Devlin Barrett:

There is an element to this administration that wants to simply shout down reality. I think shouting down reality and shouting down justice, shouting down fairness, should be a deeply concerning thing to all Americans.

Preet Bharara:

Welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara. My guest this week is Devlin Barrett. He’s a reporter for the New York Times, and he’s out with a new book. It’s called The Department of Revenge: How Trump Took Control of American Justice. That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

Devlin Barrett, welcome to the show.

Devlin Barrett:

Hi, Preet. Thanks for having me.

Preet Bharara:

So, congratulations on the book, The Department of Revenge: How Trump Took Control of American Justice, by Devlin Barrett. And I will tell you, it’s a very important book, it’s a very important read. Not just for people like me, who are alums of the department multiple times over, but for I think anyone who cares about justice in America. Which, hopefully, is everyone. And if you had told me that there would be a book like this, and there are other similar books with similar unfortunate but appropriate titles, it would have broken my heart.

And I should announce to the audience that you and I go back, I think like 19 or 20 years-

Devlin Barrett:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

… when I was working on The Hill, and I and others were investigating another set of scandals at the Justice Department, the political firing of US attorneys, and things of that nature. And the political hiring, or not hiring, of interns and people in the honors program. And you were among the reporters who, intrepidly, was covering that. And it occurred to me, that stuff was a big deal, it led the news many nights in the spring and summer of 2007. And given your recent research, and the work you’ve done on this very impressive book, if you had to say on a scale of one to 10, the level of impropriety and scandal that you would attribute to the goings-on from 2006 and ’07, what number from one to 10 would it be? And what number from one to 10 would you attribute to the first year of Trump 2.0?

Devlin Barrett:

Well, I think at the time of the US Attorney firing scandal, and the other stuff you mentioned, I think most of the folks who covered and worked in that space would’ve considered that an eight or nine out of 10 scandal, because it led to the departure of the attorney general, himself. It was a very consequential scandal, and it was very much a front page scandal. But I think, I actually think about that-

Preet Bharara:

We have to change the Overton Window-

Devlin Barrett:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

… for the scale, right?

Devlin Barrett:

Correct. Because what I was about to say is, I think now you’d call it a three. If you are comparing it to what’s happening now at the department, the firing of those US Attorneys would be notable, but it would not necessarily… Not only wouldn’t it be a top story for weeks and weeks, depending on what else is going on on any given day at the department, it might not even be the top Justice Department story of the day.

Preet Bharara:

You talk a lot about, obviously given the title, the revenge investigations. I have seen… I represent, as listeners know, Elissa Slotkin and Adam Schiff. And when that was a little bit more in the news, the Senator Schiff case, I remember thinking aloud that, “If you had an American president who was openly announcing allegations of treason, and the hoped-for imprisonment of a duly elected senator in a co-equal branch of government, from the largest state in the country. And basically directing his Justice Department to find some criminal conduct on the part of that person, that would not only be front page headline in every major newspaper, people would contemplate the destruction of that presidency.” And I don’t think it was like in the top five, for periods of time. What has happened to us, Devlin?

Devlin Barrett:

I think, one, this has been coming for a while. I think there was a fair bit of telegraphing of this during the presidential campaign. And one of the things I hear constantly, when I talk to folks in the administration, or I talk to supporters of the administration. When you talk about the revenge cases, when you talk about the president’s desire to use the Justice Department to go after other people, and punish them. Frankly, I hear a lot of people, administration people say things like, “The American people voted for this. This is what the American people voted for.”

I find that a difficult argument because I didn’t have the sense, as a reporter in the 2024 campaign, that that was something that the American people had reached some sort of significant consensus on. I think you could say a number of Americans were unhappy about the prosecutions of Donald Trump, but I think it’s a pretty big leap to go from there to indicting Jim Comey for a picture of seashells on a beach.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. I mean, we should talk about that for a moment.

Devlin Barrett:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

And one should put oneself, I try to do this as much as possible, and we’ve done it on the podcast, in the sort of moral or psychological position of Donald Trump and the MAGA folks. And not for the purpose of justifying or excusing, but for the purpose of understanding, if Donald Trump had been engaging in this conduct, the revenge prosecutions. And he had not been indicted multiple times, and impeached twice. And evaded all consequences, essentially, on all of that investigative activity and enforcement action. Do you think he’d be getting away with all this in the same way?

Devlin Barrett:

That’s a great question. I’m not entirely sure. One of the things the book really tries to explain, because it feels incredibly true through the reporting over the last year is, I don’t know that anyone really considered how significant it would be to put a former criminal defendant into the White House. And what I mean by that is-

Preet Bharara:

Well, I considered it.

Devlin Barrett:

Well, I’ve covered courts and trials for a long time. I’m an old guy at this point, and this is what I’ve been doing for a long time. I will say, criminal defendants, whether they win or lose their case, whether they’re indicted or not, whether they’re convicted or not. Most of them that I have interacted with over the decades, come out of that process very bitter and angry. About what, in their words, “was done to them.”

And I think what you’re seeing here, as much as there is political meaning to what the president is doing, as much as there is a power play to what he’s doing. I really think it’s important, and what the book tries to explain is, I think it’s really important to understand that this is an angry former criminal defendant, who has been given an incredible amount of power over the criminal justice system. And what we’re seeing are the consequences of that.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think that it is possible to explain to MAGA folks the distinction, if there are any, and I think there are a number. But I wonder if, in your travels and your research you came across any of this, the distinctions between what happened to Trump and what he’s doing to other people? And how would you describe that distinction?

Devlin Barrett:

So that’s a great point, and I think one of the… I have a chapter in the book about the New Jersey US Attorney’s Office, because I think it’s really instructive what happens there, to exactly that question. Because-

Preet Bharara:

Very pointed, about Ms. Alina Habba.

Devlin Barrett:

Well, so she gets put in. Ms. Alina Habba is obviously, for those who don’t know, she’s a Trump lawyer. She becomes a White House advisor, and pretty quickly in the administration, she is appointed to be the US Attorney in New Jersey. And as the book described, she sets out on a pretty clear path to try to bring criminal charges against particularly the mayor of Newark, but also other Democrats in the state. And what was so interesting, I think, about her experience in the US Attorney’s Office is, she believed that there was no functional or practical difference between her pursuit of Newark’s mayor than, she believed that was no different than Jack Smith’s pursuit of President Trump.

And one of those investigations was based on months and months of grand jury work, hundreds and hundreds of FBI interviews. And, on the other hand, the investigation in charge of the mayor of Newark was based on one brief confrontation in a parking lot, and a video, and charges were filed within a matter of hours.

What’s fascinating to me about the MAGA folks is they often do not distinguish in any way, shape, or form, the difference between a thoughtful, detailed, extensive investigation, and just charging someone on the fly.

Preet Bharara:

I mean, the difference to me is, of course, there’s that difference. Between something being directed by the Commander in Chief, versus not.

Devlin Barrett:

And also just someone who put in the work, and someone who didn’t. I mean, one of the features and hallmarks of the revenge campaign, is that a lot of these cases are falling apart. Why are they falling apart? Well, they’re falling apart because-

Preet Bharara:

Because they suck.

Devlin Barrett:

… right, because they often don’t have good facts that apply to the law. And they’re also falling apart because people aren’t doing their homework. People aren’t willing to wait, even just the matter of a few days in some cases, to figure out what actually happened.

Preet Bharara:

You spend a lot of time distinguishing between Trump 2.0 and Trump 1.0?

Devlin Barrett:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

For folks who don’t have, yet, a copy of your book. Could you just describe the main one or two features of difference, both in policy approach and also, I guess personnel?

Devlin Barrett:

Right. So I think the main issue is if you think about Trump 1, certainly, folks who care about the Justice Department know there were a lot of fights over what the Justice Department was doing in Trump 1. But those fights were largely between the White House and the Justice Department leadership, or between the White House and the FBI leadership. This is a fundamentally different environment, and I think even the Justice Department folks, even the FBI folks, did not realize at the beginning of 2025 how different it was going to be. Because now what you have is, you have committed Trump loyalists running these institutions, and pushing to deliver what the president wants. That has incredibly huge consequences for basic principles of the department, like prosecutorial discretion. And it has incredible consequences for how people in the department try to do their jobs.

Preet Bharara:

As you say in the first chapter of the book, “This is a story of right and wrong,” then you also say, “of courage and cowardice.” I think people know some of the stories on both of those, but give us an example of cowardice?

Devlin Barrett:

One of the things I say in the book is, “Where courageous people were often quiet or silent, and cowards sometimes bellowed.” I think there was a moment in particular that I found very striking, when Pam Bondi was testifying before Congress and she was being asked about the Epstein files, and she just started yelling about how the Dow was at 50,000. And it was such a strange, and I would argue politically ineffective argument to make, but there is an element to this administration that wants to simply shout down reality. And I think shouting down reality, and shouting down justice, shouting down fairness, should be a deeply concerning thing to all Americans.

After the horrible, horrible Charlie Kirk killing, the Attorney General of the United States, the nation’s top law enforcement official, said that hate speech was a punishable crime. Which just is a horrible mangling, misstatement of the law.

And so what I mean by “shouting cowards,” is I think there are times in this Justice Department when the people making decisions try to get their way simply by loudly insisting that what you see is not real, and what you know is not true. And I think that is a dangerous dynamic to inject, not just into our politics, but into our legal system.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. You know, the no more countenancing of debate and hearing bad news, that this president has ushered into the White House. In particular, in Trump 2.0, is stunning. And what’s so interesting about all of that is, a general observation I have, if I may, Devlin. Is that there are lots of people who claim to have heroes and models, and people they admire, and the disconnect between their professed admiration for those folks and the degree to which they do or do not emulate their heroes, is interesting. And I don’t know if Steve Jobs is a hero to Trump or others, but he’s a model of entrepreneurship and success and innovation, to a lot of people.

Literally, I just read this morning the story of, and I had to check with AI, “Is this true?” That Steve Jobs fired, apparently, two members of the board of directors of Pixar. Do you know why?

Devlin Barrett:

No, I don’t know this one.

Preet Bharara:

Because they always agreed with him. He’s like, “If these dudes are always agreeing with me, they’re providing no value.” And I don’t know, it was an interesting factoid that I read this morning, but how does that bear on what’s going on between Trump and the Justice Department?

Devlin Barrett:

So I think it’s hugely relevant, because one of the things, I mentioned before the issue of essentially, Attorney General Pam Bondi issuing that memo in the early days, saying there had to be zealous advocacy. You cannot deviate. You cannot deviate from whatever command you’re given. You see that acted out. One of the things the book tries to do is show what that looks like in practice.

And look, lawyers, I mean, you know this, but lawyers in the Justice Department, it’s part of their job description to argue with each other. It’s also, by the way, part of the job description in the FBI for agents to see cases differently. And the whole premise of the work is that you create better work, you build better cases, by challenging each other’s assumptions, by testing each other’s views of the evidence.

Preet Bharara:

Of course. Of course.

Devlin Barrett:

And when you shut down internal dissent, even disagreement for the purpose of making a stronger case, what do you create? You create, as it turns out, some significantly weaker cases. You create huge embarrassment, I would argue, for the administration every time a judge ends up looking at a weak case and saying, “This is garbage, this is going away.” Or for that matter, jurors look at a weak case and say, “This is garbage. We’re chucking this.” And that’s happening over and over and over again.

Preet Bharara:

Do we misapprehend, and get wrong, what Trump’s goal is? And what I mean by that is the following. We assume that the revenge he’s trying to obtain is to actually send his political rivals to prison, right? Have them incarcerated. He threatens charges of treason, which has historically carried the punishment of the death penalty. But he puts incompetent people in charge. They’re bringing incompetent cases, that are contrary to the law, that grand juries are rejecting at a historically unprecedented pace.

And it reminds me of the statement that he made in the Ukraine scandal that was the basis for the first impeachment. Which is, “You don’t have to, just announce that there’s an investigation, and I’ll do the rest.” Because you would think, if you really wanted to be successful in these prosecutions, there would be a better strategy. It’s not just that the facts aren’t there. I don’t think.

Is there something to that? Is he just trying to cause them misery and grief and expense, and doesn’t ultimately care if he wins cases or not? Because you would think that after this much failure, they would be more careful. But they had the crappy indictment against Jim Comey the first time, and they have an even crappier indictment of him the second time. What’s going on here?

Devlin Barrett:

So I think Comey is, in some ways, a unique figure in Donald Trump’s mind. You can go through the history and sort of catalog the reasons why, but my reporting for this book shows that the president is still incredibly focused on Comey in particular. Trump at one point last year said, “I used to be hunted, and now I’m the hunter. It’s a big difference.” And I think that’s an incredibly accurate statement, and it really shows you how he thinks about this.

His top target, his top prey, is Jim Comey. And the book sort of lays out how, again and again and again, careers are told they have to pursue charges against Jim Comey. And if they don’t, they’ll be fired. And in the instance of the others, because I think there’s a broader point here, that’s beyond just Jim Comey. In the instance of the others, I would say, they are trying to see how far they can get. That is what current and former careers tell me is, there’s just constant pressure to see how far they can get.

And the other piece of that is, part of what the book describes is, the degree to which they have removed the institutional pieces that would prevent them or slow them from doing that. And I think that’s all very deliberate.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll be right back with Devlin Barrett after this.

Does anyone around Donald Trump ever remind him that there’s a very powerful argument, that but for Jim Comey’s conduct with respect to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump doesn’t become president? In other words, that there’s a very, very powerful argument that Jim Comey and his actions put Donald Trump in the White House, and he should be thanking him instead of trying to send him to prison?

Devlin Barrett:

Look, you’re preaching to the choir, because I wrote different book that basically made that argument.

Preet Bharara:

Yes, you did.

Devlin Barrett:

But I will say, that argument carries no weight inside the administration, that I can see.

Preet Bharara:

Is it because of the humiliation of being told about a pee pee tape? I mean, it’s a serious question. Given the background, given that serendipity basically allowed Trump to become president at the hands of Jim Comey, many people believe. How is that so overcome by animosity that he’s engaging in this conduct?

Devlin Barrett:

Because Trump, when he thinks about the wrongs done to him, in his mind. It all comes back to Jim Comey. That’s how he thinks about this. Because he thinks about the Russia investigation that started when Comey was the director. He thinks about the pee tape conversation during the transition, that’s another big friction point. And he thinks about those first months, when Trump is the president in Trump 1, and Comey is the director. And Comey is kind of trying to manage a difficult relationship, and writing these memos, detailing his private conversations with Trump. And then those memos are put out there, after he is fired. And I think all of those things sort of build the notion that the original deep state actor, to Donald Trump, is Jim Comey. That’s how Donald Trump views it. And so, there is nothing he won’t tell the Justice Department to do, to pursue that man.

Preet Bharara:

In your conversations with current members of the Justice Department, and I presume you have a number of those, what’s morale like? And why is morale the way it is? But the reason for the question is, and I’ve stopped saying the following thing. “Look, there are these rarefied cases, there are very few a number that relate to a president or a presidential candidate, and they distort your view. But most of the rank and file, they do non-political, apolitical, gang cases, fraud cases, et cetera. And that’s still well and good.” I don’t say that anymore, for reasons that I’m not the guest, so I won’t go into detail. But talk about that for a moment.

Devlin Barrett:

Right. So morale is terrible at the department, and at the FBI.

Preet Bharara:

Right. And even for people who are not involved in this work that we’re talking about.

Devlin Barrett:

There are people who can still do their jobs without any sort of chaotic interference, but even for those people, there’s two things that… Well, three things really, that change around. One is, if you talk about just the department, they have lost so many bodies. There are US Attorney Offices in this country where every third desk is empty. That is a huge change and complication, and creates major problems for the people who are still there trying to manage the same caseload, or a similar caseload to what they had before.

The second issue is the directives to, “Okay, now we’re going to run in this direction. Now we’re going to run in that direction.” Particularly at the FBI, you see a lot of frustration, even in just sort of let’s say, someone works on a violent crime squad. In theory, not much has changed for them, except that there’s constantly new directives and new top priorities being issued, on a near weekly basis from headquarters. And that creates a real lack of continuity, a real lack of purpose, a real lack of long-term strategy. When, if you think about how these agencies work, the Justice Department and the FBI, they are fundamentally supposed to be the people who do the bigger, harder, longer cases. That doesn’t mean they’re always successful in doing that, but that is why they exist. And more and more, I think morale is being worn down, by the degree to which people are just being told, “Run over here.” And then, “No, now, run over there.” And that is a significant problem.

And then there’s the final issue, which we’re talking about here, which is the revenge cases. And I can’t tell you how many people described to me the feeling of, someone said, “We’re mole people, now.” Meaning they’re trying to just stay, avoid the attention of the political leadership of their agencies, and hope that they don’t get tasked with a case that feels completely political, or very shaky. But it’s just hope, that’s the most they can do, because you never know when your phone’s going to ring and get assigned some really crazy case.

That’s, one of the things I describe in the book, is a guy on his very first day in the job. Gets assigned an absolutely wild, conspiracy-minded case. And he lasts barely a month in that job, because of that assignment.

Preet Bharara:

You know, people, particularly ambitious and hardworking people who feel their jobs are not just jobs but part of a calling, want their institutions to be held in high esteem. If you’re on a team, you want the team to be winning. If you’re at a company, you want the company to be profitable, you want it to be reputationally sound. When I was a junior AUSA, Assistant US Attorney in the Southern District, I was doing terrorism and gang work. And, I’m sorry, and organized crime work. And during that time, then US Attorney Jim Comey, brought the case against Martha Stewart. And every family function I went to, and every party, every get together with people who were outside the office, I felt I had to personally defend the prosecution of Martha Stewart. I had nothing to do with that case, I wasn’t even in that unit, I was several floors away.

And I think about that, because all these people in the Justice Department, tens of thousands of them, when they go to Thanksgiving, or they go to the 4th of July picnics that they go to, even if they have nothing to do with these revenge process, they’re all getting asked about it by their friends and relatives, and so they have a stake in it. So I guess that’s part of it.

I’m going to ask you a very open-ended question about my former supervisee, Mr. Todd Blanche. Discuss.

Devlin Barrett:

I think when the second Trump term started, there was a bit of hope, let’s say, within the department and the FBI, that Todd Blanche would serve as sort of a more thoughtful manager. And as a former AUSA, as a former manager in the US Attorney’s Office in New York, that he would… And because I think a lot of current and former federal prosecutors knew him, to varying degrees, there was some cautious hope that he would be a good influence on how the department made decisions.

I think a lot of folks you talk to now would say that hope that was misguided, that he has in fact enabled or advanced some of the worst impulses of the president. The president trusts him very much. There’s a pretty small number of people who the president places as much trust in as Todd Blanche. And I think that really goes back to their being in a trial together, having worked, having sat through a trial together, that way. But I think within the department, there’s a great deal of frustration, that it seems like Todd doesn’t seem to be able or willing sometimes, to help protect any careers from any of the bad decisions that come down.

Preet Bharara:

Well, with one exception. At least one, it seems to me, from your book. Which was his story that I have some connection to, in some, in a distant way. And that is there was an effort by Ed Martin, you can explain who he is in a moment, and who he was, for a time Acting US Attorney in the District of Columbia. Was planning to and fully intended to, with great gusto to indict Senator Chuck Schumer for a statement he made about the Supreme Court that he then retracted, for making a threat. Maybe it was a forerunner to the seashell indictment of Jim Comey, and there your reporting suggests that Todd Blanche stepped in. Is that right?

Devlin Barrett:

Right. And I think the interesting thing that that shows, is the degree to which, there are moments when even the political leadership of the DOJ says, “No, this is a bad idea.” And in that case what happened was, Ed Martin, a Trump loyalist, someone who does not have a prosecutorial resume, but became almost immediately in the administration, the person tapped to run the US Attorney Office in DC. Which is an incredibly important office for a bunch of reasons, particularly for this administration. So Ed Martin was tapped to run that office, he tried very hard to get Chuck Schumer indicted. One of the things that the book lays out is that while it was reported, back at the time, that Ed Martin tried to get Schumer indicted. What the book sort of reveals is that not only did he try just the once, he kept coming back, and kept trying to come up with new ways to get Schumer indicted. And he was really stymied, mostly by the Public Integrity section.

And I think one way to think about what’s different, we talk about what’s different between Trump 1 and Trump 2. One of the things I think that it’s important to understand, and hopefully the book lays out, is that there’s a big difference between even just 2025 and 2026. Because in 2025, the Public Integrity section is still there, and still able to stop a bad indictment. When you get to 2026, because the administration has dismantled Public Integrity, and it’s largely irrelevant to how the Justice Department functions in 2026. By 2026, you’re getting prosecutions and grand jury presentations that PIN would have stopped if it still existed. And I would include you’re familiar with the case, about the video about lawful orders. That’s the kind of case that a functional Public Integrity section would have stopped.

I think a lot of people, the Justice Department, one of the things that was really striking to me in reporting for the book, one of the things a lot of people said to me was, “When they killed PIN, we all sort of understood that this likely meant there would be a lot fewer corruption prosecutions. What we didn’t understand was that there would be more bad prosecutions, for lack of a better term, because Public Integrity would no longer be functional to say, ‘No, you can’t or shouldn’t do that.'” And I think that’s one of the ways in which the damage being done inside the building is more extensive than maybe the outside world really understands.

Preet Bharara:

What is the consensus view, if there is one among lawyers and experts, of Mr. Blanche’s performance at the trials of Donald Trump, defending him in court?

Devlin Barrett:

So I think the consensus view is that he was a good trial lawyer who often did bad trial lawyer things, because the client seemed to demand it of him. I’ll be honest, so I personally covered the Manhattan trial that went on for six weeks regarding the hush money allegations, which led to a conviction on all counts. I will tell you, I found a lot of the lawyering in that case subpar, on all sides. I was genuinely surprised to watch the first trial of an American president be handled, I thought, kind of poorly by the lawyers themselves. I thought the prosecutors made significant errors, I thought the defense made significant errors. I thought the judge made at least one significant error.

Preet Bharara:

What’s the one error the judge made?

Devlin Barrett:

Well, the judge got very mad at one point with a witness, and basically threw the reporters out of the room, threw the public out of the room, but left, essentially, Trump’s row of observers in the room, for this moment when he decided to really give the witness a tongue lashing. And of course, when you keep a bunch of people who love to tweet in the room, but you throw out all the reporters in the room, one of the dynamics you end up having is that the only people to explain what happened are people who have one very particular view of the event, and one very particular view of who’s right and who’s wrong in this event. It was, I would argue, it was a moment where the judge just lost his temper, and didn’t want the public to see him lose his temper. And I just think that’s not great judging, I would argue.

Preet Bharara:

Is it your understanding that Todd Blanche gave the green light to the indictment of Jim Comey on the seashell point?

Devlin Barrett:

Well, what I’ve reported is that Blanche’s office, his deputies, pushed for the seashell indictment. Now, I’ve talked to people close to him who deny that, but I think the reporting is solid there.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll tell you, my understanding as a general matter when I was in the department, that a prosecution like that… Well, again, I would know better than almost anyone, because we were more loath to inform Washington DC about our actions and intentions, than any of the other 92 offices in the country. And I will tell you, that that is not a case that we would have brought, or could have brought, without the express written understanding of Major League Baseball, and the attorney general, and the deputy attorney general. Do you have any reason to think that that was otherwise, for this?

Devlin Barrett:

No. And in fact, the real backstory of the seashells case, as I explained in the book, is that Blanche’s office tried last year to get that case indicted by EDVA, the prosecutors in Virginia. And the prosecutors in Virginia, and the Secret Service, and the FBI, all refused to proceed on that case. That was an important moment, because it said two things, really. It showed you just how intent the administration was to charge Jim Comey with a crime, but it also showed you, I think, that there were careers still able and willing to beat back that kind of pressure.

But what you see happen is, fast-forward eight months, a new prosecutor this time in North Carolina, is willing and able to proceed with that case, despite other careers having said no. And I think it’s very telling, frankly, that when Todd Blanche announced the charges against Jim Comey, he framed that case, the indictment against Jim Comey over the seashells. He framed that case as being brought by career prosecutors in an office, and he never mentioned the thing that the book reveals, which is that this was a case that was rejected by careers in another jurisdiction, and the investigators.

Preet Bharara:

He also said it was a garden variety case, and cases where these facts were brought all the time, referred to a case that had been brought in Florida, I think that day or the day before. I went and looked at that case. It involved a threat, that I think explicitly talked about shooting and a gun, not seashells that someone had happened upon in the formation of the number 8-6. Do you have any understanding as to whether there is a factual reason why, whether you believe in the case or not, it’s a simple case. What investigation necessitated an 11-month delay? Because I believe I’ve heard him say, that there’s more to this than meets the eye. I mean, the indictment itself is like two pages, I think. It’s not a speaking indictment, which is odd in these circumstances, as I’ve said before on this podcast. Any understanding of what we’re going to be hit with in terms of additional evidence, beyond the photograph?

Devlin Barrett:

So they won’t say what the additional evidence is, but they have hinted a number of times. Blanche, specifically, has hinted a number of times. That it’s essentially digital data from his phone, or his electronic communications.

Preet Bharara:

That would demonstrate what? I mean, the speculation I have heard is, he was the head of the FBI. When he was the head of the FBI, people who threatened the president were prosecuted, and he did the same thing that the people who were prosecuted when he was the head of the FBI, ergo, Aristotle is a man, that syllogism. Is that it? Is that what they’re going to be hanging their hat on?

Devlin Barrett:

I think they are hanging their hat on the belief that they can show some sort of intent beyond just the slang term of 86. Some sort of understanding of what that term means, beyond just, chuck it.

Preet Bharara:

Why would they want to keep that as a surprise? Why not put in the indictment? So what I don’t understand is, I want to keep as open a mind as possible, but in the circumstances, if they have the goods. Why would you put out a vacuous, empty, non-speaking, universally foreseeable, criticized indictment, when you have some other goods? I don’t understand it. Is it rank incompetence? Is it because they’re lying? What is it?

Devlin Barrett:

I think this is a very outcome-focused group of human beings. And I think, if you think back to the other Jim Comey case, and the whole saga that went on in Virginia, which I describe in the book. The president just says, he just publicly posts, that he wants to see these cases brought to court. And I think, in some ways, the why is that simple. Look, I think they have to be held to their proof, like anybody. And I am struck by the fact that, after the Secret Service interviewed him, the day after this post. He goes into the office, he talks to the agents about what his intent, and what his understanding of what that was meant. And the Secret Service agents, whose job it is to protect the president, said, “Not only don’t we think there’s charges here, we don’t think there’s an investigation here. This is over.” And obviously, the administration found a way to keep it open and pursue it.

I think we had a vindictive prosecution argument, a selective prosecution argument, over the last Jim Comey case. I think we’re going to see that exact same thing again. And I think the whole specter, frankly, of firing people until you get the answer you want, I think is not one that has worked yet for the administration. But we’ll see. It’ll be tested.

Preet Bharara:

How responsible is he, if at all, for Mr. Abrego Garcia’s winning his vindictive prosecution motion? He’s the person, people will recall, was sent out of the country, he was ordered back to the country because there was a judicial order in place preventing him from leaving. He was then indicted on drug charges. He brings one of these motions of vindictive and selective prosecution. The court cited Mr. Blanche multiple times. What’s your understanding of that?

Devlin Barrett:

I think that case, and that decision there, is a tremendous example of exactly the problem Blanche has when he tries to deliver these kinds of cases for the White House. Which is, in that case, what you saw is one of Blanche’s top deputies, a guy named Aakash Singh, push and push the local US attorney in Tennessee to pursue that case, and deliver those charges. And after having delivered them, when the obvious question was raised in court, was this directed by Washington or did this happen organically within the office? The Justice Department officials said, “This happened organically within the office. It was not directed by Washington.” And the emails that were released later on, just show that to not be the case.

This was a case that was pushed by Aakash Singh, who works directly for Blanche. I think there’s a really interesting dynamic in that office, where a lot of times, Blanche does not give an order himself. But one of his close, trusted deputies makes it clear, what-

Preet Bharara:

It’s a lot of delegation.

Devlin Barrett:

There is. And frankly, you see that in our first-

Preet Bharara:

No, I love to delegate. Look, if someone else can do the work that I will do less well, I’m not criticizing delegation. But it is also the case, is it your understanding that the statements made by former Attorney General Pam Bondi, relating to how she delegated all sorts of sensitive things, including the Epstein matter to Todd Blanche. That that’s all correct?

Devlin Barrett:

I think in many ways that is correct, because I think in many ways, Todd Blanche is making a lot of the day-to-day, Todd Blanche has been making a lot of the day-to-day decisions at the department, and still is making a lot of the day-to-day decisions at the department. I think that’s basically right.

But I also think one of the interesting dynamics of this whole thing, and you see it in the Comey case, in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, you see it in a bunch of different cases, is that oftentimes those instructions come not specifically from Blanche, but from someone like Aakash Singh. Or some of the other guys who work in his office, and I say guys because, it became a joke among some of the careers, that they began referred to as Blanche’s Bros. Because there were these young guys, fairly confident, often seemingly not well-informed about even the basic elements of the crimes they were demanding be charged. And the careers struggled with, “How do you tell this powerful person in the Deputy Attorney General’s Office that they don’t know what they’re talking about?”

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Is it your understanding, I just want to put these on the record, since you’ve done all this reporting. Is it your understanding that the acting attorney general gave the green light to the prosecution of the Southern Poverty Law Center?

Devlin Barrett:

Yes, I think that’s absolutely right. I think that case does not happen without the deputy attorney general’s blessing. And I think he enthusiastically embraced the announcement, and public argument for that case.

Preet Bharara:

Is it your understanding that the sitting Acting Attorney General of the United States gave the green light to this IRS immunity deal that is the subject of a lot of discussion?

Devlin Barrett:

Yes. Although that one’s a little trickier, in terms of, he said something very interesting when he was pressed on that point recently in Congress. Which he said, “That decision is not part of any settlement deal.” He characterized the protection from tax audit inquiry as a standalone decision, by him, as the acting attorney general. I think a reasonable person could say, that’s him trying to make sure that that condition does not get too closely scrutinized by a judge, or by Congress. I’m not saying whether that strategy will work or not, but I found it very interesting that when pressed on that particular point, he suddenly presented that as a standalone decision that he made, that is not part of the settlement.

Preet Bharara:

Do you have any understanding of whether the acting attorney general was involved in the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a lesser security prison? Or who’s responsible for that? Because that’s a mystery, to many.

Devlin Barrett:

I think he’s responsible for that, because he defended it as, “She’s facing threats, and therefore, her transfer was justified.” He has said a version of, “Yes, it’s a decision by the department, so it’s my decision.”

Preet Bharara:

Do you know if it’s ever occurred to folks in the department, or in the administration, that if you took the standard for indictment, whether it’s the 8647, or it’s Jim Comey answering a compound, complicated, vague question from a United States Senator at a hearing, to speaking words that are true about military orders. That members of the administration have already engaged in conduct and activity, and made statements under oath, that meet that standard. That people have already come before Congress and said things that are more clearly provable as lies, than the former officials that the…

I mean, for example, Emil Bove, who now himself is a judge in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. From reading your account, you believe that he lied to Congress. And I don’t know if he did or not, and I wasn’t there, I don’t know all the facts. But certainly the way you put it down, if the Trump Department of Justice standard were to be put to him, he’d be indicted in a minute. Is that fair, or not?

Devlin Barrett:

I think that’s fair, according to what the people who were in those meetings with Emil Bove have said. And remember, as the book describes, there is a recording of one of those conversations. That recording does exist, and I have quotes from it in the book.

To your point exactly, I will just say, I have spoken to current and former law enforcement officials who say they can make a better case for lying to Congress against Emil Bove than they could make against Jim Comey. And I’m not saying, to be clear, I’m not saying that this person should be charged, or that person charged.

Preet Bharara:

I’m not saying you can convict the person.

Devlin Barrett:

Correct.

Preet Bharara:

But on matter after… Look, reportedly, there are three members of the cabinet who have mortgage fraud issues. And again, there are lots of reasons to understand and to believe that those are not criminal, in the cases that are being pursued. But if that’s the standard you adopt, then there’s trouble for these folks. And I guess just going back to my original, does anybody think about that? Where everyone’s living for the moment.

Your book is called The Department of Revenge. There are various philosophies of revenge. And thoughtful revenge is one thing, impulsive revenge is something else. No one’s ever accused Donald Trump of being thoughtful, or many of the people around him, but they are tactical. And not all the people who are involved in this are the president, and have immunity, or have the power to pardon and maybe just hope they get pardoned. They love to talk about, “F around and find out.”

Devlin Barrett:

Right.

Preet Bharara:

And they’re all thinking about the first cycle of this. “They did this to him, we’re going to do it to them.” And not to bring in a mob reference once again, but at some point, it’s not just, “F around and find out,” but then you F around, and then you’re going to find out also in the next cycle. Do they think about it? Do they talk about it? Did this come up in your research or your interviews?

Devlin Barrett:

They do, but I’ll be honest, I think one, there is a degree of faith that there may well be pardons coming at the end of this administration.

Two, I think there is also, you see it, I think, in the battle over the bar discipline issues. I think you see a desire to try to insulate themselves in that way. And look, I found, it was fascinating to me as the administration tried to fight the idea of bar discipline. They invoked the presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court, and made the argument in essence, that because the president has immunity, lawyers who work for the president and the government can’t be disciplined by bars.

Preet Bharara:

I know, we’ve talked about that. Yeah.

Devlin Barrett:

That’s an incredible interpretation of the Supreme Court immunity decision. But can I also just take a step back, because I think the point you’re making is super important, in this way. What you see, what the book tries to do, obviously we’ve all seen different news stories about this or that thing that has happened at the department that is shocking. What the book tries to do is establish both the public things we’ve known and heard about, and the private conversations behind closed doors, inside the department. All point to a pattern. And the pattern is one of lowering standards. I cannot emphasize enough how much of what they are doing is about lowering standards. And it’s a great question. Well, if you lower the standard so far, what is to prevent that lower standard from biting you in the butt in some future point?

But I think there is a basic lack of concern, in some ways, that there is anything to come back on anyone. And in fact, in some ways they don’t really believe in the process. Like I said before, because they care so much about outcomes, not process, a lot of them take the view that the process is sort of fake. That the facts you gather, and the evidence you present, and the legal analysis you do, is all just sort of nerd posturing. I think a lot of times you see as they put these cases together, very quickly, and very haphazardly I would argue, some of them. It reflects their basic view that a prosecution case is kind of a joke to begin with.

Preet Bharara:

You could argue that the thoughtlessness in pursuing these investigations and prosecutions is terrible, and it is, but their thoughtlessness and execution of these things betrays their incompetence and is a silver lining for the people who get targeted.

All right. So Devlin, you wrote this book that consumes a lot of pages, but they’re page turning. But that’s only a year of the four, and here we are in June, so we’re a year and a half in. When you write the next book after year two, or after year three, what do you expect will be in it? Let me put it another way. The Department of Revenge, how much more revenge is there to be done?

Devlin Barrett:

Well, look, I think one of the things that was happening even as I was writing the book, was you could see the administration turning its focus away from, maybe sort of the past grudges, the past targets and old-

Preet Bharara:

The real time, real time grudges.

Devlin Barrett:

Right. To things like the video by lawmakers about lawful orders, to things like the Fed. One of the things that you can see happening is the degree to which the president’s targets and fixations are changing. And I think that’s going to be part of the story at the Justice Department.

I also think part of the story of the Justice Department is going to be the hollowing out of both the bodies and the principles of the place. That is underway, that’s significantly underway already. I think that will continue in a way that will continue to weaken the place as an institution. And the thing I sort of try to end the book on is this notion of credibility. And for an institution that has long had not perfect credibility, certainly, but pretty good credibility. Has generally been trusted, especially by judges. You’re really entering an interesting new world where both judges, and a large number of jurors, I think the juror issue is going to be fascinating in the next couple of years. Because in Washington DC where I live, for example, there is a group that trains jurors in the principles of jury nullification.

I sat through one of those seminars, as a longtime court reporter, it was fascinating to watch jurors learning that in theory, at least, their obligation to the country is to not convict people.

Preet Bharara:

The damage that’s being done is incalculable, and this issue of trust is incredibly important, because it’s earned over generations. To an institution, right, the benefit of the doubt is no longer there. On my other podcast that we just finished taping a short while ago, Joyce Vance and I discussed this issue of whether you deferred to the Department of Justice on statements made. Speaking of Todd Blanche, Todd Blanche said in front of a congressional hearing that… He didn’t call it the Slush Fund, but I call it the Slush Fund. “The Slush Fund is not going forward, period,” with great emphasis. The judge is like, “Yeah, I don’t know.” The Acting Attorney General of the United States, the chief federal law enforcement officers, I’ve always understood that identity to be, not the president, but the attorney general. Said a thing publicly, to an equal branch of government, and that wasn’t good enough. So that’s one example among many that I think are terrible for the department.

One word of hope, and then I’ll let you go.

Devlin Barrett:

I think, as much as there have been very, very dark and difficult days inside this department over the last 18 months, there are still a great number of people doing their jobs well, as best they can, and who haven’t lost sight of the mission, and haven’t lost sight of the way that the job should be done. I also think that change in itself, one of the things I personally am not a big fan of is the term norms, because I feel like arguing for norms is sort of, in this era especially of general distrust of institution, it feels too much like arguing for status quo, which I don’t think is really a great sell. But I do think you have to argue for principles, and you have to argue for truth, and reality. And I think without those things, the court system doesn’t really function. And I do think there are lots of people, still, both in the government and outside the government, who understand the stakes and who understand the principles, and are working for those things.

I’m not a particularly pessimistic person, I’m a pretty optimistic person, but I think there is a tremendous amount of harm that’s been done already. And there’s going to be more fights, and there’s going to be more battles inside the department, and inside the FBI.

Preet Bharara:

I want to thank you for a lot of things, and the research and the work you do on this, and the reporting you do. I sent you a text separately, before the interview, a couple of days ago. Where I said, “Thank you for calling this the Department of Revenge, and not the Department of Retribution,” which I used to use that word retribution. I still will use it, from time to time. I think you’ve used it in the interview, but not in the title of the book. We have to use plain English.

Devlin Barrett:

Absolutely.

Preet Bharara:

And we have to use basic words like revenge, which is what this is. And you gave another example a minute ago when you said, “What are norms?” Norms that we want to keep, norms that are in place for good reason and in good faith, are there because they’re principles that they stand for. Lots of bad things were norms.

Devlin Barrett:

Absolutely.

Preet Bharara:

And the separation between the political side of the executive branch and the law enforcement side, with respect to particulars, particular people, not just priorities. That’s a norm, but that’s not, as you just say, I’m very glad you said it. That’s not persuasive or compelling. It’s a norm because the principle of the separation is paramount in our system. And in our system, unlike in banana republics, you don’t have a political figure directing the harassment, persecution, prosecution, imprisonment, and potential execution of political rivals. That, people understand. That’s a principle people understand, and the norm talk, which I am very guilty of over the course of the last number of years, doesn’t quite cut it sometimes.

In the same way, by the way, that your industry, then I’ll get off my high horse. Your industry, at the beginning, didn’t know how to call a lie, a lie. You don’t have to comment.

Devlin Barrett:

Right.

Preet Bharara:

You don’t have to comment.

Devlin Barrett:

No, no, no. The lie thing is always, it could be-

Preet Bharara:

Because it was very jarring, because some things are lies.

Devlin Barrett:

Right.

Preet Bharara:

Some things are lies. And I think we have on occasion let etiquette, a certain kind of norm of etiquette, get in the way. Now there’s a principle that underlies that norm, of etiquette, in certain times and in certain circumstances. I’m not a student of this, but I would imagine it includes things like having credibility with the audience, not looking like you’re putting a thumb on the scale, civility gives you credibility, name-calling is never great. But when someone’s freaking lying, really, really badly and really demonstrably so, then that norm is not justified by the same principle that established it, right?

Devlin Barrett:

Right. And look, one of the ways in which that whole idea is being tested, I mean, look, the press struggles with this at times. I will concede that, on any day. But I also think the courts, I think one of the sort of defining characteristics of the last year is, the courts are struggling with that too. Because you see over and over and over, judges opining, suggesting, hinting, or just accusing government lawyers of lying to them. But not wanting to, often not wanting to go the additional step of saying, “And what are we going to do about that?”

And I will say, I think as a reporter, it’s really important to speak plainly. I think that’s the core function of what we do. I tried to write a book that while it was about lawyers, was not written, certainly, for lawyers. It was written to explain why non-lawyers should care about these things, why this matters to a lot more than just lawyers. And I think plain speaking is something that, frankly, the Justice Department often doesn’t do well. But I think is more important now than ever, because there are these larger and larger challenges of people not telling the truth, people trying to snow judges. And the more that happens, the more I think judges are going to be forced, one way or another, to confront it.

Preet Bharara:

Devlin, you’ve been very generous with your time. Congratulations on the book. The Department of Revenge: How Trump Took Control of American Justice. I wish for you, given the topic, that there’s not enough material for a sequel. And if there is, it is a slim volume. Devlin Barrett, thanks very much.

Devlin Barrett:

Thank you, Preet. Great to talk to you.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Devlin Barrett continues for members of the Insider community. In the exclusive bonus content, Devlin and I discuss why Justice Department employees are more willing to stand up against Trump this time around.

Devlin Barrett:

We’re sort of this strange balance, between both, on one hand admiring the forces that have created enormous fortunes. And at the same time, very wary of them.

Preet Bharara:

To try out the membership, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider. After the break, I’ll share my thoughts about Hunter Biden’s emergence as a prolific and unusually candid public voice.

So I’ve gotten some questions from folks along the following lines. This came in an email from Calvin, who asked, “Have you been following Hunter Biden on X? What do you make of what he’s been saying?”

So Calvin and others, as I said last week, I sure have been following Hunter Biden on X. And at least for me, it has not been a disappointment. His very first post came just a month ago, on May 19th, and it read simply, quote, “I’m Hunter Biden. You’ve never actually heard from me.” End quote. And that’s pretty much true. We’ve heard a lot about Hunter Biden, we’ve heard allegations, we’ve heard innuendo, we’ve heard slurs and attacks, we’ve heard grand conspiracy theories. And throughout all of it, Hunter, whether constrained by his lawyers, or his predicament, or his judgment at the time, asserted his right to remain silent.

As he explains elsewhere, quote, “The reason I am doing this is because for seven years, for a whole myriad of reasons, I haven’t been able to tell my story. Mostly, though, what I want to say is this. The one thing that I know I’m qualified to talk about is addiction and recovery.” End quote. And he does a lot of that.

So, silent, he is no longer. He’s gone from zero to prolific in a matter of weeks, and he has earned hundreds of thousands of followers and significant buzz for it. Why is that? Well, for one thing, he’s owned up to a lot. Seven years sober, he claims to be, and he readily admits in some gory detail his transgressions with drugs, and alcohol in particular. His posts are anything but excuses or rationalizations. He also seems to have mastered every mode of the platform from confessional to clapback.

He appears open and honest about his drug use, and is not overly celebratory about his seven years of sobriety. In June, he posted a video in which he said this.

Hunter Biden:

Seven years, clean and sober. I’m more proud of that than anything I’ve ever done in my life, and I just want everybody to know that is still out there sick and suffering, there’s a way out. And that way out is together.

Preet Bharara:

The next day he spoke about gratitude. “Gratitude can turn what you thought broke you into the very thing that made you whole. The only way that you get to true gratitude is to be grateful for all of it.” Then he says this.

Hunter Biden:

I’m grateful that I was a crack addict, and I don’t say that with even the slightest bit of irony, or bullshit. It has given me, to me, right here, all that addiction took away from me, and then all of the consequences took away from me. Any sense of me being better than anyone, or having to be better than anyone. I get to approach you, and you get to see all of me. You get to see the nude pictures. You get to see me in grief. You get to see me at my worst. You get to see everything about me. You get to see all of the disgusting pieces of it, and all of the beautiful pieces of it, and you get to see all of it. And you know what? And here I am. I’ve just broken down every barrier that you could possibly have to find a connection with me. That’s beautiful.

Preet Bharara:

That moved me. In another post, he said this, “Radical honesty does not give you back who you were. It hands you the clean slate of who you always wanted to be. The mask comes off. The cartoon other people drew of you stays on the page.”

Here he is in a post that I also found moving, about his dad, Joe Biden. It’s from June 6th, quote, “The thing my dad did for me was that he never let go. As much as I tried to run, I always knew he was waiting. And I know I tortured him. It still makes me cry to think about what I put him through, but I came back. And he was where he always was, waiting to love me.” And whatever you think of the Bidens, whatever you think of Hunter Biden, if that doesn’t move you, you’re made of stone.

But what balances out the heavy and earnest confession and soul bearing, is one of the sharpest wielding of wit and snark we’ve seen in some time. And it hits hard or harder because of the source, who has been a punching bag for years, now. He can be disarming. For example, on June 4th, he wrote this. “I know this may sound petty, but I can’t stand it when people Photoshop a meth pipe in my mouth. A crack pipe doesn’t have that little bowl at the end. This is why we can’t trust AI. Please make the appropriate edit. Thank you for your attention to this matter.” Now, that’s a tweet.

On the same day, he responded to a somewhat obnoxious critic who thought he cleverly dunked on Hunter and his troubles. Hunter noticed that the critic had a Johnny Cash profile picture, so he had this to say. “I see your profile picture. That’s Johnny Cash, my hero, too. Arrested seven times, smuggled 668 amphetamines across the Mexican border in 1965, took every drug there was, and drank like I did. Cheated on his first wife, slept with more women than I ever did, hit bottom in a cave in Tennessee in 1968, trying to crawl off and die. And then he got up, he got clean. He spent the rest of his life singing for prisoners and addicts, and the people of the country threw away, because he knew he was one of them. That was the whole point of the man in black. You picked his picture. You did not pick his message. Try listening to the words.”

So you see why people are talking about his account? Hunter expresses surprise at all of this sometimes. Quote, “I don’t know why any of you haters are surprised I’m the one actually engaging here. You’re the ones who have obsessively poured over 10,000 photos, the 30,000 text messages, and the 128,000 emails from my hacked iCloud and stolen devices. If anything, I am prolific. You know what you won’t find? Any of the most heinous, hateful things you keep posting about me.”

In other moments, he compares himself persuasively and favorably against the Trump sons, against the MAGA haters, and against the conspiracy theorists. He has clapped back at the president, too. After Trump said in a video that Hunter had a quote unquote “checkered past”, the young Biden posted, “Wait, did he just say checkered past? I’m 28 felonies, six bankruptcies, and one Epstein bromance short of his checkered past.”

And then this on June 10th, in the midst of the NBA finals. “Seems like President Trump is losing some of his mojo. Napping at home in the Oval is one thing, but on date night with Dolan at the Garden? Get that man a Diet Coke.” I thought that was kind of funny.

In the end, and this may seem odd to you, the Hunter Biden account and style reminds me of the rap battle at the end of Eight Mile, where Eminem famously playing B-Rabbit in the final round, knowing the crowd knows his flaws, knowing his opponent knows his baggage, realizing that this is his strength, that this is his power. He raps with radical honesty.

MUSIC:

I know everything he’s got to say against me.

I am white. I am a fucking bum.

I do live in a trailer with my mom.

My boy Future is an Uncle Tom.

Preet Bharara:

Then he makes the case against Papa Doc, kind of like Hunter makes the case against the Trumps.

MUSIC:

But I know something about you.

You went to Cranbrook, that’s a private school.

What’s the matter dawg? You embarrassed?

This is guy’s a gangster, his real name’s Clarence.

Preet Bharara:

And then of course, B-Rabbit issues the challenge. “Here, tell these people something they don’t know about me.” Literal mic drop. And Papa Doc goes mute.

For reasons that are not important, I keep a rough hierarchy in my head of what I believe are the three most compelling storylines in all of narrative. You may disagree, and I’d love to hear from you, but this is my ranking.

Love stories? They’re great, but they’re number three.

Revenge stories, they’re great too, I like a lot of them, but they’re number two.

What is the most compelling storyline across centuries of human storytelling? Stories of redemption. The rise after the fall. That beats all of them, at least in my book. Is Hunter Biden redeemed? Is Hunter Biden redeemable? These are questions way above my pay grade, but I’m here for it to see what happens.

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Devlin Barrett.

If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. You can reach me on Twitter or Bluesky @PreetBharara, with the hashtag #AskPreet. You can also call and leave me a message at 833-997-7338. That’s 833-99-PREET. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com. Stay Tuned is now on Substack. Head to staytuned.substack.com to watch live streams, get updates about new podcast episodes, and more. That’s staytuned.substack.com.

Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The supervising producer is Jake Kaplan. The lead editorial producer is Jennifer Indig. The associate producer is Claudia Hernández. The audio and video producer is Nat Weiner. The senior audio producer is Matthew Billy, and the marketing manager is Liana Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. Special thanks to Torrey Paquette and Adam Harris. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. As always, stay tuned.