Podcast Summary: UnJustified – Bonus | The Q & A

Date: October 30, 2025
Hosts: Allison Gill (“A”) & Andrew McCabe (“B”)
Podcast: UnJustified (MSW Media)

Main Theme & Purpose

This bonus episode is dedicated entirely to answering listener questions, which the hosts typically address at the end of regular episodes but had to skip recently due to overflowing news coverage. The Q&A format allows Allison Gill and Andrew McCabe to provide deeper insights into legal terminology, current and historical cases, and the inner workings of the justice system under Trump’s DOJ.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Role of Listener Questions

• Listener questions help shape the show’s coverage, showing the hosts what the audience cares about and providing feedback on previous episodes ([01:35]).

Understanding SIPA Substitution & “Graymail”

Question: What does "substitution" mean in the context of CIPA (Classified Information Procedures Act) Section 4?

• Andy:
  • Substitution under CIPA occurs when the defense in a trial wants to use classified evidence. The government can propose a substitute—like a summary or an agreed-upon statement—to protect the actual classified information.
  • “Substitution could be a summary that basically captures the flavor of the classified information but doesn’t reveal its details.” ([03:38]–[05:19])
• Allison:
  • Offers real-world examples, such as indictments describing “plans drawn up by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff” without revealing specifics ([05:19]).
• “Graymail”:
  • Defendants may threaten to insist on using classified info at trial to force the government to drop a case. CIPA was designed to counteract “graymail.”
    • “Defendants … try to use the fact that the government doesn’t want to release this information to hold their charges hostage…” ([06:17])
    • “That was much more common in the time before SEPA … Now CIPA gives us a way around that.” ([06:45])

John Bolton Espionage Act Case: Lightning Round

Could John Bolton's Family be Indicted?

• Andy:
  • Yes, theoretically. Under 18 USC 791, even people without security clearance can be prosecuted for receiving or transmitting national defense information, but no evidence currently supports charges against Bolton’s wife and daughter. ([07:50]–[09:06])
• Allison:
  • “If they were going to be in trouble … there would have been a conspiracy charge.”

How is “National Defense Information” Proven in Court?

• Andy:
  • The government must prove the info is actually national defense information, not just take DOJ’s word. This usually involves classified markings and expert testimony at trial ([10:27]–[12:03]).
  • “It’s not necessary that the information be classified, but it’s helpful to the government if it is.” ([12:03])

Declassification & Bolton’s Authority

• Allison:
  • Even if info isn’t technically classified, it can still be “national defense information.” ([14:57])
• Andy:
  • Declassification authority is limited; heads of relevant agencies usually hold it, not positions like National Security Advisor. Bolton’s defense is unlikely to center on declassification.

Differentiating Classified Info and “National Defense Information”

• Andy:
  • Espionage Act’s definition of national defense information is broader than just classified info, but classified materials automatically qualify.

Investigative Declinations & Selective Prosecution

• Question: Why wasn’t Bolton prosecuted before? Vindictive prosecution?
• Andy:
  • There may be a difference in prosecutorial decisions between administrations, not necessarily evidence of vindictiveness. Case dynamics can change if new, hard evidence is found after a search warrant ([20:25]–[25:09]).
• Allison:
  • It is “hard to revive a case” without new evidence, but if a new search produces relevant materials, it forms a different scenario. ([23:39], [25:09])

Selective Prosecution vis-à-vis Other Cases

• Andy & Allison: Discuss possibility of a defense motion regarding “selective prosecution” due to similar (or worse) behavior by others (e.g., Hegseth’s Signal chats) going unpunished.
  • “I would expect we’ll see some sort of motion on that.” ([27:11])
  • “I think that’s … knocked the wind out of Jack Smith that nobody lifted a finger to investigate that.” ([27:36])

Safeguarding Evidence Against a Corrupt Regime

Question: What safeguards exist to protect critical records from being destroyed?

• Andy:
  • There are laws and archival regulations, but the Trump administration previously ignored such requirements, with reports of documents burned, flushed, or removed ([28:20]–[30:06]).
• Allison:
  • Cites Mark Meadows burning documents and highlights the proactive move to file evidentiary materials in court dockets as a safeguard ([31:01]–[31:35]).

Notable Quote

“Every accusation is a confession.” – Allison ([30:06])

Lowered Federal Hiring & Training Standards

Question: Sources for reporting on the lowering of FBI and DHS standards?

• Andy:
  • Points to recent reporting, especially a New York Times article (Devlin Barrett & Adam Goldman, Aug 21), provided in the show notes ([32:13]–[33:35])

Why No Video Podcast?

• Andy:
  • Contractually exclusive to CNN for video; appears only as audio on UnJustified. ([33:39])
• Allison:
  • Hosts additional video podcasts elsewhere (e.g., Midas Touch Network’s “The Breakdown”) but describes herself as a “Luddite” on new tech. ([35:03])

Dream of Jack Smith as Attorney General?

Question: Could Jack Smith be AG in the future?

• Andy:
  • “He’s smart, … has incredible integrity and he’s ferociously independent. That’s the combination that leads to a great AG.” ([39:51])
• Allison:
  • Notes Smith’s openness to reviving cases, his thoroughness in dismissals without prejudice, and potential legal arguments about tolling statutes of limitations against sitting presidents ([37:55]–[39:51]).
• Caveat: Would require a strong Senate majority, as Smith would be perceived as a partisan pick, fairly or not ([40:35]).

The Elusive Epstein Files

Question: Will we ever see the full Epstein files? What’s the legality of releasing them?

• Andy:
  • No single entity likely has the whole picture due to a mix of sources (FBI, local LE, civil suits). Privacy laws and legal risks make broad release challenging ([41:03]–[44:06]).
• Allison:
  • Realistically, any new revelations will likely come outside DOJ, from reporters or the Epstein estate itself ([44:50]).
  • The DOJ redacts extensively and is motivated to protect survivor and possibly other identities.

Leaks vs. Authorized Revelations

Question: Why are official releases sometimes called “leaks”?

• Andy:
  • The term “leak” is often used carelessly or for political advantage, even when a release is authorized ([48:18]).
  • “At the end of the day, Jim Comey had the authority to authorize a release of information to the public.”
• Allison:
  • “Nothing. Trump calls them leaks. Regular people call them authorized releases.” ([48:18])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Safeguarding Evidence:
  “Every accusation is a confession.” – Allison ([30:06])

• Bolton Case Commentary:
  “[Smith] is probably the only person on the planet who would consider doing it and would have the ability to do it. He’s smart … has incredible integrity and he’s ferociously independent.” – Andy, on Jack Smith as AG ([39:51])

• Epstein Files Realism:
  “It’s hard to imagine at this point that any one entity has all of the information.” – Andy ([41:03])

• On Selective Prosecution: “No one lifted a finger to even investigate it … makes the distinction between how they’ve handled Bolton … even worse for the government.” – Andy ([27:11])

• Light-hearted Note:
  “I’m so happy that the audience continues to begin all the questions with completely unwarranted flattery … it’s just nice.” – Andy ([26:20])

Timestamps for Major Segments

• CIPA substitution explained: [03:38]
• Graymail & national security trials: [06:17]
• Bolton Espionage Act Q&A: [07:50]–[18:16]
• Evidence preservation under Trump: [28:20]
• Lowered FBI standards: [32:13]
• Jack Smith for AG: [37:55]
• Epstein files & legal complexities: [41:03]
• Leaks vs. authorized disclosures: [48:18]

Tone and Language

The tone is sharp, often humorous, candid, and occasionally sardonic, particularly when discussing Trump, DOJ decisions, and the realities of evidence protection. Both hosts use clear, accessible explanations but aren’t afraid to deploy legal terminology, frequently looping in their personal experiences and opinions.

In Summary

This bonus Q&A episode of UnJustified blends educational breakdowns of legal procedures with deep dives into current and recent high-profile Justice Department cases. The interplay between Allison’s forthright, sometimes cheeky delivery and Andy’s ex-prosecutor expertise provides listeners with both accessible explanations and nuanced takes on complex topics. The episode is a showcase for the show’s community-driven approach, where listener curiosity drives some of the sharpest, most relevant discourse about the erosion of the rule of law and challenges within America’s justice system.