Blocked Indefinitely

Summary

UnJustified – Episode 73: “Blocked Indefinitely”
MSW Media, June 14, 2026
Hosts: Allison Gill & Andrew McCabe

---

Episode Overview

This episode delves into critical developments surrounding Trump’s Justice Department, focusing on the federal court’s indefinite block on the controversial $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. Allison Gill and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe analyze how attempts to erode constitutional norms via executive slush funds and selective prosecutions are meeting judicial resistance, reveal inside details behind the Epstein grand jury diversion, and unpack major DOJ and intelligence appointments under Trump. The episode features pointed legal analysis, new revelations from upcoming books, and candid listener Q&A about tax immunity and conflicts of interest at the highest echelons of government.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Indefinite Block on Trump’s "$1.8B Anti-Weaponization Fund"

• Background: The Trump administration set up a large “anti-weaponization” fund, allegedly to compensate individuals who suffered from supposed "lawfare" by the federal government—including January 6th defendants.
• Judicial Action: Judge Brinkema in Virginia issued an indefinite preliminary injunction (02:03–06:08) blocking the fund and demanded written confirmation under penalty of perjury from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Besant that the fund is truly dead.

“None of those statements from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche or the President, have been made under the penalty of perjury.”
—Judge Brinkema, quoted by Alison Gill [02:27]

• Administration’s Legal Games: Despite verbal assurances to Congress and the press, DOJ attorneys refused to provide official, written rescission, which led to the judge's skepticism and stricter demands.
• Ongoing Maneuvers: Insiders (via Sarah Fitzpatrick’s reporting in The Atlantic) confirm that DOJ and White House officials are still exploring ways to reinstate payouts or rebrand the fund, keeping supporters’ expectations alive (10:51).

“Officials are exploring whether elements of the fund can be reactivated, while also examining alternative arrangements to make sure loyalists get compensated.”
—Alison Gill paraphrasing reporting [11:49]

• Public & Political Reaction: Groups like Democracy Forward and Common Cause praised the legal injunction as a defense of taxpayer dollars; concerns continue over attempts to compensate January 6th participants (06:08–08:16).

---

2. Political and Legal Fallout of the Fund

• Congressional Dynamics: Todd Blanche's nomination for permanent Attorney General faces bipartisan skepticism, but some GOP senators seem satisfied with verbal (but not written) promises to drop the fund (12:30).
• Continued Tax Immunity: Blanche refuses to rescind blanket tax immunity for Trump, his family, or his interests—a point that alarms legal experts but lacks direct legal challenge in these suits (13:00).

“I wish they were more angry about the tax immunity... but it is part of Judge Williams in Miami reopening the original Trump lawsuit against the IRS for $10 billion because purportedly that tax immunity is... part of the settlement.”
—Allison Gill [13:00]

---

3. DOJ Claims & Internal Divisions

• DOJ Officials Filing Claims: In a twist, a top DOJ staffer responsible for the anti-weaponization fund’s congressional liaison attempted to recuse himself so he could file a personal claim, citing retaliation under the first Trump administration (14:00–15:28).
• Administrative Procedures: Allison Gill points out this is all procedurally unusual and highlights the ongoing chaos and self-interest that marks the DOJ under Trump.

---

4. Bombshell Revelations: The Situation Room & Epstein Files

• Inside the White House: New reporting from a forthcoming book by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman reveals how senior officials scrambled in the Situation Room (July 2025) to manage the blowback after a DOJ/FBI memo denied the existence of an Epstein “client list.”
• Political Theatre: Todd Blanche’s plan was to publicly petition courts to release grand jury materials—knowing courts would likely refuse—shifting blame and feigning transparency (21:00–26:02).

“Blanche's suggestion would make it appear that the White House wanted the Epstein files released, even though... all of those files also exist at the DOJ and could be released at any time.”
—Alison Gill [24:02]

• Internal Battles: There was contentious infighting among officials (notably J.D. Vance, Dan Bongino, and Kash Patel) about how to handle Epstein records and whether to release materials or seek a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. Bongino, in particular, was enraged at the administration for its handling and apparent cover-ups (27:12–31:06).

“You fucked this thing up from the start!”
—Dan Bongino to Pam Bondi, as recounted by Alison Gill [28:56]

---

5. Appointments & Intelligence Community Upheaval

• New Nominations: Trump nominates Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and former SEC Chair, as the new Director of National Intelligence (31:54–41:05).
• Controversy and Political Strategy: The interim head, Bill Pulte, was so controversial (no intel experience, plans for further office cuts) that both Democrats and Republicans welcomed a quick vote on Clayton as the lesser of evils.

“He’s not as bad as Pulte, but is that the bar you want to set for leading all of the Alphabet intel agencies?”
—Alison Gill [38:36]

• FISA Section 702 Drama: The leadership shakeups disrupt congressional reauthorization of crucial surveillance authorities, but the real security implications are less urgent than publicized (37:39–39:34).

---

6. The Broadview Six Grand Jury Transcripts

• The Case: Six Democratic activists were singled out for prosecution after protesting outside an immigration facility; the released grand jury transcripts reveal significant improprieties with the prosecution’s conduct (41:56–48:53).
• Grand Jury Turmoil: Prosecutors overstepped by personally vouching for the case, talking informally to jurors, and ultimately needed three presentations to secure an indictment.

“I heard this case, like, last week. And I thought it was a crock of shit then, and I still think it is now.”
—Unnamed Grand Juror, as read by Alison Gill [45:47]

• Aftermath: Ultimately, the DOJ dropped all charges, but the transcripts—filled with redactions and evidence of improper persuasion—prompt calls for sanctions and attorney fee awards.

---

7. Listener Q&A: Legal Analysis of Tax Immunity & AG Conflict

• Tax Immunity Agreement: Multiple listeners question whether Trump’s tax immunity shield is as broad as implied. Andy McCabe reviews the language and finds it purposely vague, containing “loopholes” that could extend protection to future tax issues under the guise of “lawfare” (49:06–54:01).

“There’s sus language in here, for sure.”
—Andy McCabe [53:35]

• Todd Blanche as AG: Conflict of interest and client duties—listeners ask how Blanche can serve as AG after defending Trump; the duo agree it’s highly irregular, politically outrageous, but legally possible if Trump has waived the conflict—though waiver has not been evidenced (54:45–57:06).

---

Notable Quotes

• “You know, you don’t just talk about it in an oblique way and that’s good enough. You confirm your assertions, your promises, your contracts, whatever, on paper.”
  —Andy McCabe [08:38]
• “Gesture of transparency is like pointing out you obeyed traffic laws on your way to commit a murder.”
  —Andy McCabe [21:00]
• “Officials are exploring whether elements of the fund can be reactivated, while also examining alternative arrangements to make sure loyalists get compensated.”
  —Alison Gill citing The Atlantic [11:49]
• “How do you. Pulte was so bad that they’re actually thinking Jay Clayton has really good intelligence experience.”
  —Alison Gill [36:41]
• “Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat.”
  —Andy McCabe [41:56] (referring to the recurring theme of DOJ frustration)

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• Blocked Trump Fund: Legal Developments: 00:06–08:38
• Behind the Scenes & Media Reports: 10:28–13:00
• Situation Room Meeting on Epstein Files: 19:22–28:56
• Explosion over Epstein Handling & Bongino Fallout: 28:56–33:43
• Jay Clayton Nomination & Intelligence Community Chaos: 34:43–41:05
• Broadview Six Grand Jury Imbroglio: 41:56–48:53
• Listener Q&A: Tax Immunity & AG Conflicts: 49:06–57:06
• Show Wrap & Next Steps: 58:03–59:08

---

Memorable Moments

• Judicial Sass: Judge Brinkema’s dry return-to-sender of a bogus fund application [05:15], and her insistence that only a declaration under penalty of perjury will suffice.
• Bongino Blowup: Details of Dan Bongino’s shouted confrontation with AG Pam Bondi over the Epstein files saga [29:41], leading to an intra-White House “circular firing squad.”
• Juror Rebellion: Grand jurors walking out and openly calling the Broadview Six prosecution “a crock of shit” [45:47].
• Recurring Theme: The “hit me in the head with a bat” segment highlighting the collapse of DOJ’s presumption of regularity [41:56+].

---

Final Thoughts

Through relentless legal analysis, sourced reporting, and candid conversation, Allison and Andy expose the deliberate erosion of the rule of law and the tangled web of self-serving schemes inside Trump’s DOJ. Judicial accountability remains a buffer, but ongoing vigilance—both in and out of court—is essential. The show closes with a call for judicial sanctions and continued investigations into Trump-era “reforms” and appointments.

For listeners seeking an unflinching, well-sourced view of America’s current legal-political battlefield, this episode is essential.

---

Next Week Preview:
Expect updates on whether Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Besant comply with Judge Brinkema’s order, insights into looming battles over Trump’s tax immunity, and continuing examinations of Department of Justice overreach.

Listener questions can be submitted via the link in the show notes.

Transcript

[Alison Gill]

MSW Media

[Andy McCabe]

A federal judge has indefinitely blocked the $1.776 billion slush fund and has given Todd Blanche and the Treasury Secretary one week to rescind the fund in writing.

[Alison Gill]

Todd Blanche petitioned the courts to release Epstein grand jury materials as a diversion tactic after meeting with White House officials in the Situation Room to discuss how to protect Donald Trump.

[Andy McCabe]

President Trump has nominated Jay Clayton, a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, to be the next Director of National Intelligence.

[Alison Gill]

And newly released transcripts reveal improprieties during the Broadview Six grand jury proceedings. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 73 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, June 14, 2026. We are just a little under a week away from our Chicago gala for patrons, which I'm looking very much forward to. So we're glad you're here today. I'm Alison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe. Also looking forward to that wonderful event. But let's jump in because once again, Allison, we got a heavy stack to get through today. So, just this past week, President Trump formally nominated Todd Blanche to be the Attorney General. Surprise. Not really a position that he's been occupying in an acting capacity since Pam Bondi was fired. Now, there was bipartisan pushback until Blanche testified that the Justice Department would not move forward with the $1.8 billion anti weaponization fund, despite Blanche's refusal to commit to rescind it in writing and despite the additional facts that he's leaving in place the blanket tax immunity for Trump, his family and his businesses.

[Alison Gill]

But I think that's the whole point of that whole thing, honestly. I mean.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, for sure. So on Friday, following a brief but brutal hearing before Judge Brinkema in Virginia, she issued an indefinite preliminary injunction against the fund, despite Judge Leon refusing to issue a temporary restraining order just two days earlier in a different case against the fund. So a lot of legal wrangling going on here.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Meanwhile, my lawsuit, we're just sort of sitting there waiting to see how this all plays out. Well, you know, because we certainly weren't going to drop our case because he refused to put it in writing. So it's very interesting what Judge Brinkman had to say today. NBC reports a federal judge Friday extended her block on the Trump administration's, quote, anti weaponization fund, frustrated that the DOJ has, has not said under penalty of perjury whether the fund is truly dead. Judge Brinkama of the Eastern District of Virginia said, quote, none of those statements from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche or the President, quote, have been made under the penalty of perjury.

[Andy McCabe]

It's fascinating that that has become the new standard, but. But rightly so. Earlier this month, Blanche told House lawmakers, we're not moving forward with the fund, period. But the next day, President Donald Trump told reporters, I don't know. When asked whether the fund was on hold or eliminated. Brinkham also drilled down on Justice Department attorney Andrew Block, who has not answered why the DOJ has not formally rescinded its memo related to the creation of the anti weaponization fund. I don't have the ability to speak directly to the attorney general, block said. I think you do, actually, but okay.

[Alison Gill]

Judge Brinkoma shot back on that when she said, I cannot believe, given the significance, you don't have an answer. There's a huge gap in the record if we don't have an answer to that question. And it's interesting because just two days earlier in Judge Leon's court, the same guy, Andrew Block, was asked twice why it wasn't in writing. And he said, I don't know. I don't know. Both times. So that's. The judge was like, well, you didn't go and figure this out before you came and talked to me. It was bizarre. Now, this on lawsuit stems from Trump's announcement last month that it planned to set up that $1.8 billion anti weaponization fund aimed at paying people who have, quote, suffered weaponization and lawfare at the hands of the federal government. If allowed to go forward, the fund could be used to pay those who were charged and later pardoned by Trump for their actions at the Capitol on January 6th. In an interview last week with NBC, the president did not rule out paying January 6th attendees who were later charged with assaulting law enforcement.

[Andy McCabe]

Brinkama on Friday said she's concerned that if the fund isn't really dead, it might come back in a different form. Quote, I think the weaponization fund is a great idea and so do many other Republicans, trump told NBC News's Kristen Welker last week. Trump said, you have to get it approved. If they get it approved, that's great. If they don't get it approved, I'll be disappointed. Brinkoma said, quote, when the president of the United States says he's going to be pretty upset if something doesn't happen, well, that's a pretty good incentive for those working for him to do something.

[Alison Gill]

Now. Brinkham also said the public doesn't have a real sense that the fund is dead. The federal court in Alexandria actually received an application to the fund. She said that wasn't me adding that it was returned to sender. Quote, we're not accepting applications, she said dryly. But she did say she believes the public is largely against the idea of the $1.8 billion taxpayer fund and how those taxpayer dollars are being diverted to people who committed crime, law enforcement. She said it's problematic. Brinkhama granted a preliminary injunction blocking the fund until further notice, which means indefinitely, but added another requirement, quote, if the government truly means what it means. She says she's giving the government a week to come up with a declaration from Blanch and Treasury Secretary Scott Besant stating under penalty of perjury that the fund is really dead.

[Andy McCabe]

Following Friday's injunction, plaintiffs in the case applauded Brinkham's decision. Sky Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward and former guest on this show, said in a statement, despite the administration's shifting explanations about the future of the slush fund, the court's order ensures that taxpayer dollars cannot be distributed through this unlawful scheme. While the courts fully consider the serious constitutional issues at stakeholders. We look forward to continuing this challenge on behalf of our clients now. Omar Nurildin, Common Cause's senior vice president for policy and litigation, said today's ruling is a massive win ensuring hard earned tax dollars stay out of the hands of the president's cronies and people who violently assaulted law enforcement on January 6th. While we're securing justice for American taxpayers in court, we we've successfully locked the president's personal slush fund for now and we'll keep the pressure on until it's shut down for good.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And former federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, who's part of this lawsuit to block the fund, said, I'm heartened that the injunction continues to prevent 1.776 billion in taxpayer money from being used to pay off those who attacked our democracy. I will continue this litigation to ensure that this unconstitutional fund does not erase the accountability imposed by judges and impartial jurors and, and the hard earned work of the victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers and prosecutors who delivered it. So it was a less than 30 minute hearing on Friday, by the way, and I spoke to Adam Klassfeld about it, who was there, and she just opened the whole hearing by saying, you know, I feel really sorry for you, Mr. Andrew. You know, she was like this, you're in a really terrible position here. But I really like the idea that she's like, because we kept asking if the fund is really dead and if the DOJ in court filings is saying that the fund is dead but refusing to attach a declaration from Todd Blanche, then it's meaningless.

[Andy McCabe]

Absolutely.

[Alison Gill]

And so bringing up the fact that none of this is under penalty of perjury, I think is a super important point. And why are. My other question, Andy, is why are you fighting so hard against us? If you're truly say the fund is dead, why don't you just sign the rescission and hand it in? So we'll see what he does. He's got a week.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, and a week, really, she could have said to him, have it in by close of business today. That's how it takes an hour to draft a one page affidavit or statement and get the signatures on it. Look, let's go, let's go. Basic here. This is a matter under litigation. It is in the federal courts that they filed this bogus settlement. The way you do business in federal court is you don't just like, you know, talk about it in an oblique way and that's good enough. You confirm your assertions, your promises, your contracts, whatever, on paper, and then that paper is filed on the docket and in front of, you know, in whatever court the matter is in front of. So Todd Blanche knows that there's only one reason he hasn't done that so far is he's leaving himself the wiggle room to try to rebirth this thing with a different source of funding or in a different way. Some of the things that I have heard are being considered right now are like taking some of these cases that are currently proceeding against banks who have closed the accounts of people convicted in the January 6 crimes. There are now federal cases against those banks for doing that you can imagine, like alleging constitutional violations, that sort of thing, and settling those cases for monetary amounts to be get to, you know, penalties that the banks presumably would pay and then corralling all that money together in a fund that they would distribute to the January 6th people. Now, I don't know if that's going to happen or not. It's something people are talking about. They're saying that apparently Jeannie Pirro is involved in this somehow. So it would have a D.C. u.S. Attorney's Office connection to it. But we'll see. I mean, that's just one example. This thing is far from dead, as we discussed last week. So we'll keep a close eye on it.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, we will. And by the way, a day before that, before the hearing on Friday, Sarah Fitzpatrick, she's the person at the Atlantic who did all the reporting. Kash Patel is suing her because she did all the reporting on his alleged drinking and hangover episodes and things like that, she reported in the Atlantic. And she's got some man, she's got some well placed sources for sure.

[Andy McCabe]

For sure she does, yeah.

[Alison Gill]

She says behind the scenes, DOJ and other Trump administration officials have quietly assured allies that plans for some form of payout remain on track. She says, I spoke with eight people, eight people familiar with the so called anti weaponization fund, including current and former Justice Department officials, current and former members of Congress, a defense attorney and political operatives close to the administration. All civilization said that the Justice Department and the Justice Department officials, and also people close to the White House have indicated that the payout idea has not been scrapped. Rather, they say, officials are exploring whether elements of the fund can be reactivated, while also examining alternative arrangements to make sure loyalists get compensated. Across the administration, even within the Justice Department, officials have been having differing perspectives on whether the fund itself will ultimately be restored. But either way, officials see a path forward for the government to pay those who they say are the victims of supposed government weaponization.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. She goes on to say, those familiar with the internal conversations, all of whom spoke with me on the condition of anonymity because they feared possible retaliation. Pretty good fear, told me that the work is being kept quiet while the Trump administration waits for the opposition to the fund to blow over. Crucially, the administration is also trying to avoid a fight over the payout plan, which has been deemed a political slush fund by critics while the Senate considers Blanche's nomination for Attorney general.

[Alison Gill]

And I think that this was him saying that the slush fund was dead is his way of getting, you know, confirmed by the Senate.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, it's his Republicans who, because like

[Alison Gill]

all the Republicans were way against this weaponization fund. And so he was like, okay, we won't do it. But he refused to put it in writing. But that apparently is good enough for these Republicans. So I think that's why they're going to move forward with that.

[Andy McCabe]

Well, you know, it's going to be a political albatross for them if it comes forward in any form. But he's got to maintain this facade of ending the thing if he has any hope of getting confirmed.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, I wish they were more angry about the tax immunity, like what the. And you know, that isn't really part of any of the five lawsuits brought against the slush fund, but it is part of the judge, Judge Williams in Miami, reopening the original Trump lawsuit against the IRS for $10 billion because purportedly that tax immunity is number Two of the things that were promised in a settlement that shouldn't exist because there was no adversarial parties in that suit. So we're going to see that play out as well. Now, funny side note this week from Politico, a top Justice Department staffer responsible for liaising to Congress actually planned to make a claim with the anti weaponization fund and asked to recuse himself from any work related to it. His name is Patrick Davis, and he raised his plan to file a claim with others at the DOJ in May because he viewed it as a conflict. Like, I might be conflicted here because I'm responsible for communicating the fundamental. DOJ officials were concerned by Davis's recusal request in part because, again, he's responsible for communicating the department's reasons for setting up the fund in the first place. And he's responsible to describe that to lawmakers because he's the Congress liaison. Right, right. So, but here's the thing. He was retaliated against during the Trump administration. The first one, when Bill Barr went looking for leaks about connections between Trump and Russia. Davis was a senior aide to Chuck Grassley Back then, when Trump's DOJ collected non content communication records for 43 congressional staffers, Kash Patel was among them. He was a congressional staffer at the time, I think on the Oversight Committee. And he sued over it because Trump's DOJ went through his emails. I don't know how much success you're going to have filing a claim about weaponization that happened under the Trump administration, which is why I'm suing as an interested party who didn't get a chance to comment. There was no notice and comment period, which is required by the Administrative Procedure Act. So I just think it's funny that this DOJ guy was like, I want to file a claim, too. I love this claim. And he works currently for the Trump administration, but he would be filing it for weaponization that occurred during the Trump administration.

[Andy McCabe]

I mean, how, how successful will you be in the Trump administration once you sue them for weaponizing you? Yeah, that's crazy.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, well, if he gets it, I'm gonna sue

[Andy McCabe]

for real again.

[Alison Gill]

All right, so we have some. I will only got six or seven lawsuits going right now for FOIA stuff and whatnot, but. And against the weaponization fund and, gosh, against the VA from years and years ago when they wrongfully terminated me in the first place, allegedly. All right, we have a bombshell story, and it comes from a forthcoming book, I believe, from Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman. At the New York Times about what happened in the Situation Room, because we knew they met in the Situation Room to discuss how to, what to do about the Epstein stuff. But now we've got, like, hardcore details about what went down in those meetings. And it's, it's. Well, I'll let it speak for itself. We'll be right back. Thanks to HomeServe for sponsoring this episode. Owning a home is great until it turns on you. One minute you're having coffee, and the next you're confronted with a burst pipe or a dead water heater or a furnace that suddenly decided to quit. Repairs do not care about your schedule or your bank account. They definitely don't care about how much money you have, just lying for discretional purposes. But this is exactly why HomeServe is such a great idea. A lot of homeowners assume regular insurance covers whatever goes wrong with your house. Frequently, it does not. Plumbing failures, H Vac, electrical issues, and other expensive repairs can happen at literally any time, and HomeServe will be ready to have your back. It works like a subscription for your home. For as little as $4.99 a month, you can choose a plan that fits your needs and your budget. And then when something covered breaks, you call their 24.7hotline and get their repair process moving immediately instead of having to screw, scramble, and panic. A broken light switch or a small leak can turn serious quickly. And something like a septic line repair or a furnace breakdown can blow up an entire budget in a hurry. HomeServe has been helping homeowners for over 20 years, and they have a trusted national network of over 2,600 local contractors. So you can trust they'll have experts on standby. I've had enough home repair scares to know how helpful this can be and why I have HomeServe. So I believe it's better to have a plan in place before the crisis happens than to try and invent one while the water is spreading across your living room floor. So join the millions of customers who trust home serve for 50% less your first year. Go to homeserve.com unjust that's homeserve.com unjust for just 50% less savings compared to renewal price void in Florida. All right, everybody, welcome back. The president's top advisors gathered in a series of Situation Room meetings as they struggled to contain a scandal engulfing Donald Trump himself. And we have some excerpts from this reporting in the New York Times on July 17, 2025. And that was a hectic month. That's when the Kash Patel and Pam Bondi memo went out saying, we don't have any investigations. There was no blackmail, nothing to see here, no client list. It was also when Todd Blanche met with Ghislaine Maxwell, and then a couple weeks later, she was moved to security prison at Bryan, Texas. So prison is a strong word facility, lower security, camp, spa, whatever in Bryan, Texas. There was a lot that was going on in that month. But at around 6 o' clock on July 17th in the evening, Trump's top officials filed into the White House Situation Room. Trump's most senior advisors had gathered without him to figure out how to gain some measure of control over the Epstein file crisis.

[Andy McCabe]

Ten days earlier, the Justice Department and the FBI had jointly released a memo that bluntly stated that their review had found no, quote, client list of powerful men for whom the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein had allegedly procured underage girls and young women intended to put to rest years of speculation and end the pressure campaign to release the voluminous material in the department's possession. The memo instead had the opposite effect, setting off a backlash that was notably loud among the MAGA base.

[Alison Gill]

And it was about to get worse. The Wall Street Journal was preparing a damaging article about Trump's relationship with Epstein. The President's desperate attempts to kill that story had failed. He had called Murdoch and, like, yelled at him. His team now had to get everyone on the same page about how to counter the growing swarm of attention. They needed a gesture of transparency to appease an increasingly angry base, but also a way to convey the message that the President was sympathetic to his supporters concerns, which itself was a problem because he clearly wasn't. So they needed a gesture of transparency and to make it look like Trump cared. Pretty tall order. But Todd Blanche had a couple of ideas, and I want to preface this by saying JD Vance's idea was to release all the files, rip the band aid off, there's bad stuff in there, but just it over with. And everyone's like, no, are you crazy? That was also Dan Bongino and Kash Patel's desire. Right. And so there was a lot of infighting. And we'll get more into that. But Todd Blanch had two other ideas.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, can I just say, gesture of transparency is like, that's like pointing out that you obeyed the traffic laws on your way to commit a murder. Like, it doesn't, it doesn't work.

[Alison Gill]

It's just a gesture of transparency. It's not real transparency.

[Andy McCabe]

It's just a gesture of following the law. Until I didn't actually follow it anymore. Okay. Vice President J.D. vance took a seat at the head of the table in the John F. Kennedy conference room of the Situation Room complex.

[Alison Gill]

Is it not the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy conference room?

[Andy McCabe]

It will be after this. After this episode.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, they're going to take the letters that they were pulling down off the Kennedy center on Friday and stick them on Monday morning. They'd be like, on the coffee.

[Andy McCabe]

I can't believe none of us thought of that. Who can take credit for it? Who can take credit for putting the boss's name on another thing? Oh, my God. Okay, sorry. So Vice President Vance said this is a huge problem. He told the group. Arrayed around him were the White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, the White House Counsel, David Warrington, the Press Secretary, Caroline Levitt, the Deputy Chief of Staff, Taylor Butowich, the Communications Director, Steve Chung, the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanch, the Associate Attorney General, Stanley Woodward. Thank God he was there. And the Deputy Chief of staff, James Blair, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the FBI Director, Cash Patel joined on speakerphone

[Alison Gill]

because Cash Patel was at what, boondoggle ranch?

[Andy McCabe]

He was busy working out with UFC fighters at Quantico or just get him up out of bed or guzzling brown liquid. Not further described.

[Alison Gill]

Yes. All right, so here were Blanche's two ideas. Option one was to petition federal district courts in Florida and New York to unseal grand jury testimonies. Those are the secret transcripts of prosecutors, presentations of witnesses and evidence and their efforts to obtain indictments in past Epstein related cases. Epstein and Maxwell. And those were almost certain to contain no significant new information. Everyone agreed that this option was a good idea, and not only because a release was unlikely to damage the President, but because under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the secrecy of grand jury materials is regarded by most federal judges as almost always impenetrable, and the bar for any release is exceptionally high. So if the courts refuse to unseal them, as Blanche predicted they would, they could then shift the blame for withholding the Epstein files away from the Trump administration and on to the judges. And all the better. If the judges had been appointed by Democratic presidents, Blanche's suggestion would make it appear that the White House wanted the Epstein files released, even though all of those files also exist at the DOJ and could be released at any time. It would look like the White House wanted to release that stuff. And, yeah, when it did not want that to happen. So it was a ruse on the courts.

[Andy McCabe]

It was not just. It Was absolutely that. But can we also point out the. And this is an allegation in a forthcoming book. So if you believe was a pretty good piece of evidence about the duplicity of Todd Blanche. Right. This is the guy who now judges are saying, we want it in writing and under oath before we'. Any representation by you. Seriously. And can you blame them? A guy who engages in the gesture of transparency when he knows very well it's not going to lead to any transparency. I mean, come on, Andy.

[Alison Gill]

On November 23rd, when it was reported that the DOJ is now going to try to make an attempt to unseal Epstein grand jury records in Florida and New York, saying the newly signed law by Trump overrides grand jury secrecy, I said, wonder if the DOJ is going to try to pass this off as having tried to release the Epstein files and then blame the courts. And when they say, no, this. This represents about 76 pages of testimony from one FBI official. There's nothing significant in these files. And, you know, I have to say, Annie Farmer actually wrote a letter to one of the judges, and she said, Ms. Farmer therefore respectfully crested any decision as to the instant motions. Makes abundantly clear that the court's ruling does not affect the Department of Justice's ability to release release documents subject to the Transparency Act. For the avoidance of doubt. This would mean that nothing in the court's rulings affect the Department of Justice's ability to release other materials, including those contained in the more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence in the government's possession. And it says there, modify the protective order. The government styled its motions as one to modify a protective order. And it reinforces Ms. Farmer's concern that the government will use orders issued by this court as a public excuse to continue to withhold crucial information.

[Andy McCabe]

You think? Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

So we all kind of suspected. And now we know that that was the actual plan.

[Andy McCabe]

Of course. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So that was plan one. Apparently. Option two was to have the Justice Department lawyers question Maxwell and publicly release the transcript, a twist on the idea proposed earlier by Vance. Now, Blanche offered to interview Maxwell himself. What if we got her to talk to Congress? Vance suggested Blanche raised the possibility that Maxwell's lawyer might expect something in return for her candor at Warrington. The White House counsel responded by laying out the available choices without advocating any of them. Maxwell could be given a pardon, he said, or she could have her sentence reduced.

[Alison Gill]

Hmm. Interesting. Well, I will say this. There was a lot of pushback in the room for pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell. And that came. It was pretty adamant. But there's also reporting in here and. Well, I mean, that's what ended up happening. He went and he interviewed her. They released the transcript. She said Trump didn't do anything wrong. And then all of a sudden she's in Bryan, Texas, so.

[Andy McCabe]

Right. With her own puppy.

[Alison Gill]

That's what they gave her instead of a pardon. But she's, I think, still pushing for one. There's also reporting in here about Dan Bongino's freak out. Okay. Bongino hated the Justice Department's nothing to see here memo being drawn up for public release. That's the. That July memo that we mentioned. He told Kash Patel this would in no way align with their promise of transparency after taking over the FBI. And he objected to putting the FBI seal on the letterhead, but he was overruled. Patel privately shared Bongino's concerns, but in an internal email on July 2, he gave his support for the memo.

[Andy McCabe]

Inside the White House, Trump had no interest in releasing anything, and senior officials, including Wiles and Blair, were initially unconvinced about the reach of the Epstein crisis. They told colleagues that Republican voters didn't care, and they had early data from Trump's chief pollster, Tony Fabrizio, to demonstrate it. Wow.

[Alison Gill]

You know how many times that guy's mentioned in the Mueller report? A lot. He's in there a lot.

[Andy McCabe]

You might want to rerun those numbers, dude, because it seems to be the only thing that anyone cares about. The Epstein brouhaha, in their view, was driven by fringe conspiracy theorists and amplified by noisy online influencers who didn't represent a meaningful block of voters. If the White House engaged, it would only pump it up, putting an official stamp on the matter. Wiles, Blair and others around Trump had seen him weather every storm imaginable for years. And in their view, this wasn't a storm. It was a passing cloud burst. At most. Bongino told anyone who would listen that this was a grave miscalculation. Quote, it's not an online story, he told White House advisors. You don't understand.

[Alison Gill]

It's hard to imagine that getting rid of Dan Bongino was a part of a brain drain, that he actually was correct and was fired for it. But it seems like that's what the case was here. The day the memo was released, Bongino showed up to a daily Justice Department meeting with the FBI staff and the Attorney General, and he was in a volcanic mood. As soon as he entered the room, he erupted at Pam Bondi shouting at her. You fucked this thing up from the start, he yelled. The way you've been talking about this, that dumb fucking charade with the Epstein files, the they're on my desk nonsense, all the promises to the folks out there. Patel and Bongino both subsequently told a White House official that Bondi needed to resign over this.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay, timeout. How Pam Bondi, as Attorney General of the United States of America didn't fire both of them in that moment, I will never know. And we said this at the time because that was. It was reported that they had some massive blowout in the Situation Room and that he spoke impertinently to her. We didn't have these details, but man alive, I don't. I did not work for a single Attorney General. I worked for many and not one of them would have put up with being treated like this by a subordinate. I don't care what the matter was or how wrong they might have been. There's no way. But two days later, on July 9, the two men were summoned to a meeting with Wiles and Bondi in the Situation Room complex. They were the last to enter the small wood paneled room. Seated around the table were Bondi, Wiles, Blanche and Taylor Buddowicz, one of Wiles's deputies. The moment Bongino sat down, Wiles told him that she had been informed that he leaked a sensitive story about Epstein and Trump to ABC News. The circular firing squad begins, quote, I'll tell you what, Bongino replied, I'll give you $100,000 cash right now. I'm not kidding. Walk out to West Exec, put that reporter on a speaker and get him to admit that I leaked it. I'll give you $100,000.

[Alison Gill]

Susie. Wiles snapped back, well, we all got ourselves into this. And Bongino said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, we didn't get ourselves into anything. I warned you guys about this the whole time and you ignored me and exactly what I said was gonna happen happened and now you're pretending I was in on this now. Bongino's aggressive response startled the others in the room. She's the White House Chief of Staff, essentially a stand in for the President when he's not there. Wiles put Bongino on the spot. Going forward, she said, we're all in. We're all going to agree to move forward. Are you in or not? And Bongino said, no, I'm not. This is not my plan. I'm not part of this going forward. Forget It. I'm out of here. And Andy, apparently, according to the article, Bongino thought about resigning, but people said, no, no, no, don't resign. You don't need to resign. And so he stayed on a bit longer. But I think that's right around the time they brought in Andrew Bailey to be the co. Deputy director of the FBI. Right. Kind of. And eventually he left, but he was. Seems like he was pretty mad. And we, like us, like you said, we knew that they were having a lot of disagreements, but we didn't know what was actually said in those meetings. And so it's very interesting. I'm wondering who it must be, Susie Wiles, who's talking to Maggie Haberman. But I'm just guessing, you know.

[Andy McCabe]

Well, that's. That wouldn't be surprising because she spoke so candidly in that. Was it an Atlantic article? Magazine article a couple months ago. And she was kind of the primary source for that as well. You know, the thing that kind of stands out to me in this whole exchange is like, they are the. They're the lamest organized crime group ever, right? This whole, like, Bongino erupting on his boss and then Susie Wiles trying to bring, you know, impose some discipline here. This is why organized crime groups, every once in a while they got to kill someone just to instill some discipline. And here it's like, we're all going to be in. If you're in from this point, you're all in. And he's like, no, no, I'm not. I mean, at that point, you'd be dead if this was the street. But, you know, it's not. It's the White House. I guess that's a good thing that they're just. That they're not killing each other. But yeah, they're bringing in Andrew Bailey instead.

[Alison Gill]

Right?

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, right, exactly. He's the. He's the backup. Which actually makes more sense now in retrospect because at the time we were like, what, the. The job is that terrible for him that they. He needs an extra pair of hands? Which was also believable on some level. Apparently he was there to pick up the pieces when this dude walked out.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And every time Bongino complained to the staff around him. We knew this from previous reporting. And it's also reiterated in this new reporting that he just kept bringing up how he's lost millions of dollars and fans and his podcast listeners, like, no longer trust him because he's part of the Epstein cover up now. So anyway, just really interesting stuff and somebody else who was involved in maybe that memo, maybe not, you know, the, the July 7th memo, but certainly involved in the Southern District of New York. And whether or not any investigations were opened or which investigations were closed is somebody named Jay Clayton. And he was just nominated to replace Tulsi Gabbard after the Bill Pulte issue. And we're going to talk about all that after this next break. Stick around. We'll be right back.

[Andy McCabe]

Welcome back. Okay, next up from the Times, President Trump said on Thursday that he would nominate Jay Clayton, the US Attorney in Manhattan, to be the next director of National Intelligence after the president faced a revolt from lawmakers over his choice for an interim director without any relevant experience. Now, Mr. Trump had been under pressure to move on from his decision to appoint Bill Pulte, a top housing official, as the acting director of National Intelligence, replacing Dulcie Gabbard, who announced last month that she would step down from the post.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Mr. Pulte, who has used his current job to attack Trump's enemies, had come under withering criticism from Capitol Hill. Both Republicans and Democrats argued that he was unqualified to lead the Nation's intelligence agencies. Mr. Clayton, who's 59, was recommended for the post by John Ratcliffe, the CIA director. Both of them are just still woefully unqualified. But, you know, whatever. I digress totally. That's according to a person familiar. The current plan is for Pulte to take over for Ms. Gabbard on June 19 and serve as acting director until Clayton's nomination is reviewed by the Senate.

[Andy McCabe]

Mr. Pulte, the person said, will seek to shrink the office beyond the cuts that Ms. Gabbard had made. Mr. Trump wants Mr. Clayton to lead a smaller office, more narrowly focused on coordination among the 18 intelligence agencies. Senator John Thune, the Senate majority leader, got no warning about the announcement, but spoke positively about Mr. Clayton's nomination. Quote, I think he's considered to be a. Hold on a second. I think he's considered to be a very qualified professional. But you don't know. I mean, I mean, okay, I think he's considered to be a very qualified professional with a great skill set for managing complex problems. Mr. Thune said, we will try to get him up and considered as soon as possible.

[Alison Gill]

It's probably my mind, how do you. Pulte was so bad that they're actually thinking Jay Clayton has really good intelligence experience.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. Thune's quote should have been, you're telling me he's not Pulte, then he's got my vote. Like he doesn't know anything about this guy. Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

This goes on to say the Senate Intelligence Committee scheduled a hearing with Mr. Clayton for June 17, signaling a desire for Congress to move quickly to approve his nomination. Because people are really mad about Pulte. Right, Right. Because Senate Democrats may also support a speedy confirmation of Clayton, if only to push Pulte out. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, top Democrat on Senate intelligence, said he needed a guarantee that Pulte would not serve as the acting director, a sentiment echoed by Chuck Schumer, the minority leader. The appointment of Pulte derailed the congressional reauthorization of one of the government's most powerful surveillance authorities. As we talked about, FISA Section 702.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. But the announcement of Mr. Clayton, who is also a former chairman of the securities and Exchange Commission. Okay, note not an intelligence agency to be nominated for Senate confirmation. Seemed unlikely to immediately solve Mr. Trump's problems with reauthorizing the law. The House on Thursday rejected a three week extension of the law, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, which will expire at midnight on Friday. With Congress now out of town and some lawmakers headed overseas, it would be difficult to schedule another vote before the deadline.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, and I want to just make something clear here, because the expiration of this without reauthorization isn't actually what you think it is. It's not like they can stay. We'll just stop the program Friday at midnight. This thing is actually reauthorized because of this kind of issue through March of 2027.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right.

[Alison Gill]

And so when Republicans are like, Democrats are holding our national security hostage letting this expire, they're not being fully truthful with you. Because a lot of folks want to reform Section 702, and it does need some reform. And this, I think, would be a great time to do it, you know, because Pulte is a good leverage point. But for Democrats to be like, Clayton's pretty good. He's not. I don't understand how. I don't think he has any relevant intelligence experience. And the law requires extensive intelligence experience. And so, I mean, you might be like, it's not as bad as Pulte, but is that the bar you want to set for leading all of the Alphabet intel agencies? It just seems like, God, have we sunk so low where we're like, well, it's not Satan. So, hey, you know, it blows my mind.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. And it also raises the question of, like, is this a strategy now? Let's put up the worst possible person, the person who's going to create massive blowback, and then the kind of half as bad person we actually want will put that guy in sail right through. I mean, I don't know. It's always been past that.

[Alison Gill]

The strategy. Matt Gaetz for Attorney General.

[Andy McCabe]

There you go. Perfect example. Perfect example.

[Alison Gill]

Oh, hey, it's just Pam Bondi.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. And the other thing is, Pulte's the Axe guy, right. He's going to go in there, he'll be in there for months, and he will gleefully, randomly fire many, many career professionals who work in the DNI and whose work helps protect the country. Now, could the dni, the Directorate of National Intelligence, use some reform itself? Is it maybe a little bit bloated? Could you seek some efficiencies? Of course, you can say that about any government agency. There's no harm about somebody coming in there looking to change things up and. And, you know, And. And maybe look at things differently. But Pulte's not that guy. He doesn't know who to fire. He doesn't know any. He's never read a piece of intelligence.

[Alison Gill]

He specifically wants to fire people who have intelligence, of course, so that they can't go against him or Jay Clayton when they do stuff that is.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Untoward.

[Andy McCabe]

Really important for Democrats to stand up here and say, no, this is. This Clayton's, you know, nomination is not going to do it for us.

[Alison Gill]

We.

[Andy McCabe]

We want Pulte nowhere near that joint. So we'll see what happens.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, it's like, well, you know, we were going to nominate John Wayne Gacy, but we're gonna go with a Helter Skelter guy instead, because he didn't actually kill anybody. Like, I just. Yeah, it's not Charles Manson. Right, sorry. Helter Skelter guy. Like, you know, Helter Skelter with you.

[Andy McCabe]

I knew who the Helter Skelter guy was.

[Alison Gill]

All right, we have an interesting update on the Broadview Six. And then in our latest installment of Hit Me in the Head with a Bat, followed by a listener question or two. But we got to take one last quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. It's time to hit me in the head with a. A bat.

[Andy McCabe]

Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat.

[Alison Gill]

This is the part of the show when we discuss the downfall of the presumption of Regularity, which is a trust that the DOJ has generally enjoyed from the courts until recently. Today's installment involves the Broadview Six case. We've talked about this in the past, but this week the grand jury transcripts were released, and hoo, boy. Now, the Broadview Six case revolved around a Sept. 26 protest outside the immigration facility in Broadview, where a crowd surrounded, pushed, scratched, and otherwise damaged a federal agent's suv. From that crowd, prosecutors charged only six people, all largely involved in local democratic politics, raising questions about selective prosecution and freedom of expression.

[Andy McCabe]

The Chicago Sun Times reports, while they're meant to be a check against overzealous prosecutors, grand juries have long been viewed cynically. There's even a famous saying that prosecutors can convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. That didn't seem to be the case when Mecklenburg and Assistant U.S. attorney Matthew Skiba brought the Broadview Six case to grand jurors on October 9, October 16, and October 23. Mecklenburg began on October 9 by telling grand jurors, quote, this is a very interesting case. It's a little different. Then she told the panel that Skiba, an expert witness, quote, will vouch for me. However, it's considered improper for prosecutors to use their personal credibility in such a way. Quote, I would never ask you to charge someone if I didn't think there was probable cause. And, you know, you've asked me before, well, what about this person? Mecklenburg told the panel. And I said, I don't charge people unless I'm absolutely sure. Wow.

[Alison Gill]

Later in the presentation, grand juror asked whether it was appropriate for the immigration agent to drive his SUV into the crowd of protesters on September 26th. No touching off the confrontation outside the Broadview facility. Quote, the testimony was that he had said he was concerned about stopping for his own safety, and he was concerned about the safety in the front. That's what Mecklenburg told the grand juror. So he had to balance it. And this isn't. And this is not testimony now, but I would argue he did a pretty good job of balancing it because nobody got hurt. Now, I don't know if you know how amazing it is to. To. To say that about a witness that's not on the stand, oh, my God, this is just bonkers.

[Andy McCabe]

I mean, when she says in that statement, and this is not testimony now, like, she's acknowledging, we're not in the. In the process of hearing testimony, but I am going to now provide testimony to you. It's outrageous on behalf of someone. Only witnesses can provide fact Testimony. Right. I mean, that's pretty basic. The prosecutor not so much. All right, so the grand jury apparently rejected the case on October 9, prompting Mecklenburg and Skiba to try again on October 16. Grand jurors actually walked out of the proceedings that day, the court records show. That's also when a grand juror asked Mecklenburg whether the feds get, quote, unlimited tries, quote, I hope you don't have your mind made up already that I'm going to need more tries, Mecklenburg said. But a member of the panel soon asked, quote, are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint on your side?

[Alison Gill]

Wow. These were feisty grand jurors, and for good reason.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

And that's when Mecklenburg asked if the grand juror would be able to listen with an open mind. And the grand juror retorted, I heard this case, like, last week, and I thought it was a crock of then, and I still think it is then. Mecklenburg told the grand juror to excuse themselves. Federal rules of criminal procedure only empower courts to excuse grand jurors.

[Andy McCabe]

Mecklenburg began to count the number of remaining grand jurors. That's always a bad sign. The hearing continued, and a grand juror told her, quote, I don't think I can vote. So the grand jury, four person told her that they were down to 16. Meanwhile, the agent who drove the SUV was expected to testify. I will say I'm a little disappointed that there are people who didn't want to hear the agent, Mecklenburg said, disappointed. The proceedings were called off early that day without any attempt to present an indictment, court records show. So Mecklenburg and Skiba wound up appearing a third time on October 23rd. That's the day the grand jury finally handed up the indictment against the Broadview Six.

[Alison Gill]

Wow. Now, Boutros, who had also appeared before the grand jurors earlier that day, asking them to raise their hands if they were struggling with a certain type of case, such as immigration cases. However, the presentation of evidence began with a revelation from Mecklenburg. According to the transcript, she told the group, quote, I had conversations with two grand jurors outside the grand jury room, so I need to put that on the record. Mecklenburg says she ran into a grand juror in an elevator who apologized to her and. And said he shouldn't have walked out the way he did. The second told her, I understand that people have feelings, but we have to apply the facts to the law. That's what the grand juror told the prosecutor. Wow. Still, Mecklenburg called the revelation a mea culpa on her part, and she told the Panel, I did something today I wasn't supposed to do, but all of that was redacted in the grand jury materials that they gave to the judge.

[Andy McCabe]

That is unbelievable.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

And then the redaction, like, everything that comes before the redaction is bad. And then the redaction makes it a hundred times worse.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And now we're just whole pages missing. And so they didn't go forward with the conspiracy charge, the felony charge, so they dropped that. But then the defense attorneys were like, we think the whole case is messed up, and we need to see those grand jury transcripts. And so they gave some of them over and redacted some, and the judge was like, what the heck? And that probably added fuel to the fire where the judge was like, what? And it was then that the DOJ said, all right, we'll just dismiss all the charges. So.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Holy moly.

[Andy McCabe]

Wow.

[Alison Gill]

We gotta have some Rule 11 sanctions. We make Rule 11 sanctions. Great. Again, as Anna Bauer says. Yeah, for sure. And I hope all the attorneys fees for these six folks, who include Kat Abu Ghazali, who ran for Congress, like the story said, they were all in Democratic politics, but they were the only six charged. I hope they get their attorney's fees paid.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. For real. For real. It's the only thing to do.

[Alison Gill]

All right, it is time for listener questions. So what do we have? You have a question, by the way, there's a link in the show notes where you can submit one. So what do we have today, Andy?

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, so we have one today that's actually a lot of people wrote in questions that touched on the themes in this one, but this one included kind of a bit of a correction. So I definitely wanted to address it. And it. It gives us an opportunity to go a little deep on the great tax giveaway to our now president. So this one comes into someone from someone who wanted to remain anonymous, which is cool. They say, hello. A question that may be a correction Andy asked on this week's episode of the Tax Immunity Agreement. If the tax immunity agreement means Donald and his kin never need to pay taxes again, I believe the immunity is only for tax investigations and charges for stuff to up to the date of the agreement. So any taxes already filed are off limits, but any taxes filed or not filed going forward are still, at least at this point, subject to scrutiny. Can you please confirm which is correct? Okay, so I think from a. From a very basic reading of the language of the tax agreement, I'll call it, you could draw that conclusion. My concern is there are some ambiguities in here that I think Trump or his family members could use to claim a sort of immunity, a forward looking immunity.

[Alison Gill]

So you've heard of tax loopholes? These are tax immunity loopholes.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly. What do you expect from a tax document? So, all right, here's the actual, this is the actual language from the agreement. And I'm, there's a lot of lawyerly repetition in here where they say things like any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, requests for all that kind. So I've, I've, I've cut this down a little bit to make it a little more understanding. So it basically says the United States is hereby forever barred from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims, whether presently known or unknown, that as of the effective date of the settlement agreement have been or could have been asserted by the defendants. And in this case, the defendant is the federal government against any of the plaintiffs, that's the trumps or related or affiliated individuals or which arise out of one, any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the case or the pending agency claims, or two, arise out of lawfare and, or weaponization or three, arise out of any matters currently pending or that could be pending, including tax returns filed before the effective date before defendants or other agencies or departments.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, so it says including tax returns filed before the effective date, not only tax returns filed before the effective date.

[Andy McCabe]

Right. And it's basically, it says any, if you take out the parent, the parens part there, any matters currently pending or that could be pending before defendants or other agencies or departments. That is very broad, it's incredibly poorly written, likely on purpose, and I think could be manipulated to provide some sort of prospective immunity. Also the middle one, number two, which would be claims which arise out of quote, lawfare and, or weaponization. What's that? You could, any, anytime the IRS opens an investigation, let's say a Democratic president is in office and the IRS opens an investigation against Trump for his return that he filed, you know, in 2030, he could just claim Lawfare and, and refuse to participate in the investigation and, and claim that he's immune. Right?

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And these are ors, not ands.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

So Lawfare or Lawfare under weaponization could be a future tax audit.

[Andy McCabe]

Right. So I mean, I get it. There's there are definitely, there is definitely language in this thing that talks about claims up that could have or would have or should have been filed on or before the date of the agreement. But there's also other language in here That I think is very suspiciously vague, as my daughter would say. Sus. There's sus language in here, for sure.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, I, I, I agree. Because it, it's, this is written, in my view, to make us think it's just current tax stuff, not future tax stuff.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

But hopefully the whole thing goes away with what's going on down in Florida with Judge Williams looking at this, I

[Andy McCabe]

think there's a good possibility that if the judge in Florida determines that the government actually engaged in fraud, essentially, or made fraudulent representations of the court, they could just obliterate everything related to this settlement. But we'll, you know, as I said earlier, we're gonna have to really keep an eye on that going forward.

[Alison Gill]

And the judge has already said in a, in an order, when she closed the case, when Trump asked her to, she said, just so you know, there's no settlement of record here.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right.

[Alison Gill]

Which means that this settlement that gives him this tax immunity, technically, legally doesn't exist.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. Doesn't settle whatever was filed here.

[Alison Gill]

Right.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Okay, I think we've got time for one more.

[Andy McCabe]

One more. All right, here we go. This one comes from Retired But Not Done in Boston. That is a long name, but I like it. All right, Retired But Not Done in Boston says, hi, Alison and Andy. This question may be too late, but how is it possible for Todd Blanche to be the US Attorney General, given that he was, or should we say is, the president's defense lawyer? What continuing duties does he still owe Trump? A former client? Can those obligations be waived? And do we think that Trump understands this and has waived them personally? I think this fact alone should disqualify Blanche. Love your insightful analysis. Every week. So retired. You're right. You're hitting right on the head of the issue here.

[Alison Gill]

Politically, it should disqualify him, but it doesn't legally.

[Andy McCabe]

Well, and technically, you always. Your duty to your former client exists forever. You can never represent any party who is in is again, against your former client. That's the basic rule. Unless your client waives that conflict. And they have to. Typically, you have to waive it in court in front of a judge. It's like part of a proceeding. Has Trump done that here? Well, we have no idea. If he really wanted Todd Blanche and wanted to put the sheen of legitimacy over this, he would have waived it publicly and released that. But he, of course, has not done that, so we don't know. I would guess he probably hasn't. Do you want to be Todd Blanche and have to go into Trump and explain this and then ask him to give you a waiver. I mean, like, I don't think that's the kind of thing people who work for Donald Trump do, but nevertheless, I'm going to guess he hasn't waived it. And yeah, many, many, many lawyers would never engage in doing what Todd Blanche is doing because they would perceive it to be a conflict of interest. And they might be right.

[Alison Gill]

I don't have anything to add to that. I could see Trump being like, I waved it with my hand, I waved it with my mind. It's waved for sure.

[Andy McCabe]

Maybe Cash Patel will claim it after the fact. No, he waved it because you could.

[Alison Gill]

I could see Todd Blanche saying, if you want me to be Attorney General, you got to sign this waiver. You know, okay. But never happened. And I, at least not that I know of.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I had just this thing that we've been talking about, the claim to settlement of the tax case, the idea that Todd Blanche signed. I don't think this is. I think this is why he didn't sign the settlement paper. But he then signed this IRS immunity statement, whatever it is, for, you know, forfeit of claims on part of the federal government. I mean, that's absurd. He was Donald Trump's lawyer in multiple matters not that long ago, and he shouldn't have been involved in any of this. But, hey, that's not how you keep the job and get the bigger job in the Trump second term.

[Alison Gill]

He got $10 million from a PAC to represent Donald Trump in all those cases, and he did a very poor job. Were it not for the corrupt Supreme Court, his many of his filings would have been laughed out of the building. Yeah. But here we are.

[Andy McCabe]

Here we are.

[Alison Gill]

So here we are, ladies and gentlemen. And of course, I'm sure we'll have more to discuss next week, not the least of which what I'm looking forward to is seeing if Todd Blanche and Besent are going to put in writing under penalty of perjury, that the slush fund is dead. And if they do, what that wording will look like. Well, heretofore, perhaps if. And, or, you know, it's.

[Andy McCabe]

I'll bet you $1 that they don't even do it. Yeah, I bet that's my guess.

[Alison Gill]

I bet you as well. All right, if you have a question, there's a link in the show notes. You can submit it to us and we'll. We'll see if we can answer it for you. So thank you, everybody, for submitting your questions. There's so many really, really well thought out, intelligent questions. We really apprec and we'll be back in your ears next week with whatever happens in the next seven days.

[Andy McCabe]

There's never any lack of material. Thank God. So, yeah, all good.

[Alison Gill]

Nope, there is never a lack of material. All right, thanks so much for listening, everybody. We'll see you next week. I'm Alison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe.

[Alison Gill]

Unjustified is written and executive produced by Alison Gill, with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hockey with art and web design by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. The theme music for Unjustified is written and performed by Ben Folds, and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator owned independent podcasts dedicated to news, politics, and justice. For more information, please visit mswmedia.com.