Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

7th Prosecutor On Adams Case Resigns; Trump Administration's Impact On Russia-Ukraine War. Battle Over Work-From-Home Policies; JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon Blasts Remote Work. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired February 15, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Show as a podcast. Also remember to tune in for the season two premiere of "Have I Got News For You." That's tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific right here on CNN.

Thank you for joining me today. I will see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:30]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Civil War at DOJ. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. The Department of justice is in turmoil over President Trump's desire to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams in return for Adams collaboration on border policy. A mass exodus is occurring within DOJ, including in the Southern District of New York, arguably the DOJ's most prestigious outpost. Seven DOJ prosecutors have quit in the last three days rather than carry out an order given by Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who happens to be Trump's former criminal defense attorney, to drop the corruption case against Adams.

So yesterday, Bove and two other DOJ officials, they signed it themselves. Many of these players are not yet household names, but this is a story with legs. It's important, and it warrants a deep dive. Pam Bondi was the former Florida attorney general. She's now the U.S. Attorney General.

Her deputy is Emil Bove. The interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District had been Danielle Sassoon, and the lead prosecutor working the case was Hagan Scotten. Bove directed Sassoon to drop the corruption case against Adams. The corruption charges were related to his receipt of $123,000 in travel perks, allegedly in return for fast tracking the opening of the Turkish consulate in Manhattan. Adams pleaded not guilty to those charges.

The Adams indictment was announced by Sassoon's predecessor, who himself was appointed by President Biden. Sassoon refused to drop the charges against Eric Adams and resigned. And then so did Scotten. Sassoon and Scotten are not two progressives using lawfare against Donald Trump. Sassoon was put in her recent position by the Trump team.

She's a Federalist Society member. She's a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia. Scotten similarly has conservative credentials. He clerked for both Chief Justice John Roberts and Judge Brett Kavanaugh before Kavanaugh joined the Supreme Court. Scotten is a Harvard law grad who served three combat tours in Iraq as a Special Forces officer and earned two Bronze stars.

And both Sassoon and Scotten are not going quietly into the night. In a letter to Pam Bondi, Sassoon wrote this, "Such an exchange with Adams violates common sense beliefs in the equal administration of justice, the Justice Manual, and the Rules of Professional Conduct." She underscored the quid pro quo nature of the request to drop the charges against Adams, writing, "I attended a meeting on January 31, 2025, with Mr. Bove, Adams' counsel, and members of my office. Adams' attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during the meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion."

Emil Bove then replied as follows, "In no valid sense do you uphold the Constitution by disobeying direct orders, implementing the policy of a duly elected president, and anyone romanticizing that behavior does a disservice to the nature of this work and the public's perception of our efforts."

And then, in his own resignation letter to Bovet, Scotten, the prosecutor wrote this, "Any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow the using of prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the president is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion. But it was never going to be me."

Well, in the end, that person was Bove himself who signed the motion to dismiss the charges against Adams. And there's been no attempt here to mask what has just taken place. The Trump administration is seeking to drop a criminal prosecution in return for the defendant, Eric Adams, supporting Trump's immigration agenda.

Keep in mind, had there been a conviction, Adams would likely have faced a federal prison stint. What's happened here is reminiscent, at least to me, of President Nixon demanding his attorney general fire the special prosecutor investigating him, only to have his attorney general and his deputy AG refuse. They called it the Saturday Night Massacre.

[09:05:04]

And the payoff here is obvious. In my SiriusXM radio studio, I have three muted televisions that are always turned on. One's turned on to CNN, one to MSNBC, one to Fox. It's my way of keeping an eye out for breaking news while I'm on the air.

So yesterday, Friday morning, I looked up and I saw Mayor Adams seated on the Fox morning show, the so called Comfy Couch, next Tom Homan. In their discussion, Homan, the border czar, had a warning for Adams, the New York City mayor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM HOMAN, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BORDER CZAR: If he doesn't come through, if he doesn't come through, I'll be back in New York City and we won't be sitting on the couch, I'll be in his office, up his butt saying, where the hell is the agreement we came to?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: If he doesn't come through, I'm going to be up his butt. And I'm not the only one who found the pairing odd. This is the front page of the "New York Post" today, "The Odd Couple," they call it.

President Trump, who claims that he was the victim of lawfare, is himself now clearly using the power of DOJ as his own weapon. As part of the immigration crackdown, already Mayor Adams has vowed to reopen the shuttered ICE office at Rikers Island to the feds. Those offices were closed in 2014 after then mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law a sanctuary city bill.

Yesterday, Pam Bondi told Fox News that she expected the case against Adams to be dropped soon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: At this point, though, the case has not been dropped, actually because of this pushback. What happens in that?

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, Martha, I'm on a different time zone, but it's my understanding it is being dismissed today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: And it was. Soon thereafter, Bove and two others signed the motion to drop the case against Eric Adams. Adams late Friday then released a statement doubling down on what he told Fox and emphasizing he was not part of any deal. Mayor Adams said, "I want to be crystal clear with New Yorkers, I never offered nor did anyone offer on my behalf any trade of my authority as your mayor for an end to my case. Never.

I'm solely beholden to the 8.3 million New Yorkers that I represent and I will always put this city first. Now we must put this difficult episode behind us so that trust can be restored, New York can move forward, and we can continue delivering for the people of this city."

The motion to dismiss the charges will now go to Judge Dale E. Ho, who was overseeing the Adams case in Manhattan Federal court. Normally such a request from prosecutors would be accepted by a judge as a matter of course. But nothing in this case has so far been by the book.

It all leads today's poll question at smerconish.com. Should a president have the authority to dismiss prosecutions if they believe it serves a greater national interest? Joining me now is CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Elie Honig.

Elie, great to see you again. Clearly there's a quid pro quo here, in my opinion. But is there any criminality?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Michael, first of all, as to the question whether there's a quid pro quo which Eric Adams is disputing, let's consider the converse of what happened here. What if in that meeting with Eric Adams and his lawyers and Emil Bove and DOJ, what if Eric Adams had said no, I actually do not support Donald Trump's agenda on immigration. Would he have still gotten this dismissal? I think it's 100 percent clear, the answer is no. There's your quid pro quo.

Now, is there criminality? Is there somebody who could be charged criminally with some sort of corruption? First of all, the answer is this DOJ certainly is not going to do that. But second of all, that's going to come down to the specific nuances of what exactly was said by whom, using exactly what words in that meeting. And importantly, as Danielle Sassoon notes, her team tried to take notes but was told to stop.

And then Bove seize their notes. So ultimately would come down to different accounts of what exactly was said within that meeting. I'm sure they would differ in substantial ways.

SMERCONISH: Bove is Bondi's hatchet. She could have signed that motion. You correct me if I'm wrong. I heard her say she was in a different time zone, but in the end, when they couldn't get someone else to sign it, he did it himself. But why didn't she, I guess is my question?

HONIG: Yes, the time zone excuse doesn't really hold much water with me. Things still are happening simultaneously. Pam Bondi has a bit of a management and leadership problem on her hand, a self-created one. First of all, she seems to not know what's happening in this case. At a press conference three days before, she was asked about this case.

She said, your office has ordered this case to be dismissed, but no motion's been put in. And her response was, I didn't know that. Either she is hopelessly out of touch with what her own Justice Department is doing or she's not being straight with us.

And the other point, Michael, I want to say, is she needs to get her house in order. I mean, you titled your segment Civil War at DOJ. That's exactly right. They need to learn how to do their laundry indoors, not out of doors. But yes, Pam Bondi could have signed this motion by herself.

[09:10:05]

Emil Bove could have signed this motion by himself. Instead, he strong armed a team of two other career prosecutors to sign it. And I think it's very clear, given the reporting that those two people who signed it with Bovet do not agree with him. They did it simply to stop the bleeding, to stop mass resignations and firings. SMERCONISH: I have a question for you, Elie, about President Trump and what he is saying and not saying about this case. Let's watch it. It's about a 30 second clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I don't know about it. I mean, obviously I'm not involved in that. But I would say this, that if they had a problem, and these are mostly people from the previous administration, you understand, so they weren't going to be there anyway. They were going to all be gone or dismissed. If not, they know on Tuesday they're all being -- you know, the whole country is being, because what you do is you come in and you put new people in.

So when you say resign, they're going to be gone anyway. But I know nothing about the individual case. I know that they didn't feel it was much of a case. They also felt that it was unfair with the election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So that's belied by the resignation letter that Sassoon wrote. But I want to ask something different than the merits of the case. Would it have been cleaner for President Trump if he had just pardoned Eric Adams? And why don't you think he pursued that path? At least not yet.

HONIG: It's a great question. If Donald Trump had just said, I pardoned Eric Adams, or if Emil Bove had written a letter saying, I've reviewed this case carefully. I do not believe the evidence is sufficient to support these charges. And by the way, it wasn't -- it was not a slam dunk case. It was a decent case.

If either of those things had happened, we would talk about it. We would say this is an unjust use of the pardon power. We would say Emil Bove is wrong when he says the case is too weak to proceed. And that would have been that. But what's different here and what makes this such an important story is DOJ is explicitly saying, the reason we're dismissing this indictment, the reason we're going to take away the very real possibility of you, Eric Adams, going to federal prison, is because you agree with us and have agreed to help us enforce our policy initiatives. That's why Hagan Scotten was so pointed in that letter that you quoted in the beginning.

And I love how he said it. He said, it was never going to be me. This is contrary to everything DOJ stands for.

SMERCONISH: Can I just say, it's a confusing case, and that's why I wanted to take the time, especially with you, Elie, to try and unwrap it, show the pictures, explain the players. I want to say that I'm personally pleased that Eric Adams is becoming more aggressive relative to border enforcement and the migrant issue. This is not the way to get it done, by trading out, you know, a criminal indictment of someone in a case like this. You can have the final word.

HONIG: Well, imagine the precedent this sets, Michael. I mean, think of any other case. Let's take it out of New York City. Let's take it out of Eric Adams. Let's even take it back to the Biden administration.

What if the mayor of a town in Texas was under indictment and the Biden administration went to that mayor in Texas and said, you know, we think that border policy should actually be lessened. We think we should be more lenient in letting people through. Are you on board with that, mayor? And if the mayor said yes, you good news, mayor. Now your indictment is dismissed.

Wouldn't we have a massive problem with that? This is the exact same scenario, just reversed. And if -- I don't want to infect your poll question here, Michael, about whether it's ever OK --

SMERCONISH: Yes.

HONIG: -- for the president to use his power --

SMERCONISH: Go ahead.

HONIG: -- to, you know, his prosecutorial power. If I'm voting on that, I'm voting no.

SMERCONISH: Put it up on the screen, Catherine (ph). Put up the poll question.

No. Wait, wait, wait. Hang on. Put the poll question up on the screen.

HONIG: OK.

SMERCONISH: There's the poll question. Go ahead, Elie. Why are you voting no?

HONIG: I'm voting no, then I'm logging off, then I'm creating a new username, then I'm voting no again. Because the president has all sorts of tools to reward and to punish people who either do or do not support his agenda. That's politics. But prosecution, the power of prosecution has to be out of bounds for that. It leads to incredibly dangerous places.

It leads to using DOJ as a weapon, as a reward. Sorry, I know you like 50-50 results. This one needs to be 90 to 10.

SMERCONISH: Elie, thank you, as always. Really appreciate your insight.

HONIG: All right. Thanks, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. From the world of X, what do we have?

Prosecutors make deals all the time with crooks, so really no difference. When Trump does anything, however, it becomes a big deal.

No, Jeffrey (ph) -- Jerry, pardon me, you heard me say, Jerry, before I saw what your comment was, that I'm personally pleased that there's this change in posture on the part of Eric Adams. So this is not part of some anti-Trump hit parade because that's not where I'm coming from. Elie said it best at the end. Imagine if it were reversed and it's Biden and they are tossing an indictment in his example of someone who said I don't agree with your immigration policy for the reverse reasons. All the people today who are applauding the odd couple would be going bat blank.

[09:15:11]

I know you just saw it, but go to my website at smerconish.com, you heard how Elie is voting on the poll question at least once. Should a president have the authority to dismiss prosecutions if they believe it serves a greater national Interest?

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon blasts work from Home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMIE DIMON, JPMORGAN CEO: A lot of you were on the (BLEEP) Zoom and you were doing the following. OK. you know, looking at your mail, sending texts to each other (BLEEP) the other person is. OK. Not paying attention, not reading your stuff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So, is he right? And how are his employees responding? We're going to cover it all. But first, President Zelenskyy warning that President Trump meeting Putin first would be dangerous. Former NATO allied Supreme Commander James Stavridis weighing in.

And don't forget to sign up for the Newsletter at smerconish.com when you're voting on the poll question, check out what Steve Breen just drew.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:24]

SMERCONISH: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signing off early this morning in Munich.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINE: Ukraine will never accept deals made behind our backs without our involvement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Zelenskyy's address coming hours after meeting with Vice President J.D. Vance, who called for peace to end the brutal three year war with Russia, but did not clarify concessions or what it would mean for each country. It comes after a slew of mixed messaging where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had firmly ruled out any U.S. troop involvement in Ukraine then walk that back. Earlier this week, a phone call between Russia's President Putin and President Trump raised fears in Kyiv that Ukraine was being frozen out of the negotiations with the White House also downplaying the prospects of Ukraine joining NATO. And with regard to that, Zelenskyy said that Ukraine's army would need to double in size if the country can't join NATO. He said that membership is the best security guarantee for the country.

Well, who better to break all of this down than former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, retired four star Navy Admiral James Stavridis, who by the way, is making his first day appearance here as a CNN senior military analyst. He's a partner at the Carlyle Group, a global investment firm. He also serves on the board of advisors for a handful of defense related companies and is the author of a great new book, "The Restless Wave," available in paper back, "A novel of the United States Navy.

Admiral, congratulations. How wonderful to have you here. Let me begin by asking you this. Did Secretary Hegseth make a rookie mistake this week when he said essentially it's unrealistic to believe that Russia will surrender any land?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Let's back up and point out that we're, what, a month into the administration. The most complex thing any administration does is sync up its messaging, particularly on global security. So no, it's not a well oiled machine at this point and you're hearing some difference in nuance between Hegseth, J.D. Vance, President Trump. I think that's understandable. Watch for Mike Waltz, the national security adviser, very capable fellow North Floridian, to kind of get this process pulled into place, I think it will.

Here's the real point, Michael, and the real question is how does this thing land? Where is it going? And I think what you see is going to be about what you get, meaning Putin will probably end up with about 20 percent of present day Ukraine, but the other 80 percent will sail on free and democratic. And I think maybe not immediate NATO membership but certainly security guarantees and perhaps ultimate NATO membership. That's how I see it from this morning.

SMERCONISH: What's the response from Europe to all of this? I mean Ukraine is concerned that it is being shut out. The Europeans seem they're worried that they too don't have a seat at the table.

STAVRIDIS: Yes, we have a saying, I mentioned North Florida a minute ago which is sometimes you've got to be for what's going to happen anyway. And I think that light is going on for the Europeans, meaning they're going to up their defense spending significantly. I think you'll see France, Poland, United Kingdom and the Nordics, all of whom have significant history, shall we say, with Russia, really step up, increase defense spending and increase support to Ukraine, Michael.

SMERCONISH: And as a former supreme allied commander of NATO, the view from NATO to all of the events of this past week are what?

STAVRIDIS: I am remain cautiously optimistic about NATO. And in fact back to messaging, what I'm hearing at every level from the incoming administration is, hey, we're going to push NATO to spend more on defense, the European wing, Canada, but the value proposition of NATO remains quite significant. Collectively, Michael, and you know this, a lot of people don't realize it. The collective defense budget of Europe. The European part of NATO is actually the second largest defense budget in the world. It's not optimized, it's not rationalized perfectly.

But if they can get their defense spending up and I think they can up toward 3 percent, I think that value proposition keeps NATO in the game.

[09:25:04]

SMERCONISH: Can we go back to the potential resolution that which you said earlier, Admiral, in terms of how the map might look when it all ends and the land that's been captured, not just since this war began, but going back to 2014. I don't think you made specific reference to Crimea, but I think implied in what you've told us so far is that that would remain Russian.

STAVRIDIS: It would. And that is tragic on the one hand because Putin will be able to say to the Russian people, look, I've definitively brought Crimea. And oh by the way, the four provinces of Donbass, the so called land bridge that connects Crimea. Putin will say to the Russian people, hey, I locked it in, I made it happen.

Except if you ask me, who would win the war in the scenario I just outlined? I think Putin has a hard time saying he wins. He ends up with 20 percent of Ukraine, most of which he held onto from 2014. He has got no control over the other 80 percent. Last time I checked, when you get a 20 percent on a test, that's an F.

And here's the real punchline and it is a punch. A million young Russian men gone out of a pre-war population of 75 million young Russian men, they've lost 300,000 dead, 400,000 wounded, 500,000 have left the country. And when that babushka goes to the grave of Ivan to put some dried flowers on it, I don't think she's feeling really good about the 20 percent Putin got on the test. That's how I think this comes out.

SMERCONISH: Final quick question. Do you think that the assessment that you've just offered, pretty compelling, will be accepted by President Zelenskyy?

STAVRIDIS: The short answer to the question is three words, I don't know. But I think Zelenskyy also needs to realize the realities that are going to surround him here. But here's the good news. NATO is going to be his backstop. I think there will be European troops perhaps along a demilitarized zone.

Sweden and Finland have joined NATO. The Baltic is a NATO lake. Defense budget is many times that of Russia. I think if I'm Zelensky, I don't love that deal, but I probably end up taking it.

SMERCONISH: How great for CNN to have you as senior military analyst. Thank you so much, Admiral.

STAVRIDIS: Thanks, Michael. See you soon. SMERCONISH: Via social media, Catherine, what do we have? From the world of X, formerly known as Twitter? After decades of being only one of a handful of nations meeting the 2 percent GDP contribution to NATO and billions of aid for Ukraine, apparently half of which is unaccounted for, it's time to put Americans first, says Skip Jordan.

I liked what I heard from Admiral Stavridis because I'm sure that the perception among many is, wait a minute, Putin gets to keep land that shouldn't be his, and there's no NATO membership for Ukraine, at least in the short term. But by the calculus that he offered, I think I agree with him that it ends up being a fail on the part of Russia. Let's hope that Ukraine sees it the same way.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question. This relates to the opening of the program and my discussion with Elie Honig about what I characterized as a civil war within the DOJ. Should a president have the authority to dismiss prosecutions if they believe it serves a greater national interest? Go vote.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary, work from home Controversies are spiraling. Amazon's office return is a mess. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon slams the effing anti return to the office petition that he's now confronted with. We're going to break it all down with one of the union leaders. JPMorgan employees reportedly have reached out, too. Make sure you're signing up for the newsletter when you're voting at smerconish.com check out the editorial cartoon work of Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:33:41]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Here are some of that which came in during the course of the program so far.

Joe Biden pardoned his son, Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, Adam K, and others. DOJ under Biden was so corrupt. Pot calling the kettle, says Dorothy Metzger.

Why do we always have to play the whataboutism game? The whataboutism in this instance is the what if Biden had tossed the prosecution of a red state representative who agreed to be acting now in a more progressive fashion? OK, just conjure up an image of a progressive, a liberal, acting red state, all because the indictment had been thrown out.

Again, people, the complete reverse of who's upset now would be going back blank. Apply it on a case-by-case basis. It's good for Eric Adams, in my opinion. Good for Eric Adams that he has now decided to be more aggressive relative to our poorest borders.

But to have an indictment tossed in return for that kind of a pledge, allegedly -- and I don't even know that I need to say, allegedly looking at the paperwork that I've already shown you in this case. It's not -- it's not the way it should be done. Better that President Trump should have just pardoned him and made it cleaner.

One more if I have time for it. What is it?

[09:35:00]

I really hope for a compromised end to the conflict. And if Trump pulls it off, Nobel Peace Prize?

To the war with -- between Ukraine and Russia, hey, if he -- if he can resolve it, if he can satisfy the situation in Gaza relative to Israel and Hamas, I'll give him whatever recognition he deserves for doing it. From your lips to God's ears, that it all comes to an end that is fair to Ukraine in this instance.

Still to come, the work from home war heats up. Leaked audio. Man, you got to hear this. You're about to hear this from JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon reveals his unfiltered take.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE: And don't give me this (EXPLETIVE DELETED) work from home Friday works.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So, is this about productivity or power? Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com.

Should a president have the authority to dismiss prosecutions if they believe it serves a greater national interest? While you're there, sign up for the free daily newsletter for which Rob Rogers just sketched this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:21]

SMERCONISH: Work-from-home policies, once a pandemic necessity, have now become one of the most contentious workplace battles in corporate America. This week, the controversy splashed across the front page of the "Wall Street Journal," detailing Amazon's messy attempt to bring workers back into the office, only to find that in many locations there weren't enough desks, parking spaces, or even coworkers in the same building.

But Amazon isn't the only corporate giant cracking down on remote work. The most explosive return to office debate is happening inside the country's largest bank, JPMorgan Chase. Leaked recordings from a recent internal town hall reveal CEO Jamie Dimon's unfiltered take on remote work, bureaucracy and what he calls pablum and bullshit, clogging up decision making.

At the center of this controversy is JPMorgan's new five day in office mandate, one that has led to fierce employee pushback. JPMorgan Chase has over 300,000 employees worldwide, and more than 1,500 have signed a petition urging the bank to reconsider the policy, citing data that hybrid work is just as productive as full-time office work, cost savings, greater flexibility for caregivers and senior employees.

They argue that policies, the policy like this, disproportionately impacts women, those with disabilities, and longtime employees who have built their lives around hybrid work. Dimon's response dismissive. According to Reuters he said, I don't care how many people sign that effing petition. Some of his biggest arguments that remote work is harming young professionals, stifling creativity and enabling employees to lose focus in places like Zoom meetings. Listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DIMON: A lot of you were on the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Zoom and you were doing the following, looking at your mail, sending texts to each other about what an (EXPLETIVE DELETED) the other person is, OK, not paying attention, not reading your stuff. You know, and if you don't think that slows down efficiency, creativity, creates rudeness -- it does.

When I found out that people were doing that -- you don't do that in my (EXPLETIVE DELETED) meetings. If you're going to a meeting with me, you've got my attention, you've got my focus. I don't bring my (EXPLETIVE DELETED) phone. I'm not sending texts to people.

It simply doesn't work. And it doesn't work for creativity. It slows down decision-making. And don't give me this (EXPLETIVE DELETED) that work-from-home Friday works. I call a lot of people on Fridays, and there's not a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) person you can get ahold of.

But here are the problems, OK? And they are substantial which is the young generation is being damaged by this. They may or may not be in your particular staff, but they are being left behind. They're being left behind socially, ideas, meeting people.

In fact, my guess is most of you live in communities a hell a lot less diverse than this room.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Can I just say -- by the way, I like that he put this in the context of more than just productivity and office efficiency, and addressed some of the societal costs to all of this. He then continued demanding efficiency, making it clear if employees don't like it, they can walk.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DIMON: Now you have a choice. You don't have to work at JPMorgan. So, the people of you who don't want to work at the company, that's fine with me. I'm not mad at you. Don't be mad at me.

It's a free country. You can walk with your feet but this company is going to set our own standards and do it our own way. And I've had it with this kind of stuff.

And, you know, I come in -- I've been working seven days a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) week since COVID. And I come in and -- where's everybody else? They're here, they're there and the Zoom.

And the Zoomers don't show up. And people say they didn't get stuff. So, that's not how you run a great company.

We didn't build this great company by doing that, by doing the same semi-diseased (EXPLETIVE DELETED) that everybody else does.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So, is it generational? Is it about control, a disconnect between employees and execs, or just straight talk?

Joining me now to discuss it is Nick Weiner. He's a union organizer with the Communications Worker of America who focuses on the banking sector. He says that he's been helping Wells Fargo workers unionize and was recently contacted by employees at JPMorgan for advice about unionizing.

Thank you so much for being here. You heard me say a moment ago, my own view, it's not just a matter of efficiency and productivity. Does he not make good points about leaving a new generation behind in some social costs?

NICK WEINER, SENIOR CAMPAIGN LEAD, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA: It's great to be here, Michael. Well, Jamie Dimon certainly kicked over a hornet's nest with JPMorgan workers, right? When I listen to that audio, he's really talking to managers, not to the regular workers, the software engineers, the data analysts, the loan officers, the fraud detectors, the customer service representatives who have -- you know, do the work to make the bank function and productive.

[09:45:04]

And they've been doing it for years. And like you said, organized their lives around hybrid work. So, no one is saying, hey, we never want to come to the office. There isn't value in having human contact. But many of these people who do that work, their teams are scattered around the country.

So, they're going to come into the office every day and be on Zoom calls with their team in other places. So, they feel like, hey, our concerns are just being dismissed without any consideration. And that's why they reached out to CWA to figure out how to have a voice, have some agency over their work conditions, over their lives.

And, you know, your earlier comment, it's absolutely just about power. Who has a say over your working conditions? So that you can have a sustainable job to take care of your families and your communities.

SMERCONISH: Suzy Welch was married to Jack Welch of GE Fame. She's now an NYU professor. And I read recently that she said, we're not going to groom the next CEO for a Fortune 50 company remotely. What's your thought on that?

WEINER: Well, I talk to workers all around the country remotely. Workers at Wells Fargo have been able to organize unions remotely. They -- you know, many of them are in branches. So, work together in a branch. That's a -- you know, they're required to. They had to do it all through the pandemic.

But I'm able to work with them, you know, all across the country. And to date, 25 branches have been able to successfully organize a union.

SMERCONISH: Right but --

WEINER: I don't -- I don't buy into that, you know, it's either or. It's really what's the -- what's the appropriate compromise that works for everybody.

SMERCONISH: Nick, I've been the beneficiary of so many great mentorship relationships during the span of my professional life. And when people younger than me seek my counsel, I'm always trying to give it.

You can't do that where everybody is remote. Those mentorships, those personal relationships, they get lost in all of this. Do you agree?

WEINER; Right. I think the misconception is that it's all or nothing. No one is saying that never come into the office. A hybrid situation is people coming into the office to get that mentorship.

I agree, you need that human contact. You need those personal relationships. There's things that are missed if you're not in the office.

But no one is saying -- and the JPMorgan workers aren't saying, we never want to come to the office. They're just saying, hey, we need some accommodation, some flexibility, some way to manage our lives so that -- why do we have to be in the office every day?

That's really the issue. Can't there be some flexibility so we can manage our lives appropriately and sustainably for our families and our communities? That's all they're saying.

They want a voice and a seat at the table to negotiate a good compromise. No one is saying we never want to be in the office. They agree. You know, there is value in that.

SMERCONISH: A final thought, Jamie Dimon says, look, in the way that you've heard him address it, you know, you can leave with your feet. This is the way it's going to be at this company. And if you don't like these rules, perhaps there's another employer. You say what to that?

WEINER: Well, that's not really freedom. Freedom isn't just, hey, walk. Freedom is freedom of association, really to have a voice.

We shouldn't have to check all our rights when we go to work. And when -- that's why workers form unions is so that they can, uh, have a voice, have some control over their lives, and they shouldn't be forced to, you know, have to go seek work elsewhere because it's not going to be any better somewhere else. So, workers come together, take a stand and say, hey, we want a seat at the table and a voice at work so we can have decent lives because they -- you know, they do that because they love their jobs. People are upset, the JPMorgan workers, the Wells Fargo workers.

They love their jobs. They want to make their banks better. And they do it for their customers.

You know, I say that if Wells Fargo workers had a union before 2016, the fake account scandal never would have happened, right? Because conditions would have been more sustainable and much better.

SMERCONISH: Well, you know that there's -- there's much more to the statement that he offered, Jamie Dimon. And he runs through a litany of one-time competitors who have all folded their tents in making his case that his nose to the grindstone approach is what's in the company's best interest.

I have to run, but I'm appreciative of the fact that you were here. So, thank you very much.

WEINER: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Checking in on more social media reaction to all of this.

Dimon's view can be debated one way or the other, solid points on both sides. But can we please stop with the, I'm worried about the dating lives of my entry level employees.

[09:50:03]

He's worried about his bottom -- I don't -- I don't buy into that, Missborker, interesting name. Because I think that the data all suggests that he's absolutely right, especially with regard -- I've had this conversation countless times here with professor Scott Galloway.

We are leaving a generation, particularly of young men, who are struggling to find their place in the world behind. And the workplace used to provide them with some foundational skills that are lacking today. COVID has been particularly harsh, I think, on a new generation of men who are just struggling.

Women are doing great in comparison. You know, the metrics. I've run through them before. So, I think -- I think -- I found it -- I thought that that was the most rewarding part of what Dimon says that, which was beyond just workplace efficiency and productivity when he talked about the societal cost of everyone being remote.

Or to my way, of expressing it, we need to mingle. We need to have more common experience. Things like the Super Bowl last weekend when a third of the country is doing the same thing, and we've all got something to talk about.

I could say a lot more about this, but go to my Web site and read some of my presentations or watch some of my presentations on "The Mingle Project. Today's poll question at Smerconish.com, should a president have the authority to dismiss prosecutions if they believe it serves a greater national interest?

Go vote, subscribe to the newsletter when you're there. Scott Stantis draws for us. Check this out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:43]

SMERCONISH: So, there's the result of the poll question. At least thus far, 38 -- good voting, 38,203. Should a president have the authority to dismiss prosecutions if they believe it serves a greater national interest?

Eighty-eight percent of us say, no. Thank you for the voting. We'll keep it up if you haven't voted yet.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thanks for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)