Transcript

Rachel Maddow on the Midterms & Examining the DOJ in “Department of Fate” | The Daily Show

From The Daily Show · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 24 min · 4,678 words · 76 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Rachel Maddow on the Midterms & Examining the DOJ in “Department of Fate” | The Daily Show", an episode of The Daily Show published November 10, 2026 (24 min, about 4,678 words). It mentions 43 people, works and ideas, including Rachel Maddow, Donald Trump, U.S. Department of Justice, Trump administration, Department of Fate: The Promise, the Power, and the Collapse of America's Most Consequential Institution.

What this episode is about

Rachel Maddow discusses the midterm election landscape, reflecting on surprise results, the pressure of live analysis, and the impact of the DOJ narrative as framed in “Department of Fate,” with emphasis on real-time race coverage and the challenges of identifying unexpected winners.

Key takeaways

  • Early election nights punish selective memory: you must know the unglamorous local wins, not just the flashy headlines.
  • Cheat sheets fade fast when names matter; on-the-fly learning becomes political survival in real time.
  • Democracy's health hinge: state governments winning Medicaid battles can outsize federal shifts in practice.
  • 52-seat threshold wasn’t just math—it redefined influence; power shifts from prestige to procedural leverage.
  • The real takeaway: governing blocks to expand coverage can be more transformative than marquee federal wins.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: Rachel Maddow, Democratic Party, Indiana, John Stewart
  2. – 10:00: Georgia, Supreme Court Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Trump administration
  3. – 15:00: Donald Trump, Department of Fate: The Promise, the Power, and the Collapse of America's Most Consequential Institution, U.S. Department of Justice, Trump administration
  4. – 20:00: Todd Blanche, U.S. Department of Justice, January 6th, Ghislain Maxwell
  5. – 23:42: January 6th, Trump administration, Todd Blanche, Teapot Dome scandal

Notable quotes from "Rachel Maddow on the Midterms & Examining the DOJ in “Department of Fate” | The Daily Show"

  • Jon Stewart and The Best F**king News Team host The Daily Show.
    about The Daily Show · at
  • Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I get that. Now, what was the most consequential for you? Was it the Senate races? Because as much as the cute guy from Indiana, when the Senate flipped, that really was the.
    about John Stewart · at
  • The state house thing is so interesting to me because is it that the federal government by abdicating their responsibility for people who are struggling? Does that get shifted? Is.
    about Democratic Party · at
  • How much of a problem is the Supreme Court over the last 20 years when you think about the way that they've defined down corruption, the way that they've insulated the executive branch, the way.
    about Supreme Court Justice · at
  • On this because you've done it in terms of the way people have pushed back on the government trying to build there was a place in Georgia, a social circle.
    about Social Circle, Georgia · at
  • I think I was really wrong about something in Trump's first term at the by the end of his first term when Bill Barr was in there and everything he was using the justice…
    about Trump administration · at
  • The government and specifically the justice department are I argue the most consequential institution in the country. They hold the country's fate in their hands. They have incredible power.
    about Rachel Maddow · at
  • Investigate itself and bring accountability? that even when you think about the case study is always January 6 and you think about well that's the most egregious thing that in…
    about January 6th · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Rachel Maddow — Person · Main guest / Author · 3 mentions · first at
    Guest on The Daily Show discussing her book about the DOJ, recent elections, and proposed reforms; primary voice explaining the department's history and current condition.
  • Donald Trump — Person · Referenced subject / critic of the DOJ · 3 mentions · first at
    Frequently discussed as the president whose administration sought to politicize and then effectively hollow out the DOJ; central to examples of abuses and failures recounted in the interview.
    Function of the Justice Department is to make sure that the Constitution is in effect in this country. And if you want the Constitution to not be in effect in this country, you…
  • Todd Blanche — Person · Referenced DOJ official (criticized) · 4 mentions · first at
    Potential misspelling affects identification
    Mechanism just take one example with Todd Blanch right Todd Blanch goes and takes a personal meeting with the woman who was convicted as Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirator. I…
  • John Stewart — Person · Host · 2 mentions · first at
    Interviewer and host of The Daily Show; facilitates discussion and prompts Maddow on key topics about the DOJ and elections.
  • William P. Barr — Person · Referenced former Attorney General (criticized) · 1 mention · first at
    Named as the AG in Trump's first term who used the DOJ inappropriately, motivating Maddow's concerns and the rationale for writing the book.
    I think I was really wrong about something in Trump's first term at the by the end of his first term when Bill Barr was in there and everything he was using the justice…
  • Ghislain Maxwell — Person · Referenced convicted co-conspirator · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in relation to a reported personal meeting with a DOJ official (Todd Blanch) and subsequent transfer to a more lenient facility — used to illustrate possible corruption or improper influence.
    Mechanism just take one example with Todd Blanch right Todd Blanch goes and takes a personal meeting with the woman who was convicted as Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirator. I…
  • Keisha Lance Bottoms — Person · Referenced governor (positive example) · 1 mention · first at
    Governor mentioned in health care expansion context
    The first black woman to ever be the governor of a state anyway anywhere. But it's a really big deal in really short term that this probably means that hundreds of thousands of…
  • Pete Hegseth — Person · Referenced media figure / criticized · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as an example of partisan or controversial figures being placed in or associated with roles that undermine institutional credibility.
    In the in DC, just looking at Washington DC, they brought in to be the top federal prosecutor in DC, the only Fox News host with a less impressive reputation than Pete Hex, right? Like if Pete Exa didn't have a great like.
  • Andy Kim — Person · Referenced legislator / policy proposer · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as sponsor of legislation (Medicare-for-kids style bill) that could guarantee health insurance for children; used as an example of concrete policy Democrats could pursue.
    I think Democrats would support it up and down the ballot. that how he would veto something like that I think would be a astonishingly difficult move for him.
  • Elon Musk — Person · Referenced corporate actor · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as an example of a federal contractor who could receive government funds and then influence politics, illustrating conflicts of interest and why closing lobbying/donation loopholes matters.
    On the, for example, on the federal contractors making political donations. think about Elon Musk getting billions of dollars in, SpaceX contracts from the government or whatever, then turning around and spending billions of dollars.
  • Harry Daugherty — Person · Historical actor (criticized) · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced as the Attorney General during the Teapot Dome era, used to illustrate historical DOJ corruption and parallels to modern events.
    From the American people. And the attorney general at the time was this guy Harry Dhy. And the phrase that I use in the book to describe the Department of Justice under him is that it was a multi-story bribe department store. Yes.
  • Lisa Page — Person · Referenced former FBI lawyer · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned alongside Peter Strzok as part of the DOJ's targeting of investigators' private texts; exemplifies departmental politicization.
    Using the justice department for all sorts of terrible and inappropriate stuff. remember they like going after Peter Struck and Lisa Page, right? The FBI.
  • Peter Strzok — Person · Referenced former FBI official · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as one of the FBI figures whose private communications were exposed and weaponized by the DOJ under politicized pressure — used as an example of abuse.
    Using the justice department for all sorts of terrible and inappropriate stuff. remember they like going after Peter Struck and Lisa Page, right? The FBI.
  • Franklin Delano Roosevelt — Person · Historical actor referenced · 1 mention · first at
    Historical figure mentioned in context of government power
    To go after the clan. And we do think of that as well that was the right move. But then you think, well then Roosevelt did that to in turn the Japanese or you know that…

Books & papers

Companies & orgs

  • Fox News — Company · Referenced media company · 1 mention · first at
    Cited in critique of personnel choices in the Justice Department—specifically referencing a hiring choice described as 'the only Fox News host with a less impressive reputation than Pete Hegsth'—used to illustrate concerns about politicized appointments and media backgrounds of officials.
    In the in DC, just looking at Washington DC, they brought in to be the top federal prosecutor in DC, the only Fox News host with a less impressive reputation than Pete Hex, right? Like if.
  • MS NOW — Company · Guest affiliation · 4 mentions · first at
    Branding/branding confusion noted; refers to Rachel Maddow's program branding
    How did you experience I know you were working rarely on a Tuesday.
  • Comedy Central — Company · Network (show affiliation) · 1 mention · first at
    Distributor of The Daily Show; included in episode context metadata.
    The Daily Show airs weeknights at 11/10c on Comedy Central.

Concepts & topics

  • U.S. Department of Justice — Concept · Core institution discussed · 3 mentions · first at
    Key institution in the DOJ discussion
    The core function of the Justice Department, for all its faults, for all the terrible things it's done, the core function of the Justice Department is to make sure that the…
  • Trump administration — Concept · Context for DOJ politicization · 3 mentions · first at
    Referenced as the executive branch that sought to weaponize the DOJ, remove checks, and enabled many controversial actions discussed in the interview.
  • Democratic Party — Concept · Political actor / subject of election analysis · 4 mentions · first at
    Discussed regarding midterm wins, state government takeovers, and policy priorities like Medicaid expansion and healthcare access.
  • Supreme Court Justice — Concept · Judicial actor referenced · 2 mentions · first at
    Central judiciary actor in discussion
  • Medicaid — Concept · Policy instrument · 1 mention · first at
    Discussed as a concrete mechanism states can use to expand healthcare access and prevent people from losing insurance; central to the discussion of state-level impact.
    Georgia, the fact that Georgia has been governed by Republicans for so many years means that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Georgia who could be on Medicaid right now and Republicans are making sure they can't.
  • Medicare for All — Concept · Policy proposal discussed · 1 mention · first at
    Raised as a policy idea (or phased approach like Medicare for kids) to expand healthcare access; used to illustrate legislative options Democrats could pursue.
    Where okay, maybe it's not going to be Medicare for all right off the bat. Maybe we're not going to go for that first, but every kid in America should have health insurance.
  • Ku Klux Klan — Concept · Historical adversary · 1 mention · first at
    Historical adversary discussed in DOJ context
    Department and a lot of the terrible things that it has done in its 150 years. When the Justice Department stood up against the clan in 1870 when it was first founded, it was…

Places & events

  • January 6th — Event · Reference for accountability failure · 2 mentions · first at
    Used as the central modern example of a severe attack on democratic institutions and a test of the DOJ's ability to investigate high-level wrongdoing.
  • Georgia — Place · State case study · 3 mentions · first at
    Used as an example of state-level policy change (Medicaid expansion, new Democratic governor) that could have tangible short-term effects on health coverage.
    People. Had he wanted to do that, he could have done that by now and he never has. But I do think that like in Georgia, the fact that Georgia has been governed by Republicans…
  • Social Circle, Georgia — Place · Local case study / citizen resistance example · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as a locality that successfully resisted a proposed Trump administration detention center — used to show that local consent and activism can block federal projects.
  • Russia investigation — Event · Referenced past DOJ controversy · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in relation to DOJ attempts to reframe or dismiss investigations into election interference and to justify politicized actions against investigators.
    Their private text messages out to reporters from the Justice Department, right? And trying to turn the Russia investigation about the investigation of the what Russia did in…
  • Teapot Dome scandal — Event · Historical case study · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced as a historical precedent of DOJ/administration corruption (1920s oil-leasing bribery) to draw parallels with modern abuses of power.
    Well, you bring it up actually. and you really you've got to get it because it provides you a road map to sort of the different variations that the Department of Justice went through, but the chapters on the Teapot Dome.
  • Indiana — Place · State example (election result) · 3 mentions · first at
    Referenced as a state where a surprising local candidate won, used to illustrate unexpected midterm upsets.
    And that's what everybody does, that everybody has the same cheat. You don't think you're gonna need to know the name of the cute gay guy in Indiana in the Trump double-digit district who loves cats. But that guy won in Indiana and so.
  • Ohio — Place · State example (governance) · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as a state where a Democratic governor could affect policy (healthcare) and where state control matters for material outcomes.
    Difference to have Democratic full control in places like Pennsylvania. and to have a Democratic governor in some place like Ohio and to have a to have Democrats taking over…
  • Wisconsin — Place · Referenced state · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as one of the states where unexpected Democratic wins occurred during the midterms, illustrating surprising local races that impacted national outcomes.
    I think it really wasn't until I got off the air that I realized oh, holy flip, Texas is blue.
  • Texas — Place · State example (election result) · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced as a notable state that 'turned blue' in the midterms — used to convey the surprising scope of Democratic gains.
    I didn't have any like better look at the polls than anybody, but I realized I was in trouble when my cheat stopped working. The way you cheat for preparing for midterm election nights when there's like hundreds and hundreds.
  • Pennsylvania — Place · State example (policy impact) · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced as a state where Democratic control could produce tangible improvements in healthcare access and policy outcomes.
    Yes. And it's going to make a really big difference to have Democratic full control in places like Pennsylvania. and to have a Democratic governor in some place like Ohio and to have a to have Democrats taking over state.
  • Citizens United — Event · Legal precedent referenced · 1 mention · first at
    Implicitly referenced when discussing how the Supreme Court has made money into speech and insulated corporate influence, affecting corruption laws.
    How much of a problem is the Supreme Court over the last 20 years when you think about the way that they've defined down corruption, the way that they've insulated the…
  • Watergate — Event · Historical reference for accountability · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a comparative benchmark for presidential wrongdoing and institutional response, with January 6 framed as potentially more egregious.
    Government still has the ability to investigate itself and bring accountability? that even when you think about the case study is always January 6 and you think about well…
  • Fontana — Place · Referenced state · 1 mention · first at
    Named as one of the states where Democrats won seats in the midterms, used to show the breadth of surprising Democratic successes across different regions.
    I think it really wasn't until I got off the air that I realized oh, holy flip, Texas is blue.
  • Utah — Place · Referenced state · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as another state where Democrats gained representation in the midterms, reinforcing the unexpected geographic distribution of wins.
    I think it really wasn't until I got off the air that I realized oh, holy flip, Texas is blue.
  • Iran war (2026) — Event · Policy risk referenced · 1 mention · first at
    Policy risk topic discussed
    Yes. I think they can use the power of the purse to stop the Iran war.
  • Mara Lago — Place · Referenced residence / source of influence · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as the location associated with Trump's personal business and as shorthand for his circle; invoked when discussing patronage and personnel picks tied to the president.
    Met for indictments. They refuse to indict and then they're fired. And like a real estate lawyer from near Mara Lago just steps in and goes, I'll do it.

Media & podcasts

  • The Daily Show — Media · Program (setting of interview) · 2 mentions · first at
    The show on which the interview takes place; provides the platform and host (Jon Stewart) for the conversation.
  • The Rachel Maddow Show — Media · Guest's program / affiliation · 1 mention · first at
    Rachel Maddow's TV program, referenced as her platform and where she conducts election-night coverage mentioned in the discussion.
    Pamphlet, but otherwise it's fantastic. Thank you for being available now. THE RACHEL M SHOW MONDAYS at 9:00 p.m. And it break them Wow.

Full transcript with timestamps

Rachel Maddo. Thank you. Thanks for having me. How are you? There there is an excitement. There is a feeling of hope. How did you experience I know you were working rarely on a Tuesday.

I know you know me. Monday. I thought we were Monday buddies. Exactly. And by the way,

Mondays are the best day. What? What's with writing the books? Okay. I thought it was we we work on Monday and then the rest of the week we feed chipmunks. We do whatever.

I wrote it only on Mondays. All right. Good. That makes me feel better. How did you experience the night? During the day, were you trepidacious? When was it that you thought, "Oh, this is going uh the way that I would like it to go and in a way that is even grander than what I might have imagined." I think that I didn't have any insider knowledge about how it was going to go. I didn't have any like better look at the polls than anybody, but I realized I was in trouble when um my cheat stopped working. The way you cheat for preparing for midterm election nights when there's like hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people on the ballot is you don't study everybody. You only study the few dozen races that are going to flip, right?

And that's what everybody does, that everybody has the same cheat. You don't think you're gonna need to know the name of the cute gay guy in Indiana in the Trump double-digit district who loves cats. But that guy won in Indiana and so you have to learn his name. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS LIKE in in Wisconsin, like I didn't think I was going to need to learn about the like awesome waitress and the ER nurse who were going to flip Republican districts, but all of a sudden we're all cramming and studying in real time while we're not taking commercial breaks, trying to learn how to pronounce the names of these people we haven't studied.

So, they're just throwing you races that no one saw coming and you're trying to on the fly

pick all that stuff up. Yes. And grab it. So, you really there's almost no time to soak in any kind of uh exhilaration. You really are still working.

Yes. I'm trying to keep my brain and my mouth connected and legal because I've got and my ears too because I also have to hear from the control room like when we've got a call and is it a big enough call that I need to interrupt the person talking and jump in there and say and you have to make sure that you say the right thing and you have to pronounce stuff right and you have to remember if you have anything salient to say about the person. It's just a it's just a lot. I think it really wasn't until I got off the air that I realized like, oh, holy flip, Texas is blue.

Um, you know, and Ohio and Democrats going to Congress from Montana and from Utah and the cat guy won in Indiana. I mean, it's amazing.

You can say here, I'll be I'll turn into just toast instantly. Lightning bolt. You cannot let that go because then you'll go back to work in your real place and go, "Oh, now you're going to start to do that."

It's true. Uh it is the kind of thing. What time did you get out of there? I was supposed to be on until 2, but at 119 my brain and my mouth disconnected and Christmas took over

and then you were like, you were done. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I get that. Now, what was the most consequential for you? Was it the Senate races? Because as much as the cute guy from Indiana, when the Senate flipped, that really was the night that Democrats could only have dreamed of.

For me, I think a lot of the um whole state governments being taken over by Democrats is really important, too. I'm really really hung up on the fact that people are losing their health care, their health insurance by the millions.

Yes. And it's going to make a really big difference to have Democratic full control in places like Pennsylvania. Um, and to have a Democratic governor in some place like Ohio and and to have a to have Democrats taking over state government in so many places. It's going to have a huge difference going to make a huge difference in terms of people just not losing their health insurance. And I'm I think that's really important substantively. Politically though, I think it was not when Democrats got to 51 in the Senate. It was when they got to 52 because when they got to 52, John Federman ceased TO MATTER.

YES. EVERYBODY WAS WAITING TO HAVE A better proof Senate. But tell me about this. The state house thing is so interesting to me because is it that the the federal government by abdicating their responsibility for people who are struggling? Does that get shifted? Is that about the block grants that come in there? How can Democratic state houses make up that difference without really going into the red for themselves just economically? or is it that they can put more pressure on this, you know, federal government for block grants? Like h how does that work?

It'll it'll matter in terms of what states are doing and where it's working in states now to put pressure upward. But I don't think Donald Trump is going to s sign anything that's going to be good for healthcare for the American people. Had he wanted to do that, he could have done that by now and he never has. But I do think that like in Georgia, the fact that Georgia has been governed by Republicans for so many years means that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Georgia who could be on Medicaid right now and Republicans are making sure they can't.

Listen cold. Yes. And well, and their Medicaid expansion is something that you can do under state law if you want to, right? And Republicans stopped them from doing that in Georgia. And now Kesha Lance Bottoms is in there. And it's a huge deal that she's the first black woman to ever be the governor of a state anyway anywhere. But it's a really really really big deal in really short term that this probably means that hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise don't have health insurance in Georgia are now going to get it because of her and because of

tangible effects fell down. What is for for you to because I I I tend to get uh pessimistic when I see a certain status quo leadership uh group in place that has in some ways disappointed in the past and so I wonder well what what will be different now? What would you need to see going forward from uh Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate that would make you feel like oh this is different. They're moving with purpose and with with urgency.

I I mean, I can give you a list of 30 things. Give me a list of five things. I mean, I think that they can um act not only to investigate what's been going on with ICE, but to defund what ICE has been doing. Okay. I think um I think they can um impeach not only Pete Hegsth, but Todd Blanch at the Department of Health. Um, and I think that's important not just to shame those guys, but in some cases it's essentially to like stop a crime wave in progress. Just like let them know they can't get away from this with this stuff anymore.

Um, and impeach them. I think that they could also do things on health care that would make it really difficult for the president to keep stepping on people's necks in terms of having health insurance.

Andy, if I was triaging, that'd probably be my number one. That's the thing that I've seen from people from every strat of American society. health care and health insurance bills have have skyrocketed 30% every year for the last 30 years.

It's insane. I mean, for people who have health insurance, it's insane. But there's four million kids in America right now who aren't covered by any health insurance, right?

We could have a essentially Medicare for all kids, right? You know, where you know, okay, maybe it's not going to be Medicare for all right off the bat. Maybe we're not going to go for that first, but every kid in America should have health insurance. Andy Kim has a bill that would do that. I think Democrats would support it up and down the ballot. that that how he would veto something like that I think would be a astonishingly uh difficult move for him.

Yes. I think they can use the power of the purse to stop the Iran war. Right. I I mean I just I think there's a lot I think there's a lot of stuff that they can do and I think

no stock trading. I' that that'd go on the floor first day. Say stop members of Congress from stock trading. Stop people who are uh federal contractors from making political donations, right? like just if you're getting money from the federal government, don't you can't then turn that money around and pay it to buy pay use it to buy your politicians.

How much of a problem is the Supreme Court over the last 20 years when you think about the way that they've defined down corruption, the way that they've uh insulated the executive branch, the way that they have made it so that money is speech and corporations are people. How difficult is that to do legislatively or is that constitutional? Is that beyond the scope of what this group can do?

I think that you need to find where the limits are by pushing right up against them.

Right. And so, yeah, push the limits. Push the limit. Where would they have learned that from?

Push the limits. I like it. I mean, on the, for example, on the federal contractors making political donations. Like, think about Elon Musk getting billions of dollars in, you know, SpaceX contracts from the government or whatever, then turning around and spending billions of dollars trying to trying to uh pick his government. so they can keep giving him more money. It's a very um it's a nasty circle. There are federal laws that preclude that or supposed to preclude that, but they're full of loopholes. Close the loopholes and then make the Supreme Court stand up for them if they want to,

right? Just push it. You know, it's this is the time to do it. I have to say what what this election showed and I think you've actually done an awful lot on this because you've done it in terms of the way people have pushed back on the government trying to build uh there was a place in Georgia, a social circle. Am I getting social?

Social circle, Georgia. Super red place. Uh the Trump administration wanted to build a huge detention center there and they fought it and they stopped it.

Yeah. This is it turns out the consent of the governed still as little as consent might matter to Donald. That's a terrible joke.

But but it the consent of the govern still matters. Yes. And it doesn't usually get led by the representatives, the the elected representatives of those people, right? Social circle stood up for itself, you know, um people all over the country where Trump wanted to put these mega prisons. These were huge warehouses to hold people by the thousands, places that would hold five, six, seven, 10, 14,000 people, all without trial, held indefinitely

for for things that are generally considered in our society civil issues. These are not the worst of the worst. These are people who overstayed a student visa or uh are here on a green card but got a parking ticket. Like tickytac that normally would be treated civily. Yes.

Yes. Or they came in legally under TPS, temporary protected status or something and then the Trump administration decided to revoke it and suddenly basically illegalize people who had never done anything illegal in their life who are here on legal terms. And I think we talk to each other and we say like, "Oh, that's how they want to treat immigrants." You know, that's what they want to do. We we think about it as a special behav class of behavior by the government that's just for immigrants. And we think therefore, oh, you either care about immigrants or you don't. No, I'm sorry. With a president like this, if you give him seven to 10 prisons around the country that hold 10,000 people each where he can hold people without trial, without access to lawyers indefinitely. You think he's only going to leave immigrants in there? I just don't I think that what they first do to immigrants they want to do to the rest

of us. Which brings us Yeah. to this book which is sort of charting you know the DOJ. I think we all have kind of this uh very high-minded feel. It's the DOJ there's independence. This is a great study and well um actually actually uh but you run through some great examples of of where the DOJ has not necessarily uh been that ideal that we view

and I wrote the book um I mostly because I think I was really wrong about something in Trump's first term at the by the end of his first term when Bill Barr was in there and everything he was using the justice department for all sorts of terrible and inappropriate stuff. remember they like going after Peter Struck and Lisa Page, right? The FBI.

They apparently they had a relationship. I know. And so they had to be arrested.

So they had to be so they had to put their their private text messages give their private text messages out to reporters from the Justice Department, right? And trying to turn the Russia investigation about the investigation of the what Russia did in 2016 election into itself a criminal act and going, you know, they they pushed out US attorneys who wouldn't prosecute John Kerry, right? and Barack Obama's White House council is all this weird stuff that we've kind of forgotten now. But it struck me at that time

that if he got back in for a second term, he would supersize the Justice Department. He would turn it into a nuclear weapon. He would use it for all the worst things he wanted to do. He'd triple its budget. He'd triple the number of people there and it would just become his sword and his shield. And he did not do that. Instead, the Department of Justice has lost thousands of people. It's never been weaker. It's totally flaccid and unimpressive every time that it gets into court. They get thrown out of court more often than they get anything through. I mean, literally thousands of people have left. They've shut down the National Security Division, effectively, the tax division, the public integrity section. They've just shut it down.

And there's a lot of folks in there now that refuse if uh the criterion are not met for indictments. They refuse to indict and then they're fired. And like a real estate lawyer from near Mara Lago just steps in and goes, "I'll do it."

Yes. Exactly. And then the judge goes like, "This is not actually the queens." Like, it's just not English.

In the in in DC, just looking at Washington DC, they brought in to be the top federal prosecutor in DC, the only Fox News host with a a less impressive reputation than Pete Hex, right? Like if Pete Exa didn't have a great like workplace behavior reputation, there's only one person lower than him on the rank. They put her in charge in Washington. And then remember she had to bring in the dance photographer to be her main prosecutor on some of these cases. The guy whose like side hustle was that he was a dance photographer and they brought him in to become like the ranking federal prosecutor in Washington because all the real prosecutors fled for their professional lives. And even she can't abide by what he wants because even she's like, "But he didn't vandalize the pool. I can't I can't hold the veteran because he didn't vandalize the pool." AND TRUMP'S LIKE, "THE JUDGE ACTUALLY MAKES us prove it,

right? It's awful." But so this is what you thought would happen didn't because of the incompetence, but not for lack of trying to weaponize it. the Justice Department. This is about kind of the history of the Justice Department and a lot of the terrible things that it has done in its 150 years. When the Justice Department stood up against the clan in 1870 when it was first founded, it was incredibly effective against the clan and it set the country's course in a way that was really powerful. When it cracked down on organized labor just as hard, it was also just as powerful in terms of

And they did, you write that they suspended habius corpus and going after the clan

to go after the clan. And we do think of that as well that that was the right move. But then you think, well then Roosevelt did that to in turn the Japanese or you know that sometimes we use the might of the federal government and these emergency powers for what we consider to be good. But we have to be very wary

of what that power will represent ultimately. The government and specifically the justice department are I argue the most consequential institution in the country. They hold the country's fate in their hands. They have incredible power. And given that, I think it's really interesting that Trump decided to essentially destroy it instead of use it to the max that he could. And I think the reason that he did that is because the core function of the Justice Department, for all its faults, for all the terrible things it's done, the core function of the Justice Department is to make sure that the Constitution is in effect in this country. And if you want the Constitution to not be in effect in this country, you do not need that building full of lawyers telling you otherwise. And so I think it's a really ominous sign that he's essentially gotten rid of it, but it gives us this great opportunity to refound it fully

cognizant of how powerful it is, but better this time, so that we can defend the Constitution better when the next tyrant COMES AROUND.

Well said. How do we view it in the context? Because a lot of what you write about reminds me that presidents often have a real idea of how they want to use the justice department.

Yeah. And they use those lawyers to justify that. Whether it's, you know, John U and the torture members or, you know, unitary executive power. It seems almost like doctor shopping.

Well, they'll go in and say, I want to do this justify it in a memo. And if they can't, they go, get me another lawyer who will. Are the reforms you're talking about, can it stop that kind of lawyer shopping?

I think so. I think that when we refound it, because it is pretty much done dunzo now it's like doornail, right?

Um when we refound it, I think that it should be treated as a special case. I think that you should have to get for example

outside the executive. It has to stay within the executive because of the way the constitution is set up. But you can make it so that you need like a super majority in the Senate, for example, to confirm any senior officials, right? You can make it so that you need you you can't have been the president's personal lawyer if you want to then become the attorney general. I don't know. You can you can uh

little things little things like that. There are I think there are structural reforms. You could give the inspector general subpoena power and his ability to haul in people who even quit the department and are former officials which is something that other departments now have that the justice department doesn't. So there's it's a really I think almost melodramatically consequential thing, but the fixes are within our power. You don't need a constitutional amendment in order to do it. You could do it with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and with a Democratic president in 2028.

Do you believe given what we've seen over these last few years that our government still has the ability to investigate itself and bring accountability? that even when you think about the the case study is always January 6 and you think about well that's the most egregious thing that in our lifetimes an executive like makes Watergate look like child's play

and we were unable other than for some individuals who face justice and were then ultimately pardoned are the mechanisms of accountability broken

in the justice department right now I think they are but that is not the only mechanism just take one example with Todd Blanch right

Todd Blanch goes and takes a personal meeting with the woman who was convicted as Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirator. I believe I read about this child sex trafficking ring. He sits down with Galain Maxwell, has this long conversation with her in which he asks her questions about how she feels about the president and did you ever encounter the president? He didn't do anything bad, did he? And she tells him, "Oh, no. The president is not only super innocent, he's also lovely and handsome." And he just HE'S A GENTLEMAN.

SHE JUST spouts this totally factually uncorroborated, pseudoexonerating nonsense about the president. What happens immediately after she mysteriously gets moved to a minimum security facility where among other things she gets a puppy. Not kidding. And that

she got a puppy. She got a puppy. They don't usually let sex offenders train puppies, but she got one.

Jesus. Cuz they moved her to Apparently they don't normally move sex offenders.

No, not at all. To nicer places. She should not. She does by the virtue of the the the the category of her offense does not qualify to be in that sort of prison, but it happened right after Todd Blanch talked to her about Trump and they said, "Oh, the Bureau of Prisons just did this on their own. We have no idea. It's unconnected." I'm sorry. Like the the the relevant committees in the House and the Senate, just take that one thing alone, can investigate how it is that she got moved to Puppyville. And that alone, I'm sorry, is kind of impeachment level stuff. And that doesn't even get to not not not investigating who killed Renee Good,

right? Or who killed Alex Freddy. That doesn't or why there was no real investigation into any of that.

None of it. There was no investigation. They said no. And and the Minneapolis weren't even allowed to be a part of it.

Even right now, this weekend, a senior official from the Department of Health and Human Services, think of it what you will right now, but he's left. And he said the reason that he left is because he says Trump's White House chief of staff was taking money, was essentially demanding that you pay her family if you wanted to get Trump administration attention and action.

That's a really serious claim to make, especially if you've got sort of documents to corroborate that that's what happened, which they kind of have,

right? A justice department that had a public integrity division would investigate that. Todd Blanch says, "I'm the president's lawyer and I'm not going to investigate that." Well, Todd Blanch should therefore be investigated for that refusal to investigate obvious corruption. And it's happened to previous attorneys.

Well, you bring it up actually. Uh and you really you've got to get it because it it provides you a road map to sort of the different variations that the Department of Justice went through, but uh the chapters on the Teapot Dome scandal. Yeah.

I mean, talk about history rhyming. Uh it it really feels like a very similar just we're open for business.

Yeah. and the the attorney general at the time. So, Teapot Dome, I know everybody's like, but so it's just it's just one of these scandals where effectively all you need to know is that they stole tens of millions of dollars in 1920s dollars, right,

from the American people. And the attorney general at the time was this guy Harry Dhy. And the phrase that I use in the book to describe the Department of Justice under him is that it was a multi-story bribe department store. Yes. Like you just go to different floors of the Department of Justice to pay different bribes for different services that you wanted. But the worst thing that he did was not investigate was refuse to look into refuse to bring criminal charges or criminal investigations against the obvious corruption that was happening in the White House and in the cabinet which is very much very much looks like what's happening right now. And refuse letting that stuff go is as bad an act of any attorney general as taking bribes himself. And this is a justice department that has seen bribes given in exchange for pardons and all the rest of it. But the worst thing they've done is let Trump and his family pick up the

country by their ankles and shake it till the loose change came out. And the way they are enriching themselves right now is a crime that ought to be prosecuted.

No question. And the book, by the way, what's so what I what I really love about it is it provides you a road map of context for where you go, but it doesn't just diagnose. I think you you put in here some really interesting and clear-cut remedies which is unusual. So I I I appreciate that. I don't appreciate you shaming the Monday night workers club by doing such a work of scholarship.

I've never read another book. This is it. I maybe I would do with like a 30page pamphlet, but otherwise uh it's fantastic. Thank you for being available now. THE RACHEL M SHOW MONDAYS at 9:00 p.m. And it break them Wow.

Heat.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Rachel Maddow on the Midterms & Examining the DOJ in “Department of Fate” | The Daily Show"?

Rachel Maddow (Host), The Daily Show (Guest).

What is "Rachel Maddow on the Midterms & Examining the DOJ in “Department of Fate” | The Daily Show" about?

Rachel Maddow discusses the midterm election landscape, reflecting on surprise results, the pressure of live analysis, and the impact of the DOJ narrative as framed in “Department of Fate,” with emphasis on real-time race coverage and the challenges of identifying unexpected winners.

What is mentioned in this The Daily Show episode?

43 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Rachel Maddow, Donald Trump, U.S. Department of Justice, Trump administration, Department of Fate: The Promise, the Power, and the Collapse of America's Most Consequential Institution, January 6th. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Rachel Maddow on the Midterms & Examining the DOJ in “Department of Fate” | The Daily Show"?

The episode runs 24 min; the transcript is about 4,678 words in 76 timestamped sections.

More from The Daily Show

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated November 10, 2026.