Deadline: White House 5/29/26 | 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today May 29, 2026

本站添加: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]We made it to Friday. It's 4:00 in New York. The Trump administration admitting the quiet part out loud in a Manhattan courthouse Thursday, saying that they do indeed believe Donald Trump is king.

[00:00:12]That every public servant in the federal government is there to serve Donald Trump and Donald Trump only. That apparently includes those responsible for upholding the most fundamentally nonpartisan and small D democratic principle there is, and that is the rule of law. That stunning public admission came in a hearing in a lawsuit filed by Moren Comey. She is a former federal prosecutor. She's also the daughter of former director of the FBI, Trump critic Jim Comey. She alleges that she was fired illegally, either largely or entirely because of her family name.

[00:00:49]Politico is reporting this on that hearing Thursday. Quote, DOJ lawyer Karen Les Perez said at the pre-trial hearing that Morin Comey's firing was valid. Quote, "Even if there were political motivations." Even if there were political motivations. Uh, okay. A reminder, Moren Comey says she was fired after her dad posted on Instagram an image of beach shells that were shaped in the formation of four letters, 8647.

[00:01:19]He took it down almost immediately, but Donald Trump and his allies jumped on it, claiming it was some sort of threat.

[00:01:26]Jim Comey was indicted for that post on your screen right now last month. But after the post, right-wing influencer and Trump ally Laura Loomer started to beat the drum to pressure then attorney general Pam Bondi to fire Moren Comey.

[00:01:43]So, in Comey's telling, political motivations are the entire reason why she was subsequently fired. And now, Trump's DOJ is arguing that even if that's the case, it's somehow acceptable. Politico reports that the judge pressed DOJ on that claim, on the claim that Trump can fire anyone based on politics. Quote, "Could the president, for example, decide to fire people in order to achieve an all-white executive branch or all black?" he asked. Justice Department Attorney Karen Lesparence stammered in response, finally saying, quote, "I can't answer on behalf of the government." Furman replied, "Quote, you are here representing the government."

[00:02:25]An attorney for Moren Comey, Ellen Blaine, said in court that the DOJ's position was a quote novel and breathtaking theory of presidential power. In former FBI Director Jim Comey's view, it's also stupid, immoral, and tragic. Here's what he had to say about his daughter's firing on this program a couple weeks ago.

[00:02:48]>> Right. My daughter was a superstar prosecutor in the Southern District of New York and was fired only because she has my last name. That's stupid. That's immoral. That's illegal in my view and painful. She'll be okay. I mean, she got a job at a law firm and someday I hope she'll go back to the Department of Justice. My son-in-law who was the deputy chief of national security at that Virginia US attorney's office quit the day they first indicted me. Also just a tragedy to have that apolitical talent leave the department. God willing he'll be back someday. But it it both tells you the quality of the people that this organization typically has and the cost with Donald Trump at the top.

[00:03:26]Team Trump arguing in a court of law out loud that Donald Trump can fire whomever he wants for any reason he wants in a case that has come to encapsulate and define his purge of the Justice Department is where we start today. New York Times Justice Department reporter Rush is back with us. Plus, former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI, national security and intelligence analyst for us, Michael Fineberg is back. He filed an amicus brief in support of Morin Comey. And here at the table with me for the first time at the affforementioned Ellen Blaine. She was chief of the civil rights unit and an assistant US attorney for the Southern District of New York. She now represents Moren Comey. Thank you for being here.

[00:04:08]>> Thank you for having me.

[00:04:09]>> So ju just quickly just to be on the record, how did you come to leave the office of the Southern District of New York?

[00:04:16]>> I left before the election. Um so I left for various reasons. I had been there a very long time. I love the office. I love the Department of Justice, but my decision had nothing to do with politics.

[00:04:26]>> But you have witnessed now as someone who was once inside what has been, I think, an unprecedented um level or volume of departures from that office, Danielle Cassoon and her deputies and then Morin Comey and others. Can you just speak because we we try to sort of from the outside assess and I think last time Glenn was here I put him on the spot to try to quantify how hollowed out how um what the deficit is in terms of manpower inside some of the biggest offices. Can you speak to that at SDMY?

[00:04:57]>> Uh I mean it breaks my heart is what I can say. Scene is hurting. The entire department of justice is hurting. um they are under rules that they've never had to follow before. And the rules seem to require loyalty and not following the law. The rules require pledges of uh acquiescence and not actually giving your client legal advice and explaining the litigation risks and the dos and don'ts, what the law requires, what the constitution requires, and what the law prohibits. That is no longer allowed in the Department of Justice. SDNY has seen a number of people, particularly in the civil division, which is where I worked, leave over the past 18 months in a wave that we have never seen before. And that makes perfect sense because this administration has made very clear that DOJ is not to do DOJ's job. And as an SCNY former A USA, you know, the it was very proud and clear that our goal was to do justice, to follow the law and the facts without fear or favor, no matter where they led. And that's exactly what Moren Comey did for her decade in federal service leading some of the most high-profile prosecutions in the office.

[00:06:04]And because her last name is Comey, she was fired. That is a different DOJ than we have seen before.

[00:06:10]>> Is there anything in the work she did or the cases she worked on that had any any reasonable person could interpret as political?

[00:06:18]>> Absolutely not. She was a career civil servant. She served under Democratic administrations, under Republican administrations, under the first Trump administration. She prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein. She prosecuted Maxwell. She pro prosecuted Pete. Diddy. She received outstandings on every single one of her performance reports. In fact, the office said in one of her reports um that she is the lawyer the office turns to when excellence is a must. And that is true.

[00:06:45]She is, as her father said, a superstar attorney. There was zero reason to fire Moren Comey except for her family affiliation. That is unlawful and it is chilling.

[00:06:56]>> What happened in court yesterday?

[00:06:58]>> So, we are in court because uh Moren Comey has brought this lawsuit, right, alleging that her firing is in fact unlawful. Um, and that's important. It's unlawful in various ways. It's unlawful because it violates laws passed by Congress 150 years ago and followed by every single president since Chester Arthur until today. It also violates the first amendment and the fifth amendment. So it violates our fundamental bill of rights in the US Constitution. But her case is broader than that. Her case is actually about whether the president can do that.

[00:07:30]Can the president violate the laws of the United States? Can the president violate the US Constitution? And yesterday in court, we heard that answer loud and clear. The answer is yes. The answer is the president can exercise his article 2 power however he sees fit. So he can fire you if you're female. He can fire you if you're black. He can fire you if you're white. He can fire you in order to create an all-white federal service. He can fire you just because of your last name. That upends decades and in fact centuries of this country's foundational principles. And it should be chilling not just to all the federal civil servants and there are at least two million of them in this country who have federal civil service protections.

[00:08:14]It should be chilling to all of us because we no longer have the rights that we thought we did. And >> what happens to the case now? Does it does it go up to the does it go to a higher court or is that the judgment? Is that the are those the rules under which we live as long as Donald Trump is president?

[00:08:28]>> Well, this case to be clear is about whether or not he can fire an a USA um a federal prosecutor. And right now on the books, what we have is an order from the judge that that dispute, that fundamental question about our separation of powers belongs in federal court and not in an administrative body, which is what the federal government tried to do. Just to back up for a second, >> normally when a federal employee is fired, they go to something called the MSPB, which people really hadn't heard about, but now is sort of come to light.

[00:08:57]It's the Merit Systems Protection Board.

[00:09:00]Um, another acronym. And um you're supposed to go and have like a fair and impartial hearing about whether or not the government >> And let me just inter ask you because we've covered with with Glenn with Michael a lot of the fired FBI agents. A lot of I mean is this is that the kind of body that would look at all those firings? Yes. So they've been busy.

[00:09:16]>> They well they should have been busy but um the president fired the only Democratic member to eviscerate a quorum. He then appointed a new member that is frankly his henchmen it looks like and he issued an executive order that said you administrative body you have to interpret the law the way that I tell you to. So now the judges the administrative body who would normally oversee this type of case is in his back pocket. And this federal judge said enough that's not how the statute works.

[00:09:44]If you federal government are going to fire somebody citing a constitutional power, not a statutory power, your constitutional power under article two, then that fight does not belong before that body. That fight belongs before an article 3 judge. So that's the decision we have on the books. Now we go into proving our case, right? The government has now admitted that she wasn't fired for cause. Mhm.

[00:10:07]>> They have said uh as of Tuesday in their answer filed on the public docket that she was not fired for cause, that she was not fired for her performance.

[00:10:15]>> So why was she fired? That's the question and that's the question we're going to get answered through discovery.

[00:10:20]Hopefully we'll take depositions of the people who purportedly made the decision. They now claim it's Attorney General Bondi. Um at the same time, Attorney General Bondi um you know is no longer with with the government. So, they've reertified her decision with the current acting attorney general, Todd Blanch. Um, bringing up all sorts of thorny thorny issues about how this works. But the reason this is important >> is because, you know, just as a very quick reminder, civil um, a little civics lesson here from grade school, but you know, there's article one of our constitution creates Congress. Article two of our constitution creates the executive branch, puts the president in charge, and article three creates the court system, and then you have the bill of rights. What this administration has said from day one is that article 2 is more important than anything else.

[00:11:08]Right?

[00:11:08]>> You can take that power. You can ignore laws passed by Congress under article one. You may be able to ignore court orders issued under article 3. And now as of yesterday in open court, you can also ignore the bill of rights. You can fire somebody in violation of their first amendment right to speech, their first amendment right to association, equal protection, due process. All these things that we hold near and dear are no longer applicable to the president of the United States.

[00:11:34]>> I mean, Glenn, I can think of dozens of people that you have covered over the last 18 months who are going to be watching this case very very closely.

[00:11:44]>> Yeah. I mean, like in the Trump in the Trump I should call it the Trump Justice Department, um, it's become a verb. You get article two. These are the letters and emails that dozens and dozens of employees at at at the Justice Department and at the FBI have gotten.

[00:11:59]The one thing I want to say is what you know when I tweet some of these cases out and and and a bunch of them have been FBI agents who are by no means liberals. Okay? These are not deep deep state people. These are people who hate talking to reporters but were forced out because of their perceived work on because of their work on the Jack Smith case or for any other reason that Cash Patel or Dan Bino his former deputy wanted. Um and people people out there seriously uh in the world out there think that that this is entirely appropriate and normal and that the Democrats did it uh when they were in power, right? And that this is business as usual. It is really important for people to understand out there who are not who are not privy to these procedures, who are not particularly partisan, to know that this is extremely unusual and it has resulted in the gutting of competence in all of these agencies. And this isn't this isn't just in in in the civil rights division or in areas, you know, that are perceived to be populated by liberals. We're talking about a c core law enforcement function.

[00:13:03]So this is hamstringing these organizations and frankly over the last six or seven weeks I think it's finally hit the political appointees at the top of the justice department particularly in the civil rights division uh just how detrimental all of these forced either transfers or article 2 firings have had on their own capacity to competently pursue their own agenda.

[00:13:27]>> How has it done that Glenn?

[00:13:30]because essentially you're taking this entire layer of extremely experienced people and by the way as Ellen I'm sure knows um the folks who leave first are the ones who have the most alternatives in the private sector they have rich job opportunities so immediately you eviscerate um the you eviscerate from your department the most experienced people and a perfect example of that was in the national security division which Pam Bondi decided relatively arbitrarily just to gut Um uh and frankly she redeployed them shortly after taking office on the Epstein files case because she did not value what they were doing.

[00:14:07]Well, now we're in an extraordinarily perilous situation in terms of our overseas conflict. It would be it would be kind of nice to have a fully staffed national security division at the Justice Department that isn't present.

[00:14:19]So you're dealing with in order for the Trump administration to pursue the 90% of their agenda, which is vanilla conservative stuff, law enforcement, things that most department employees would have no problem pursuing. Um, they've gotten rid of all the people who are capable of expediting that. So they can't really even pursue their own core agenda.

[00:14:40]>> I mean, one such individual is on the panel with us, Michael Fber. I mean, your national security, we we are greatly um we benefit every day um every time you're here from your national security expertise, but it is I'll say it is a tragedy that we're the beneficiaries and not the American people and that we even know about you.

[00:15:01]I mean, your work as an anonymous um I don't mean undercover, but just someone who did your job um wasn't talking about it, but was sort of on the line for the American people protecting our national security. um was something that that I imagine you wouldn't have walked away from until and unless Donald Trump came in and politicized the department and gutted it of all its experts like yourself.

[00:15:26]>> Yeah. You know, people always think about the rule of law in terms of political philosophy or juristprudence, but there's a real human element to it.

[00:15:37]And one of the tragedies of everything that's happened over roughly the past year and a half is that so many people and I count myself among this group who are motivated by nothing but a desire to serve their country and protect their fellow citizens had that privilege ripped from them. And what makes it even more sorrowful is that I don't know a single one of us, myself, senior executives, line agents, prosecutors.

[00:16:10]I'm sure Maren Comey, despite having very much landed on her feet, would feel the same. There's not a single one of us who, given the opportunity, would not rather be a public servant.

[00:16:22]>> Yeah. I like commentating on what's going on in the news and I like being able to express opinions in a forum that was previously not open to me. But it wasn't my calling. My calling was to serve our country. It was to serve our flag. It was to ensure the safety of individuals who needed assistance. And it's amazing to me that that sort of nonpartisan motivation, that sort of patriotic sense of duty is now something that's actually being held against government employees.

[00:17:02]>> Well, let me just ask you to pull the thread a little more totally. What does it mean if people who were loyal to the country have been kicked out of the bureau?

[00:17:13]It means that the bureau leadership because I'm talking largely about senior executives here. The bureau leadership that has remained unfortunately whether by happen stance um unthinkingly or purposefully are somewhat bending to Cash Patel's will. You know, you can't fire somebody from the FBI just as you can't fire somebody from DOJ without involving a whole bunch of other career officials. Cash Patel can make the decision. Todd Blanch or before him, Pam Bondi can make the decision. But there are people in the human resources division, in the security offices, in the field offices, in US attorney's offices who carry out those orders and allow the machine to work. And maybe I'm being overly judgmental of them, maybe I'm being too harsh, but what they're doing is very much a moral compromise of the oath they took. And if more careerists stood up, put their foot down, and put the people they were supposed to protect ahead of their own parochial interests. I don't know that the Trump administration would be able to do what it has done to the federal government.

[00:18:40]>> Yeah. Um I start to hear that more and more uh mostly privately. Um Ellen, what is Moren's hope for the outcome of this case? Does she feel that way? Would she like to go back into the department?

[00:18:52]>> She most fundamentally wants there to be a clear rule that the president of the United States cannot do this to federal employees. That those hardworking career men and women who have sworn an oath to the Constitution and who want to protect and defend this country can do that without being worried that they're going to be fired tomorrow because of their skin color. That is what she wants and I hope that we will get that soon. Um, can I put you on the spot and ask you to come back and keep us posted as the case in store? Sure. Thank you so much for being here today. We're grateful to you.

[00:19:23]Uh, when we come back, not so fast. A federal judge has pumped the brakes on the Justice Department's 1.8 billion slush fund for Donald Trump's use. And just in the last few minutes, another judge telling Donald Trump to take his name off of buildings where it doesn't rightfully belong. We'll tell you about that, too. Plus, 6 months after the citizens of Minneapolis demanded that no one in this country look away from Donald Trump's immigration enforcement abuses, we'll speak to one of the members of Congress bearing witness at a federal immigration center in New Jersey. And later in the broadcast, just how toxic has the Trump brand become.

[00:19:59]From artists to audiences, he's struggling to recruit anyone to attend his upcoming events. All those stories and much more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Now, Donald J. Trump. The legal hits keep coming today. Earlier, a federal judge out of Virginia ruled that DOJ's so-called anti-weaponization fund must freeze and that no money can be dispersed until she hears a motion challenging the fund's very existence.

[00:20:25]Also coming down this afternoon, a judge has permanently blocked Trump from adding his name to the Kennedy Center, ordering the administration to remove all physical signage and other official documentation that names the Kennedy Center after anyone other than Kennedy.

[00:20:41]That has to happen within 14 days. The judge also temporarily blocked the center from being closed for two years for renovations. Joining me at the table, host of Politics Nation, president of the National Action Network, the Reverend Al Sharpton. Glenn and Michael are still here. Glenn, um there's the humiliating aspect to these stories putting his name up and now someone is have to climb on top of that ladder and and and you know unscrew the DO N you know all the other letters of his name. But there's all of the losing.

[00:21:11]I mean what is left in terms of legal acumen in the Department of Justice if they can't win a case? Well, I don't want to give the Trump administration any ideas, but is it possible they could save face by renaming it after the Louisiana senator? Just a thought. Um the the um look I I'll be honest with you on on the on the uh on the the weaponization fund thing. I would imagine, I more than would imagine, I know that there are people, political appointees in the Justice Department and in the White House who are really, really happy or would be very happy if this thing died a quiet judicial death so that they were not forced to defend it and that they were not forced to have a confrontation with the Senate, Republicans in the Senate who feel newly uh liberated from Donald Trump and are very antithetical to this proposal. So, so this is one of those instances in which a court rebuke against Trump probably is viewed relatively positively by a lot of people at DOJ.

[00:22:17]>> But that's pathetic. They're too weak to tell Donald Trump this is a crappy idea.

[00:22:21]So, they waste the country's time. They gum up the judicial system so that a judge can knock it down. I mean, that's that's that's pathetic wrapped in tragedy. What? Wrapped in a waste of everybody's time and money.

[00:22:33]Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger, Nicole. I mean, the No, I think I think that I think the um I I think it just reflects this whole dynamic that you see playing out every everywhere else. This second term of D Donald Trump is entirely predicated on the notion that the first term had too much push back.

[00:22:53]really like the the chief of staff at the White House, Susie Wilds, her main directive is that there be fewer leaks and few and and and much less dissension on some of these decisions. There is no dissension in the Department of Justice as you said, and you're 100% right. So, what what what are they forced to do?

[00:23:12]We're forced to, for instance, have a strategy uh of bringing cases in in DC that are no true build that prosecutors know are going to get shot down by grand juries. So because Trump is an immovable force, they are looking to all these other modalities to do their dirty work for them so that they don't have to say no to him. You're you're 100% right.

[00:23:33]It's >> just walk around with like buckets of blue paint so they just go paint the reflecting pool the color he wants. He's I mean what do they do all day?

[00:23:42]I think they try to figure out look I I think they try to figure out how how to manage to I I I the psychology inside the administration is fascinating right I think there are people and I think Blanch was one of them though I'm not sure he still is thought that I am going to have to do X Y and Z in order to keep my job because in my heart of hearts I know that I support the institution and rule of law and if I'm on the inside I can do things to make sure that on some sense it's functioning functioning nominally uh on a law and order basis but I think at Trump is a maximalist and he never runs out of of demands. So I think once you have said yes to Trump and showed him that you are not going to resist uh the game is basically over.

[00:24:26]And I think a lot of the people on the inside are just now um and and maybe the spectre of the midterms and being hauled before house committees might be changing that. But I think they are just now realizing that Trump uh you know that any notion that they had of being able to shape their world, shape the justice department beyond what Trump wants is a canard.

[00:24:48]Um, Michael Fineberg, your thoughts.

[00:24:52]>> Yeah, I have to push back very strongly against the mindset that Glenn just described.

[00:25:00]If people at the Justice Department are of the opinion, thank God the courts are stepping in to stop our initiatives.

[00:25:10]There is a much easier way for them to not have to defend those initiatives. If you really care about the integrity of the Justice Department, if you really care about the independence of the Justice Department, if you really care about the rule of law, then you should be intelligent enough to recognize that you can't protect any of those things while bending to these people's will. I there was a time at the beginning of this administration where there was an argument. I myself bought into it and it's why I stayed as long as I did that we need good people of integrity inside the organizations to pump the brakes on the more extreme efforts but it's become abundantly clear not just in DOJ and the FBI but in the whole of the executive branch that you can't pump the brakes and at a certain point you have to decide what's more important your job title or your ability to look in the mirror or look in your children's eyes.

[00:26:17]>> Yeah. I mean, I wish I still had it, but there was a cabinet meeting this this week and I and I um I don't pretend to have an eye for AI, so I'm never sure if something's real or not, and I send to my much smarter, much younger team a million things a day. I'm like a like a grandma. Is this real or is this AI? The cabinet meeting, if you if I had to bet, I would have bet all the money I had that it was AI. I did not think grown ass men and women could talk to a president at 32% like he was Kim Jong-un and they all were in front of a firing squad if they didn't tell him he was tall, thin, and hotter than hot. These people talked to Donald Trump in a way that I I really would have thought was fake because they spoke as though the punishment would be death if they didn't puff him up.

[00:27:05]It is frightening that we're in that kind of environment and you could see it and and I agree with what was just said that yes, if you believe in the Justice Department and what you went to law school for and went you into the Justice Department, you would uh therefore uphold certain standards. But if you have personal integrity, I mean, how do you look at yourself? There will be the day Donald Trump walks out. Do you really want in your life story that you did this kind of stuff and that if you're a cabinet member as you referred to that you're sitting there like you're in uh uh some old uh folks residence talking to grandpa humoring him but he's the president of the United States that has uh ammunition world uh decisions in his hands. I mean, they must have no selfawareness that this is going to be part of their life that they will never be able to explain.

[00:28:01]>> Yeah. And all all of the loudest critiques and the sharpest ones are now coming from the right. I mean, they're coming from John Cornin's Twitter feed and Senator Bob Cassidy and Thomas Massie and um and the Republicans who've humiliated themselves for a decade now.

[00:28:16]Um Glenn Thrush, I never mean to um unload on the messenger. I'm always grateful to the messenger. Thank you. Uh Michael Fberg, thank you for starting us off today. The rev sticks around a little bit longer. The Department of Homeland Security is threatening to pull customs agents from a huge international airport just ahead of the summer travel season as punishment for the protests outside of that city's ICE detention facility. We're just not sure who they're intending to punish, but we'll get to that reporting next.

[00:28:50]outside of that city's ICE detention facility. We're just not sure who they're intending to punish, but we'll get to that reporting next.