Michael: Alright Kevin, before we dive in, if you had to describe Jeanine Pirro's book Liars, Leakers, and Liberals in one sentence, what would it be? Kevin: It's like a legal thriller where the entire federal government and Hollywood are the bad guys, and all the chapter titles are in ALL CAPS. Michael: That's... surprisingly accurate. The ALL CAPS is a definite stylistic choice. Today we are diving into Liars, Leakers, and Liberals: The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy by Jeanine Pirro. And you're right to pick up on that legal tone. Kevin: It feels very prosecutorial. Michael: Exactly. And this isn't just any political pundit. Pirro was the first woman elected as a judge and later as the District Attorney in Westchester County, New York. She brings this prosecutor's mindset to the book, framing it as 'the case' against this vast conspiracy. Kevin: And it was a case that sold incredibly well, hitting #1 on the bestseller lists. It clearly struck a chord with a huge audience, even while many critics were calling it a work of partisan delusion. Michael: That's the tension we're exploring today. The book presents a worldview where the opposition to Donald Trump wasn't just political disagreement. Pirro argues it was a coordinated, vicious, and personal war.

Kevin: Okay, so if she's building a legal case, where does she begin? Who is exhibit A in this conspiracy? Michael: Well, she starts her case not in a courtroom, but in the court of public opinion. Her first argument is that a cultural front, made up of the media, Hollywood, and liberals in general, was waging a war of delegitimization. She makes it personal. Kevin: How so? Michael: She uses a few key stories to set the stage. One of the most striking is about Lara Trump, Eric Trump's wife. When she announced her pregnancy, Pirro details how she was flooded with hateful online comments—people wishing she would have a miscarriage. Kevin: That's horrible. But online trolls are awful to everyone, especially people in the political spotlight. Is that really evidence of a coordinated conspiracy, or just the ugly reality of social media? Michael: For Pirro, it's a symptom of a much larger disease. She argues this isn't just random online hate. She connects it to what she sees as a top-down culture of contempt from the mainstream media. She cites a CNN correspondent, Jim Acosta, who made comments suggesting Trump voters "don’t have all their faculties." She paints a picture where the media dehumanizes not just Trump, but anyone who supports him, which then gives license to this kind of viciousness. Kevin: I see the connection she's making. It’s a narrative of elite condescension fueling public hostility. What about Hollywood? They get their own chapter title. Michael: Oh, they get special treatment. Pirro calls them "Lying, Liberal Hollywood Hypocrites." Her main exhibit here is Harvey Weinstein. She recounts a personal story of meeting him years ago and being immediately put off. But her core argument is about the hypocrisy of Hollywood elites who championed feminist causes while allegedly enabling or ignoring Weinstein's behavior for years because he was a powerful liberal and a major Democratic donor. Kevin: So she's pointing to a moral rot, a double standard where political allegiance trumps ethical behavior. Michael: Precisely. She argues that Hollywood, and by extension the liberal establishment, only cares about principles when it's politically convenient. She contrasts the media's past love for Donald Trump the businessman—she tells a great story about him single-handedly renovating the Wollman Rink in Central Park in the 80s, under budget and ahead of schedule, to media praise—with their intense hatred for him as a politician. Kevin: That's a powerful contrast. The hero builder versus the villain president. It sets up the idea that the media's change of heart wasn't based on who he was, but on the threat he posed to their political agenda. Michael: And for Pirro, that cultural war was just the air cover for the real battle, which was happening in the shadows of Washington D.C.

Kevin: Okay, so this is where we get into the "Deep State" part of the title. The real cloak-and-dagger stuff. Michael: Exactly. If the cultural war was the public-facing battle, Pirro argues the main event was an internal coup attempt orchestrated by the highest levels of US law enforcement and intelligence. This is the heart of her conspiracy case. Kevin: And what's the smoking gun, according to her? Michael: For Pirro, it's a text message from high-ranking FBI agent Peter Strzok. He was texting his colleague Lisa Page about the possibility of a Trump victory, and he wrote, "I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40." Kevin: The infamous "insurance policy" text. That has been interpreted in so many ways. How does Pirro see it? Michael: She sees it as Exhibit A for a premeditated plot. She argues the "insurance policy" was the Russia collusion investigation itself. And the tool they used to activate that policy was the Steele Dossier. Kevin: Right, the dossier with all the wild, unverified claims. Michael: The very same. Pirro lays out a chain of events: the dossier is funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. It's then fed to the FBI. The FBI, knowing its political origins, then allegedly uses this dossier as a primary piece of evidence to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on a Trump campaign volunteer, Carter Page. Kevin: And this is where the legal argument comes in. Michael: Yes. Pirro, the former prosecutor, invokes the legal doctrine of the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Her argument is that if the original warrant was obtained through deception—by using a politically-funded, unverified dossier—then any evidence that flows from that surveillance is tainted and inadmissible. The entire investigation, in her view, is built on a fraudulent foundation. Kevin: Hold on, though. The idea that the dossier was the sole reason for the investigation has been heavily disputed. Intelligence agencies have said their probe started earlier, based on other intelligence. Is Pirro just ignoring that? Michael: She presents it as the central, indispensable piece of the puzzle. Her skill is in the narrative construction. She takes all these controversial, highly-debated events—Strzok's texts, Comey's handling of the Clinton email case, the FISA warrant, the unmasking of names like Michael Flynn—and weaves them into one, single, coherent plot. It's a story of a Deep State cabal using the tools of national security to take down a political opponent. Kevin: So who does she name as the ringleaders? Who are the main villains in this part of the story? Michael: She has a whole cast. She calls them the "Lying, Leaking, Liberal Leadership." At the top of her list are figures like former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and of course, former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy Andrew McCabe. She portrays them as the architects of the plot, abusing their power to spy on the Trump campaign and then leaking information to the press to create a public narrative of collusion. Kevin: It's a sprawling conspiracy. So, the Democrats, the media, Hollywood, the FBI, the CIA... is that everyone on her list?

Michael: Not even close. And this is where the book takes a turn that might surprise some people. For Pirro, some of the most effective and infuriating enemies were inside Trump's own party. Kevin: Wait, so Republicans were part of the anti-Trump conspiracy? Michael: According to her, absolutely. She dedicates a whole chapter to "Lying Liberal RINOs," which stands for "Republicans In Name Only." She argues that the Republican establishment, led by figures like then-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, actively betrayed Trump and his voters. Kevin: That's a fascinating twist. What's her evidence for that? Michael: Her two main examples are the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare, and the passage of a massive Omnibus Spending Bill that Trump was reluctant to sign. She argues that after years of promising to repeal Obamacare, the Republican leadership failed to deliver when they finally had the power. She sees this not as incompetence, but as a deliberate act of sabotage. She claims they were more loyal to the "Swamp" than to the president their party had elected. Kevin: Wow. So in her worldview, it's not just a partisan conflict. It's a populist, anti-establishment war against the entire system. Michael: That's the core of it. It reframes the entire conflict. It’s not Left versus Right; it’s the entrenched political establishment versus Trump the outsider. She points to Trump's stunning defeat of Jeb Bush in the 2016 primary as the first shot in this war. She argues that voters rejected the establishment candidate, and the establishment—both Republican and Democrat—has been trying to punish them for it ever since. Kevin: It makes the scope of the "conspiracy" truly immense. It's not just his political opponents; it's the very system of government he was elected to lead. Michael: And that's what makes the narrative so potent for his supporters. It explains every setback, every piece of negative news. It’s all part of the plan by the Swamp to protect itself.

Kevin: When you lay it all out like that, it's a powerful, all-encompassing narrative. It has an answer for everything. It explains every failure and identifies a clear enemy at every turn. Michael: That's the key to its success and its appeal. The book isn't just a collection of arguments; it's an instruction manual on how to see the world. Every negative headline, every investigation, every protest, every political setback fits neatly into this grand narrative of a righteous president battling a corrupt, unified cabal. Kevin: And it leaves very little room for other explanations, like simple incompetence, legitimate policy disagreements, or just the inherent chaos of politics. In this story, nothing is an accident. Everything is a plot. Michael: It's an incredibly compelling story, which is why it became a bestseller. It provides clarity in a confusing time. But as you said, it's also a deeply polarizing one. It recasts political opponents not as adversaries to be debated, but as enemies to be defeated and, in Pirro's own words, "taken out in cuffs." Kevin: It solidifies the battle lines. You're either with the president against the conspiracy, or you're part of it. There's no middle ground. Michael: Which leaves us with the big question the book poses, whether intentionally or not: In a hyper-partisan world, where does legitimate opposition end and a "conspiracy" begin? And how can anyone tell the difference anymore? Kevin: A question to ponder. This is Aibrary, signing off.