Political Prosecutions Blow Up — Judge Rules Trump’s Prosecutor Was Illegally Appointed

A federal judge just nuked Donald Trump's ridiculous criminal cases against James Comey and Leticia James because Trump's prosecutor, Lindseay Halligan, uh wasn't legally a prosecutor. Not not unqualified, not inexperienced, >> not maybe she shouldn't be in charge of imprisoning her boss's enemies. Like she literally Corey wasn't allowed to do the job. >> Wow. There's so much wrong with this case. And of course, we've talked about it before, but there's a huge update. And you know, if I were to pick the things that are most wrong with it, I'd have to go with the destruction of democracy. Simply using the power of the federal government to try to imprison your opponents. And we should never lose sight of the fact that that's what's going on. But, you know, that's not how the law works. You can't just sort of say not guilty or there has to be some argument.

Welcome to another episode of The Oath and the Office. I'm John Fugles and I'm not saying Pam Bondi's evil, but McBth just broke up with her. Uh, folks, please welcome the star of the pod, Professor Corey Brett Schneider, who you might know from his work, I don't know, the political science department at Brown University, possibly his work in the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, Time magazine, and of course, the book The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents. Professor Brett Snyder, it's good to see you again.

>> Thanks, John. It's always such a pleasure. And, you know, every week gives us so many topics here. We'll talk about um a judge throwing out these really ridiculous prosecutions of Comey and James. We'll talk about the Oval Office in front of his uh cronies. Uh so there's so much to get to. I'm looking forward to the conversation. >> Well, we got to talk about how a federal judge just nuked Donald Trump's ridiculous criminal cases against James Comey and Leticia James because Trump's prosecutor, Lindseay Halligan, uh wasn't legally a prosecutor. not not unqualified, not inexperienced, not maybe she shouldn't be in charge of imprisoning her boss's enemies. Like she literally Corey wasn't allowed to do the job. The judge said all actions flowing from Miss Hallagan's defective appointment >> must be set aside. Cy like she's a recalled blender from Costco. Defective appointment. Now, now break this down for us because Lindseay Halligan is not

a federal prosecutor, not even a traffic court prosecutor. She was an insurance lawyer who competed in beauty pageant and Donald Trump likes her for some reason. That's who Trump sent into a federal grand jury to indict the former FBI director and the sitting attorney general of New York. So, so let me let me just begin. What exactly did the court say here and why about Lindseay Halligan literally not being a prosecutor and how there's literally not an indictment against James Comey for that reason?

>> Wow. There's so much wrong with this case and of course we've talked about it before but there's a huge update and you know if I were to pick the things that are most wrong with it I'd have to go with the destruction of democracy simply using the power of the federal government to try to imprison your opponents and we should never lose sight of the fact that that's what's going on. But you know that's not how the law works. You can't just sort of say not guilty or there has to be some argument. And what they've done here, what the um uh defense has has done is tee up an issue which is whether or not the prosecutor uh Haligan is or is not legally appointed. And what we've got now is a ruling saying no, this is not a legal appointment. So let's get into it.

Um the first thing to just say is that the framers saw the danger of prosecution and they were very careful about who they were going to allow into these roles. So for most um appointments what's required is that not just a nomination by the president but confirmation by the Senate. Now there are ways around that. There are interim uh prosecutors US attorneys that are allowable but there's a limit usually of 120 days. And what happened in this case is the 120 days the judge said had expired. And of course the previous prosecutor just to get into it the previous US attorney refused to bring these cases cuz they were BS. So this Helian wasn't and could not be confirmed by the Senate. That's important to say because she's so unqualified as you said uh and she's not within this 120 days.

So the judge said this is not a this is not a prosecutor. It's not a legal appointment and threw the case out. Now you know we'll get into this but there can be an appeal and there's a possibility that with a proper prosecutor that the the charges could be refiled but that's where we are. So some good news. >> Well now Comey Comey know though, right? Comey has passed the statute of limitations. Now they're too late. They've got to they've got to find some new thing he hasn't done to trap him with. I think but >> now there's a question just to sorry to interrupt but no please. You know they're always you know these questions are so thorny and you would want to think like oh just get rid of it.

They're ridiculous. But that's not how the law works unfortunately. So there is an argument for bringing the charges against Comey again which has to do with what's known as tolling. And so the question is whether or not the delay that's happened as a result of all these legal proceedings extend essentially or told the statute of limitations. And I don't know what the answer to that is. It might be that that there that the courts would say uh okay we're going to allow these charges to be filed because it's not a strict limit when legal process is underway. >> Do I don't want them to say that but it could happen. No, but this is all going to come down to Donald Trump's hate versus his embarrassment and what's going to ultimately win out. I acknowledge that. I I see the science now. But I mean, >> the ruling was dismissed without prejudice, which to my understanding, professor, means a real prosecutor could refile, right? I mean, how big a door how big a door does without prejudice keep open? Well, it means that yeah that with legal with a legal prosecutor

legally appointed, let's say that somebody is for instance um nominated by the president for this role and then confirmed by the Senate. Well then yes, they could refile. Now here's the real question. Are you going to be able to get anybody who has the kind of integrity necessary to get through Senate confirmation even with a party that are essentially lackey to the president uh that's willing to do that? the previous prosecutor who had this role was like no way I'm not putting my reputation on the line by bringing this lawless prosecution and there is something still about the legal profession the American Bar Association has taken such a stand and against what's happening in in favor of the rule of law generally there's a possibility of disparment for engaging in this kind of um mishagos for lack of a better word and you know I think look also at at so much of what they had to do to get this indictment through a grand jury. They violated all sorts of constitutional rights, saying, for instance, that uh

just trust us. There are parts of the indictment that you don't want to see. Uh there's uh reporting now that suggests that there wasn't an um that they wrongly lied to the grand jury and said that well, if you don't hear from Comey, then that might be evidence against him. So, there's all sorts of problems to say the least that are coming out with this prosecution. And I'm not sure that if you had a real prosecutor legally appointed uh that that person would be willing to bring these charges. I think we'd go right back to where we were before and that they'd say, "Uh, no, I'm not going to do it." But yes, there's no legal bar in court from trying again.

>> I mean, to me, we've seen so many state attorneys general being scared that Trump would retaliate retaliate against anybody who crossed him. It it almost seems like this decision is going to give a lot of state officials new confidence to to push back. >> I hope so. You know, I think that every time I think courage is contagious and every time you have public officials taking a stand against and I'll keep using the phrase of this attempted self coup, this attempt to destroy democracy to arrandise the president into a kind of monarch. You know, people who know basic civics, seventh grade civics, know uh you're not supposed to use prosecution to go after your opponents.

And so when you start to see people say the emperor has no clothes, or this is a wannabe, uh authoritarian monarch, uh that's contagious. And and this judge did the right thing here to my mind. Um, it's not just that this was a horrible unqualified prosecutor, but that the procedures weren't used properly to honor what the framers tried to do to ensure that people of virtue had these roles so they wouldn't be abused. One thing about it, I'll just say to zoom out a little bit, which is that, you know, we're in the nitty-gritty of the 120 days of the statute that's allowable for interim uh US attorneys. Um, the idea of confirmation, but it's always important to see the big picture. Why were the framers requiring confirmation by the Senate to roles like this? And it's to ensure that, you know, the people were vetted that that they knew how dangerous prosecutors were in particular and they didn't want a king who was able to just, you know, wipe aside their opponents. And so that's really what we're talking about when we talk about this nitty-gritty here. Well,

let's talk about uh the founders and what they wanted and let's talk about following laws because last week we saw a group of six lawmakers uh senators Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin, representatives Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Hulahan, Jason Crowe. They put out this video. They're all US military veterans or CIA veterans to gently remind the troops, hey, uh don't commit war crimes. We we talked about it already. They they said, "We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. The administration is pitting our uniform military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens like you, like like us. You all swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

Now, obviously, the stories have been very very covered. The president woke up, opened his phone, and declared that these six Democrats were committing sedicious behavior punishable by death. He reposted 16 separate posts calling for these veterans to be murdered. 16. Corey. 16. So now Pete Hseth, the secretary of Jergermeister, a man who is not remotely qualified for his job, has tried to launch a probe this week that could recall Senator Mark Kelly, hero and astronaut and husband of Gabby Gfords and the guy that I thought Kla Harris was going to ask to be your running mate. Um, he could now recall Senator Mark Kelly for active duty >> and court marshall him for the crime of reminding troops to not break the law.

Corey, this is so stupid. It grieves me. We have to spend time on it. But it's also fascinating. Is there any basis whatsoever >> for this investigation? Cuz to my view, it just looks like Donald Trump and Pete Hegsth are really trying to make Mark Kelly president in 2028. Yeah, I think that is hopefully going to be the reaction and let's try to make that happen and partly by revealing this as the horrible authoritarian power grab that it is. Of course, this is part of the same theme of trying to destroy our basic system of government. And what's more basic in our system of government than the idea that unlawful orders to the military are illegal and shouldn't be followed? By definition, that is the idea. And yet you have this warp president and this warp uh secretary of defense who have a totally different idea which is that obedience to the president period is all that matters no matter if the order is illegal or as you said a war crime or not. And all you have are individuals including a member of the Senate saying no you don't have

to obey a war in order to commit a war crime. And of course, this isn't abstract as they're blowing up boats. >> Oh, it's so controversial. >> But here, you know, here's what scares me, John. And you know that one of the things we're always trying to do on the podcast is call out injustice, call out threats to democracy, but also talk in real terms about how these um threats might become real. And so we talked about the fact that yes, these prosecutions of Comey and James, as awful as they are, might continue. And there are ways I hope not. I pointed out h how I hope not. And that's true here, too. I would hope nothing could come of this. But here's the thing. This strategy of trying to recall the senator and and essentially court marshal him at least raises the question, which is that there's no question that for a civilian, you have a first amendment right to your opinion. And you certainly have a right to say what the actual truth is, that that you have a an entitlement um to that you shouldn't obey a an unlawful order. that that's just, you know, basic

civics 101. But military officials have less rights under the freedom of speech, under the First Amendments than civilians do. And so, you know, I I I don't think anything will come of this, but once we're in the world of military justice, uh things can happen that really are outside. Now, you know, let's add to this fact that this is a sitting US senator. So, this isn't just an attack on citizens. It's an attack on one of our main institutions on uh the US Senate. But even here, and you know, I'll I'll say it a tiny bit, which is that I'm filming now a documentary version of of my book, The Presidents and the People. And one of the the scenes that's so relevant is that we were in Philadelphia on the floor of what was the House of Representatives, beautifully preserved. And what I talk about in that scene, and I'll mention it now, too, is that there was a sitting congressman in 1798, Matthew Lions, who criticized the president, who was prosecuted for it, and in fact ran from prison and was reelected, congressman

from Vermont. So, it sounds insane, but uh yes, we've seen these kind of prosecutions in political history, even of a sitting congressman. That's not unprecedented. Uh Eugene Debs ran for president was that's right prosecuted ran from prison for being prosecuted again for his speech. These weren't people who committed crimes. They were just speaking out and um you know that's what's going on here too. So it it's horrible. It's dangerous. But we've seen these assaults on democracy before. We've gotten through them in the long term by fighting back as you said by politics for instance by elevating the person attacked. But could he get away with it in the in the short term? It's not unheard of.

>> So, I mean, here's the thing. I I'm with you all the way. This Pete Hegsth, this this this Fox News prompter monkey going after Mark Kelly, this is like a mall cop trying to arrest Captain America for loitering, right? But, Senator, >> can I just point out to the listeners and to you, which is that of course Beat Hath was an undergrad at Princeton University when I was a graduate student and one of my duties was to teach uh sections or precept as Princeton calls it. And um I know that I taught as a preceptor for a professor that Hexath loved because he did a whole Fox News story about him. And I'm putting it at 85% that I was his TA, his preceptor.

>> You've got to let go of that shame. >> I don't know. This is my fault. >> You got You're never going to heal, professor, unless you let go of the name of the class that you had sent taught that I was teaching uh with this professor. CIVIL LIBERTIES. >> OH. OH. HOW? WOW. how woke. Well, now they'll want to impeach him. I mean, Senator Kelly, I think, framed this really well, Cy. He said that Trump has now declared loyalty to the Constitution to be punishable by death based on Donald Trump's posts calling Democrats traitors who should be executed. But, I mean, to to to the actual points that the these veterans made originally, we know these boat strikes are extrajudicial killings. I mean, they had two survivors and they repatriated them to their home countries. So, either they're innocent or we're letting these dangerous narotists go and that was met with push back. That was overruled by Pam Bondi, the the the first ever attorney general made entirely of orange

plastic. While this is going on, Trump is trying to get the military to invade more American cities because this is important. He believes illegal orders are just orders Democrats don't like. I mean, the guy does think the Constitution is like a cheesecake factory menu. There's too many words. It needs more pictures. But, I mean, sending troops into polling stations. Jason Crow listed the the the previously threatened illegal orders by Trump. Sending troops into polling stations, shooting peaceful protesters, killing terrorist families. I mean, all all the Kelly video did it say Congress doing its duty to warn the military about unlawful orders. How dangerous do you think is the president's stochastic terrorism rhetoric in constitutional terms?

>> I think it's enormously dangerous. And going way back to the Obama administration, the way you and I met, I don't know if you even remember this, John, but I wrote a piece for Politico and it was called simply Trump versus the Constitution call in a guide. This was when he was running in uh 2016. And I tried to say, you know, to America, the piece did get a lot of attention and it led to our friendship and collaboration that if you look at each of these things individually, they're bad. But when you add them up, and I'll just mention some of them, the the promise to torture the families of suspected terrorists, not terrorists themselves. promised to shut down the liel laws, meaning to make it possible to um uh get to get rid of any protection, first amendment protection, and and to allow liel law to be a way of a sword to shut down descent. Um and you know, we could keep going. The um promise of a total and complete shutdown of Muslim immigration into the United States, that became the travel ban. If you look at any of these one things

individually, they're bad. But if you add them up, they amount to a promise to destroy not just democracy, but the rule of law. And that's you see in this dialogue, he has no appreciation for the idea that he is not above the law. He thinks he is above the law the way an absolute monarch would. Not even a constitutional monarch, but but you know, Louis the 14th or or or some tyrant. And the idea that there could be some limit from something called the law. The law is something to evade for Trump. Think of it, you know, in terms of real estate. You know, you you need your Roy Conn who's going to come into court and just, you know, batter the judge, batter the opposition. It's just a weapon. It's not something that constrains you. And yet, you know, here we are. This is how Trump sees the world and he is president. It's not any uh office. And just, you know, to tie the stories together, it's so important to do this. Why is he bringing prosecutions against his political opponents? How can he do that? Well, it's because he essentially controls the Department of Justice, including the US attorneys. And

so, >> which brings us back to disparment, Pammy, go on. >> We hope so. We couldn't fight back, you know, in all of these cases. But it is dangerous, all of it, because of his assault on again, not just the Constitution, not just democracy, but the very idea that he's constrained by law, that that is what's so scary about this moment. It sums it all up to me. >> No, absolutely. And again, I mean, this is I think it's really more of a trial balloon. I mean, they know how stupid this makes them look historically. And there's tons of active duty and retired military who are going to look at this and realize how profoundly dishonest the White House is being. I mean, just lies building on lies. Like, they've had to lie about it in right-wing media on Fox.

They've constantly said, "Oh, he was they they were telling troops to disobey the president." No, they were telling troops to follow the law. But before we get to the >> that's a harder concept to understand though than a lot of I know people are willing to you know not just um >> well authoritarianism doesn't want you to follow law the law authoritarian wants you to follow the strong man >> right and there aren't just authoritarians in power there are authoritarian personalities who want to obey and Fox News is encouraging that and people who don't see the world in terms of principles or or the rule of law who think that the guy is in charge he's the leader bow down to him and Trump of course often says that in his admiration for dictators. That's my worry that the chilling effect here is severe and that military who are listening to all this who might find themselves on the streets being asked to fire on civilians. You know, it's a confusing thing to face an order like that. Do you disobey which the law would require and you know, not just firing willy-nilly on civilians, no question.

Uh but the president said to do it and you know that's the worry they might go along some of them. >> I don't find it confusing, professor. I think the ones who choose to follow the law. >> It's not for you and me, but >> the ones who choose to follow the law will follow the law and the ones who want to abuse and hurt people because will do it if the president gives them the license to do it. Do you expect us to see more of these really stupid counterproductive selective investigations from this White House? I mean, probing the critics and and just uh ignoring the loyalists.

>> They're going to try and they're going to try to keep putting in their loyalists because this was their lesson from Trump 1.0. I know they saw that people who have minimum integrity are not who they want in these positions of power. And that's why you have at the top of the Justice Department, not let's not forget she's there. Pam Bondi is not a person of integrity. She's not somebody who to say the least who has anything but loyalty for this president. And that isn't uh you know she is confirmed. She's not interim. And that's a powerful position to have a pure loyalist in because, you know, it's complicated, but essentially all the US attorneys work for the Department of Justice and there are maneuvers that she can take herself to make these prosecutions happen if they have trouble getting people uh in these positions.

And you know, there isn't a question about her legal appointment. That's what's so scary. >> Okay, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, I want to talk to you about the death of Doge and the birth of the Trump Zoron mom, Donnie Lovefest. My god, I bet Eric and Don Jr. wish he'd talked that nicely about them just once. We'll be back in just a moment. This is the oath and the office. Welcome back to the Oath and the Office. I'm John Fugal Sang. So, let's go back, Professor Brett Schneider, through the midst of time to an ancient land called early 2025 when Elon Musk, a man who is truly a a debit to his race, uh was allowed to become the uh the third worst president of my lifetime after Dick Cheney, Vladimir Putin, and Elon Musk. And we had the Department of Government Efficiency, which didn't even have an actual office. Um, and it was uh really just in charge of trying to decimate the

civil service to shave a few dollars off the budget to give it away to rich guys in a tax cut. Um, Trump has disbanded Doge 8 months after its charter. And this might be the first time in history a president has disbanded an office that may not have actually existed. Cy, was it just a grift with stationary? I mean, what does this confusion tell us about the governance structure or or lack thereof inside this administration? >> Well, it helps them to to essentially wipe it away entirely because there were so many lawsuits about their actions being illegal. similar actually to our first story about whether this was a legal appointment because if he was a principal officer Elon Musk in charge of you know what arguably was one of the most important agencies at the time just based on what they were doing going and dismantling the entire federal government or a lot of it including USAID which resulted in in horrible um uh starvation and and consequences for people around the world. um that if he

was such an important figure, the Constitution requires that he would have to be confirmed by the Senate. So, who was this guy? And yet, of course, he was not and likely couldn't have been. Um and now they're all these lawsuits, all these claims are just disappearing. And how do you do that? You you claim it doesn't exist anymore. Maybe that that it never existed. And of course, it did. Part of the dynamic too is that you have in the head of um project 2025, Russell Vault, who we've talked about, somebody who wanted to accomplish uh the same goals as Musk, but he wanted to do it legally and methodically in a way that would last. And in a way, even though we've gotten rid of this um you know, wild character Elon Musk, dangerous, reckless, more dangerous is the person who understands how government works. And so I think he's very happy vote to uh be done with um Musk. Um and you know now his vision of project 2025 of really permanently dismantling so much of the

federal government might come to pass. And here's the worry. They might do it in a way that would get upheld in court. So on the one hand I'm glad to be done with the doze chapter. It was so reckless. And yet I'm very worried about what's coming next. >> Yeah, me too. I mean, in looking at this, what are the constitutional implications when the executive branch is allowed to create entities that have no transparency, no oversight, and in this case, seemingly no paperwork. This was just a bunch of douchebags running rough shot over the government.

>> Yeah. I mean, I think there are dangers in both. The danger of Musk and Doge was that they were, you know, for example, uh they found an office in the Treasury Department that controlled a lot of the funding. Now, the funding decisions of allocation or withdrawal are supposed to come from Congress. Congress, you've heard this phrase often, has the power of the purse. >> But Musk was like, "Well, I'm going to hack this. I'm going to hack the US government. How do I do that? Where is the actual purse? Okay, it's in this office." And then, you know, let's break in there. let's shut off the funds. So all of that is so highly illegal, highly unconstitutional.

And that was part of the danger that they were trying to set up a dictatorship in this really ad hoc willy-nilly dangerous way in the sort of language of Silicon Valley of of, you know, breaking everything and and starting again. Yeah. >> And yet here's what's to me equally dangerous, maybe worse, is is a constitutional savvy uh person like Russell vote who understands the mechanisms of how to actually accomplish the same goals maybe in a slower way, but that that will be upheld in court and will be slower. And you know, vote for instance wants to challenge a lot of the legislation that was passed after Nixon that banned empalment. the right to ban the president from saying I'm just not going to spend these funds.

Vote thinks those are unconstitutional. So he's looking for instances where he can tee up issues where the Supreme Court is going to enable essentially the same thing that Musk wanted to to do to destroy the power of Congress to arandise the president's power and he might get away with it because he knows what he's doing and if it's not it's his allies. >> But it seems like they've already gotten away with it under Elon's messy system. I mean, you know, I I'm not sure this is simply chaos or or if it doesn't fit in quite neatly, Cory, with the larger theme of Donald Trump creating shadow authority outside of normal legal challenges. I mean, none of none of these people are getting their jobs back, right? Like like the fact that, oh, do exist, well, that doesn't render null and void all the damage they did and all the career civil servants who lost their livelihoods.

>> I think that's right. And um you know that's a good way to put it that the recklessness sticks. Now the question is how do you continue to do it? Well, they're not going to do it in this willy-nilly attack dog way because there were a number of suits against Musk himself. And a lot of them focused on the question of whether or not he was lawfully appointed that might have led to uh injunctions. It might have led to a Supreme Court decision ultimately against a lot of what they were doing. But the fact that so much has been done already and there isn't a way to attack it by attacking Doge now step in the the you know not people of I wouldn't call them integrity but people who know what they're doing and the legal challenges are become much harder. So yes that chaos and the immediacy of it the acting followed by getting rid of all the chaos agents that's part of the danger. Maybe that's the way to put it that they will get away with it partly because they've been wiped away. So, uh, there there's sort of madness in the chaos that that it is working for them. And, you know, as much as we can talk about instances

where we're fighting back and winning, I don't want to lose sight of the point that you made, which is we're not going to put back USAD. We're not going to put back this infrastructure. They're not going to start obeying the uh role of Congress when it comes to allocation. You know, abs the shutdown was an attempt to do that, but now that that's over, uh, it's very hard to think about how we're going to fight back. So, let's talk then about the feel-good story of the month. No, not the Epstein files being released, not Marjorie Taylor Green leaving. Uh, Donald Trump walked into the Oval Office to meet with Zoron Mandani, mayor elect of New York.

He was all ready to scream foreign, Muslim, jihadist, communist, and instead he walked out, professor, saying, "This is my special little rational boy. I love him." I want to talk to you about what we witnessed with Donald Trump and the flattery machine. It was like the Bachelor and Trump gave Zoron the final rose before they even went on camera. This guy was so giggly, Cory. He was so thirsty. He was looking like he was trying to join Zoron's fan club. And I mean, he was like, "You mean someone younger and more popular who New Yorkers like, and he's the only man in this room who's not a kissass? Is this love?" I I you know like the MAGA folks had no objections to seeing Donald Trump with the terrorist leader of Syria. They had no problem seeing Donald Trump bury his face in the lap of murderer Muhammad bin Salman. Oh, but the nice liberal Muslim.

That's who we were told it's going to be a showdown. We were sold this by Fox News. It's going to be a showdown in the Oval Office. And then the the whole thing shows up and Zoron doesn't compromise a single value. He didn't soften any stances. He sat there like, "Yes, you're a dictator. Yes, Gazer is genocide. Yes, working people matter." And and Trump's like, "It's okay. You could call me fascist. It's okay, Corey. I I'm still trying to get over this." I mean, on a one level, I'm not totally surprised. It makes a lot of sense.

Zoron knows how to charm people. And Donald Trump's ethnic group, I've always said, is celebrity. If you're famous, he'll act like you're one of his. But after all the months of spreading racist, bigoted lies about this guy and then meeting him and offering him support right away and essentially nuking uh a least defonic scubidatorial campaign which is all based on this guy's a crazy jihadist. What is this pattern revealed to you, professor, about the nature of this president's authoritarian style? Cuz it's >> well luster, its threat, and then its total collapse if you give me a cookie.

Yeah, what a great characterization and one of the bizarre moments of this wild point in American history. Uh I'll start with just the question of the president's ideology. You know, he I think is an authoritarian when it comes to his personality and critics and those who go after him. Like a true authoritarian, he wants to slap them down. That's what's going on in our two main stories for today. the prosecution of James and Comey and also this idea that somehow saying don't follow illegal orders is a violation of his power. Um all those speak to an authoritarian personality. But when it comes to ideology, ideas, you know, he's not sophisticated. And so when he sees somebody who's a skillful politician who's saying things that to him sort of sound like what he's saying uh and let's not forget the the the kind of not just charm but the sophistication of Mam Donnie how he he he brought this out of him. He he said for instance and must have done this in the private meeting too that he went out in New York and

talked to voters who voted for Trump and they also voted for me and Trump is like oh this guy the people who like me like this guy you know that's the level and the mentality that he's thinking on. So you know ideological socialism that matters less to him than does this guy like me or not. And then, you know, he talked about their common goals of of making the cost of living. And then real estate, you know, this president and I have one more thing to add, but real estate speaks to him. That's his language. He went in there and talked about the need for more housing. Maybe the Trump organization might be involved in that. I'm sure he didn't offer it, but in Trump's mind, that's how he >> No, but that's so heard. Zoran says, "Oh, more more housing." And instantly, kaching kaching. Can I get a taste? Can I get a taste? Right away, maybe. So, all these are tempting him. And now there's a I watched the full 30 minutes I should say which I recommend to people because it is an amazing piece of political theater. But at one point Trump said and I I've mentioned this I grew up as you know around New York politics. Um and one thing that he says

that really just brings it out and I remember Trump of course from the from the 1980s as a kid is that really what he wanted was to be mayor of New York City. What a great job that was. I think >> or king or king of king of New York City. King of New York City maybe. He didn't want to work, Cory. He didn't want to do the work. >> He was never going to win that election. And so, what's the next best thing? Much to the danger of the world and all of us, it's president of the United States. So, here's a guy who he could be friends with, who he admired, who's also good at this, and he's got the job that he wants. So, that I think all these sort of added up to this weird love fest. And just to point out, if people haven't seen it, some of the strange things that happen, Trump surrounds himself with a gaggle of acolytes. These aren't real reporters. They're, you know, from from white supremacist or far-right, you know, websites and they're saying things to to uh the marrier or elect things like, uh, why did you fly here rather than take the train? And Trump himself had to jump in. He's like, you know, he's very busy and uh it takes a it's a

lot shorter to fly. So, he's just jumping into all this. I mean, that's >> he's helping him out. Yeah. >> I mean, and then he's smiling at him. I've never seen him smile at Eric. Never seen him smile at Eric. But oh, he's going to adopt this kid. And meanwhile, at least at least Elise Defonics trapesing around upstate New York going, "Mom, Donnie jihadist." And Trump's like, "No, he's really rational." I mean, we saw him at a gay bar the night before election day. What kind of jihadist is that for God's sakes? But let me ask you this.

>> How about the fascist point, John? I mean that is that not our favorite point where he says when they >> he says to him well one of the one of the gaggle of these acolytes of these kissup um um people that Trump surrounded himself with in the Oval Office says well didn't you call Trump a fascist and then Trump pauses for a second and says um you know it's okay >> yeah it's okay you call me a fascist >> amazing >> yeah it's all a game to him but I I got to ask professor you know this This guy was last week threatening to withhold federal funding to New York City. I mean, he was threatening if if Van Mdani was elected that he as president would cut off federal funds to the city that gives the federal government so much more than it takes back. Is threatening to withhold federal funds from cities based on election outcomes you don't like legal, Cy? Is that even remotely constitutional? Like, I don't think anyone around him was taking anything he said seriously, and certainly Mandani wasn't. Well, John, this is one of the

real, you know, it fits our theme and and I wish I could answer in a way that said yes, obviously the Supreme Court would stop that. They would say it's a first amendment right or an abuse of the uh coercive action under the court's precedence. But the truth is that under a case uh um called uh Dole versus South Dakota and there are a number of others, the power of the federal government to use incentives and disincentives including the revocation of federal funds uh is that is a power of of the federal government and possibly of the president. And now there's supposed to be limits to that that have to do with the fund. It can't be all funds, but we saw him starting to do this in the first term and he's threatening to do it again. And yes, the court might regard it not as the same as coercing somebody you disagree with. I think that you know those are first amendment violations, but as the the prerogative of the of the president to to give or withdraw money and that is a very real danger that he might do that to New York and the fact

that they're getting along and saying that he's not likely to do it. Same with uh troops. So the president can't commander a local police station. All these, by the way, are under the umbrella of the constitutional doctrine of federalism. Certain powers are given to the federal government, including the spending power and then some are reserved to the states. So that's always what we're talking about. But one of those powers, the spending power might be used to withdraw funds. So there are limits. You can't just go to the New York police force and take it over if you're the president of the United States as much as he'd want to. But what can you do? You can build up agencies under your control like ICE and use them as a kind of military force and send them in. And if we we've often discussed, you could potentially use the military or commander under the Insurrection Act, the um the National Guard, not the police. All of those are possible. And so that's why when we talk about this, I I wish I could say he can't do that. What a great show. I would like to show more if every time you said, "Can he do that?" I said, "No, he can't do that. He can't do that." But

that's not the reality of how it works. We have a system in which the president is enormously powerful, where courts have enabled him, where legislation is passed on powers, the insurrection act is like that to the federal government. And that's why this is such a frightening moment. Yes. If he didn't like Manny, it didn't go well, we might be in a very different world, New York right now. >> Yeah. Well, right before the election, a friend of the pod Jake Tapper was talking to Trump's adviser, Kevin Hasset, on CNN, and he asked him about, you know, Trump threatening to withhold federal funding. Was it all bluster? He didn't mean it. Let me quote Kevin Hasset directly, top economic adviser.

He said, "Well, it feels like he doesn't mean it now." It feels like he doesn't mean it now. This policy is based on vibes, Corey. I mean, not really on a set policy or ideology. How dangerous should we regard it when federal power appears to be wielded according to the personal mood swings of someone? >> Yeah. >> Who could be suffering from who could be suffering from decades of untreated syphilis. I should point out please.

I mean, I think that as we, you know, as much as it was fun to watch this, to watch Mamani as a skillful politician, you know, weave around this wildly dangerous, erratic president, we also have to recognize the fact that part of why it felt so good is because with all that power that I just talked about is the ability to inflict harm. And so his mood swings are so frightening. Let me just illustrate this. This won't make people feel more secure. which will make you feel less, but it's the reality. Uh during Nixon's uh the end of his term before the right before he resigned, he was drinking a lot. And the Secretary of Defense was very worried about this because the power to launch a nuclear weapon doesn't rest with Congress. It doesn't rest with the Secretary of Defense. It rests with the president.

And so illegally, the Secretary of Defense said to those in the launch sequence basically in the command and control, I don't care what the law is. If he calls you to try to launch a nuclear weapon, call me because he was drinking so much that and acting so erratically that is a dramatic symbol of what we're doing. >> Pete Seth is going to be furious. Pete Haggath is going to hit the roof when he hears about this someday. the idea that Pete Hexath is going to save us too in the way that um the defense secretary during Nixon might have. I don't think so.

>> Wow. >> So, so that just you know that's the reality. I you know we talked about this with Ted Lou. I highly recommend if we have new listeners to go back and listen to that. That's why that first strike bill that as he calls it is so important that he's been a champion of for a long time to really try to reset the powers of the president so the president can't launch because they're drunk for instance a nuclear attack. >> And let's also point out Donald Trump's various threats about federal funding as a political weapon. We got to take a very short break. We'll be back in just a moment to try to tie all this together with the oath and the office. Don't go away. Welcome back to the oath and the office. I'm John Fugles. Professor Cory Brett Schneider is with me. Corey, looking at all the stories we've we've talked about today. I mean, the the fake prosecutors, the illegal investigations, uh disappearing agencies, um funding threats. Are we just witnessing a an administration testing how far it

can go in dismantling constitutional constraints? I mean they don't really seem to have any grand plan to help people. I think you know that's the reality of where we are that he has told us many times who he is and when he says he admires dictators he wants his people to obey he means it and in the first term he was blocked so often by civil servants by public officials but coming back now with this playbook of loyalty over the law the theme of today uh I am still worried I wish I could say we're winning he's trying to destroy the constitution and he's he's facing the consequences And of course, in each moment, there is hope. There's uh the senator from Arizona talking about don't obey illegal orders, the judge stopping the prosecutions. But that's not the end of the story. It's still people are resisting. They're fighting back. That's what we all have to do. Of course, you know how excited and energized I was by the no kings rally. But the fact is none

of those stories are at the end. So yes, those prosecutions of both Comey and James could continue. Yes, he very me may may well issue illegal orders. He likely has been doing so already and will continue to do so. And the horrific thing is as much as you and I and our audience knows that's wrong not to do it. people on the ground in the military very well might follow them because uh the easier thing to do rather than to think about the difficult question of is this an illegal order or maybe the not so difficult question resisting the order from the president is hard. The military is set up as a command and control organization. The the the you know or orders the default is to follow them. The harder question under our law is what do you do when um the orders are illegal? that that is at minimum uh uh going to feel difficult in the moment.

So that's why this is such a a dangerous period in our history and continues to be. So >> I mean I I hate to ask a a dumb question, but moving forward in the next three years of this lame duck presidency, um what should Americans understand about the difference between normal political conflict like we all grew up with and authoritarian abuse of state power? Like we have to have this tutorial, don't we? >> Yeah. I mean, I have to say too, John, that um you know, I'm teaching uh freshman through seniors at Brown um this year as always, and a lot of they have all really grown up with this politics. They can't really remember.

They remember by the Biden period, but it was a break between these two presidencies. So to them, and this is awful to realize, as much as so many of our listeners realize how different it is from a politics that was much more normal, this is their normal, this attack on democracy. It's it's a chilling idea. And when you try to explain to some of them, even those who are more progressive-minded, how off this is, that's not really how they see it. They see the whole system as dangerously authoritarian, as complicit in this man's uh prejudice, in his civil rights viol violations, in his attack on the rule of law. And you know, that's a reality check that this has been with us for so long that uh it doesn't seem normal to um some of our listeners and and really almost all of my students.

>> So, in this age, let me close it with this, Corey. I mean, we're in this era where obedience to the Constitution should not just be allowed, but expected. And we all seem to have decided, well, we're in the middle of this stress test. We'll give it 3 years and then respect the Constitution again. I mean, there's no fear of prosecution, right, for any of these crimes or or constitutional norms being shattered. What tools are still left? The courts, the Congress, state officials, civil society to resist these abuses? It's just going to come down to all of us, right? Being informed and hoping that uh that that the courts hold.

>> Yes. I mean, there are, you know, actors who are fighting back. You have this judge who did dismiss this case on the grounds as she should have that this was an illegal appointment. We have the no kings rally. Uh we have senators uh like the senator from Arizona sticking up and saying what's right. Uh but the reality is we've we are in a moment in which the power rests with an want to be authoritarian. And so these are acts of resistance, but they're acts that are leading to something which is the midterms and the next presidential election. And hopefully they're also leading to uh what didn't happen during the Biden administration, a way through legislation to correct the risk of abuse. We've got to think not just about Trump, but about the next president that might try an authoritarian takeover of the United States. And in the same way that after Nixon, we had a series of laws that did protect us, including the Independent Council Act, the Emergencies Act, um laws that we can go into a future episode, and that I did get to talk to actually about with Ted Lou

about. And he he sees this as part of his mission was why he was such an important guest for us. And when we have Sheldon White House next week, we'll talk to him about it. But we need to restructure our government through legislation that reigns in the risk of a dangerous president. Not just to win an election. That is part of it, of course, but to to really fix the system. >> Professor Cory Brett Snider, I want to thank you again, and I want to thank all of our listeners. I want to remind everybody to please subscribe and give us a good review and and and share uh our episodes. And uh hey, check out the YouTube page as well. And send us your letters, right, Corey? We we read them on the air. Yes, we've uh every few episodes we're taking questions and you can write to me at corey.breterggmail.com.

Uh I'm reading them. I'm collecting them and uh in in um a couple weeks we'll we'll take a bunch of them together. So keep sending them in. Of course, subscribe on Apple or wherever you get your podcast. We're on Spotify and really all the audio podcasts. And yes, our YouTube is really taking off. So subscribe there, watch us, not just listen to us. And finally, I'll mention if you're on Substack, we have a weekly newsletter that summarizes the discussion, our discussion with guests, uh, and has links to articles um, and also sometimes, uh, previews what's about to come out, including again, Senator White House next next week from Rhode Island. Uh, an amazing person fighting back against Trump.

>> Well, thank you so much, professor. I want to wish everybody a very happy Thanksgiving. And I want to wish everybody a very happy uh Ukraine surrender deal if that's what you're rooting for. We got to talk about that next week, Corey, because my god, did you read this surrender agreement? This thing was so Russian. I think it hacked the DNC. So, we'll get to that next week. But in the meantime, thank you to Wendy and Bay Wolf and everyone else who helps bring us the oath and the office. And I'm going to add just one more thank you to our audience and also of course best wishes for a happy Thanksgiving.