The trio of host Geoff Bennett, New York Occasions columnist David Brooks, and MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart gathered collectively on Friday’s PBS Information Hour to announce, but once more, that democracy is dying. This time, the offender is the Division of Justice and its choice to indict former FBI Director James Comey.
Bennett started with Brooks, “So, David, President Donald Trump’s former private lawyer Lindsey Halligan had been on the job for simply 4 days when she went earlier than a grand jury in search of this extraordinary, unprecedented indictment of James Comey. How do you view the costs themselves and the method that led to those costs?”
Charging somebody, together with politically controversial folks, with mendacity to Congress is hardly unprecedented, and when the Mueller Probe indicted folks on that very same cost, liberals hailed it as proof Mueller was getting outcomes.
Nonetheless, Brooks claimed that the costs towards Comey are so clearly corrupt that, “I view it the way in which each different sentient human being views it, as an erosion of our democracy, a blatant one.”
He added, “You need your prosecutors to ask themselves one query — effectively, two. Did this particular person commit a criminal offense and might we show it? And, clearly, that is not the way in which you’ll be able to assume in case you’re within the Justice Division today. The one query you want — must ask your self is, does the president need me to do that?”
Brooks additionally regretted, “That is only a violation of our primary basic rules. And so I want I had one thing subtle to say, however if you have a look at what the precise indictment is, it claims that he knew that someone else did some leak.”
He concluded by declaring, “It is so flimsy, you’ll be able to see why they’ve been deciding to not prosecute this case over and over and over. And to do it per week earlier than the time period runs out, when the prosecutor’s by no means prosecuted something earlier than, it is the plain. It is a violation of our democracy.”
For his half, Capehart eagerly agreed, “Oh, look, in the case of democracy and threats to democracy, there can be no daylight between me and David. I come at this with the identical view.”
Capehart continued echoing Brooks when he added, “You realize, justice is meant to be blind. It’s imagined to be meted out with out worry or favor of the highly effective and positively with out strain from the president. And now what we’ve seen time and time once more — this is not the one time that we’ve seen Justice wanting over her shoulder, questioning, what does the president need me to do?”
He wrapped up by stating, “And the opposite factor about this indictment of James Comey, it is solely two pages. And it is solely — it is two pages as a result of it is double-spaced. It’s actually so flimsy that it’s no marvel that the previous FBI director is saying, ‘Yeah, let’s go to trial,’ as a result of I believe he is aware of deep down, if justice is to prevail, if the rule of regulation is to be upheld, a jury of his friends will discover him not responsible.”
When Trump was convicted in New York, Brooks and Capehart hailed the concept of a jury verdict as proof that he wasn’t the sufferer of a political witch hunt. If Comey is discovered not responsible by a jury of his friends, would that imply that democracy is alive once more? If he’s discovered responsible, would that jury be in on the plot to destroy democracy as effectively, or would it not present that, as we was once advised on a regular basis, no one is above the regulation?
Here’s a transcript for the September 26 present:
PBS Information Hour
9/26/2025
7:36 PM ET
GEOFF BENNETT: So, David, President Donald Trump’s former private lawyer Lindsey Halligan had been on the job for simply 4 days when she went earlier than a grand jury in search of this extraordinary, unprecedented indictment of James Comey. How do you view the costs themselves and the method that led to those costs?
DAVID BROOKS: I view it the way in which each different sentient human being views it, as an erosion of our democracy, a blatant one.
You need your prosecutors to ask themselves one query — effectively, two. Did this particular person commit a criminal offense and might we show it? And, clearly, that is not the way in which you’ll be able to assume in case you’re within the Justice Division today. The one query you want — must ask your self is, does the president need me to do that?
And that is only a violation of our primary basic rules. And so I want I had one thing subtle to say, however if you have a look at what the precise indictment is, it claims that he knew that someone else did some leak.
Effectively, it is so flimsy, you’ll be able to see why they’ve been deciding to not prosecute this case over and over and over. And to do it per week earlier than the time period runs out, when the prosecutor’s by no means prosecuted something earlier than, it is the plain. It is a violation of our democracy.
BENNETT: Jonathan, how does all of this strike you?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Oh, look, in the case of democracy and threats to democracy, there can be no daylight between me and David.
I come at this with the identical view. You realize, justice is meant to be blind. It’s imagined to be meted out with out worry or favor of the highly effective and positively with out strain from the president. And now what we’ve seen time and time once more — this is not the one time that we’ve seen Justice wanting over her shoulder, questioning, what does the president need me to do?
And the opposite factor about this indictment of James Comey, it is solely two pages. And it is solely — it is two pages as a result of it is double-spaced. It’s actually so flimsy that it’s no marvel that the previous FBI director is saying, “Yeah, let’s go to trial,” as a result of I believe he is aware of deep down, if justice is to prevail, if the rule of regulation is to be upheld, a jury of his friends will discover him not responsible.
