Loading summary
Transcript31 lines
- [00:00]
A
Morning run. Level it up. TikTok has pacing tips, breathing drills, recovery hacks from 5K to marathon. Real runners, real progress. Train smarter, not longer. Download TikTok now. Are you stuck staring at your W2? Are tax refund worries holding you back? You probably have FOMO the fear of messing up the fix using TurboTax on Intuit credit Karma. They find every credit and deduction to help you get every refund dollar you deserve or your money back. It's time to overcome your fear of messing up and get your taxes done right. Start filing today. In the Credit Karma app, we have the tech to get food delivered in 15 minutes. But we all have horror stories about buying tickets. The GameTime app gives fans the advantage get amazing tickets in just a few taps. Fees are included so what you see is what you pay. And the gametime guarantee means authentic tickets at the best price every time. Take the guesswork out of buying tickets to concerts, sports, comedy and more with Game time. Download the Gametime app and create an account for $20 off your first purchase term supply. Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF here on the Midas Touch Network. Got some breaking news with yet another lawsuit brought against the Department of Justice and the FBI by two now former FBI agents who put a lie based on their filing to everything that Cash Patel has told the American people under oath in his hearings, including his confirmation hearing about not weaponizing the FBI, not, not rooting out what Donald Trump considers to be political enemies of his because they had the, I guess the luck of being assigned to an investigation ultimately led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, called Arctic frost into the 2020 election and whether there was election interference. In particular, the two people that have just filed their suit, which we'll refer to as John Doe 1 and John Do John Doe to to protect their privacy for obvious reasons, you know, they worked on the investigation in a very limited way, one in an administrative capacity, one for a very short period of time. The only thing that that appears to be the justification for them to have been fired and had their their careers where they were lauded and received bonuses and compliments all along the way is that they happened to be assigned to this investigation against Donald Trump. The FBI. The FBI procedures were not followed and according to the complaint, their first and Fifth Amendment rights were violated and they want their job back. Now I've done commentary about this case, but I can't think of a better person to brief the Midas audience than the the lawyer representing John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. So I'm going to bring in Elizabeth Tulis with a law firm of Perry Law. Hi, Liz.
- [03:12]
B
Hi.
- [03:14]
A
And this full disclosure, so people go scrambling around and researching. I'm of counsel to the Perry Law firm. I have no role in this case whatsoever. It was, I read it in the paper. But as soon as I read that, that, that Liz was handling, this guy's like, we got to talk about it for our audience. So talk about why this case is so important not just to the reinstatement of your clients careers, which is important, but to the broader picture of this sort of lawless and rogue DOJ and FBI.
- [03:46]
B
Sure. Well, our clients, as you know, were consummate public servants, professional law enforcement officers who were among the best and brightest of the FBI. And they got fired, as the complaint alleges, for no reason other than their assignment to this case. What that represents is really a disregard for not only just the constitutional rights of our clients, but all the norms and procedures and principles that have defined what the Department of Justice is and what the FBI has been for basically their entire existence. So, you know, if people don't bring these suits to challenge these actions, it's unclear that there'll be a chance not only to vindicate their rights, but to get courts to say to the government, you can't do this. This is unconstitutional. This is not right. And let's, let's make things right.
- [04:46]
A
And this is personal to you, I would imagine, because you have a background at the Department of Justice U.S. attorney's Office and all of that, including you were the assistant director. Right. Of the division's Federal programs branch. You dealt with anti discrimination and employment matters on, on that side of the case. Right. And now you're out in private practice. Does when you, when you got, when you considered taking this case. I think our audience likes to hear about how lawyers make decisions to take cases. Right. You get a phone call, I'm sure you and I, I take cases all the time. I've. I decide not to take cases all the time. Why did this case matter to you?
- [05:27]
B
Sure. So when I first started with DoJ as an AUSA in the civil division in the Southern District of New York, U.S. attorney's office, many, many years ago, you know, we were told you do the right thing for the right reasons without fear or favorite. And that was how we went about our jobs. And to me, to see the principles that defined my work as a DOJ lawyer seeming to be disregarded and not honored in the way that really are crucial to what being the Department of Justice means was really really difficult for me and to have these clients come who really are the perfect example of, of what's gone wrong. I couldn't imagine a better way to get involved and try to make things right. Now, you see, there's many people who are being wronged by this DOJ and by the government right now, I think. But our clients, really, they are amazing, amazing people. They as legend, the complaint. These were consummate professionals, amazing FBI agents. And you want to make things right for them, obviously. And we also think that if we can prevail on this case, it's going to make things better for a lot of other people, too. We're hoping that we can establish some precedents that will be good for all FBI agents and all public servants.
- [06:48]
A
Let me read from your complaint that you filed on their behalf, and then I want to talk about why they're John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 and why you thought that was important. This is from page 21 and 22 of your complaint, paragraph 73, 74 and 75. I'll summarize it. In November 20, Donald Trump was elected president, and he announced that he would nominate Patel to be the director of the FBI. Of course, he went through a Senate confirmation hearing and filled out a Senate question questionnaire. Patel's statements, both at his January confirmation hearing and in his written Senate questionnaire were provided under oath and under the penalty of perjury. He wrote seven times in his Senate questionnaire that if he were confirmed as FBI director, no one will be terminated for case assignments and that employees should not be terminated for case assignments. He wrote 15 separate times that personnel decisions should be based on performance and the adherence to the law. And if you were confirmed, every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard. At Patel's hearing, Senator Richard Blumenthal asked Patel to commit that you will not tolerate the firing of the FBI agents to who worked with the special counsel's counsel's office. And Patel responded that every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard and no one will be terminated for case assignments. Did he tell the truth?
- [08:18]
B
Well, obviously, as our complaint alleges, he terminated people for case assignments despite promising not to do that. So I can't tell you what was in his mind when he testified before Congress. But yes, we are alleging that he and he acted contrary to those commitments.
- [08:34]
A
I think there's a reason you mentioned the oath under penalty of perjury. Believe that for another day. I've certainly done my own analysis of that, and I'll say it out Loud. I think he did not tell the truth. And I think if you got Senator Blumenthal on, and we've had him on legal AF recently, I like to get him on again about this case. He will tell you that Cash Patel lied under oath. Now, you've moved for anonymity and to anonymize your clients. In this case, other FBI agents have filed under their own name. And you also had a very interesting factual recitation in your complaint about Senator Grassley having released the Arctic Frost files, including, somewhere buried in there, the names of water, both of your clients. Why is it so important to you and to your clients ultimately to have their identity anonymized?
- [09:31]
B
So, unfortunately, not only did the FBI and DOJ provide unredacted records of Arctic Frost to Congress and Congress, then Senator Grassley's committee released those records in unredacted form to the public, but there's also been really incendiary commentary about Arctic Frost agents by elected officials, including senators and Kash Patel and President Trump. And that commentary seems to have fed some very vicious social media threats, quite frankly, against Arctic Frost agents. Some of them, we are recounted in the motion we filed to proceed for our clients to proceed under pseudonyms. Really, not just offensive, but some actually quite violent threats. And, you know, these agents, they deserve their safety and they also deserve to be able to go back to their jobs and perform their jobs in the manner that FBI agents do, which is keeping a low profile and not being subject to this kind of harassment.
- [10:35]
A
In fact, in your complaint, and we'll play it for our audience, just to get a little taste of it, you reference an interview that Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, made with to Sean Hannity in March of 2025 about getting rid of the Jack Smith team and trying to root out all of the partisan FBI agents and the like. In fact, we're going to play it now that once the FBI was the world's premier law enforcement agency, and that was weaponized and politicized. I believe the same with our intel community. How do we restore these institutions to their former greatness?
- [11:14]
C
Well, first and foremost, we got rid of the Jack Smith team. Gone. Those people are gone. We're still trying to find out. There are a lot of people in the FBI and also in the Department of Justice who despise Donald Trump, despise us, don't want to be there. We will find them. Because you have to believe in transparency. You have to believe in honesty. You have to do the right thing. And right now, we're going to Root them out, we will find them, and they will no longer be employed. But again. And we're starting at every level of the Justice Department, Sean, and getting rid of the worst of the worst. But there are a lot more people that shouldn't be there, but there are a lot of good people who are out there now risking their lives every day making these cases.
- [11:59]
A
Okay? So with that, and just to give our audience a further taste, you got Chuck Grassley doing the President's bidding, who says out loud about people such as your client that you cite in your complaint on paragraph 79, that part that the agents that were first assigned to the investigation were a merry band of partisans, and that a partisan FBI agents and Department of Justice prosecutors led the charges as a tag team, causing political chaos to try to destroy President Trump. Are your clients a part of a merry band of partisans that volunteered to go work for Special counsel Jack Smith to tear down Donald Trump?
- [12:43]
B
Well, absolutely not. Our clients are consummate FBI special agents. That is, they worked apolitically and professionally to investigate violations of the law, and they did so in. In an investigation that they were assigned to by their superiors. And again, they performed their jobs absolutely professionally, as we've set forth in the complaint. There's, you know, the rhetoric surrounding Arctic Frost is really. Is really unfortunate. You know, it's not just our clients, but the entire Arctic Frost investigative team, you know, the people who got chosen for an assignment like that, such a sensitive, important assignment. These were really the best of the best at the FBI. These were people who were chosen because they were so professional and so responsible, including our clients. And it really seems to be turning everything upside down to be accusing them of somehow being, you know, all these epithets that were. They're being leveled at them when they really are consummate professionals, apolitical in their work, and they did nothing wrong.
- [13:51]
A
Yeah. And then you. You lay out that there is a procedure within the FBI for misconduct, for reprimands, for discipline, for even termination. Were any of those procedures used to drum your clients out of the FBI?
- [14:13]
B
Well, no, not at all. And what's really important here is that the FBI has communicated to agents, your job is secure unless you do something that merits dismissal, you have a job that is secure unless there's a reason to be terminated for cause. And the agents understand that. The FBI understands that. And that means that the FBI agents is at fourth in our complaint. They have what's called a protected property interest in being employed with FBI. That means that whatever Cash Patel might say about what Procedures he needed to follow. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed them due process and they were denied that. They got no process, no process whatsoever. And unfortunately, the FBI has been repeating this kind of summary dismissal with, with many employees and not, not giving them the process to which they're entitled under the US Constitution.
- [15:07]
A
We talked before we came together for this video about a judge assignment. Our, our audience eats up sort of all of the inside baseball stuff. Where is the case and who's the judge? Right now you're in the District Court for D.C. right?
- [15:24]
B
Yes, yes, we are in the District Court in D.C. that's right.
- [15:28]
A
And the case has, pardon me. And the case is framed, is against Cash Patel, the FBI, the Department of Justice, Pam Bondi, right?
- [15:36]
B
Yes. It's against Patel and Bondi in their official capacities as well as their agencies, the FBI and doj. That's right.
- [15:44]
A
And when will you learn when the judge will be assigned to this? And, and from there we can do our own commentary about what we think may. And when will you learn who your judge is?
- [15:57]
B
That's a really good question. I was hoping we might learn today, but, you know, I did a little digging because it seems like there might be a little wrinkle when you file a pseudonymous complaint because you have to file this motion to proceed under a pseudonym like John Doe. And that motion is reviewed by the chief judge, Judge Boasberg, who decides whether to grant it or not as initial map and as an initial matter. And it looks like from my investigation of some other John Doe dockets that what happens procedurally is that the clerk's office waits to assign a judge until the chief judge has ruled on the motion to proceed, as John does. So when will that happen? It seems like it could happen at any moment or it could happen in a week or maybe more. It's unfortunately. I wish I knew.
- [16:44]
A
Well, if we know Judge Boasberg, who is no stranger to the Trump administration, we've done a lot of reporting and commentary about, about Jeb Boasberg for those that are just joining a little bit late. Chief judge of the federal district court in D.C. responsible for many things, including in this case, as, as Liz, as you pointed out, making a ruling about who's anonymous and who's not. He also is responsible for all the grand jury proceedings that are going on. He's the judge that just quashed the grand jury subpoenas against Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell, just to put a name with a face, finding effectively that it was a bad faith prosecution because there was no Evidence to support a fraud case against the chairman of the Federal Reserve. And that's who we're now waiting on to make a ruling. We, we know him from prior cases. He works long hours. I wouldn't be surprised if it popped out over the weekend, on a Saturday or Sunday. We certainly could find out and, but explain to our audience, is it anonymous to the. Or it's anonymous to the public?
- [17:51]
B
This is, this would be anonymous to the public. So the court has sealed filings that provide the identities of our clients. I think that's, that's a requirement. And you know, obviously these, these are former FBI agents that the FBI itself can almost certainly identify. So it will not, they will not be anonymous to the defendants.
- [18:15]
A
Yeah. And that's done through a separate motion practice that you filed in order to try to get them. Because just so people understand in our system of justice the courts bend over backwards on the public docket to have everything aired in the public. We believe that you should be indicted in the public, you should be able to clear your name in the public. But there are moments when for various reasons things have to be sealed or people have to be anonymized. Maybe those issues change over time and judges reconsider or consider again whether certain aspects of the case will remain under seal. Because their natural instinct, based on our constitutional principles and those of the criminal statutes, is that everything should be out in the public. Right. Except if you have very good cause.
- [19:06]
B
Right. And my co counsel and I, Margaret Donovan, we are very sensitive to that principle. And in fact we filed a motion to proceed under pseudonyms that is itself actually a public filing. So it doesn't have the identities in it, but it has our reasoning, it has the facts supporting our motion so that the public can see it without actually revealing our clients identities.
- [19:28]
A
I don't have that one in front of me, but I know there's other cases filed by FBI agents. I mean, have you seen in doing your research and what you told the court that there is an uptech uptick in violent rhetoric or doxing against people like in the FBI position, your client's position.
- [19:45]
B
You know, it's interesting. One of the things we cite in our motion to proceed under pseudonyms is an FBI alert basically to agents and former agents about the dangers of doxing and swatting if people know what those are and kind of talking about it being a growing threat and you know, law enforcement agents being particularly vulnerable to this. So yeah, it's, it, it seems like this is a national problem, but certainly I think it doesn't help when there's violent and incendiary political rhetoric surrounding these issues online and social media, what have you that that certainly doesn't doesn't help the situation.
- [20:27]
A
Absolutely. We're so glad that you came on to Midas Touch and Legal AF Debrief our audience. They love hearing from the lawyers who are actually in the courtrooms handling matters like this. You know, our soldiers, protecting our constitution and yes, representing a client's interest, but by extension helping to protect and preserve our constitutional republic and our democracy. We appreciate you being here. We'd love to hear back from you, Liz, as this case progresses, as there's more developments. Will you do that for us?
- [20:59]
B
It's great to talk to you, Michael, and I look forward to speaking some more.
- [21:02]
A
Absolutely. Liz Tulis, Elizabeth Tulis of the Perry Law Firm representing two anonymous FBI agents who have sued to get their jobs back, but with broader, of course, policy implications about did Cash Patel ultimately tell the truth or not during his various sworn testimony about rooting out political enemies of Donald Trump, perceived or otherwise? So glad to have you here. You're on the Midas Touch network and on Legal af. Take a moment, hit the free subscribe button here on Midas, over on Legal AF YouTube channel as we continue to grow our pro democracy channels. Can't get your fill of Legal af. Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called Wait for it Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AOFF are there as well. We got some new reporting, we got interviews, we got AD free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free Subscribe.