09-26-25 *INTERVIEW* Andy McCarthy on the James Comey Indictment

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
My pal Andy McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and contributing editor
at National Review and author of the still fabulous book
Ball of Collusion. Andy, good morning. Thanks for making time
for me on short notice.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Ross. It's my pleasure. I'm having one of those mornings.

Speaker 3 (00:18):
I bet, I bet you are. I bet everybody wants
to talk to you. Let me just say like.

Speaker 1 (00:22):
A few things really quickly, and then I'm going to
hand this off to you. Regarding the James Comy indictment,
number one, it looks like political retribution number two. I
get it. Some of these people kind of deserve to
be retributed against number three. Trump's people are perfectly down
with political retribution number four. I'm down with the indictment

(00:42):
as long as it is being brought with a high
level of certainty.

Speaker 3 (00:48):
That they can convict.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
And that's the part I'm not I have some real
concerns about I would not I would really not like
to see this go in a way that turns Comy
into a hero and a murdyr.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
And a victim.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Because DOJ brought or the US attorney brought a case
that's two weeks. Okay, I'll shut up now and tell
us anything you think we need to be thinking about.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Well, I think I'm going to react to your last
point because we're in general in agreement on the other stuff,
and what I can best address is the strength of
the case. I think you're quite right that you don't
bring a case like this unless it's bulletproof. And this
is bulletproof, all right, put it's bulletproof for acquittal. I

(01:32):
don't think ross that this case. I mean, I think,
as I said in what I wrote about this today,
I think Comy has a dilemma because the case should
be thrown out on a pre trial motion to dismiss.
But unfortunately, in the environment we're in, if that happens,
it's the case has been assigned to abiden the point

(01:56):
to Judge Trump and his supporters will all say that
the fix was in and that was why the case
got thrown out. So, you know, probably even though the
last thing anyone should want is to have to go
through a trial, I know Comy said last night that,
you know, let's have a trial, but it's probably better
for all concerned if he gets acquitted by the jury,
then gets the court throws the case up.

Speaker 1 (02:17):
But there's no case, okay, So I'll just even though
I'm inclined to agree with you, I'm going to play
devil's advocate for a minute because that's what I like
to do with you and with lawyers generally. So the
argument from I'm not gonna I have no idea what
the US attorney's argument really is. But from people generally
on Trump's side, they look at what Comy said in

(02:41):
front of Congress, and we can't use the twenty seventeen
thing because that's past the statute of limitations, but the
twenty twenty interaction with Ted Cruz, and they say that
he that he lied there. One of the things I
guess is about whether he authorized somebody to leak to
the media. And Andy McCabe, who was probably a liar himself,

(03:01):
said that Komy did. So I think they're saying, well,
there's a prima facia case here because you had the
former what deputy director or whatever McCabe was of the
FBI saying the exact opposite thing from what Komy said.

Speaker 3 (03:15):
So isn't there some basis there?

Speaker 2 (03:18):
Well, no, even though what you described as accurate, and
it's because what Komy and McCabe, the conflict in their
version of events, and this RUSS involves an October twenty
sixteen leak to the Wall Street Journal of information about
the FBI's Plinton Foundation investigation. So that's what we're talking about.

(03:42):
What they disagree about is what McCabe told Comy about
it and what Komy's reaction was. So they have a
disagreement about that. Here's what they agree on. McCabe has
said any number of times, as I think even Ted

(04:02):
Crews said in his testimony, that he that he authorized
that he made the leak, that he uh and he
told Toby that he made the leak. The problem is
what Ted put in his question was that McCabe that
Tomy authorized McCabe to make the leak, and in fact,

(04:27):
that just isn't true. It didn't, you know, it didn't
happen that way. McCabe says that he did the leak himself,
and that having done the league himself, after the the
he's got published in the Wall Street Journal, he had
a conversation with Tomy about it. Now he claims in

(04:49):
the conversation with Komy that he explained to him how
he had authorized the leak and why he did it,
and he said Tomy didn't seem to be troubled by it.
Comy to the contrary is that McCabe told him about McCabe,
and he talked about the Wall Street Journal article when
it came out. McCabe pretended that he didn't know anything

(05:10):
about what the source of it was, and that Comy
made quite clear to him that he was upset about
the leak. This was investigated by the Inspector General Michael Horowitz,
who found that McCabe lacked candor and that there was
overwhelming corroboration for Coby's version of events. And let's remember,

(05:30):
Horowitz did any number of reports that were scathing in
their assessment of Comy's performance in various parts of his
sewardship of the FBI. But on this one, you know,
he said McCabe was he referred McKay to the Justice
Department for prosecution. The Trump Justice Department, the first administration

(05:51):
ended up not bringing it. But like, no matter what
you think about all that stuff, even by McCabe's own account,
Comy didn't author the leak. Okay, their issue was Their
issue was what happened afterwards.

Speaker 1 (06:05):
Okay, So I got just over a minute left here,
and let's say just hypothetically that I'm I am unaware
of the level of detail that you just described, and
I'm just reading current news about this. I will tell
you two things that stand out for me that give
me a lot of concern.

Speaker 3 (06:22):
About the strength of the case.

Speaker 1 (06:24):
First, the actual attorney, who knows right, the former US
attorney who was qualified for the job, declined to prosecute Comy,
even knowing there was some political pressure to prosecute him,
and appears to have said there isn't a strong enough
case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and I'm not
going to bring charges.

Speaker 3 (06:44):
So that gives me some concern.

Speaker 1 (06:46):
And the other thing that I think is really interesting,
but maybe it's not actually interesting, and I want you
to tell me whether it is or isn't, is that
when this new US attorney who really isn't qualified for
the job went the grand jury, she brought three charges
and actually was only able to get an indictment on two.

(07:07):
And for me, I have an inference there that the
two are also then probably kind of weak.

Speaker 3 (07:12):
But maybe that's not a fair inference. What do you
say to that, it's.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
An absolutely fair inference that the third charge she tried
to bring the grand jury rebuffed it. And let's remember
now this is the grand jury where you don't get
the defense presentation. There's no cross example, it's just the
government's version of events. And she still couldn't get an
indictment because it was an absurd charge. It would take
me too long to explain why it was absurd. But

(07:39):
I'm telling you, no federal prosecutor should ever get a
no true bill from a grand jury, which is one
of grand jury rebuffs you because you get to say
to them at the end of your presentation, now, does
the grand jury think that there's any other evidence that
they'd like to hear in this case? Result, they will

(08:00):
tell you if they have a problem with the case
before you ask them to vote on it. Okay, So anybody,
any federal prosecutor who has been around to ten minutes
knows that.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
Okay, last quick thing, give me quick answers on these
two questions. What is the percentage chance that gets to
a trial, And if it gets to a trial, what
is the percentage chance James Comy is convicted.

Speaker 2 (08:24):
I'd say twenty percent chance that it gets the trial
just because of the political environment, and zero percent chance
that he gets convicted.

Speaker 1 (08:34):
And the reason you're saying it's a twenty percent chance
to get to trial is that you think the answer
to that question should be zero, but that politics may
cause it to go to a trial when otherwise, in
a normal situation it wouldn't correct. Andy McCarthy, former federal prosecutor.
You can read his writing at Nationalreview dot com. He
also writes for The New York Post and elsewhere. Thanks

(08:56):
for making time for us on short notice, Andy, That
was great.

Speaker 2 (08:58):
Thanks Russ.

Speaker 3 (08:59):
All right,