The Dramatic Overhaul of the Justice Dept.  ## Metadata - Author: [[Fresh Air]] - Full Title: The Dramatic Overhaul of the Justice Dept. - Category: #podcasts - URL: https://share.snipd.com/episode/74ffe511-c91f-444a-8470-477bef7ef09c ## Document Notes ## Highlights - **Portraits Removed, Message Delivered** - Pam Bondi personally removed Biden-era portraits from a secure Justice Department floor and paraded them on TV. - Her staff demoted a senior official over the portraits, signaling symbolic purges matter to the new leadership. Transcript: Dave Davies You open this story with an anecdote about Pam Bondi walking into the Justice Department's National Security Division unannounced to remove portraits that were still hanging from The previous administration of the president, vice president, and the attorney general. Here she is on Fox News after that describing that little visit to Laura Trump. Ruth Marcus How's it been moving into your new office? It's been interesting. So I went up on the seventh floor, which is the National Security Division. So the entire floor is a skiff, so no one can get in there. Dave Davies So I was able to get the code, open the door, and I look on the wall and see President Biden, Kamala Harris, and Merrick Garland's paintings still hanging. Oh, wow. Someone didn't tell them that there's a new president. I did. Ruth Marcus I personally took all three photos down. I'm walking down the hall with these pictures. You took them down yourself. Oh, I took them down. Oh, my gosh. I'm walking down the hall. I put them in front of someone who said to me, oh, well, maintenance is really slow here. I said, well, it took me about 30 seconds to get them off the wall. And this is not going to be slow. Yeah. I promise you that. And then he said, well, they don't like us touching anything. I said, well, I just did. ([Time 0:02:04](https://share.snipd.com/snip/8c37726a-1dd0-4f77-94bb-37ad0a9fd80c)) - **Justice Dept. Priorities Rewired** - Bondi has reordered DOJ priorities away from public and private corruption prosecutions toward immigration and culture-war civil actions. - The Civil Rights Division now targets DEI policies and gender-affirming care rather than voting-rights and police-abuse enforcement. Transcript: Ruth Marcus So on a substantive level, I don't think there's ever been as great a change in the Justice Department. And certainly when a Democratic administration takes over from a Republican administration or a Republican administration takes over from a Democratic administration, there Is going to be a new sheriff in town and policies appropriately change. What we're watching here is something completely different. On the criminal side, the public integrity section, basically they have decided that prosecuting public corruption cases is not a priority. This is state and local and federal public corruption cases. They've stopped enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which tripped up some Trump administration officials during the first term. They've stopped prosecuting bribery cases from companies. So both public corruption and private corruption off the list really for criminal prosecution on the list, dealing with illegal immigration. In some ways, the changes on the civil side of the Justice Department are even greater. I'll just talk for a second about the Civil Rights Division. Instead of enforcing the voting rights laws, instead of enforcing the police brutality laws, they are going after alleged violations excesses of DEI. On the civil side, they are going after doctors and hospitals that provide gender-affirming surgery for trans kids. They're pursuing denaturalization proceedings. It's a – substantively, it's a complete overhaul of what the Justice Department traditionally does. ([Time 0:09:37](https://share.snipd.com/snip/be033258-798d-44bd-b051-54bdc960d58e)) - **Unprecedented Personnel Purge** - The administration has carried out an unprecedented purge of career DOJ staff, firing many career lawyers and demoting senior officials. - Ruth Marcus warns this may violate civil-service protections and create toxic tit-for-tat future transitions. Transcript: Ruth Marcus This is, and we mentioned this at the start with the demotion of this very senior National Security Division official. This is a Justice Department, and in fact, this is an administration that believes that its constitutional Article 2 power allows it to ignore the normal federal civil service protections And to fire lawyers and other employees for, as I was told by a department official, for any reason or no reason. So people have been fired because they worked for Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought the two federal indictments against President Trump. Chad Mazzell, the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, said to me, well, obviously they prosecuted the president so they can't continue to work for him. That is not obvious at all to Justice Department veterans. People have been fired for reasons as trivial as failure to remove their preferred pronouns from their signature block. This is all ending up in litigation and we'll find out whether this is in fact within their constitutional authority or not. I don't think it is. The civil service laws are very clear that if you want to fire somebody, you have to go through the normal steps of process. ([Time 0:11:38](https://share.snipd.com/snip/c612472e-5f84-4415-bb67-22c33a43dc65)) - **Weaponization Task Force Paradox** - A Weaponization Working Group was created to probe alleged abuses by prior officials and is investigating prominent Democrats and officials. - Marcus argues the task force risks becoming the very politicized instrument it claims to oppose by targeting political opponents. Transcript: Ruth Marcus The Weaponization Working Group was really launched on day one of the new administration when President Trump issued an executive order that basically directed the Justice Department To examine the alleged weaponization that had taken place at the Justice Department under the previous administration. And he came to the Justice Department to give a speech and he talked about the scum that had run the department in the previous administration, including Jack Smith. So Pam Bondi, when she came in as Attorney General, immediately set up this weaponization working group. It is now being headed by Ed Martin. Ed Martin, your listeners may recall, was the failed nominee to be the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, one of the most obviously important U.S. Attorney's offices in the country. And he is now heading this weaponization working group. And he is doing quite a job there of at least launching the initial efforts to do precisely, from my point of view, what the Justice Department complains happened in the previous administration, Which is the people who are complaining about weaponizing are in fact doing the weaponizing themselves. He has launched investigations of Letitia James, the New York attorney general, who famously sued President Trump in civil court in New York for business fraud. He's launched investigations. These are both mortgage fraud investigations of Adam Schiff, who famously tangled with President Trump during the first Trump term. Dave Davies Adam Schiff was then a congressman. Now he's a senator from California. Ruth Marcus This is not done. There's a very famous speech by President Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt's attorney general, Robert Jackson, where he talks about the role of the prosecutor. And he says, the role of the prosecutor is to go after the crime. It is not to go after the individual. But what we are seeing here, and it's early stages, is precisely the opposite of Attorney General Jackson's admonition. They seem to be going after individuals because of who the individuals are and not because that what they did rises to the level of any crime, no less a federal crime. And I think the only word for this is scary. ([Time 0:15:03](https://share.snipd.com/snip/1946f718-3da0-4e2c-b248-c9938471741c)) - **Prepare For Costly Investigations** - Understand that mere investigation from the Weaponization Task Force can be ruinous even without charges. - Prepare for high legal costs and difficulty finding counsel if targeted by politically charged probes. Transcript: Ruth Marcus We will see if any indictments really come out of this weaponization task force. I worry that they might. We will see if any actual convictions come out of this weaponization task force. That is going to be kind of a high bar for the department to reach because obviously you need to have a crime. You need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You need a unanimous jury. But I think it's very important for people to understand that the mere fact of being investigated is so ruinous, both emotionally and financially. You need a lawyer. It's going to cost you thousands and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend yourself if you can't find a pro bono lawyer. It is hard in Washington these days to find law firms that are willing to represent prominent figures in the previous administration. Nothing actually is produced by the Weaponization Task Force. ([Time 0:19:22](https://share.snipd.com/snip/7a0bb828-c101-4ad8-8d3b-c31b9d28e4ca)) - **Epstein Files Promise, Backlash Ensued** - Bondi promised explosive Jeffrey Epstein materials and specifically claimed a 'client list' sat on her desk, fueling MAGA expectations. - Months later she admitted no such list existed and the mishandling intensified criticism from the right. Transcript: Ruth Marcus Botched it by promising more than she could deliver. It started on February 21st, so she was confirmed on February 5th, so very shortly into her time as Attorney General. She went, of course, on Fox TV on February 21st, and she said there was going to be a lot of information that was forthcoming, plane logs and names and things like that. And she was asked, what about the client list? By the way, there has been a theory that Jeffrey Epstein maintained this super secret list of clients that he helped procure young girls for. This client list doesn't exist. I don't believe it ever existed. Pam Bondi was asked about the client list, and she said, quote, it's on my desk right now. This was a dumb thing to say, and it's the kind of thing that if you had an effective communication strategy, you would have cleared up right away. Pam Bondi let that prospect of this long sought but illusory client list hang out there for four plus months until finally in early June, she said, oh, and I said it's on my desk. I just meant there's a bunch of things on my desk, including Martin Luther King files and JFK files and things like that. So pay no attention to what you thought I promised you, MAGA world. Forget it. Go away. There's going to be nothing more to see here. And that created the furor that we've been living with for the past month or so. As MAGA has said, we want to see it. We want to see it. We want to see it. The Justice Department's eventual response was, we're not going to give you anything else. Then when there was this uproar and revolt from MAGA, they said, okay, we'll try to get you grand jury testimony. That didn't work. We'll interview Ghislaine Maxwell. We'll see what happens about that. Now they're offering some files to the Congress. Jeffrey Epstein was going to be a problem even for a well-managed Justice Department because it is such an obsession in MAGA world. But Pam Bondi's handling of it just made that pre-existing problem, I think, so much worse for her. ([Time 0:31:42](https://share.snipd.com/snip/c0365dc9-c20c-4c6a-9867-071a665da69a)) - **Binder Photo Op Misfire** - Bondi and Kash Patel handed conservative influencers binders of Epstein materials at a White House event without clearance. - The binders contained mostly public documents and angered both the White House and the influencers. Transcript: Ruth Marcus Mean, it's an amazing story. She and Kash Patel, the FBI director, basically intervened in this White House event for influencers. They didn't tell the White House that they were going to be distributing these binders. These binders were not reviewed as they would be in the normal course of things by the White House counsel's office. They distribute the binders. They serve to aggravate the White House, which hadn't known that this was happening. And they also, even worse, aggravate the influencers because no one likes to be played for a fool. And the influencers are handed stuff that they know is not news. And that was back in May, and that was just the next stage of we are really mad. So people like Laura Loomer started attacking her as Pam Blondie and really going after her. And I think it's only her pre-existing and quite close relationship with President Trump that has shielded Pam Bondi so far. ([Time 0:34:43](https://share.snipd.com/snip/6958f362-22a7-4924-a93c-6bb7e9602ac0)) - **Bondi's Tenure Hinges On Trump** - Bondi's job depends entirely on President Trump's support and his desire for 'revenge' through prosecutions. - Failing to produce high-profile indictments could rapidly erode her standing. Transcript: Ruth Marcus Think that she is safe for now, but emphasis on the for now. The president who often accepts suggestions from Laura Loomer, the conservative activist about who he should fire, resisted Loomer's importunings to fire quote unquote Pam Blondie. He has made clear his support for the attorney general, but I think that retaining his support is going to require eventually coming up with some of what he wants and what he wants is revenge And what he wants is revenge in the form of indictments and prosecutions he said just the other day he was talking about the Russia Russia hoax and he was at an event at the Kennedy Center Pam Bondi was there because Trump put her on the Kennedy Center board some time ago and he said, and I'm looking at you, Pam, when I say Hillary Clinton should be investigated. So she is attorney general for one reason only, because Donald Trump wants her there. And if he doesn't get what he wants from her, that could easily change. ([Time 0:36:03](https://share.snipd.com/snip/ae68c8bc-8b65-489d-9fcb-091886f32205)) - **Selective Enforcement Highlights Hypocrisy** - The DOJ has reassigned or hired officials with controversial records, including a former FBI agent implicated in January 6 assaults. - Marcus highlights hypocrisy when the department harshly prosecutes minor acts like a sandwich throw while tolerating serious January 6 conduct. Transcript: Ruth Marcus Believe she was involved in that decision, and I do not believe in sandwich throwing, and perhaps it is felonious sandwich throwing, though that seems a little bit of an overreach. By the way, this was a Justice Department employee who also lost his job as a result. I think that you have to look at the sandwich throwing in context, and the context of the sandwich throwing is the dismissal of prosecutions and the pardoning of so many people who were Involved in so much more serious offenses against law enforcement officers on January 6th. And one thing that I think people should understand is that it's not simply the outrageous dismissal of these cases, not just people who breached the Capitol, but people who were involved In, you know, direct and harmful assaults on police officers. But there is a man working for the Justice Department now on the weaponization task force named Jared Wise. He was about to go to trial. Jury selection was supposed to start on January 20th when Donald Trump came into office and the case against him was dropped. But this is a man who is a former FBI agent. He encouraged these assaults on D.C. Police officers when people were knocked to the ground in front of him. He's on body camera footage yelling, yeah, I'm not going to use the word, F them, yeah, kill them. And that is a man who is now working for this Department of Justice. ([Time 0:40:10](https://share.snipd.com/snip/c451bf0b-0c37-492a-a67f-9afdcc4a77ab)) - **Career Shift Over Editorial Limits** - Ruth Marcus left The Washington Post after feeling the opinion section narrowed and her dissent was marginalized. - She joined The New Yorker to pursue longer investigative pieces like the Bondi profile. Transcript: Dave Davies Very few journalists spend 40 years at one institution. You were at the Washington Post for so long, really loved the place. And you were there when Bezos bought the paper and his wealth meant that it had these resources to fund all this top-notch reporting. Then there was his refusal to allow the Post to run its endorsement of Kamala Harris in the presidential race. Stayed with him. Then Bezos contributed a million dollars to Trump's inauguration, showed up at the inauguration. And then he eventually decreed that the opinion section would focus on, quote, personal liberties and free markets. You had lived in the opinion section for a long time. You didn't leave right away. Tell us what made you decide you simply had to go. Ruth Marcus What made me decide that I had to go was that I wrote a column disagreeing with the new focus of the opinion section and the publisher of the paper for the, as far as I could tell for the first Time in the history of the Washington Post, at least the modern Washington Post, spiked the column because he didn't think it was proper. I don't know exactly what he thought because he never deigned to speak to me. I had written after the decision not to issue the endorsement. I had written a column disagreeing with that decision. Newspapers don't have to endorse presidents, but the timing of it was terrible. It looked terrible. The paper ran that column. I was very proud to work for a paper that was willing to tolerate dissent. When I disagreed even more strongly with the decision to narrow cast our editorial outlook, and especially we have a very vibrant and wide ranging from left to right, or we did, op-ed Section, which I helped to supervise for many years. And during the Bezos era, I wrote a column disagreeing with that. And when it became clear that that dissent was not to be tolerated, I knew I could no longer say to my readers that I was free to write what I thought. And if you're not free to write what you think, then you can't be a very good columnist. So that was the really sad end, and I'm sad about it every day of my 40 years at the Washington Post. ([Time 0:42:08](https://share.snipd.com/snip/c45f54c4-88da-4a17-9d7f-97d5736fe051))