The Weeknight 5/29/26 | 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today May 29, 2026

Added: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]Evening folks and welcome to the week night. I'm Simone Sanders Townsen with Alicia Mendez and Michael Steele.

[00:00:05]Breaking moments ago, a massive legal setback for Donald Trump. A federal judge says she's now investigating quote grievous allegations that the slush fund deal reached with his justice department was quote premised on deception. One of the former judges who helped set this investigation in motion will join us in a moment. Also breaking, House Republicans help Pam Bondi dodge accountability for the botched Epstein investigation. So what are they trying to hide? Oversight Democrat Melanie Stanbury joins the table.

[00:00:37]>> And later, quote, "They are killing 60 Minutes. The First Amendment under fire like never before at CBS as top producers and reporters from the storied program are unceremoniously fired."

[00:00:48]Let's get to that breaking news tonight.

[00:00:50]There are two major setbacks for the Trump Justice Department slush fund.

[00:00:54]Moments ago, a federal judge said that she is investigating quote grievous allegations that the department's deal to create the slush fund was quote premised on deception. That comes after a bipartisan group of 35 former judges urged US District Judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the case. One of those judges is going to join us in just a moment. Judge Williams is now ordering Trump to address quote the question of whether the case should be reopened because the court was the victim of a fraud. He must respond by June 12th.

[00:01:28]Also today, a separate federal judge temporarily blocked that $ 1.8 billion slush fund from going into effect while a case challenging the fund's merits is argued. As of now, the government cannot transfer money to the fund or pay out any claims. Big day.

[00:01:44]>> Bravo. Bravo. Bravo. I I was very excited when this news came across the transom on my way into the studio and it was folks, let me just tell you it was interesting to watch my colleagues back and forth uh sort through the story.

[00:01:58]Simone, your initial take was I loved it.

[00:02:01]>> Yeah. I mean, first of all, I and I know we've we've had this conversation a number of times ever since this quote unquote slush fund, um, this weaponization fund was announced, and I have consistently felt like we have been being gaslit by the administration, and it has so gas lit, I lost the earring, y'all. It has frustrated me to no end.

[00:02:21]Um because the administration does these things that are clearly corrupt in out in the open or clearly illegal, but they're doing it so publicly, they are essentially daring the rest of us um to do something about it or not. They're they're betting that the American people or that the courts or that the lawyers do not have the fortitude or the wherewithal to do anything about it. And what these judges did today by filing the motion, what the judge did today by um handing down the order is saying, you know what, we will not be gaslit. You you cannot just do anything you want.

[00:02:54]You cannot just make things up and get away with it. You have to answer some questions. And that's what it is about being a co-equal branch of government. I am so struck by the fact that the last time we had Sky Perryman on this program and we spoke about the fact that the legal case here was in fact going to be difficult. Um she said you have to be in the fight and that again seems to be the theme of this week whether it is the maps that we watch battle for the maps play out in South Carolina whether it is the legal effort Michael um to block this slush fund if you don't fight you can't win. And that's the big topline of this moment.

[00:03:33]>> You know, I I really appreciate that point, Lisia, because what it says to all the folks uh who came before who capitulated and bent the knee and found other ways to slide out of the way.

[00:03:47]Y'all were punks.

[00:03:49]>> Y'all were the stupid ones. Y'all were the ones who were so afraid to engage that you lost ground and you gave ground to Donald Trump which again helped bring us to this moment. And I am so grateful that the judges involved here and the cases that were brought to grab the judges attention in the first place are now to Simone's point showing you are not going to gaslight the courts. You're not going to gaslight the American people.

[00:04:15]>> Let's bring two people skin in this game into the conversation. Sky Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward.

[00:04:21]Her group is behind the lawsuit that scored today's ruling against the slush fund. Also with us, the Honorable Shira Shenland. She served as a US District judge in the Southern District of New York for 22 years. And she is one of those 35 former judges asking the courts to probe the slush fund deal.

[00:04:39]>> This is just so important. I mean, uh, so I guess my question is, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is it that you filed the lawsuit, Sky, and then judge, did you all then file this motion or did the motion come first and then the lawsuit came? Sky, you first and then judge, please jump in.

[00:04:57]>> Sure. I mean, these are two separate matters, but they're related. And what you have is judges across the country saying, "Look, there's more to see here.

[00:05:05]Our matter we filed after the administration came out and announced that it had created this fund. It has no authority to create the fund. There's a range of issues with it. We talked about that last week. And so, um, our, you know, our matter is about that. It's filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia. There are other cases pending in other courts across the country. And then, of course, the, um, matter that the judge filed along with 34 other former federal judges filed across the um, ideological spectrum is the Florida case, that original case, uh, where there's a real question as to whether the president committed fraud on the court. Because what is this? that we've been talking about for several weeks now.

[00:05:45]>> You know, judge, uh to to the point that Simone raised, um you were part of of this this uh filing this signing this motion urging the court to probe uh Trump's DOJ. Uh Justice Judge Kathleen Williams in her finding noted this. The non-party movements advanced grievous allegations the that plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that was quote collusive from the start and was only filed to provide the impromater of legality for an unlawful settlement. That's a whole lot of good legal ease judge to say basically y'all tried to run one past the court. You knew we were going to blow this up when we opened up, got into the matter, the substance of the matter.

[00:06:37]So, you you took a pause, you took a pass, you got out of the way, thought you could do it through a back door.

[00:06:42]Again, judge, u you were part of signing this motion. Talk us through uh the legal rationale here because it's sound and solid. Obviously, um the judge that this came before agreed with with your with your request. Talk about it a little bit. Give us your thoughts.

[00:06:59]I'm going to try to make this as clear as I can so everybody understands it. So when you have a case in court, there has to be an actual case or controversy.

[00:07:08]Otherwise, the court does not have jurisdiction to even hear that case. And if there's no case, then there can't be a settlement of that case. And if there can't be a settlement of that case, then there can't be a fund created by the settlement. And there can't be any immunity for Trump and his sons uh to never have to have an audit of their taxes and maybe never pay those taxes.

[00:07:31]But none of that can happen if there's no case. So she had questioned way back whether there was really a case or controversy here. She said, you know, you're on the same side of this thing.

[00:07:43]Is there really any adverse party?

[00:07:45]You're the president. You control the Treasury, you know, so you're both on the same side. and he even made a quote saying, "I guess I'm negotiating with myself." So, he knew it, too. Okay? So, that's why she now is worried this was a frivolous filing that can be sanctioned, but she was about to get briefs on this issue of whether there was a real case or controversy. And they didn't want her to reach that, >> not so much the merits. They didn't even want her to decide that there wasn't a case because if there's no case, there's no settlement and no basis for the order. So two days before the brief was due, they come up with this voluntary dismissal. And she says on the record, gee, there's no settlement here. I note that there's no settlement. Well, that's cuz they didn't tell her that there was indeed a settlement. No sooner did she put her pen on the paper and sign off on this voluntary dismissal. Guess what happened? They announced the settlement.

[00:08:36]And she was duped. She was really duped.

[00:08:40]And so when we wrote that motion, we said, you know, this is a fraud on the court. You have the power to investigate that. And that's what she did just tonight, a half hour ago, she said, I'm going to investigate this. So she didn't reopen it yet, but she called for briefing on it. And in two weeks, the government has to respond June 12th. And then the other side has one week if they want to respond to that. She didn't set a hearing date, but she sure wants to see what the government has to say because she is threatening them right now with sanctions.

[00:09:12]>> Sky, I know you are a talented attorney, not a prognosticator, but I have to admit your prognostication has a been pretty on point. Um, given the multiple bumps in the road that this slush fund is facing, your sense of where this goes next? Look, I think it's facing a ton of bumps in court, but it's also facing a massive push back in the court of public opinion. And I think the combination of that is really putting the president in a bind. And if he and his allies are smart, they would abandon all of this and try to just leave it on the table. I mean, you've already had a judge in our case today call the administration out and say, "By the way, you wouldn't confirm whether you were going to move money around over the weekend or what you're doing." They didn't even want to wait for the court to to hear whether this fund was even lawful. And the judge says, "You can't do that." Then you have a judge in Florida saying, "And by the way, that first case you filed, uh, I have a lot of questions about that."

[00:10:08]Right? So, they're in a they're in a real bind in court, as they have been, frankly, since the beginning of this administration. But you also saw this week, um, even Senate Republicans are asking questions, which is quite shocking given that they've been so quiet to aid and it bet this administration. But this is a shockingly unpopular with people. It is rank corruption and we know that corruption doesn't deliver and people are sick and tired of it. People across the ideological spectrum. And so I think that this is going to continue to push uh the president. And really what we need to see is every single American, everybody in Congress, regardless of what letter is behind your name, this needs to this needs to go away and they need to force the president's hand here.

[00:10:47]And I think you might see that.

[00:10:48]>> You know, uh what is it that Nicole Wallace refers to? Is it Earth two?

[00:10:52]Earth two is the is the alternate reality that Trump lives in. Um I feel like we're on Earth one, but then on May 18th, the president was talking about this slush fund and I have a thought about what he said, but take a listen.

[00:11:10]>> It's been very wellreceived. I have to tell you, I know very little about it. I wasn't involved in in the whole creation of it and uh and the negotiation, but this is uh reimbursing people that were horribly treated. Horribly treated.

[00:11:23]These were people that were weaponized and really treated brutally by a system that was so corrupt with corrupt people running it and they're getting reimbursed for their legal fees and the other things that they had to suffer.

[00:11:38]The president lives on earth, too.

[00:11:40]Because the people that would be getting payouts from this fund are people that attacked police officers on January 6 are people who who were trying to stop the certification of the election process. Are people who were convicted through legal processes, right? Like some of them by juries judge, some of them by judges independently. Many of them are on record saying that they are sorry for what they did. They admitted their crimes. The the government and the tried to gaslight us here. And again, I say if people do not speak up and speak out when these things happen, this is how they run away with the store. What the president just said in that clip is so wildly incorrect. But again, he keeps repeating it like it's just normal normal day at the office.

[00:12:34]Well, as you as you said, some of these people pled guilty. They weren't just convicted by a jury or by a judge in a non-jury case. They pled guilty. So, they acknowledged what they did. They know they were criminals. A lot of them were in jail. And of course, they were all then pardoned, which was, I thought, an outrage. But he has the right to pardon anybody he wants to, but it was not a moral ethical thing to do, right?

[00:13:01]So he has the power but he didn't exercise it in a moral ethical way. But as to your point about bending, you know, bending the knee, you know, with the the case against the law firms, they decided not to appeal it. Remember that?

[00:13:13]And then the next morning they said, "Oops, we made a mistake. We are appealing it." So I'm not so sure that he's going to back off of this. The reason Republicans aren't at all happy here is because they're facing the voters in the midterms. And the voters, as you said, say, "Hey, I pay my taxes.

[00:13:30]Why isn't this guy paying his taxes?

[00:13:31]What's going on here? Why are these January 6 rioters getting a piece of money? I want money. Why aren't they getting money? And if you notice, the only ones who can get money from these funds are those who face uh, you know, the Democrats having weaponized, not the Republicans having weaponized. And that's the great point that Sky made in in brief the brief that she filed in the District of Virginia that this is just not being done in any fair way. So, as bad as it is all around, that was really a great point that I think that brief made >> or that complaint, I should say. Yeah.

[00:14:04]>> Yeah. No, no, Judge. I appreciate that.

[00:14:06]And Sky, I think um uh two things. One, uh to the clip that Simone played of of the president of the United States, uh arguably the most powerful person on the planet who has minions around him doing things. But the one thing we all know about Donald Trump is that he knows everything that's going on. So for him to stand in front of a bank of microphone and say, "I don't know anything about them putting together a little fund in which my sons are going to be able to get all this benefit down the road." And me personally, I just didn't know that my department was doing this.

[00:14:44]>> By golly G.

[00:14:45]>> By golly G. Bless his heart. Bless his heart. That's one. Two. Um all of this is a good moment. uh as we've discussed uh the gaslighting by the court is basically the gaslighting stops here next week, next 10 days, Republicans in the House and the Senate do have legislation to make this legal to make this law. Do you see that happening? And if it does, what happens then? Look, I don't put my bets on anybody in the majority of this Congress because we've seen the Republicans, frankly, in Congress aid in a bet this administration. That says that said the people are watching and the people are mad. And it's not just people on one side of the aisle, on the other side of the aisle. People know rank corruption when they see it. That is what this is. Corruption doesn't deliver for people. This president hasn't been delivering for people. And I think that's, you know, what we have done is the court today said, "You're not moving anything in this fund. You're not paying things out. You're not moving money in and out of it." The court gave the people, and the people, by the way, are represented by people in that building over there, that capital building. The court gave the people the time to put an end to this legislatively. Now, I believe the courts will put an end to this, of course, with the law, because it violates so many provisions of the Constitution and so many federal statutes, and we we outline that. But this is a time for every single American to show that we are better than this. That we don't actually live in service of a person that is sitting around trying to enrich himself while we have people in this country that are working multiple jobs that can't make ends meet. This is where the buck stops and I'm I'm you know I'm eager to see what happens.

[00:16:25]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:16:26]>> Just to to underline what it is that Sky is saying there. This is playing out um in the court of public opinion as well as legal courts. Just look at these headlines. blue states fighting back. Um in New York, a proposed bill would tax New Yorkers who tap the anti-weaponization fund at 100%. Uh similar effort in Wisconsin, Illinois, Connecticut, California. Do you think ultimately this gets resolved politically or legally?

[00:16:50]>> Well, I think it will be resolved legally. I think these cases are over. I think he knows it. And the question is how long does he want to keep running it? But I think they're going to end.

[00:17:00]But I also think it'll be resolved politically. So the the real answer to your question was both both ways legally and politically because the Republicans have to run. They're running in, you know, House and Senate. They don't want to run on this slush fund which everybody is calling it. And and Sky is exactly right. The people know this is bad. They're not happy with it. And people, you know, they they want they should want to win the midterm. So we'll see what happens.

[00:17:25]>> Judge Sher Sham, thank you so much for being with us in studio. Sky Perryman.

[00:17:29]As always, thank you so much for being with us on a big day for you. Stay with us. In a moment, we're going to be joined by Congresswoman Melanie Stanbury who says Pam Bondi was quote combative during her interview with the House Oversight Committee today on the Epstein investigation. Also ahead, another breaking ruling from a federal judge ordering Trump's name to be removed from the Kennedy Center. Tim O'Brien is here.

[00:17:49]You're watching the week night.

[00:17:52]Is Pam Bondi hiding? I just want to know. That's the question House Oversight Democrats are asking tonight after Bondi said very little during her closed door interview about her mishandling of the Epstein investigation.

[00:18:07]>> When we started to ask difficult question, Miss Bondi got combative.

[00:18:13]The DOJ attorneys began rolling their eyes. They started intervene and the intervening and they tried to shut down any questions about the president in this administration's handling of the files.

[00:18:28]>> Well, Bondi did shift the blame to her deputy, current acting attorney general Todd Blanch, and committee Democrats say they want to hear from him next. So, yeah, bring it on. Let's do it. That question, what is Pam Bondi hiding?

[00:18:43]might actually be a better question asked this way. What are Republicans hiding? Of the five Republicans who voted to subpoena Bondi for this interview, zero. Zero showed up today to question her. The only Republican in the room was Chairman James Comr, who once again acted as a human shield for the truth, allowing Bondi the luxury of an unsworn, unrecorded interview.

[00:19:10]Joining us at the table, Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico. She's a member of the House Oversight Committee and Liz Stein, a survivor of Jess Jeffrey Epstein's abuse.

[00:19:21]>> Thank you both so much for being here today. Congresswoman, I want to start with you. Before we get to the question that Michael posed a number of times about what both Pam Bondi and Republicans are hiding, I do want to hear from you. What, if anything, did you learn today?

[00:19:36]Well, I think we learned that the cover up continues. It's very clear that this administration is trying to cover up the Epstein files, is trying to stop this case from being investigated, is not interested or curious about actually seeking justice for survivors, and prosecuting potential perpetrators that clear as day appear for the public to see in the files, including potentially administration officials, if not the president himself. And so, I think that was very clear. You know, Pam Bondi, as was just stated, was afforded the luxury of appearing in front of the committee after she was subpoenenaed pursuant to a legally binding deposition to appear before the committee under oath. And James Comr allowed her to appear voluntarily on her own accord. And anytime she was asked difficult questions about what was in the files, about the case itself, about whether or not things were being prosecuted, and what her conversations were with Donald Trump, she either answered she couldn't recall, she didn't know Todd Blanch handled it, or that she wasn't going to answer the questions at all. In fact, multiple times she didn't just claim privilege. We were told by the combative DOJ attorneys in the in the table with her that she didn't have to answer the questions if she didn't want to.

[00:20:55]>> Oh, okay. Um, quick question for you, Congresswoman. Was her meet Dylan the person mainly leading the charge on that who is the assistant attorney general for civil rights division?

[00:21:04]>> Yeah, she was there in all her eye rolling glory. In fact, >> you know, Liz, I was very struck by the fact that um you and um other sister survivors of yours, you showed up to um outside of the hearing room today of the the deposition room and asked questions of Chairman Comr. This is one of the things Chairman Comr said this morning.

[00:21:26]I want to play it for folks so they can hear.

[00:21:30]I hope that we can do the best that we can do in getting answers and getting the truth to the American people, trying to provide some type of justice for the survivors and if if there's any way possible to hold people accountable.

[00:21:44]That's what we want to see happen.

[00:21:47]>> Well, we thank you for being here and again, we we will continue communications and if there are questions that aren't asked, anything you're not satisfied, let us know and we'll do everything in our ability to get answers for you all.

[00:21:59]I thought that was lovely. This is the line that stuck out to me. And if there's any way possible to hold people accountable, I think there's many ways that people could be hold account held accountable, right? Like this is not rocket science.

[00:22:10]>> No, I would agree with you. I think that when we look at these Epstein files, they are riddled with investigative leads. I mean, almost on every page, there's some lead that the Department of Justice could have followed and just chose not to. And that is incredibly concerning to us both as survivors and as citizens of this country that our Department of Justice is taking the stance that this multi-deade international sex trafficking ring has no merit.

[00:22:47]>> It's it's crazy.

[00:22:49]>> It it is crazy. I mean, I just, you know, in a lot of the conversations we've had at this table, I've always appreciated you're being a part of it.

[00:22:58]Um, >> because I like I like your words to just settle on the heart of the American people so they feel the full weight of what you've been carrying for so many years. And the fact that you you you have James Comr out here saying, you know, we want to hold people accountable. Anything we can do to help?

[00:23:17]Anything we can do to I'm like, dude, release all the damn documents. Put it all take every piece of paper, put it out there so everybody get their hands on it, read it, and see exactly who these men were and are. But that is not >> what they want to do.

[00:23:34]>> And yesterday, Congressman, we had your colleague, Mr. Walkenshaw from the great state of Virginia in the chair and asking about today's hearing. And I made the point that Pam Bondi was going to come and do what Pam Bondi has done at every hearing she's been invited to when she showed up. And that is, as my mama would say more politely, she's just showing her behind. She going to sit there and she's got not going to cooperate. She's not going to give you the answers direct or otherwise. And then when you press her, as you duly noted, she's going to then get the all like how dare you, right? Um, so in one sense the question still stays with me.

[00:24:14]Then why the hell are we doing this?

[00:24:16]Because we're on this wheel where we're just going this hamster wheel. We're just going around around the same way with the same people doing the same stupidish.

[00:24:24]>> Yep.

[00:24:24]>> Right.

[00:24:26]But then it comes to me it is important to do it because in each matter each time you are leaving a marker and that's why your voice is so important because whether or not you're in the hearing room whether or not Pam Bondi responds.

[00:24:44]Your voice is part of the record real time. And so that's why I appreciate what you're doing. That's what I appreciate what others are doing. I don't really have a question here. I just want to make it very clear how I kind of feel about this cuz I think a lot of the American people that I run into around town and across the country feel the same way. Um, and just wanting to know or let you know how much that effort is appreciated even though you're walking into a room that's made of concrete hearts.

[00:25:14]>> Yep.

[00:25:15]Well, and I think I really appreciate that you're saying that and I think that you can't underestimate the power of bearing witness and telling truth, especially as the survivors have been doing for decades, but now especially with the platform and the allyship of Congress to say we're not going to let people who are rich and powerful get away with it anymore. And while we don't have the tools at this moment to overcome what's happening in Congress with a majority who's allied with a president who's breaking the law every day, we know that justice will come.

[00:25:49]>> But we just have to keep standing up and telling the truth.

[00:25:52]>> Going to come like a hammer.

[00:25:53]>> Can I get your both of your reaction to to a few things I thought were interesting. One, um, was Bondi repeatedly blaming Blanch for things that transpired during her period as attorney general. Um and and two, um Congressman Garcia saying, "Great, let's have Todd Blanch in. Let's have Cash Patel in." I mean, to that point, Liz, if Congressman Comr is sincere in the overture he made to you, beyond what Michael said about release all the files, it would seem the next step is to set up time with Todd Blanch and with Cash Patel. Do you agree?

[00:26:31]>> Absolutely. Um, I think that, you know, it's very obvious that today we didn't get a whole lot of answers. We got a lot of shifting the blame um to other people. And that's really concerning because we're talking about the former attorney general of the United States not knowing what her deputy attorney general is doing.

[00:26:53]>> That is incredibly concerning. I understand that there are hundreds if not thousands of people that work in the Department of Justice, but he is her immediate subordinate. And for her to claim that she has no knowledge as to what he's been doing with this investigation just makes no sense to me and is incredibly concerning that our Department of Justice is trying to operate in this manner >> or at least trying to convince the American people that they are.

[00:27:20]>> Yeah. I mean, I think you know what was very obvious today is that every time we did ask a serious question in the room at the table of Pam Bondi about the conversations, communications, and execution of this, she would blame Todd Blanch, but then she would say, "I'm not going to talk about the conversations that I've had inside the department, and in fact, I don't have to because I'm not under oath, and I'm doing this voluntarily." I mean, she literally said that and the DOJ attorneys intervene to remind us of that. I mean, that is why we need a deposition. That's why she should be under oath.

[00:27:54]>> You know what? Let's just hear from Hardme Dylan. She did answer some questions. The assistant attorney general for the civil rights division today. Take a listen.

[00:28:04]>> Did you advise her not to answer questions on particular topics with the president? Well, there there were ground rules laid with the committee before we walked in there and we simply wanted to stick to those.

[00:28:17]>> But why why did you uh tell her not to answer specific questions?

[00:28:21]>> Yeah, I'm not going to get into my reasoning. That's, you know, we represent the Department of Justice and that's between us and the department.

[00:28:30]>> Would love to know what those ground rules were.

[00:28:33]>> Congresswoman Melanie Sansbury and Liz Stein, many thanks to you both. Folks, it is a night of breaking news. There is a big development in the sea shell case against James Comey. I'm being very serious. Do not go anywhere. This is the week night.

[00:28:49]Moments ago, a rookie federal prosecutor who brought the case against James Comey, accusing the former FBI director of threatening Donald Trump's life by posting a photo of seashells on Instagram, has stepped off the case.

[00:29:01]this rookie, and not to disparrage him, you know, his name is Matthew Petraa, but he was a former Republican county committeeman who had only just been hired as an assistant US attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

[00:29:15]Joining us now is Lisa Rubin, MS Now senior legal reporter. I mean, we keep calling him a rookie, Lisa. It seems as though this is uh part for the course, maybe given his experience. I'm using air quotes.

[00:29:29]It's not really clear, Simone, what has happened here. But I will tell you, there's something unusual about the way in which this was filed. When a prosecutor leaves a case voluntarily, let's say they go and leave the Department of Justice to take a job in private practice, often times they'll file something called a notice of withdrawal. They'll sign it themselves.

[00:29:46]That's not what happened here. We have something called a notice of substitution in which the new prosecutor who is coming onto the case, someone who's been at the department since 2019, mostly handling drugrelated prosecutions, says he's substituting himself into the case and Matthew Petraa is coming off the case. The fact that Matthew Petraa is not doing this in his own voice is unusual. I can also tell you, thanks to our own Fallon Gallagher, that Matthew Petraa has similarly been removed from other cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina over the last couple of weeks. We also don't have an explanation for that. Of course, we're going to continue to look into why, but it's unusual that the prosecutor who indicted this case is coming off the case to be replaced by someone who similarly doesn't seem to have experience with prosecuting, let's say, social media threats or doxing cases.

[00:30:38]The case is not going to trial anytime soon. Jim Comey has several weeks to file pre-trial motions to dismiss the case. He has until July 28th to do that.

[00:30:49]And if this case goes to trial, it won't be until October. That gives this new prosecutor, Timothy Seo, plenty of time to get up to speed if we get that far.

[00:30:57]But of course, all of us are wondering what is happening with Matthew Petraa and is this further indications of the department either cleaning house or getting rid of people on cases that they don't want to be there. We obviously saw something similar several weeks ago as Carol and Kendallian reported with respect to a prosecutor named Maria Medidas Long who was taken off of a probe in the southern district of Florida involving John Brennan. So, we will continue to investigate and obviously as soon as we have something reportable for you about Matthew Petraa, we'll bring it right to you.

[00:31:30]>> Well, and while there's that turmoil inside of DOJ, we also have this reporting coming out of DC. A federal judge is refusing to dismiss Oathkeeper indictments. Says he needs more information. Um said the opinion requires the DOJ provides additional factual information and explanation by June 5th to back up its claims that its dismissal of charges is in the public interest. talk to me about this case.

[00:31:53]>> You know, Alisa, this is a case in which the defendant has already had his sentence commuted. He's already been pardoned. It begs the question of why does the indictment need to be expuned entirely? Some people have speculated it's because Trump wants the Oathkeepers or Proud Boys who are parts of these cases, this one affecting the Oathkeepers founder, Stuart Rhodess, to be able to do things like own guns again. In that case, Amit Ma, who's the judge in this case, is essentially saying, "I need more explanation as to why you're doing something so unusual.

[00:32:23]This case is already functionally over.

[00:32:25]Why do you need me to remove it from the docket and formally dismiss the indictment? I want to know more."

[00:32:32]You know, it's Michael Steele, Alicia, Lisa Rubin.

[00:32:38]This this just goes to the heart of the dysfunction within this Department of Justice. the fact that it seems like the the professional lawyers are no longer in the room because maybe they were fired, they quit, or they have been sidelined, Michael Steele, and that the retribution that the president has literally imbued into the system have given them the marching orders and all of his attorney generals from Pam Bondi to now the acting attorney general Blanch seem to be willing to carry out is not necessarily yielding what they thought it would yield. It's running into roads road roadblocks because it doesn't feel very legal, very buttoned up, very appropriate.

[00:33:16]>> Well, it's not um uh buttoned up. Uh and I think very much uh to the reporting that we've that we've heard and and received from our colleagues that's sort of detailing uh this this process of lawyers in, lawyers out. Uh the lawyers out part is is very interesting. at at a certain point, just my own little speculation as a lawyer, uh Mr. Petraa is sitting there being asked to do something and he's thinking about his bar and he's looking around at cases that are already beginning to appear um before local bars that uh Lisa are are paying close attention now to what these lawyers are doing. um at a certain point there is going to be accountability here. So, you can't discount, at least in my estimation, in in some of these cases, if not a lot of them, that these lawyers are are are resisting within the structure of the of the DOJ um and the FBI and any other agency where lawyers are being called on to behave in a way that goes against what the cannons of their oath uh and their ethics require of them because they know on the other side of this life There's a whole another group of people who have control over their ability to earn a living, ability to get a job, ability uh to avoid uh sanctions and other things.

[00:34:48]>> Well, don't sleep on the fact, Michael, that this Department of Justice has a proposal that would basically prevent state bars from taking disciplinary action against Department of Justice lawyers and instead move those disciplinary proceedings all in house. I think what's equally likely is that someone like Matthew Petraa, like many other prosecutors before him, has a different bar that he's thinking about.

[00:35:08]It's the bar inside his own heart. Like, what is the threshold beyond which I will not go? That's a conversation that innumerable Department of Justice prosecutors and FBI agents have had with themselves, wondering whether that's something he's also considering.

[00:35:23]>> I've been thinking a lot, Lisa, about the fact that we often have this conversation in the context of institutions. what is happening at the DOJ, what is happening to the DOJ when really this is a conversation about rights and whose rights are being honored, whose rights are being violated. Um, what does it mean for most Americans that the DOJ is experiencing this level of dysfunction?

[00:35:43]>> It means that nobody is safe, right?

[00:35:47]>> I think that folks should take away from the level of dysfunction that we're seeing at the Department of Justice that the guard rails are off. And one of the only places that we see that the guardrails are still on is in the federal judiciary and specifically in the district courts of the federal judiciary. But in the department of justice, we're not seeing that anymore.

[00:36:08]>> All right, Ms. Now's Lisa Rubin as always on the case. Thank you so much for joining us on this breaking story, Lisa. Really appreciate it. Folks, after the break, quote, they're killing 60 minutes. That's how the program's former executive producers describing CBS's dismiss dismantling of its iconic news program. I mean, they tore it up. We're going to get into it and discuss it when An week night returns.