listen to The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart wherever you get your podcasts.

You're listening to Comedy Central. From the most trusted journalists at Comedy Central, it's America's only source for news. This is The Daily Show with your host, Jon Stewart. Hey! Hey everybody! Welcome! Hi, my name is Jon Stewart.

Listen, I hope you guys had a wonderful holiday. We've got a great show for you tonight. Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is going to be joining us. And I have no idea what I'm going to talk about. But first, I truly hope you guys had a lovely Thanksgiving, whether you were at home with family or on the road trip of a lifetime.

Huge news from the entire holiday week, starting with, once again, another incredibly controversial Trump administration nominee, Kash Patel. He's been nominated to head the FBI. Seems like a perfectly reasonable... A little judgy tonight. Is it the tie? What are we dealing with here? I mean, what would be to worry about here? Kash Patel, I

And I don't say this lightly, is the most dangerous nominee that we've seen yet to our democracy. We're talking about somebody who has espoused QAnon conspiracy theories. Saying that the 2020 election was stolen. He has no other agenda but revenge. Somebody who says he's going to throw judges in jail. He's going to throw bureaucrats in jail. He's going to throw reporters in jail.

I didn't hear anything about comedians, so I... Look, none of this sounds good. And while many presidents, including Democrats, have threatened to jail reporters, it's true, they didn't do all of them. Is there any reason why Patel should be confirmed? My name is Kash Patel, and I have written the first ever Children's Russiagate book. It's called The Plot Against the King. I did not meet with Russia in a box.

I did not meet with Russia on Fox. I did not meet them in Trump Tower. I did not have a golden shower. This nominee is going to be very controversial. Republicans and Democrats should be examining how damaging this nomination could be to American democracy. What's at risk is the overall rule of law in the United States. This is a really dangerous moment for our government and for the rule of law in America.

And the rule of law is all that separates us from the otters, the penguins, the apes, really the entire cast of Madagascar. It's the only thing. Faith in the rule of law. Finally, Democrats have a moral perch from which they can judge without shame, hypocrisy, or nuance. Breaking news. President Biden has issued a pardon for his son, Hunter Biden. Mother...

We were so close. But you know what? Get fine. It's good. It's right. It's his right. He's an 82-year-old man. Doesn't want to spend the rest of his life visiting his son in prison. Republicans get away with this shit all the time. I'm sure the pardon is a narrowly written, precisely drawn farewell note of compassion for a loved one.

The pardon sweeping, covering offenses that Hunter Biden quote has committed or may have committed or taken part in over the past 11 years. 11 years is a very specific and not rounded amount of time. So Hunter, I'll give you a pardon, a few years, five years, 10 years. It needs to be 11. And if you would be so kind, make sure this upcoming New Year's Eve is also covered. Shit's going on.

I didn't know pardons could cover crimes you may have committed. I'm surprised Biden didn't include the phrase on Earth one or any of the Earth's in the multiverse. Now, some would say that's what any loving father would do for their troubled son or daughter should they have the power. But on Fox News.

It was this love, in fact, that may have caused the problem in the first place. My dad always told me, Ainsley, if you get arrested, don't call me. I'm not your first phone call. I'm leaving you in there. Good night, sweetie. By the way, your dad always told you that? Were you a degenerate? Or was your dad De Niro? No, listen to me. No. You get pinched. I'm not your first phone call. I don't know you. It's 10 grand and a gun on the floorboards. Good luck, kid. Good night.

And, by the way, not just Ainsley, the rest of the Fox cinematic universe was no happier. Not only the worst president in U.S. history, but also the most corrupt. This entire administration has been nothing but a sham. He and his family are so full of slime that Nickelodeon is going to sue for trademark infringement. F*** you, Joe Biden. F*** you, Joe Biden? Megyn Kelly, who do you think you are?

What am I supposed to say now? My line! All in my line! At long last, have you no decency? me! Of course, no one was more outraged than America's judicial compass, Donald Seneca Trump. - President-elect Trump weighing in as well. He says, "Does the pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the January 6th hostages who have now been in prison for years? Such an abuse and miscarriage of justice."

Oh, you pardoned your son? Well, what about the people who tried to help me overthrow the government? It's kind of a leap there. It's like going, you know, oh, you're going to let the kids stay up to watch SNL, but you're not even going to try to help me burn the neighbor's house down? Obviously, Republicans are going to criticize. But Biden did make this line of attack particularly available, seeing as how he spent so long saying he wouldn't do it because of how much he respects the system.

Now watch this dive.

you've ever found yourself in this situation. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you are being questioned about pardoning your son, do not do it at the swim bar of a club med. And also, not for nothing, with an old guy, I mean, Biden squints indoors. So you don't face the guy in the sun and try and get an honest answer. It immediately looks untrustworthy. You're going to give him a pardon? But you know what, ladies and gentlemen, hypocrisy isn't illegal.

Nor is it particularly unusual in politics. It's not like he's ever going to run again. So why not take care of your kid? Even if you said you weren't gonna. I respect it. I don't have a problem with it. The problem is the rest of the Democrats made Biden's pledge to not pardon Hunter the foundation of their defense of America, this grand experiment.

-One political party remains committed to the rule of law, and the other doesn't. It's that simple. -Hunter Biden's not above the law. No one is above the law. Democrats stand for the rule of law. -We accept the outcome because that's how the rule of law works. -Because the justice system that convicted his only surviving son is the same justice system he's vowed to protect. And if that doesn't tell you who Joe Biden is, I don't really know what does. -I think I know what does.

And now look at the dance Democrats have to... Be honest, the only reason why they went after Hunter the way they did, and I've talked to many federal prosecutors about this, is because he's the president's son. People have to remember, the president has lost two children already, and he does not need to lose another one to more political witch hunts. The, you know, crawling from Republicans. But we're talking about, you know, Donald Trump is a convicted felon who literally had

pardoned his daughter's father-in-law and just made him ambassador to France. So for anyone that wants to clutch their pearls now because he decided that he was going to pardon his son, I would say take a look in the mirror. Ma'am, we will take a look in that mirror, but we are taking off, so... If you could just put this shit on airplane mode...

Yes, yes, yes, yes. To everything that you guys were saying, if you hadn't made Hunter Biden not receiving a pardon, the Mason-Dixon line of morality between Democrats and Republicans, there's a big gap between the law is the only thing that separates us from the animals and monkey threw shit at me first. I had no choice. This is what Biden's decision has done.

Look how confident and eloquent our Democratic representatives were back when they thought they had the moral high ground on this issue. I've not heard a single Democrat anywhere in the country cry fraud, cry fixed, cry rigged, cry kangaroo court. You don't hear a single peep out of any Democrat saying that why we believe in the rule of law. And now look at what even he, one of the most verbally dexterous attorneys we have on Capitol Hill, has been reduced to.

Do you think President Biden should pardon Hunter Biden? So there are lots of claims of political prosecution and political prosecution. And was Hunter politically prosecuted? Well, I mean, obviously that's a judicial point and you've got to look at what the evidence is and I don't know enough about other cases. Should the president pardon him? I mean, again, that is a unilateral executive power, you know, power that... And should he use it? Well, you know, the power exists for the president to show mercy for people

I mean, we have an executive and we have a judicial and then a legislative and then smoke bomb. Thank you. First time I've crouched since Thanksgiving. Oh, that did not go well. But then why this weekend? Normally you drop a controversial pardon like the way you buy porn at a gas station.

in a flurry of other distracting purchases and pardons. What do you give me there? Breath mints there? WD-40? Squeegee there? One of those anal magazines? Some corn nuts? Pardon for my son? The Big Dicks Like Chicks pamphlet?

So why did you do it now? As NBC News first reported, the president did decide to reverse course over the holiday weekend at his family's annual Thanksgiving getaway in Nantucket. I knew it! Perhaps I can explain the way this pardon went down in my new one-man show. Can you get Hunter to stop looking at me like that? I take you there now. I'll be playing the role of Hunter. How are you, father?

Are you well, father? You know, last Thanksgiving with the family for a while. If only someone could change that. This turkey is delicious. Obviously not one of the ones that was pardoned. I made you watch that because people think I can't act. Anyway. Still on camera.

Look, man, the Democrats made this case an example of why Americans should believe in our system. And it's hard. Democrats have the tougher road of defending our institutions and systems as being flawed but still valuable. Republicans just run on blowing this shit up. But at every turn, Democrats keep getting caught creating a purity test for a system that they can't seem to pass themselves. When you saw the photograph of the top secret documents laid out on the floor at Mar-a-Lago, what did you think to yourself?

How that could possibly happen. How anyone could be that irresponsible. Irresponsible. The capital stewardship of our nation's most classified documents is foundational to the institutions. It's why we are... What's that? Oh, really? In his f***ing garage. Next to his car. Parse away. By the way, my Corvette's in a locked garage. Okay? So it's not like you're sitting out in the street. It's totally different! Enemies of our nation would have to...

Get on their tippy toes to peer into the garage to see those documents using some sort of image capture technology, which I'm sure doesn't exist. Spies would also be distracted by my sickest Corvette. And let's not forget, in contrast to Donald Trump, the moral stand Biden took on Saudi Arabia after they murdered one of our journalists. We were going to, in fact, make them pay the price and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are.

Yeah, boom. Khashoggi will not be forgotten. Candidate Biden says this moral line must be drawn. And President Biden? Tonight, with one fist bump, a pariah no more. It's just a fist bump. Come on, don't know. Trump would have probably done the whole like, boom. That is a moral line I won't cross. But he would have done the whole, boom. And of course, there's the border.

We're going to restore our moral standing in the world and our historic role as a safe haven for refugees and asylum seekers. My Lord, we've never made asylum seekers seek asylum outside the United States of America. We've never done it tomorrow. What Trump is doing until, of course, my poll numbers start to go down. Today, I'm announcing actions to bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum.

Rules, loopholes, and norms. The distance between the systems Democrats say they are revering and the one that they're using when they need to is why people think it's rigged. Use the rules. Use the loopholes. the norms. But also use it to help the people, not just those people related to you. All of us are somebody's son or somebody's daughter. And we all need that break too.

Because if there's one thing I've learned, especially this weekend, it's that everyone deserves a chance to... When we come back, we're going to talk about him. Don't go away.

The most wonderful time of the year. Although, let's be honest, around the holidays, things really add up. But here's the good news. Only at Verizon, you can get a single line for $50 per month when you switch and bring your phone. So while ice skating for two is definitely costing more, here at Verizon, you can save. Gifts for your third cousins? Steep.

A single line with Verizon, not so steep. A real tree, pricey. A single line with Verizon, less pricey. Flights to see Meemaw and Pops, those are up. A $50 per month single line, that's down. Even a trip to the San Francisco holiday market will cost you more. But with Verizon, you can switch and bring your phone for just $50 per month for a single line on unlimited welcome with auto pay plus taxes and fees.

All this to say, during the holiday season, when everything is costing more, you can get more for less right now at a local Verizon store. $15 monthly promo credit supplied over 36 months with a new line on unlimited welcome income. In times of congestion, unlimited 5G, 4G LTE may be temporarily slower than other traffic. Domestic data roaming at 2G speeds. Additional terms apply.

Hey everybody, Jon Stewart here. I am here to tell you about my new podcast, The Weekly Show, coming out every Thursday. We're going to be talking about the election, earnings calls. What are they talking about on these earnings calls? We're going to be talking about ingredient to bread ratio on sandwiches. I know you have a lot of options as far as podcasts go, but how many of them come out on Thursday? Listen to The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome back to The Daily Show. My guest tonight served in the Department of Justice for nearly 30 years over many different administrations, including two years as Deputy Attorney General and Acting Attorney General at the beginning of the first Trump administration. Please welcome to the program Sally Yates. How are you? I'm well, thanks. How about you? I'm

I'm doing great. I wanted to add, you know, when we asked you to come on the show, it was prior to the pardon kerfuffle and the new head of the FBI and the new AG. And I want to thank you. I noticed that. Thank you for not calling up and saying, I have COVID.

How hard is it you read the OJ for how long 27 years, 27 years, but he's counting. None of us.

What is your impression now? Tell us a little bit about what's so crucial about the DOJ. What do they do? I think we don't necessarily have an understanding of the nuts and bolts of it. Yeah. Well, thanks for asking that, because I know a lot of people get their vision of the Department of Justice on the high profile things that go on in the news. Right.

But I can tell you that what you have at DOJ is a group of people, Republicans and Democrats, who are there, who are absolutely devoted to justice. And I know that sounds incredibly corny, but these are people who want to be public servants. They want to make this country safer for all Americans.

And so they prosecute child pornography cases and human trafficking and drug cartels and gangs. This is the majority of the work? Oh, absolutely. This is the majority of the work across the board that is done in a nonpartisan way. And, you know, I had the privilege of working with these folks for so many years and saw them truly struggle financially.

over cases, not just whether they could get the indictment or get the conviction, but in trying to do the thing that was fair and just. Because that is, and I know this sounds corny, that is the sole responsibility of the Department of Justice is to seek justice. Now, not everybody's going to agree with you when you take actions about whether those things are just or fair.

But that is the responsibility. Did you see in your time when you were there, did you see the mission begin to change? Did you see it become politicized while you were there? When you first started, was it much more nuts and bolts? Because I guess that's not the part of the Department of Justice that I also think about. I think about after 9-11, you know, John Yoo getting the Department of Justice to justify torture. Or, you know, is there another...

Where, like, there's another Department of Justice where, like, you guys are working on human trafficking, but they're there trying to justify other maybe less, what you would say, high-minded things.

Yeah. Look, the vast majority of folks at the Department of Justice are what they call career employees. And that doesn't mean that they're necessarily their entire career. Deep state. I know what this is. I'm not even entirely sure what the deep state is. It's a state that's very deep. Don't play dumb with us.

But that's the fact. I mean, there literally are maybe a hundred, well, if you count U.S. attorneys, a few hundred political appointees out of 113,000 employees at the Department of Justice. There's 113,000? Now, because understand, this includes not just the folks who are prosecutors and lawyers there. It includes investigative agencies like the FBI and the ATF and DEA and the Marshal Service.

It includes all of the Bureau of Prisons. It's a lot of people. So it's a very, very small number of people who change with administrations and change depending on who the party is.

So, yeah, the hallways there are filled with people who don't even know. I mean, I worked for over 20 years in the Atlanta U.S. Attorney's Office. I had no idea whether the folks next to me were Democrats or Republicans. Didn't know when we... I prosecuted public corruption cases. Didn't... You were down in Atlanta and you didn't know if they were Republicans? So... Yeah. Okay, it's Atlanta is a blue dot inside an otherwise red state. But there were plenty of Republicans in our office. Oh.

Oh, I'm sure. Yeah. No, there were plenty of Democrats as well. I believe that. Yeah. Are you going to believe anything? I do. OK. The way you can tell is you just do this. You walk in and you go, who wants Chick-fil-A? Then you know. So that's such an interesting because look.

I am. It's very difficult for me to trust the status quo of all these alphabet agencies, FBI, ATF, the other ones that you mentioned, because so often they are and maybe it's not the bulk of what they do, but.

spying on Americans after 9-11 through the Department of Homeland Security. And I know they're not all related. So we're in this sort of uncomfortable position of saying the rule of law is important. But wouldn't you agree it's often bent against Americans

It is a rigged system in a lot of ways, just maybe not rigged against politicians, but rigged against the poor or people that don't have the means. You know, when you look at crack cocaine being sentenced at a different level than powder cocaine because of the populations that were more associated with it. How do we have faith? We're being asked to save this system that my whole life I've sort of viewed very suspiciously.

You know, from from Hoover on up, you know, you can't go through learning about Martin Luther King without thinking to yourself, damn, you know, we weaponize the government against citizens. So what are what are the safeguards against that? What what is the checks and balances? You clearly believe in it deeply. I do. Yeah. And, you know, I think some suspicion is not a bad thing.

because I think it's really important that we hold these institutions and the people who work there and who are in charge of them accountable. But, you know, you're right. Our nation's core promise, our fundamental promise that we made to all the people is a promise of equal justice. That is a promise our country has never completely fulfilled.

There have long been racial disparities in our criminal justice system. There are economic disparities. I would agree with you that there is, as much as you try to guard against that, there is a disparity between those defendants who are wealthy and those who are not.

But it has always been the goal. It's always been the thing to which we aspired to be able to make good on that promise of equal justice. And that's what I fear is being lost, is I recognize that, look, I'm not here as a Democrat or a Republican. I am a Democrat, but I'm not here as one or the other. I could tell what we had catered to your dressing room. I know. Now I've totally lost my train of thought.

You're not here to... You're here to talk about the importance. I was right there. You're right there. You got this. Come on, bring it to me. Bring it to me. But what was the question? Damn it. I am so sorry for derailing that because you were getting to... I think what you were getting to is it's a system that has flaws, but that every day you've worked towards, boy, you hate to say, a more perfect union on it, but...

but that you've worked towards making it more just. Absolutely. And that has been the goal. And so... So why is this a threat when you just said, like, the threat now? The threat now. And this is not because he's a Republican. Donald Trump poses a unique threat to our criminal justice system and to...

that concept of equal justice. He's made really clear over and over again that he views the Department of Justice as his own personal goon squad, for lack of a better term here, to go after the people that he wants to retaliate against, whether those are folks who have crossed him politically, whether it's people who

just disagreed with him, whether it's people who wouldn't carry his water, that he wants to use the power of the state to literally criminally investigate them and try to send them to prison. And he's been really clear about that. Now, as devil's advocate. Yeah, I figured this was coming. All right.

Wouldn't he say that's what was done to him, that because he was a candidate for president, that in his mind, and I'm not suggesting I'm in his mind, but, you know, that's what he believes. The Russia investigation, that's what he believes. All of these cases, whether we believe them to be meritorious or not, what he would suggest is an unprecedented use of the Department of Justice.

is how they've been operating against him. And so that firewall has already been breached in his mind. Well, first of all, if he thinks that, and I'm not 100% convinced he genuinely thinks that, but even if he does, that doesn't make it true.

Are you telling me that when someone fomented an insurrection, as he did, that DOJ should just look away from that and not investigate it? By the way, my belief was always, why didn't we look into that? I wanted more alacrity on that before he was a candidate again. Why were those wheels so difficult to start to churn?

Yeah, look, people have different approaches and I think that my understanding is they were looking at it as a bottom up approach of the people who were out there, you know, actually storming the Capitol. I mean, I think in retrospect you could look at that and see those folks probably don't have evidence in terms of direct conversations with Donald Trump. So maybe that wasn't the way to go.

You know, that's hindsight, and that's me from outside saying that. But look, I don't think the department should be the least bit apologetic about pursuing that. And I agree. If anything, I think we all wish it had been done sooner. Right. And then the documents case in the same way. Because it is...

The difficulty was in that documents case, they go down there, they make a big deal, they raid the whole place. And then a week later, they're like, oh, yeah, Biden's got a bunch of boxes in his garage. And you're like, what is going on? OK, not ideal. I will grant you that. That's not yet. But do you understand how this erodes? But I also think it's a false equivalency, John. And I can tell you don't agree with me. Look. How is it a false equivalence in that, yeah, he cooperated less, but if the idea is Biden

You know, there's a lot of things that go into classified documents. We have a terrible system of classification. We over-classify everything. We redact everything. You know, very clearly, they took a much harder line approach than they have probably with any other president. Look, I'm no fan of this guy. I think he absolutely runs roughshod over what would be Democratic checks and balances. But as an outside observer, it's hard not to see

I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDE

I will say, you know, there was a special counsel that was appointed to investigate Biden in the Biden administration. I seriously doubt President Biden was too thrilled about that. Right. But is this special counsel thing part of the whole thing? Like, I remember Whitewater. You know, when we set up, I think maybe part of the point is when you have a system of justice that's 130,000 employees and they're all dedicated, talented lawyers who believe in their case, isn't there always the danger that

Turning their spotlight on anything will reveal enough faults and crevices and cracks to find justification for legal peril. I think that is a risk of a special counsel. I mean, you should never investigate a person. That's a problem. You should never turn the spotlight on a person and say, can I find a crime?

Because there's probably a pretty good chance you could find something out there on just about everybody. Why are you staring at me when you say that? Well, I was with DOJ for 27 years, and I'm just saying. All I'm saying is recreational shrooms, I thought, were legal. Once they put them in chocolate, I think that technically makes it candy.

I think. But that's my point to the, you know, there is a lot of fear about the weaponization of this department. And I think possibly justified, I guess we're not going to know. There's certainly enough breadcrumbs there. They're certainly explicitly saying it. But I do look at our legal system as overreach has been a part of its history since, you know, look, I hate to keep going back to, you know, Hoover, but

It's difficult when you have a large organization like that, is it not? What are the checks on that? Yeah, and that's where I wish so much that people could, for example, sit in the conference room in the Atlanta U.S. Attorney's Office when we would have meetings. We called them indictment review committee meetings. Sounds really exciting, doesn't it? Was there cake? Only at the end. And people would come in and they would present the case. And oftentimes it's not a question of whether the evidence is there or not.

The question is, even when the evidence is there, is this the kind of thing that is really worthy of federal prosecution? Is this the kind of conduct where we should be using our resources and this person should be a convicted felon at the end of it? Because there's not resources to prosecute everything, nor should you necessarily prosecute every single transgression that occurs. You're supposed to use that prosecutorial discretion.

to make sure that you're being fair and that you're using the laws in the most effective way. And people really will agonize over this. That seems so subjective in many ways. Sure it is. So it's not where the evidence leads you. It's also the evidence leads us here, but is that worthy of our time and effort? Is that? That's a portion of it. It's worthy of our time and effort.

Is this conduct significant enough and bad enough to where this person should be prosecuted federally? Like, for example, drug cases. Sure. Makes up the majority, yes. Most street-level drug cases could be prosecuted federally. Does that make any sense? No. We should not be using federal resources on that. And a person who's involved in a street-level deal really doesn't need to have a federal conviction.

So if that's prosecuted at all, as opposed to diversion or some other program, that should be handled by the state. Technically, is it a federal crime? Yes. But is that a good use of resources? And is that necessarily just the way to go? So that goes into each time? Absolutely. So why are there so many people in federal prisons on drug charges? Well, part of that is left over from the past. No, seriously, where people during the crack epidemic in sentences that were way, way, way too long.

were being prosecuted and they are still in federal prison. Now, President Obama... They're still there. Some of them are, yeah. President Obama had a clemency initiative to try to adjust those and released scores of people who were just in prison for way too long, longer than public safety demanded there.

And the guidelines have been changed now, but there's some leftovers that are there. But also, DOJ prosecutes major drug cartels that are operating here in the United States. That's the major distinction. So you're going for the big, not the little now. Right, right. They used to do the other, but now they've flipped into that. What about financial crimes? Exactly.

To me, that's where the department really should be focusing a lot of its resources. Is that where they're focusing a lot of the resources? Yeah, there are a lot of resources there. It's the only game in town. Local DAs can't do that. And these are like some of the most pernicious crimes where they are really preying on people's hard-earned savings. You're talking about like payday loan? Oh, I mean, yeah, the full range of white-collar stuff. I used to be a white-collar prosecutor. Oh, were you? Yeah. Why was it so hard after 2008? Why didn't anybody go to jail for that?

after the financial crisis? Yeah, that's a tough one. Yeah, it is. Okay. Yeah.

All right. So you know what I'm saying about the case for the DOJ? Two steps forward, one step back. Two step forward, one step back. So in your mind, though, the reforms that need to be done there, who would do those reforms? Who would reform the Department of Justice? Is it the nation's attorney general? Is that who would make these changes in who should go? Like, who's in charge? Well, the attorney general is in charge, but...

But when you say would make these reforms, what reforms are you talking about? Letting people out that had crack cocaine versus powder cocaine, putting more resources in front of like the banks that launder money for terrorists and yet only pay a fine, which has happened numerous times over these past couple of decades. All the things that we look at as dodging of accountability for terrorists.

you know, establishment status quo things and seeing poor people being sent to jail at a much higher rate. Who comes in there and says, we have to stop this? Yeah, that's done by the leadership at the Department of Justice, which includes the attorney general and the deputy attorney general and the heads of the different divisions, like the criminal division, antitrust. They'll decide what to focus on. And then each individual U.S. attorney, there are 93 U.S. attorneys around the country.

And they are in charge, broken up geographically, and they're in charge of the prosecution and the civil defense side as well of the prosecution of all federal crimes in that particular district. And within that district, one of the things that U.S. attorneys are responsible for doing is looking at that district and saying, okay, what are the most serious crime threats here? And mine was the northern district of Georgia. Okay.

What's the most serious thing here? Where should we be using our limited resources? And what should be handled by the state? And, you know, districts are different. My district is going to be different than, like, Iowa or some place like that. Right. But that's done at the leadership, and then that is to be carried out by all of the career people who are within the department. Now, if they get an attorney general who comes in there and says, I want you to prosecute journalists and Democrats and Democrats

Short Jews. Purely hypothetical. What if it's a threefer? Go for all three. What is the recourse there? Do they just argue it or do they say, you know, we keep hearing about they threatened a mass resignation? Yeah.

Yeah. Which, but for Donald Trump, that would be what he wants. He would want people who wouldn't do that to say bye-bye, and he'd just fill them with other people. Right. Well, look, if that, first of all, we know there already are career people at the Department of Justice who are looking for jobs because they are worried about being in a Justice Department that is weaponized in this way and not for legitimate reasons.

And if you were told to do something like that, you have a few options. You can say no. Maybe they find another prosecutor to do it. You can resign, which is another option. You can also raise it if you think something is really out of bounds. You can raise it to what they call the inspector general within the Department of Justice if you're being told. Who's that? Yeah. Michael Horowitz is his name.

No, I was a rhetorical question, but I mean, what's the role of the inspector general? The inspector general looks at fraud and abuse and misconduct within the Department of Justice. Oh, I see. Like an inspector. Right. General. Hence the name. Yeah. Is it hard talking to people like me? At times.

And so in your mind, are there enough fail-safes? If this is the worst case scenario is going to come to pass, do you believe that that system is robust enough to withstand that type of thing? I think it has to be. I mean, we don't have a choice. It's going to have to be robust enough. And look, I am hopeful that

that even though, look, the president has identified four people who were members of his criminal defense team or impeachment team to be in top four slots at the department.

That's not a great sign, you know, coming from a guy who's... Is that on here? Don't they normally pick, like, lawyers they've worked with or people that they know? No, they pick people they know, but not usually like their criminal defense lawyers. Happily, we've not had that many presidents who needed criminal defense lawyers. Sure. But, look, there's nothing wrong with a president wanting someone in whom they have confidence and someone that they trust.

The problem is here that Donald Trump complained about Jeff Sessions. Where's my Roy Cohn? Which, you know, sort of infamous or famous mob lawyer there. He expected the attorney general to act as his personal henchman.

That's what he's looking for. So when he puts the folks in there that were his criminal defense attorneys, but I'm hopeful still, I want to give a little word. Yeah, yeah, please, please. That they, despite of how they might be getting there, that they're going to take their oath seriously and recognize they do not represent Donald Trump. They represent the people of the United States. And the Constitution. And the Constitution.

Your mouth to God's ears. Former Deputy U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates. Quick break. We'll be right back after this. Thank you. John Stewart here. Unbelievably exciting news. My new podcast, The Weekly Show. We're going to be talking about the election, economics, ingredient to bread ratio on sandwiches. Listen to The Weekly Show with John Stewart wherever you get your podcasts. That's our show.

in a chicken with your host for the rest of the week, Mr. Ronnie Chang! Nice to see you. Tell the people what you got lined up for the rest of the week, Ronnie. I'll tell you what I have got lined up, John. Crack cocaine. I'm going to smoke it right here, live on TV. So tune in tomorrow, everybody. I'll be smoking crack. Woo!

I'm just going to assume that's some sort of a satirical statement about Hunter Biden's pardon. Who's Hunter Biden? Ronnie Chang all week, ladies and gentlemen.

Hey everybody, Jon Stewart here. I am here to tell you about my new podcast, The Weekly Show. It's going to be coming out

Every Thursday. So exciting. You'll be saying to yourself, TGIT. Thank God it's Thursday. We're going to be talking about all the things that hopefully obsess you in the same way that they obsess me. The election, economics, earnings calls. What are they talking about on these earnings calls? We're going to be talking about ingredient to bread ratio on sandwiches.

And I know that I listed that fourth, but in importance, it's probably second. I know you have a lot of options as far as podcasts go, but how many of them come out on Thursday? I mean, talk about innovative. Listen to The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart wherever you get your podcasts.