The Daily Blast: Trump’s Rage at Jim Comey Backfires as Case Against Him Goes Off Rails

The best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best of the best.

“The legendary checkout of Shopify, just for the shop on their website, just for social media and for the best of the best of all.”

That's it for your time.

Videos of the rest of the vendors, with Shopify, can sit to a real hit-bear. Start a test for today's episode of Shopify.de/record.

This is the Daily Blast from the New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR network. I'm your host Greg Sargent. [Music] Donald Trump's corrupt use of state power to persecute his enemies is dramatically ramping up. The Justice Department just indicted former FBI director James Komi on laughably thin charges. And the Federal Communications Commission Chief is escalating his war against ABC due to Trump's rage at Jimmy Kimmel.

“These are heinous abuses of power, but we also think they're likely to backfire on Trump in a major way.”

If and when they fizzle, the result will be that they don't even energize the maga base for the midterms, and if anything, we'll likely drive votes against the GOP. We're digging through all this today with former Federal Prosecutor Barb McQuade, author of a new book The Fix, saving America from the corruption of a mob style government, which is certainly an apt title given these latest developments. Barb, good to have you on.

Thanks Greg, great to be here. You know when I first came up with that title like a year and a half ago,

it felt very novel. And now it feels very obvious. It's perfect. You were pressing in there well done. So let's start with James Komi, Trump's effort to prosecute him the first time failed. Now they're starting again. James Komi's been indicted for an image. He put on Instagram last spring, showing seashells arranged to depict the numbers 86 47. Barb, can you walk us through what prosecutors are trying to do here

and why it's such a joke? Yeah, you know, it's hard to get into the head of what's happening at DOJ right now because it's so far afield from what I saw in my 20 years as a federal prosecutor. You know, we saw the effort to convict James Komi of a crime in the fall, Fizzle. And so now here we are with this charge based on events that occurred almost a year ago. If this were really such a serious charge, you know, what on earth could explain an almost

year long delay? I know Todd Blanch and Cash Patel said that they've been investigating the case, but my gosh, they had the post in May and they interviewed Komi the next day. I don't know what more is necessary. Go out to see and find the actual seashells. I don't think so. And so, you know, this statute is something I've charged. Threatening to kill a president is a serious crime and people do get charged with it from time to

time. The essence of the charge is it has to be what's called a true threat. It's not enough to say that, you know, I, I don't like the president or even to say the president

“should die. You have to express a true threat. And what the court has said as recently as 2023,”

in a case called counterman versus Colorado, is that a true threat is a, I'm reading here from the case, a serious expression that the speaker means to convey an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence. That, that's a high standard. And the reason it's such a high standard is to separate what is a true threat from your political speech. You know, of course, in this country, we give a lot of protection

under our first amendment to free speech. And so to make sure that it isn't just you said something

mean about the president, you said something about your wishes about the president. I'm not enough. It has to be a threat to commit an unlawful act of violence against a target. And just don't think we have that here. So we've got the number 86 here, which seems to be at

for a sec. Here a reporter asks Trump, if he really thinks Komi's shell image threaten his life.

“Listen, do you really think that he was endangering your life or threatening your life with that?”

Well, if anybody knows anything about crime, they know 86, you know, in 86, it's a mob turn, for kill him. You know, you ever see the movies 86 him? The mobster says to one of his wonderful associates 86 him. That means kill him. I think of it as a mob turn. People think of it as something having to do with disappearing. But the mob uses that term to say, well, they want to kill somebody. They say 86 the son of a gun. Barb, he can't even bring himself to pretend to

believe that's real, right? I mean, look, so the term 86, you wrote in the piece for MS now about this.

Can you talk about the term 86 in this context and why this construa is so friggin ridiculous?

Yes. So, as far as I know, the term comes from the restaurant business, where to 86 means to cancel an order. I know Miriam Webster says it mean it can mean the word to remove. I suppose Donald Trump thinks it's used by the mafia. I guess he would know. I don't have to mean to kill somebody.

“But, you know, I think it's a vague term that's capable of numerous interpretations.”

It could mean impeach the president. It could mean remove him from office. It could mean don't vote for him. It could mean don't support his policies. It could mean no kings, right? It could mean a lot of things. Is there any planet on which it clears the threshold you laid out just before,

which is that it has to be a very clear expression of a deliberate and imminent threat with

real intent to behind it? Yeah, I don't think it does. And, you know, in addition to the statement itself, I think that if this case were to go to trial, Jim Komi himself would testify. And he would get on the stand and say what he told the secret service agents the day after the post, which was, oh, I had no idea. People viewed this phrase this way. I certainly didn't intend to express any sort of threat. And he took it down immediately. I think in light of that,

combined with the vague nature of the statement itself, there's just no way a jury unanimously finds 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that this was an effort to convey a serious threat of unlawful bonds. Right. And we should point out here the Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general is now auditioning for the permanent AG slot and Trump fired his predecessor, Pam Bondi, because she failed to prosecute and jail enough of Trump's enemies. And she failed at that.

Guess why? Because the facts and the law didn't permit it. The whole reason Trump wants

“blanche and they're instead is because he will not be constrained by facts and law. Correct?”

Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, it's obviously a little bit of speculation on our part, but it really seems that, you know, there's a vacancy. Blanche is the acting attorney general note that wants the permanent role. If the reason Pam Bondi lost her job is that Trump thought she was not aggressive enough, then guess what Todd Blanche decides he needs to do. You know, Donald Trump has long earned for his Roy Cohen. Roy Cohen, of course, was the lawyer

who represented him in housing discrimination cases against the Department of Justice in the 1970s. He was a lawyer to the Mafia, represented many members of crime families in the 1980s. And he was also one of Joseph McCarthy's lead counsel during the red scare. He was someone known to play a hardball politics, you know, to nations, take no prisoner's style of litigation. And Donald Trump wants that in an attorney general. But let me say that is not the way

the Justice Department has traditionally conducted itself. That's the way maybe lawyers in private practice conduct themselves. They will very zealously advocate for their client because that is who they represent. And that's fine when it comes to private practice. But when you are a lawyer for the government, you have a higher calling. Your job is to see that justice is done. And a prosecutor should not bring a case under the DOJ's principles of federal

prosecution unless it is probable that they can obtain and sustain a conviction based on admissible evidence. And here I just don't I think it's completely far-fetched to think that that standard could be met. You can certainly make a person's life miserable by inditing them. They've got to undertake the expense of hiring a lawyer. There's stress on them and their family. It's disruptive of their lives. It can harm their reputation. All of those kinds of things will

happen. To stay up to date on all the news that you need to know, there's no better place than right

“here on the DSR network. And there's no better way to enjoy the DSR network than by becoming a member.”

Members enjoying ad-free listening experience, access to our discord community, exclusive content, early episode access, and more. Use code DSR 26 for a 25% off discount on sign up at the DSR network.com. That's code in DSR 26 at the DSR network.com/buy. Thank you and enjoy the show. I'm Charisa, and my experience in all entrepreneurs starts a shopping trip.

I recommend shopping trip to the first day, and the platform makes me no problem.

I have many problems, but the platform is not a step away. I have the feeling that shopping trip is a platform that can only be obtained. Everything is super simple, integrative, and full. And the time and the money that I can't invest in there is nothing else.

“For everyone, let's start shopping. I'm Charisa, and my experience in all entrepreneurs”

starts a shopping trip. I recommend shopping trip to the first day, and the platform makes me no problem. I have many problems, but the platform is not a step away. I have the feeling that

shopping trip is a platform that can only be obtained. Everything is super simple, integrative,

and full. And the time and the money that I can't invest in there. For Adam Invaxton, let's test out Shopify.com. Now, of course, the alleged assassination attempt happened a couple days later, Trump is now demanding his firing, or this is just standard issues, stand up, ribbing. How was this real?

Yeah, and we also have now Brendan Carr deciding to review the license of ABC, their broadcast license. He is, of course, the chair of the FCC, and it's not the first time. He has suggested that he could mess around with licenses as an effort to rein in Jimmy Kimmel. Right? I mean, Jimmy Kimmel made a joke, not a particularly funny one, but about the reaction of the administration to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, talking about how members of the White House and

politicians were trying to exploit that death. And at the time, there was statements made by Brendan

“Carr. Remember, he said something like, you know, we could do this the easy way or the hard way.”

I'm talking about mafia talk. And so, you know, this is a really powerful power that Brendan Carr

has as the keeper of licenses for the broadcast media, whether it's television or radio. And if he is to take those things away, that could be meaningful. And so, could he use that power to influence the content of what is aired over ABC? And it seems like that's exactly what he's doing. I don't like what you say about my boss or his wife. I have the power to take away your voice. Well, basically, that's exactly it. Trump exploded at Jimmy Kimmel on truth social.

This is after the assassination attempt. He recounted Kimmel's routine that said this, quote, a day later, a lunatic tried entering the ballroom of the White House correspondence dinner, loaded up with a shotgun handgun and many knives. He was there for a very obvious and sinister reason. I appreciate that so many people are incensed by Kimmel's despicable call to violence. And normally would not be responsive to anything that he said, but this is something far beyond the

pale Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC, close quote. So it's so shameless you almost can't get your head around it. He's seizing on the shooting to retrofit the claim that Kimmel to accuse him of incitement. You know, that's beyond absurd, but far abseriously. Could you rule out? Would you be prepared to rule out DOJ trying to prosecute Kimmel for incitement as a result of this? Well, there's what they should do and what they might do.

So, you know, under no normal administration, would you expect us to be any sort of in crime, a crime of incitement? But in light of the fact that we've seen Ted Blanch now

indict the members of Congress for making that video about providing waffle advice to members of the military that they have a right to refuse an unlawful order. You know, they're investigating Jerome Powell. I mean, all of these things suggest that they will take the slightest kernel of a potential crime and turn it into a full-fledged indictment. And because, you know, back to this whole name and shame theory, that they don't much care if they can obtain a conviction, contrary

to those DOJ norms and the ethics of most state bars for the standards for criminal prosecutors.

So bar here's what's mysterious to me. And I think still somewhat unanswered for a lot of

ordinary people paying attention to this. Is it legal for Todd Blanch to say I know that this prosecution is not supported by facts for law, but I'm going to bring it anyway because Trump wants me to or because Trump will fire me if I don't or because I'm auditioning for the job of permanent attorney general. What are the constraints on that? Can he do that? Well, can he, I suppose, yes, can he do, may he do it permissibly? No. DOJ lawyers are constrained

by two things. One is the principles of federal prosecution, which say partisan politics may never factor into a charging decision. And a prosecutor should bring a case only if they believe that the evidence makes it probable that they will obtain and sustain a conviction. That means a trial

jury will convict them and on appeal your legal theory is sound and it will be a firm. Of course,

“you know, no case is a slam dunk, but you have to believe it's probable that will happen.”

This scenario you describe falls short of that standard. Is there a good faith constraint? Like does Todd Blanch have to offer he didn't good faith? Yes, absolutely. That's what that norm is designed to create that a prosecutor before they bring a case has to believe that this is a winner that you know, I may be wrong in the end. It may be that the jury sees things differently than I do. It may be that my witnesses don't testify as exactly the way I expected them to.

But based on what I've looked at, I fully believe that it is probable that I will obtain a conviction to trial and that it will be upheld on appeal. That's DOJ policy. In addition,

there's a very similar ethics rule in most states about this good faith requirement that the

prosecutor believes that this case will result in a conviction. And the reason for that Greg makes perfect sense doesn't it? I mean, we don't want prosecutors running around bringing charges against people that they think we want to fail for the reasons we already discussed. It's a very big burden on a person's liberty to be charged even in a nightman, even if they're not convicted. And so that balance between public safety and individual liberty requires prosecutors to bring

cases only when they believe they have evidence sufficient to prove the case. It may even be.

“I believe your guilty, but I don't think I have the evidence. Even that's not good enough.”

I have to not only believe your guilty, but believe I can prove it with admissible evidence. And so if Todd Blanche doesn't believe in this case, and it's really hard to believe he does, then that is not acting in compliance with DOJ's own principles or with the ethics rules of most state bars. Well, is there any kind of prospect for accountability later for either Todd Blanche or some of the lower prosecutors doing his bidding or anybody else involved? Is there a way

Democrats could be getting out there and saying, you know what, guys, maybe you shouldn't be doing this because you're going to be held accountable for any breaches and any abuses later. Is there a way to say that? Yes, I think so. I'm sure in terms of any sort of criminal accountability, they all know that Donald Trump has the ability to pardon them on his last day of office. And it seems likely as long as they stand as good graces that that will happen.

But that's not the only remedy, of course. I mean, there is the potential for civil lawsuits, for money damages. Ordinarily, there is a great deal of immunity that protects prosecutors who operate in good faith in the scope of their duties. But if you operate in bad faith,

“there could be an exception for that. And I think the thing that's most likely to provide accountability”

for people like Todd Blanche is their bar license. You know, Todd Blanche is still a young enough man that I'm sure he envisions practicing law after he has completed his term as attorney general or at least acting attorney general. And to be disbarred would prevent that. Johnny Smith was just disbarred from the state bar of California for his role in the January 6, 2021 effort to steal an election. And so I think that is something that could be held over the head of Todd Blanche.

You know, at the moment, he doesn't seem to much care. It seems that so many of these Trump operatives act as if this is the last administration that's ever going to be there and they're going to keep winning elections. Maybe they know something I don't know. But I think what goes around

I would agree. So I understand that these types of actions against James coming will cost them

“in legal fees and they'll suffer harassment as you mentioned. And I'm not minimizing these abuses.”

They're horrific. However, there is a high likelihood of backfires, right? Because we all know that in midterms, the GOP absolutely has to get out some of these low-prepensity Trump/Magovoters, low engagement voters. This stuff with Colmy and Kimmel is supposed to accomplish that. But I just don't see it. If and when these things fail, they could have the opposite effect dampening enthusiasm, right? It's the great Trump failing. Well, conversely, it all further

energizes the dem aligned high engagement voters who do turn out in midterms and also underscoring that Trump is not at all focused on real people's, you know, regular daily concerns. Is there a high likelihood of this backfire? I don't know about the political ramifications, but I do think there's a high probability of it backfiring legally. And that could bring some of the political fallout you describe. But I don't see how they get a conviction of James Comey.

And I think this case will, if it goes to trial, will result in a quit and a quit-offer James Comey. And you bet he'll be out there all over social media, bragging about how he took on Trump and defeated him. I think the other likelihood that we will see is a successful motion to dismiss the case

on both first amendment grounds, as we discussed earlier, and also on the grounds of selective

“prosecution. Now, this is a defense that rarely prevails because what you have to show is not only”

that I was impremisively targeted, but that other people who are similarly situated were not charged with the same crime. And it's often impossible to prove that second prom, right? How do you prove that somebody else committed the same crime and were not prosecuted? It's like the dog that didn't bark. How do you, how do you prove that thing? But it's really easy in this case, just go on Amazon today. And you will find all kinds of people selling t-shirts and hats and

bumper stickers that say 86-47. You know what else they've been out there selling for for years? 86-46. Do you think anybody in this administration thought to charge anybody for threatening to kill Joe Biden? Nope, they sure didn't. And so I think that it will be very easy for James Comey's lawyers to point to those non-prosecutions to say this is selective prosecution. So one way or the other, Jim Comey's going to win this case. And you know, he still has some respect across the political

aisle. He's after all a Republican. He was appointed by George W. Bush to be a US attorney in the

“deputy attorney general. And so I think he's got a lot of respecting law enforcement circles.”

And so I think this one, you know, when you overreach, there is always that risk that it backfires

on you. And I think this could be one of those. Right. I think it draws a ton of attention to yet another failure on Trump's part, which will, if anything, turn off mega and simultaneously it reminds Normie voters of the reason they want to check on this lunatic barb just to close out your book, you know, aptly titled "Saving America" from the corruption of a mob style government. What do we need to do to save ourselves from this? Yes, so thanks very much. I've got this book

coming out June 2nd. The fix. And you know, it compares the Trump administration to the mob. I talk about some of the cases that I prosecuted in my career as a prosecutor. Some of the lessons learned there about how you deal with corrupt politicians, how you deal with extortionists, and other things. But it also offers some real solutions about how we can build guardrails around some of what are currently just norms to help protect us from the next Donald Trump that might come

down the road. Well, it sounds like it's going to be a great read. I'm looking forward to it. Barb, thanks so much for coming on with us. Folks, check out the book. The fix, saving America from the corruption of a mob style government. Barb, McCoy, thanks so much for coming on. Thank you, Greg. Bobby, can't be too much to help a real help. Let's start with a test today for a Euro-promonet on shopping.de/record.