This message comes from NPR sponsor Capella University.
Interested in a quality online education?
Capella is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission.
A different future is closer than you think with Capella University.
Learn more at capella.edu.
This is Fresh Air.
I'm Dave Davies.
The leadership team of Donald Trump's second administration is known for having some colorful and combative characters.
Among that group, Attorney General Pam Bondi is a standout.
At an April cabinet meeting, she outdid others in praising the president by asserting that fentanyl seizures in his first 100 days in office had saved 258 million lives.
That's roughly three quarters of the U.S. population.
Bondi and the Department of Justice which she heads have been at the center of some of the administration's most controversial moves.
Its aggressive seizure and deportation of immigrants, its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and the move to take over law enforcement in the District of Columbia.
She's also spearheaded a determined campaign to fire and prosecute present and former officials involved in investigations and prosecutions of January 6th rioters and Jack Smith's cases against Donald Trump.
Our guest veteran Washington journalist Ruth Marcus has a profile in the latest New Yorker about Bondi.
She writes that Bondi has presided over the most convulsive transition of power in the Justice Department since the Watergate era, perhaps ever.
She describes Bondi's rise to prominence in the Trump team, her fierce loyalty to the president and criticism she's gotten from friends and foes of the administration.
Ruth Marcus is a contributing writer for The New Yorker.
Marcus spent 40 years at The Washington Post as a reporter, editor, and columnist.
She left earlier this year after disagreements with the paper's publisher, Will Lewis, and its owner, Jeff Bezos, over its editorial direction.
Her latest New Yorker article is titled Pam Bondi's Power Play.
Well, Ruth Marcus, welcome to Fresh Air.
Thank you for having me.
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.
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.
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 painting still hanging.
Oh, wow.
Someone didn't tell them that there's a new president.
I did.
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 him 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 him off the wall.
Maintenance is not going to be slow anymore.
I can promise you that.
And then he said, well, they don't like us touching anything.
I said, well, I just did.
Wow.
Well, good for you.
That's what we've been dealing with.
That's what's been going on in Washington, D.C. for a long time.
Not no longer.
Not no longer.
It ends here.
It sure does.
And that is Pam Bondi with Laura Trump on Fox News.
Ruth Marcus, you know, this could be seen as a kind of trivial thing.
I mean the attorney general walking out with portraits, and arguably not such an important thing for you to focus on.
I mean, what does this tell us about Pam Bondi?
Well, I focused on it for the reason that I think it tells us a lot about Pam Bondi, and it tells us even more about the mindset of the Trump Justice Department and the people around her.
As I understand it from the reporting that I've done, These photos were up there in this very obscure corner of the Justice Department, where they're not seen by anybody, because the facility staff had not gotten around to removing them.
And the lawyers who work in this division.
It's one of the most important and high-profile divisions in the department.
They deal with counterintelligence, counter espionage, you know all sorts of extremely highly classified things.
They don't really focus on the artwork on the walls.
So from their point of view, I don't think they probably gave a second thought to whose portraits were on the walls.
They continue to do the same job they did day to day in the Biden administration and in the Trump administration.
But from the Trump administration's point of view and you can hear that in the sound that you played from Attorney General Bondi their understanding was that this was an example, you know, caught red-handed, of the deep state seething with anger at Trump's victory and wanting to resist in any way possible.
And I asked the attorney general would not talk to me for this piece, but I talked to her chief of staff, a guy named Chad Mizell.
And what he said to me was this this is the same national security division that was responsible for a lot of the underpinnings of the prosecution against the president.
The idea that it was, oh, sorry, mere oversight.
I mean, come on, we're not stupid.
And so I just thought that this story, as kind of silly and trivial as it was, showed how this Justice Department thinks about the department that it inherited.
And She was really angry, as I understand it, the attorney general, when she saw this.
And I said another attorney general might have been a little chagrined that she was so upset and that it looked like she was focusing on something so trivial or picayune.
But Pam Bondi bragged about it on Fox TV.
So that's another important thing to understand about this Justice Department.
And the interesting thing is that, apart from personally walking out with the portraits and then talking about it on the media, she actually then demoted the acting head of the division right.
For this terrible misdeed, and he was told that this was the reason for it.
It's my understanding.
This is a lawyer you need to understand, who worked in the White House Counsel's Office during the first Trump administration.
He was a career lawyer.
He was in line to, he was acting while they brought in their own head of the division and he was supposed to be the principal deputy.
But instead, he was punished over artwork.
I want to talk in a little bit of detail about what's actually going on within the department.
But first, I just want to focus a bit more on Bondi's public presence.
I mean you note that she displays a – what would you call it?
A belligerence maybe in dealing with the media, even members of Congress and federal judges.
Yeah, it's quite extraordinary.
Having never met Pam Bondi, but watched her a lot and talked to a lot of people about her.
I think, from my understanding, she's a quite nice, friendly person, the kind of person who talks to the cashier at the supermarket.
But She has assumed I think is the right word to use this persona of kind of bristling belligerence in very surprising and unusual places.
We saw it first in her confirmation hearings, where she really took on some of her Democratic questioners.
I saw it earlier this summer when I saw her testify about the department's budget.
She was asked a perfectly reasonable and not accusatory question about the president's basically selling of access to people who invested in his crypto coins.
And she just launched into Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon who dared to ask that question and talk to him in this very dismissive tone about how the department was doing its absolute best to help your liberal state.
But she doesn't just use that tone with Democrats.
She has used that tone written and on television. about federal judges.
That is not normal.
This is a sentence that I keep saying about the second Trump administration, but this is not normal.
The Attorney General of the United States does not talk about rogue federal judges.
She doesn't file misconduct complaints about against federal judges.
She doesn't insist that they have to recuse themselves from case after case.
So she has just decided.
I think that Donald Trump likes to see this counter-punching, as he calls it, and she is just going to punch and punch and punch.
You write that Bondi has – is responsible for the most convulsive transition of power at the Justice Department, at least since Watergate, maybe ever.
Let's talk about some examples of changes in the department which she has engineered.
One of them – well, what's happened with the public integrity section, which has investigated corrupt politicians and all?
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 are 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 and 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, overhaul of what the Justice Department traditionally does.
And we've also seen a cataclysmic upheaval in personnel.
Many, many employees simply gone.
You want to give us some meaningful examples?
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 II 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 Mizzell, 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 just just that, 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, but nothing like this has ever happened before in the history of a justice department, And one of the questions that I raise in this piece is what comes next?
Someday there's going to be a Democrat elected president and a Democratic nominated attorney general.
Do we then just have this situation of tit for tat?
And you know, you fired our guys, so we'll fire yours.
That just seems like a terrible way to behave.
Although the sense that I get is that a lot of the people who've been dismissed weren't really anybody's guys right.
I mean these are by and large professional staff who are committed to the work of the department.
Thank you for making that point.
None of these people should be seen as anybody's guys.
The department has a layer, a very thin layer, like most departments, of political staff who turn in their resignations at the change of an administration.
They leave, as is normal, and new people take over, But the core of attorneys that traditionally remain from administration to administration are career lawyers.
They are dedicated to defending the executive actions of President Biden, even if those executive actions are sometimes hard to defend.
And they're dedicated to defending the executive actions of President Trump, even if those executive actions and I'll just editorialize here are often hard to defend.
We were talking about some of the major moves that Pan Bondi has made within the Justice Department to rid it of people that she thinks aren't in accordance with her agenda.
One of the things that we've read is that there is a weaponization working group to examine how the department has been used in previous administrations to punish opponents.
Tell us about this.
What's going on here?
Well, 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 US attorney for the District of Columbia, one of the most obviously important US 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.
Adam Schiff was then a congressman, now he's a senator from California.
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 its 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.
Yeah.
We should know that you can make a distinction between firing somebody who, in the course of their work at the Justice Department, engaged in cases that you found you didn't agree with, and then actually investigating and seeking criminal charges against them.
And that's what's happening here in some cases.
Pam Bondi declined to be interviewed for this story, but her chief of staff, Chad Mazzell, did talk to you.
And on this subject—
He said I don't think you will be taken seriously if you don't acknowledge that prosecuting the former president of the United States was the single greatest shift toward weaponization that the Justice Department could have undergone.
And so any sort of notion that anything else she does is even comparable to that just can't be taken seriously.
It's laughable.
What's your reaction to that?
This is the animating principle of the Trump-Bondi Justice Department that I think.
As far as I can tell that Chad Mizzell, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanch, the Deputy Attorney General, and many others in the administration certainly the president believe fervently and sincerely that there was this terrible weaponization of the department under President Biden and Attorney General Garland.
But I think this conviction and I do think it's a conviction on the part of Chad Mizzell and others explains why very much what is happening now.
I think that the point that you made about the distinction between firing Justice Department employees and investigating others criminally is really important.
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 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.
Even if nothing actually is produced by the Weaponization Task Force, the mere fact of being investigated is very, very serious and needs to be taken seriously.
We need to take another break here.
Let me reintroduce you.
We are speaking with Ruth Marcus.
She is a contributing writer for The New Yorker.
Her new article is titled Pam Bondi's Power Play.
We recorded our conversation yesterday morning.
We'll hear more after this short break.
I'm Dave Davies, and this is Fresh Air.
This message comes from Sony Pictures Classics.
In Eleanor the Great.
June Squibb brings to vivid life the spirited 94-year-old Eleanor Morgenstein who, after a devastating loss, tells a tale that spirals beyond her control.
From director Scarlett Johansson comes a comically poignant exploration of how the stories we hear become the stories we tell.
Deadline puts it, there won't be a dry eye in the house.
Eleanor the Great, only in theaters September 26th.
This message comes from AT&T.
Whether you're calling your parents to say happy anniversary or checking in with your kids before bedtime, staying connected matters.
That's why AT&T has connectivity you can depend on or they'll proactively make it right.
That's the AT&T guarantee.
Terms and conditions apply.
Visit att.com slash guarantee to learn more.
AT&T.
Connecting changes everything.
This message comes from FX's English Teacher.
Last year's critically acclaimed series returns to follow Evan, Gwen and Marky as they vie for their students' divided attention.
CY Cosmopolitan called its premiere season a masterclass of comedy, while Glamour raved it's the year's funniest and most heartwarming new comedy series.
FX's English Teacher returns September 25th on FX.
All episodes streaming on Hulu.
You write about Pam Bondi's background, which is interesting.
I mean, she grew up in Florida.
Her father was an education professor who was a city council member and the mayor of the city they lived in.
Her father was a traditional Roosevelt Democrat.
Pam Bondi herself got a law degree at Stetson University in Gulfport, then became a local prosecutor.
What was her reputation as a line prosecutor there in Florida?
Yeah.
Well, her reputation was as a pretty good prosecutor.
She rose through the ranks in the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office.
She did some very serious homicide and other cases.
She got tapped by a political consultant to run for state attorney general and In a kind of outsider tea party-ish year in 2010 she won that job against the state's lieutenant governor and another member of the state legislature and kind of senior state official.
She was the outsider.
Sean Hannity came to campaign for her.
Sarah Palin endorsed her.
And we saw a different Pam Bondi than people had known her to be as a career prosecutor in Tampa.
Right.
She ran in the Republican primary even though kind of – Yes.
She ran in the Republican primary.
One there and then one in the general election.
But it's interesting that once she was in the attorney general's office she, as you tell the story, was not a hard-edged ideologue really, was she?
She was a pretty well-regarded state attorney general.
She hired Democrats including one of the people who had run against her for attorney general to work in her office.
The work of state attorney generals is sort of bread and butter.
Consumer protection antitrust, other cases.
So on that, she continued as... a pretty normal Republican attorney general.
At the same time, her tenure as attorney general coincided with a time when attorneys general across the country were becoming much more political and politicized.
And so she joined pretty enthusiastically various efforts to participate in national, much more kind of culture war issues.
She was very involved in the state's litigation to defeat the Affordable Care Act, which was Obamacare, which was before the Supreme Court at that time.
And she got involved in everything from defending the state's constitutional amendment laws against same-sex marriage.
This was in the days before the Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriage was a constitutionally protected right, to gun cases, to other things.
So she was simultaneously a run-of-the-mill attorney general and at times, in this national effort, a pretty ruby red one.
So she did both at once.
There was one memorable episode in 2013.
This is before Trump ran for president.
And it was when the New York attorney general had filed a fraud lawsuit against Trump University.
That was the business Trump founded to offer seminars in real estate and financial management, which was allegedly misleading its students.
Bondi was the attorney general in the state where Trump resided and could have chosen to join the suit.
What happened here?
Well, what happened in this case was that Bondi's office said that it was looking into whether to join this fraud lawsuit against Trump University.
Shortly thereafter, Pam Bondi requested, solicited a contribution from Donald Trump. gave her a $25,000 contribution, pretty significant.
He managed to give it from his charitable foundation, which was not permissible.
So he ended up many years later having to return that and fix that problem.
The office decided not to participate in the New York lawsuit, basically saying there weren't that many complaints about Trump University per se.
And Bondi's defense, because this did not look like a very good set of facts for her office.
The defense was that they didn't have adequate vetting procedures in place so that she had not realized.
She claimed that the office was considering this Trump-related prosecution or lawsuit.
At the same time she was soliciting money from him.
The facts of this suggested, I thought, more just sloppiness on the part of the Bondi office than they suggested malfeasance, because the career lawyer who was deciding whether or not to join the suit testified to an investigator that he had never discussed it with Bondi.
So while it really smelled, it was not clear that it was corrupt.
Right, not necessarily a quid pro quo.
Yes.
She initially supported Jeb Bush for president, but then, when his campaign didn't make it, she did endorse Donald Trump in 2016.
She later worked on the legal team defending Trump in his first impeachment case.
When he was elected the second time, his first choice for attorney general was Matt Gaetz, the Florida congressman who – had to withdraw due to a lack of congressional support and that investigation into his personal conduct.
What did you learn from your reporting about how conservatives and MAGA faithful, how they regarded Pam Bondi as a choice?
There was a large contingent of the MAGA faithful that were thrilled with the selection of Matt Gaetz.
And I spoke to a number of people who were very skeptical about Bondi's ability to step into the vacancy that was created by Gates's implosion and to do what was necessary to turn the department around.
So she came in with a lot of resistance to and skepticism about her capacity.
And I think that may explain some of her belligerence and some of her extremism.
I have to say, when Matt Gaetz imploded and Pam Bondi was selected I, like many other people who care about the Justice Department, was quite relieved.
She was a state attorney general.
She was a career prosecutor.
One could imagine that she would come into the Justice Department and say you all, you know, do important jobs and please go ahead and do your jobs.
Her performance there has been anything but that.
And I think it can be explained by the MAGA skepticism towards her and by the fact that, as with everybody who works for Donald Trump, your tenure is only as good as your usefulness to Donald Trump.
And that can change, as we have learned time after time, in a nanosecond.
We're going to take another break here.
Let me reintroduce you.
We are speaking with Ruth Marcus.
She is a contributing writer for The New Yorker.
Her new article about Attorney General Pam Bondi is titled Pam Bondi's Power Play.
We'll continue our conversation in just a moment.
This is Fresh Air.
This message comes from Bluehost.
Bluehost can make building a great website easy and offers a 30-day money-back guarantee.
Customize and launch your site in minutes with AI.
Then optimize with built-in search engine tools.
GoodRx is writing with you at every step.
GoodRx is not insurance, but if you have insurance or Medicare, GoodRx may beat your copay.
Save time and money on prescriptions at GoodRx.com slash fresh.
Support for NPR comes from Dell.
The new Dell AI PC with Intel Core Ultra helps you breeze through everyday tasks like editing images, summarizing meeting notes and replying to long emails.
There's been a lot of criticism, certainly from Democrats and people in Congress and legal scholars, about Pam Bondi.
But the real threat to her so far, it seems, have come really from the MAGA right.
And this involves the administration's poor performance in releasing information to confirm their conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein.
You say that Pam Bondi botched this matter from the start.
How?
She 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... 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 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 a 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 existing problem, I think, so much worse for her.
Right.
And one of the things she did was to release early on a binder of material about Epstein, which people who were begging for more information were quite disappointed in.
And a lot of it was already public.
The interesting thing I didn't realize until I was preparing to speak to you she actually gathered like 15 or so conservative influencers and gave them these binders first and had a photo op out which kind of only heightened their disappointment when the goods weren't really there.
Again, not so well handled.
I 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 themselves.
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.
You know, a lot of the conservative critics have dropped their objections, saying we trust the president to handle this properly.
Has this largely blown over for Pam Bondi or is there big trouble ahead for her, do you think?
I 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.
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 that and he was at an event at the kennedy center.
Pam bondy 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 uh, donald trump wants her there, and if he doesn't get what he wants from her, that could easily change.
You know, the list of people who Trump would regard as his enemies, people who – his tormentors, is long.
I mean it's Hillary Clinton.
It's John Brennan.
It's many, many others.
Do you have any sense from your contacts in the Justice Department whether a lot of resources are now being devoted to these investigations?
While we have the weaponization working group, we have the spectacle of the deputy attorney general spending two days of his time interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell to see what can be extracted from her.
This is not a normal thing for a deputy attorney general to do.
I think they are frantic, desperate to come up with a crime, any crime that they could charge the jack smiths of the world, the hillary clinton's of the world, the john brennan's of the world with.
I think that is going to be very hard to do and i think, as the challenges of that become clear and some of the challenges, by the way, are very basic, technical challenges like we have statutes of limitation Under federal law, much of the grudges that the president holds are outside the statute of limitations.
It's going to be difficult for them to bring indictments, no less secure convictions.
But as that becomes clear, I think that the president is going to be increasingly infuriated.
We're speaking with Ruth Marcus.
She is a contributing writer for The New Yorker.
Her new article is titled Pam Bondi's Power Play.
We'll continue our conversation after this short break.
This is Fresh Air.
This message comes from Fisher Investments.
Senior Vice President, Michael Hosmar, explains the importance of providing a comprehensive approach for clients.
The culture at Fisher Investments.
It's about helping.
It's about improving our clients' financial situation, advising not just for now but all the way through, hopefully to their next generation.
A well-designed financial plan will cover a number of important topics, And many of these topics are connected to each other.
Fisher Investments possesses the professional expertise across all these important disciplines, from investment management to tax minimization, to estate planning, you name it.
Learn more at fisherinvestments.com.
Investing in securities involves the risk of loss.
This message comes from progressive insurance.
Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies.
Try it at progressive.com.
Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates.
Potential savings will vary.
Not available in all states.
You know, one other thing that Pam Bondi has been involved in, of course, is the effort to federalize law enforcement in the District of Columbia.
National Guard troops are there.
Other federal agencies are on the street.
And there was this dramatic kind of comical moment last week where a Justice Department employee who disagreed with seeing all these federal agents on the street taunted some and then threw a wrapped sandwich at one of them, hit him in the chest and then was eventually killed, arrested.
He's now been charged with felony assault.
Do you know, was Pam Bondi involved in that decision?
I 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
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 that it's not simply the outrageous dismissal of these cases not just people who breached the Capitol, but people who were involved in 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 DC police officers when people were knocked to the ground in front of him.
He's on body camera footage now 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, so it's a little hard to take their unhappiness about Sandwich Guy terribly seriously.
Before I let you go, I want to talk about the transition in your career this year.
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.
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 saying, 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 narrowcast 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 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.
Yeah, painful for you, isn't it?
Totally painful, but I want to say two things about that.
First of all, what federal employees are going through is so much worse than anything that I went through.
That's number one.
And number two is the thing that I really care about is not who I get to write for because I'm so proud to be working for The New Yorker and to have the time and space to do longer pieces like this Bondi piece.
But I'm very sad that opinion section that believed and I believe that Jeff Bezos believed this because I had many conversations with him about this, where I thought and had every reason to know from his own mouth that he believed in expressing this diversity of views that we now don't trust our readers enough apparently, to allow them to hear dissenting opinions.
And by the way, I myself am a very big believer in both free markets and individual liberties.
So it's really a shame, not for me, but for the institution.
There aren't many institutions that have the resources to do serious investigative and enterprise reporting.
The Washington Post is still one and does a lot of great reporting.
Do you advise friends to still read it, subscribe to it?
100 percent.
I understand why readers were so angry about the endorsement decision.
I understand why readers were angry about it.
The tragic decision to kill a cartoon by our former cartoonist and Pulitzer Prize winner, Ann Telnes.
I understand why people were unhappy about the change in direction of the opinion section.
But the paper is a great paper.
It's doing great work.
And I happily subscribe to The Washington Post and I will forever.
Well, Ruth Marcus, thank you for your reporting.
Thanks for speaking with us.
Thank you so much.
Ruth Marcus is a contributing writer for The New Yorker.
Her new article is titled Pam Bondi's Power Play.
We recorded our conversation yesterday.
On tomorrow's show, Robert Reich joins us to talk about his new book Coming Up Short A Memoir of My America.
The former labor secretary reflects on his personal journey through five decades of American politics, the moments that shaped his worldview and the country he says he still believes we can become.
I hope you can join us.
To keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our interviews, follow us on Instagram at NPR Fresh Air.
Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller.
Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham.
Our managing producer is Sam Brigger.
Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Anne-Marie Baldonado, Lauren Krenzel, Teresa Madden, Monique Nazareth, Thea Chaloner, Susan Yakundi, Anna Bauman and John Sheehan.
Our digital media producer is Molly C.V.
Nesper.
Our consulting visual producer is Hope Wilson.
Roberta Shorrock directs the show.
For Terry Gross and Tanya Mosley, I'm Dave Davies.
This message comes from NPR sponsor, 1Password.
Secure access to your online world, from emails to banking, so you can protect what matters most with 1Password.
For a free two-week trial, go to 1Password.com slash NPR.
This message comes from Michelin.
More than a tire company, Michelin is an innovation company.
Now taking on space, developing an airless wheel for space exploration.
Motion for life.
More at michelinmancom.
Slash y hyphen.
Michelin slash innovation.
Support for this podcast and the following message come from fisher investments, who understands the importance of the relationship between a client and their financial advisor.
As a fiduciary, fisher investments always acts in their clients best interests.
They don't sell any commission-based products.
Instead, fisher has a transparent fee structure.
That's a percentage of your portfolio, so they do better when you do better now.
That's clearly different money management.
Learn more at fisherinvestmentscom.
Investing in securities involves the risk of loss.
