October 16, 2025 • 7 mins
The latest developments in the James Comey and Letitia James cases are raising new legal and political questions, while former Special Counsel Jack Smith faces growing criticism over his handling of recent prosecutions. Senior Editor at The Dispatch Sarah Isgur joins with expert analysis on what’s driving these controversies and their potential impact on upcoming trials.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Right now, let's go to the hotline and bring in
senior editor at The Dispatch and host of the Advisory
Opinions podcast, Sarah Isker is back with us. You can
find all of her work in a whole lot more
at The Dispatch dot com and you can follow her
on x at Wig Newton's. So, Sarah, let's talk indictments,
and I want to start with the case against former
FBI and Director James Comey. We broke down the charges
(00:22):
last week, but his legal team they're not just pushing
back against the charges, they're also pushing back against the
Trump appointed prosecutor who brought them. What is that all about?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Yeah, I mean we're going to see a flurry, if
you will, of pre trial motions here. This is the
first of many I expect. You know, we've talked about
the idea that they could argue this is selective or
vindictive prosecution. Before we even get to there, they're saying
they couldn't even bring the charge in the first place
because there's no US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
(00:58):
Lindsay Halligan, who presents the case to the grand jury,
was not properly appointed as the US attorney for the
Eastern District Attorney of Virginia, And of course we know
she wasn't nominated and confirmed by the US Senate as
the Constitution requires. But the Trump administration argued that, well,
he can put her in sort of on a temporary basis,
(01:21):
and James Comey arguing, you didn't even do that correctly,
and you can't have an assistant to the President coming
in to bring this case because the Constitution says for
a principal officer like a US attorney, you have to
be confirmed by the US Senate.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
What are the chances, what's the percentage that you would
put it at that this case doesn't even make it
to trial.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
So this is what's a little bit tough. First of all,
just on this you know, she's not really the prosecutor.
This is exactly what a judge ruled in New Jersey
about Alena Haba acting without legal authority for roughly two months.
That threw all sorts of prosecutions and indictments into jeopardy
up there. So just this one motion alone has a
(02:09):
pretty good chance of being granted. I think the problem
is that Jim Comey has every interest in causing problems
obviously for this prosecution of himself. But at the same time,
if I'm him, I would love for this to go
to trial and fall apart because they don't actually have evidence.
(02:30):
I don't really want to win this on an early
motion because you've got a judge who was nominated and
confirmed by President Biden under Democrats, and you kind of
want this whole thing to be blown up by a
jury of your peers and to show that this isn't
Republican or Democrat. This was a nonsense case. So in general,
(02:52):
I would say this has a really high chance of
not making it to trial. You've got this prosecutor problem,
You've got that addictive prosecution problem. Even got motions that
are just like, they have no evidence, so this can't
go to trial. You'll see that motion at some point
as well. But if I'm the judge, and maybe even
if I'm Jim Comey, I want this to go to trial.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
We're joined by senior editor at The Dispatch and hosted
the Advisory Opinions podcast, Sarah is Isker. Now we get
to New York Attorney General Letitia James. She pledged to
go after Trump, and she did, winning a civil fraud
case against him. Now she's been indicted by the Trump
Department of Justice on bank fraud and false statement charges.
What do we need to know about that case that.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
They're nearly identical in the silliness of them. As many
others have pointed out, the case that James brought against
Trump had never been used before under that law. There
was no victim that she could find, and the amount
of the fraud that she ended up telling the jury
was pretty much made up. There was some like voodoo
(03:53):
math involved, and the Trump folks are saying turn about
is fair play. This is a case at the Department
of Justice would never normally bring because even the theoretical
loss six hundred dollars a year is just way too small.
The Department of Justice doesn't bring cases of that size
at the federal level. The theory of the case is
(04:16):
pretty silly. She told the bank over and over again,
it wouldn't be your primary residence. In one document that
the bank got out of dozens, it said it would be.
So the bank was very much unnoticed that it wouldn't
be your primary residence. And you have to prove intent right,
both that she intended to fool the bank and that
the bank was fooled. I don't think they have either
of those. And of course they have alleged that she
(04:41):
rented out the property, but they've shown no evidence that
she's done so. And she claims that this was done
so that her niece had somewhere to live while going
to school down in Norfolk, and that Denise never paid rent.
So there's also just a piece of the case that
they don't seem to have any evidence for.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Last thing I want to get to this does not
involve and indictment, but it does involve an investigation. Congress
now looking into former Special counsel Jack Smith, who previously
investigated Trump for his electoral in the January sixth ride
at the Capitol and the mishandling of classified documents. He's
under fire over the collection of records and information on
(05:18):
members of Congress. How concerned should we be about that?
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Yeah, I don't like it, to be honest, Ryan, they
were getting toll records of US senators. Toll records don't
mean they're listening in on the phone calls. It means
that they are able to see what time and who
and for how long the senator was on the phone. Nevertheless,
these are US senators who were not suspected of a crime.
(05:46):
And I do have a problem with that. It looks
like both a fishing expedition a separation of powers problem.
You know, in the Constitution, there's this thing called the
Speech and Debate Clause where you're not allowed to arrest
a member of the Congress on their way to go
vote basically, but we've interpreted that pretty broadly that you
don't want the executive branch for harassing members of Congress
(06:08):
or punishing them for being sort of political enemies. This
looks like that to me. And as much as I
thought the January sixth investigation, you know, maybe at the
broadest levels, was completely kosher, there were several parts of
it that I don't think were. And here's another one.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Now, is there a chance that he will end up
having to testify before Congress? And I asked that because,
you know, like with the Epstein files, there were all
these subpoenas that were issued, and you know, we haven't
seen Bill Clinton before a committee or anything like that
with this. How likely is it that Jack Smith could
(06:49):
be hauled before Congress to explain himself?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
But I think it's pretty likely. You know, Republicans control
the Senate right now, and you were messing with those senators.
You know, the only reason that he wouldn't show up
would be something like, you know, he has an argument
about executive privilege, but I think that's long gone at
this point. So yeah, he's gonna get a subpoena, all right.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Senior editor at the Dispatch and host of the Advisory
Opinions podcast, Sarah Esker. You can check out her work
at The Dispatch dot com and you can follow her
on x for more at wig Newton's Sarah always appreciate
time and insight. Thanks so much.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Thanks Ryan, The Ryan Gorman Show on NewsRadio WFLA. Follow
us on Facebook and Instagram at Ryan Gorman Show, and
find us online at Ryan Gormanshow dot com
Right now, let's go to the hotline and bring in
senior editor at The Dispatch and host of the Advisory
Opinions podcast, Sarah Isker is back with us. You can
find all of her work in a whole lot more
at The Dispatch dot com and you can follow her
on x at Wig Newton's. So, Sarah, let's talk indictments,
and I want to start with the case against former
FBI and Director James Comey. We broke down the charges
(00:22):
last week, but his legal team they're not just pushing
back against the charges, they're also pushing back against the
Trump appointed prosecutor who brought them. What is that all about?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Yeah, I mean we're going to see a flurry, if
you will, of pre trial motions here. This is the
first of many I expect. You know, we've talked about
the idea that they could argue this is selective or
vindictive prosecution. Before we even get to there, they're saying
they couldn't even bring the charge in the first place
because there's no US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
(00:58):
Lindsay Halligan, who presents the case to the grand jury,
was not properly appointed as the US attorney for the
Eastern District Attorney of Virginia, And of course we know
she wasn't nominated and confirmed by the US Senate as
the Constitution requires. But the Trump administration argued that, well,
he can put her in sort of on a temporary basis,
(01:21):
and James Comey arguing, you didn't even do that correctly,
and you can't have an assistant to the President coming
in to bring this case because the Constitution says for
a principal officer like a US attorney, you have to
be confirmed by the US Senate.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
What are the chances, what's the percentage that you would
put it at that this case doesn't even make it
to trial.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
So this is what's a little bit tough. First of all,
just on this you know, she's not really the prosecutor.
This is exactly what a judge ruled in New Jersey
about Alena Haba acting without legal authority for roughly two months.
That threw all sorts of prosecutions and indictments into jeopardy
up there. So just this one motion alone has a
(02:09):
pretty good chance of being granted. I think the problem
is that Jim Comey has every interest in causing problems
obviously for this prosecution of himself. But at the same time,
if I'm him, I would love for this to go
to trial and fall apart because they don't actually have evidence.
(02:30):
I don't really want to win this on an early
motion because you've got a judge who was nominated and
confirmed by President Biden under Democrats, and you kind of
want this whole thing to be blown up by a
jury of your peers and to show that this isn't
Republican or Democrat. This was a nonsense case. So in general,
(02:52):
I would say this has a really high chance of
not making it to trial. You've got this prosecutor problem,
You've got that addictive prosecution problem. Even got motions that
are just like, they have no evidence, so this can't
go to trial. You'll see that motion at some point
as well. But if I'm the judge, and maybe even
if I'm Jim Comey, I want this to go to trial.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
We're joined by senior editor at The Dispatch and hosted
the Advisory Opinions podcast, Sarah is Isker. Now we get
to New York Attorney General Letitia James. She pledged to
go after Trump, and she did, winning a civil fraud
case against him. Now she's been indicted by the Trump
Department of Justice on bank fraud and false statement charges.
What do we need to know about that case that.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
They're nearly identical in the silliness of them. As many
others have pointed out, the case that James brought against
Trump had never been used before under that law. There
was no victim that she could find, and the amount
of the fraud that she ended up telling the jury
was pretty much made up. There was some like voodoo
(03:53):
math involved, and the Trump folks are saying turn about
is fair play. This is a case at the Department
of Justice would never normally bring because even the theoretical
loss six hundred dollars a year is just way too small.
The Department of Justice doesn't bring cases of that size
at the federal level. The theory of the case is
(04:16):
pretty silly. She told the bank over and over again,
it wouldn't be your primary residence. In one document that
the bank got out of dozens, it said it would be.
So the bank was very much unnoticed that it wouldn't
be your primary residence. And you have to prove intent right,
both that she intended to fool the bank and that
the bank was fooled. I don't think they have either
of those. And of course they have alleged that she
(04:41):
rented out the property, but they've shown no evidence that
she's done so. And she claims that this was done
so that her niece had somewhere to live while going
to school down in Norfolk, and that Denise never paid rent.
So there's also just a piece of the case that
they don't seem to have any evidence for.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Last thing I want to get to this does not
involve and indictment, but it does involve an investigation. Congress
now looking into former Special counsel Jack Smith, who previously
investigated Trump for his electoral in the January sixth ride
at the Capitol and the mishandling of classified documents. He's
under fire over the collection of records and information on
(05:18):
members of Congress. How concerned should we be about that?
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Yeah, I don't like it, to be honest, Ryan, they
were getting toll records of US senators. Toll records don't
mean they're listening in on the phone calls. It means
that they are able to see what time and who
and for how long the senator was on the phone. Nevertheless,
these are US senators who were not suspected of a crime.
(05:46):
And I do have a problem with that. It looks
like both a fishing expedition a separation of powers problem.
You know, in the Constitution, there's this thing called the
Speech and Debate Clause where you're not allowed to arrest
a member of the Congress on their way to go
vote basically, but we've interpreted that pretty broadly that you
don't want the executive branch for harassing members of Congress
(06:08):
or punishing them for being sort of political enemies. This
looks like that to me. And as much as I
thought the January sixth investigation, you know, maybe at the
broadest levels, was completely kosher, there were several parts of
it that I don't think were. And here's another one.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Now, is there a chance that he will end up
having to testify before Congress? And I asked that because,
you know, like with the Epstein files, there were all
these subpoenas that were issued, and you know, we haven't
seen Bill Clinton before a committee or anything like that
with this. How likely is it that Jack Smith could
(06:49):
be hauled before Congress to explain himself?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
But I think it's pretty likely. You know, Republicans control
the Senate right now, and you were messing with those senators.
You know, the only reason that he wouldn't show up
would be something like, you know, he has an argument
about executive privilege, but I think that's long gone at
this point. So yeah, he's gonna get a subpoena, all right.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Senior editor at the Dispatch and host of the Advisory
Opinions podcast, Sarah Esker. You can check out her work
at The Dispatch dot com and you can follow her
on x for more at wig Newton's Sarah always appreciate
time and insight. Thanks so much.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Thanks Ryan, The Ryan Gorman Show on NewsRadio WFLA. Follow
us on Facebook and Instagram at Ryan Gorman Show, and
find us online at Ryan Gormanshow dot com
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.