Main Justice

Episode: "Lawlessness in Progress"

Hosts: Andrew Weissmann & Mary McCord
Date: November 26, 2025

Overview

In this week’s episode of Main Justice, Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord dissect the current turmoil in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Defense (DOD) under the new Trump administration, focusing on recent jaw-dropping legal decisions, highly politicized prosecutions, and unprecedented investigations into legislative speech. The hosts analyze the judicial dismissal of criminal indictments against James Comey and Letitia James, the Pentagon’s probe of Senator Mark Kelly for merely reiterating the law, and the DOJ’s contradictory stances in high-level gerrymandering cases in both Texas and California. The episode is an urgent check on the lawlessness and democratic backsliding occurring at the heart of American governance.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Dismissal of the Comey and Letitia James Cases

[03:36-16:21]

• The Legal Issue:
  The criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James have been dismissed because Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia who brought the indictments, was improperly appointed. Statutory limits prohibit rolling over 120-day interim appointments without Senate confirmation (07:00).

• Judicial Reasoning:
  The out-of-district judge (from South Carolina) found the appointment violated both statutory and constitutional (Appointments Clause) requirements. The judge refused the government’s claim that the infraction was a “harmless error” (08:56).

• Implications:
  The dismissals are “without prejudice” (12:18), meaning the government could try to re-indict, but serious statute of limitations issues, especially in the Comey case, may prevent this (14:26, 16:20).

• Memorable Quote:

  “There is a congressional statute... The judge is interpreting that in a way that is completely consistent with the way all the other judges... are interpreting it. And frankly, it makes just a whole hell of a lot of sense.”
  — Andrew Weissmann [08:56]

2. The “Lindsey Halligan Flip-Flop” and Grand Jury Irregularities

[22:02-31:19]

• Bizarre Hearing Details:
  During a hearing on Comey’s motion to dismiss for selective/vindictive prosecution, government lawyers and Halligan herself admitted that the two-count indictment returned against Comey had not actually been voted on by the full grand jury (23:55, 24:14).

• Government’s About-Face:
  Within 24 hours, the DOJ reversed course, claiming a transcript showed the grand jury did approve the indictment, though hosts find the evidence ambiguous and the process embarrassing (25:22, 28:32).

• Systemic Concerns:
  This inconsistency illustrates profound inexperience and politicization within the attorney’s office, undermining basic prosecutorial norms (29:10).

• Memorable Quotes:

  “If the indictment is not presented to the grand jury and voted on by the grand jury, then you don’t have an indictment.”
  — Andrew Weissmann [23:45]

  “It’s ridiculously embarrassing... This is not rogue judges... This is not how you behave if you represent the government.”
  — Andrew Weissmann [28:32]

3. Pentagon Investigation of Senator Mark Kelly for Protected Speech

[31:19-43:28]

• Essence of the Case:
  The Pentagon is investigating Senator Mark Kelly (retired Navy Captain) and five other Democratic lawmakers for a video reminding military officers of their legal duty to follow only lawful orders (31:41, 32:06).

• Legal & Policy Analysis:
  The speech is plainly protected by the First Amendment and potentially the Speech and Debate Clause (35:54). Hosts see no legitimate legal basis—only political intimidation—behind the investigation, especially given Trump’s public threats of “death” and “hanging” directed at the lawmakers involved (39:02).

• Unlawful Command Influence:
  The hosts contextualize this as “unlawful command influence,” akin to “vindictive prosecution,” and warn of chilling effects both on the lawmakers and the wider military community (42:00).

• Memorable Quotes:

  “Shut your mouth is what it’s saying... That, by the way, is kind of the polite way of phrasing it.”
  — Mary McCord & Andrew Weissmann [41:56-42:03]

  “Let’s just think about that: Why, if you are the President... would you not want people to know [the law]?”
  — Andrew Weissmann [45:00]

4. DOJ’s Contradictory Stances on Racial Gerrymandering

[47:17-52:34]

• Texas Case:
  A federal panel found Texas’s recent redistricting to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. DOJ did not initially join the case against Texas but now is supporting Texas in the Supreme Court on the basis it was partisan, not racial (47:17).

• California Case:
  Conversely, the DOJ is intervening against Democratic gerrymandering in California, arguing explicitly that the new districts are the result of a “racial gerrymander” (48:43).

• Hosts’ Analysis:
  The hosts sharply call out the political hypocrisy and lack of principle, drawing attention to the danger of law being bent for partisan ends (49:55, 51:53).

• Memorable Quotes:

  “Goose-gander time... It either applies in Texas and California or not at all.”
  — Andrew Weissmann [51:52]

  “The whole idea of redistricting in the middle of where we are right now... it’s just, it’s undemocratic.”
  — Mary McCord [52:50]

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• On Judicial Integrity vs. Lawless Appointments:

  "Once we start the recording, I'm like, let's go, let's do this... So much of what we're going to talk about is... the privilege of representing the government, the obligations and responsibilities that go with it, and how we've seen judges rise to the occasion..."
  — Mary McCord [01:36, 02:58]

• On DOJ Inconsistency:

  "If it’s good for the Republicans, we do this, and if it’s good for the Democrats, we do that."
  — Andrew Weissmann [05:42]

  "They’ve given up the ghost of this being apolitical and principles and neutral."
  — Mary McCord [06:05]

• On Mark Kelly Investigation:

  "Everything he said is the law. He didn’t say anything that is improper. So ask yourself why would the Pentagon be stressing to people who said you need to make sure that you don’t do something illegal..."
  — Andrew Weissmann [35:54-36:26]

• On Unlawful Command Influence:

  "There is an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that says no person subject to the Code may attempt to coerce or by unauthorized means influence the action of a court martial... This is essentially the military's equivalent of a vindictive prosecution defense."
  — Mary McCord [43:03]

Key Timestamps: Segment Guide

• Thanksgiving Opening & Personal Reflections: [00:37–02:28]
• Main Legal Topics Introduction: [02:58–05:42]
• Comey/Letitia James Cases (Judicial Decision): [06:51–14:26]
• Statute of Limitations & Remedial Pathways: [14:26–19:23]
• Grand Jury Irregularities—The “Halligan Flip-Flop”: [22:02–31:19]
• Mark Kelly & Legal Boundaries for Military Speech: [31:19–43:28]
• Presidential Intimidation & Command Influence: [38:27–43:28]
• Gerrymandering Contradictions—Texas vs. California: [47:17–52:50]
• Episode Closing & Takeaways: [52:34–53:51]

Tone & Style

As in the transcript, the hosts’ tone is urgent, informed, and at times incredulous—balancing frustration at current events with deep legal expertise and a fundamental belief in constitutional norms. Their straightforward, sometimes wry, exchanges keep the discussion accessible but deeply insightful.

This summary should serve as a comprehensive guide for listeners who may have missed the episode, while also providing accessible entry points into the complex legal and political controversies currently shaping American democracy.