Brief Hallucinations

Summary

---

UnJustified – "Brief Hallucinations"

Podcast: UnJustified
Hosts: Allison Gill and Andrew McCabe
Date: March 29, 2026
Episode 62

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the continued erosion of rule of law and civil liberties under Trump's Department of Justice, spotlighting a series of confounding and at times darkly comic developments. Gill and McCabe break down major stories: an Iranian hacker group's breach of FBI Director Kash Patel’s personal email, accidental disclosure of Trump’s classified-document motives by Pam Bondi, and legal head-shaking over Department of Justice missteps in various cases. The hosts’ recurring segment – “Hit Me in the Head With a Bat” – showcases DOJ blunders undermining judicial trust. Listener questions cap off the discussion, particularly concerning Trump’s voting rights post-felony conviction.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Iranian Hackers Breach FBI Director’s Personal Email

Timestamps: 00:53 – 09:58

• Breaking News: Cybercriminals linked to Iran (Handala hack group) accessed FBI Director Kash Patel’s personal email.

  • "The FBI said in a statement that it was, quote, aware of malicious actors targeting Patel's personal email..." (03:08, Gill)
  • DOJ had just seized Handala’s domains, and hackers registered a new one on that same day to breach Patel.

• Nature & Implications of the Breach:

  • The hacked account was Patel’s personal, not an FBI address.
  • Hosts discuss how even personal accounts are tightly monitored for senior officials, and this is a significant embarrassment.
  • "It’s deeply embarrassing to the Bureau and to him, and I guess it’s just the most recent embarrassment connected to him." (08:58, McCabe)

• Critical Context:

  • The breach comes after Patel fired Iran counterintelligence specialists from the FBI, making the subsequent vulnerability more glaring.
  • "Probs don't fire the Iran experts because they were part of the classified documents investigation." (07:33, Gill)

---

2. Pam Bondi’s Accidental Disclosure of Trump’s Motive

Timestamps: 09:58 – 31:46

• Surprise Memo Leak:

  • A progress memo from Jack Smith’s investigation, revealing possible Trump motives for retaining classified documents (potential enrichment via business interests), was accidentally released by AG Pam Bondi to Congress.
  • "Pam Bondi...handed a Jack Smith memo discussing both cases...to Congress, which Jamie Raskin then promptly released to the press." (13:51, Gill)

• Motive Revealed:

  • Trump appears to have retained classified documents linked to his global business interests, possibly intending to profit.
  • “Trump possessed classified documents pertinent to his business interests, establishing a motive for retaining them..." (20:16, McCabe quoting memo)

• Pam Bondi’s Blunder:

  • Bondi violated a judge’s injunction by releasing this memo. Now, Congressional Democrats and legal teams are questioning whether that breach could open doors to long-withheld report sections.
  • "What blows me away is that this memo made it out to Congress. While that injunction is in place. And probably accidentally." (22:06, Gill)

• Response and Spin:

  • Trump’s camp and DOJ issued denials and deflections, dismissing the revelations as political attacks.
  • "It's pathetic that Democrats with zero credibility like Jamie Raskin are still clinging to deranged Jack Smith and his lies..." (22:15, McCabe quoting Trump's White House spokesperson)

---

3. Absurdities in DOJ Prosecutions: The Jerome Powell Investigation

Timestamps: 34:37 – 48:27

• No Evidence, No Crime, But an Investigation Anyway:

  • DOJ under Jeanine Pirro acknowledged to Judge Boasberg they had "no evidence" of wrongdoing in investigating Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's conduct and billion-dollar cost overruns.
  • “We do not know at this time what evidence there is of fraud or criminal misconduct, arguing only that the project is a $1.2 billion over budget and it just doesn't seem right.” (38:10, Gill quoting DOJ)

• Judicial Rejection and Political Pressure:

  • Boasberg quashed DOJ subpoenas, calling them harassment and noting the lack of any factual basis.
  • "A spokesperson for the U. S. Attorney's office said Tuesday that the pur. A grand jury investigation is to determine whether there is probable cause that a crime was committed. Quote, that is exactly what we're doing here..." (39:59, McCabe)

• Implied Motive:

  • The investigation appears politically motivated, aimed at pressuring Powell to resign.

---

4. Other Developments

Timestamps: 48:27 – 50:49

• Turnover and a New U.S. Attorney: New Jersey finally gets a consensus appointment after previously appointed court officers were systematically fired by the Trump DOJ.

---

5. Segment: Hit Me in the Head with a Bat

Timestamps: 50:49 – 57:07

• Showcasing DOJ Fumbles and Erosion of ‘Presumption of Regularity’:
  • ICE lawyers in Minnesota submitted briefs with “non-existent citations” (fake/no legal precedent).
    • "Neither quote appears in Planned Parenthood NOR in any 8th Circuit case the court has found..." (53:28, McCabe quoting Judge Brazel)
  • DOJ repeatedly concedes it cannot defend against immigrant bond hearings, admits no argument can be made.
    • “Unresigned counsel was unable to obtain documentation sufficient to provide factual support for a response. That is the lawyerly way of phrasing, your honor, we got nothing.” (55:31, McCabe)
  • DOJ admits relying on a non-existent ICE memo to justify courthouse arrests.
    • “We write respectfully and regrettably to correct a material mistaken statement of fact that the government made to the court and the plaintiffs.” (56:38, Gill quoting U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton)

---

6. Listener Q&A: Trump’s Right to Vote as a Convicted Felon

Timestamps: 57:07 – 62:36

• How did Trump vote in Florida after conviction?
  • Florida honors the law of the state where the felony occurred. Since New York restores voting rights post-incarceration (and Trump has never been jailed), he retains the right to vote.
  • "Trump can vote because of Democrats expanding voting rights." (59:16, Gill)
  • Trump voted by mail—ironically, given his prior attacks on mail-in voting.

---

Memorable Quotes & Notable Moments

• "It’s deeply embarrassing to the Bureau and to [Kash Patel], and I guess it’s just the most recent embarrassment connected to him."
  — Andy McCabe (08:58)

• "What blows me away is that this memo made it out to Congress. While that injunction is in place."
  — Alison Gill (22:06)

• "We do not know at this time what evidence there is of fraud or criminal misconduct...there are 1.2 billion reasons for us to look into it."
  — DOJ Deputy (38:10, as quoted by Gill)

• "Neither quote appears in Planned Parenthood NOR in any 8th Circuit case the court has found."
  — Judge Brazel, as quoted by McCabe (53:28)

• “Your honor, we got nothing.”
  — Andy McCabe summing up ICE’s court admission (55:31)

• "Trump can vote because of Democrats expanding voting rights."
  — Alison Gill (59:16)

---

Useful Timestamps for Key Segments

• Patel Email Hack & Iran Counterterror: 00:53–09:58
• Pam Bondi’s Document Mishap / Trump Motive: 09:58–31:46
• Jerome Powell & Fed Subpoenas (Cynical DOJ Investigations): 34:37–48:27
• “Hit Me in the Head with a Bat” DOJ Legal Fiascos: 50:49–57:07
• Listener Question (Trump & Felon Voting Rights): 57:07–62:36

---

Tone & Format

The conversation is sharp, wry, and at times openly exasperated—balancing legal expertise, investigative rigor, and dark humor. Both hosts blend serious alarm about institutional decay with incredulity at the incompetence and politicization of DOJ under Trump.

---

Summary

This episode of UnJustified exposes the profound damage done to the Department of Justice’s integrity, as evident via diplomatic blunders, accidental leaks, embarrassing legal admissions, and the strategic—or simply reckless—politicization of prosecutions. Gill and McCabe provide expert context and biting commentary on details often missed by mainstream coverage, while listener engagement and open Q&A demystify the realities of legal and civil processes in Trump’s America. The “Hit Me in the Head with a Bat” segment serves as a recurring and increasingly necessary catharsis for those shocked by the new ab/normal.

---

Transcript

[Andy McCabe]

I'm Brian Caram and I've spent decades covering politics. Now I'm taking you behind the scenes, one interview at a time. Join us as each week Brian confronts the issues that matter, posing the questions you wish you could ask. No filter, no agenda, just the truth. We're not here for sound bites. We're here for substance. Join me, Brian Caram, every week as we cut through the noise and get straight to it. This is Just Ask the Question where curiosity will lead us to the facts. Subscribe now on your favorite podcast platform and remember, when you want answers, all you have to do is just ask the question.

[Alison Gill]

Msw media.

[Andy McCabe]

Hackers linked to Iran have breached FBI Director Cash Patel's personal emails.

[Alison Gill]

Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a Jack Smith progress memo to Congress outlining Trump's motive for illegally retaining classified documents.

[Andy McCabe]

A top deputy to U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro acknowledged in a closed door hearing this month that the Justice Department did not have evidence of wrongdoing in its criminal investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

[Alison Gill]

And legal experts are stunned after a federal judge catches DOJ lawyers using artificial intelligence to write briefs. This is unjustified. Andy, I could hardly keep myself from laughing when you talked about Janine Pirro acknowledging in a closed door hearing that they didn't have evidence of wrongdoing.

[Andy McCabe]

I just reading that sentence and I'm like, of course. Of course they didn't.

[Alison Gill]

How do you even keep a straight face? Everybody. Welcome to episode 62 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, March 29th, 2026. I'm Alison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe. Allison. We have so much to cover today, including multiple stories for our drum roll. Please Hit Me in the Head with a bat segment. Okay. It's a working title for now, but we really like it. It's kind of growing on me. And of course, you have to go with the single word spelling of H I t m e I n t h e h e a d w I t h a b a t. Just one word and it's hit me in the head with a bat. So that's where we of course, highlight the continuing implosion of the presumption of regularity by your friends at the Department of Justice.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. The presumption of regularity being the long standing deference given to the Department of Justice by the courts that is being whittled away bit by bit and sometimes in large, giant chunks as we speak. But we have a lot to get to before we get to hit me in the head with a bat, which is going to come right before the questions portion, the questions segment of the show. And if you have a question, we've got a link in the show notes for you. Just click on that, you fill out the form and you can submit your questions. But first up, Andy from CBS News. Breaking On Friday midday, cyber criminals linked to Iran have accessed FBI Director Kash Patel's personal email account. According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to CBS News on Friday, the FBI said in a statement that it was, quote, aware of malicious actors targeting Patel's personal email information and said it has taken all necessary steps to mitigate potential risks associated with this activity. It also said that the information in question is historical in nature and involves no government information, which I think just sort of speaks to their inability to understand that it doesn't matter if it's historical information in nature. If it's something that can be used against this FBI director that compromises the FBI directive. That's what matters.

[Andy McCabe]

Of course. And this is. They know that they use the word historical here because it's basically irrelevant. They didn't want to say personal because that draws the question of like, oh my gosh, what kind of personal embarrassment might these emails hold for him? And they also are trying to make this seem like it was some sort of a hack of an FBI account. It sounds to me like it was not. It was probably his, you know, Gmail or whatever that. Whatever service he uses. Yeah, it's. Yeah. Okay, so hold my comments for a minute. The breach was first reported by Reuters, which said the hacker group Handala hack team took credit for the attack and posted images online of the FBI director and his purported resume. Awesome. The breach comes not long after the Justice Department earlier this month seized four domains connected to the Handala group as part of an ongoing effort to disrupt hacking and transnational repression schemes conducted by the Islamic Republic of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Usually people just use the word mois to refer to them, but there you go.

[Alison Gill]

Okay, good to know. Now, the domain used to carry out the hack against Patel was registered the same day the Justice Department announced it had seized the four domains associated with the group. That was back on March 19th. And the FBI said in its statement that the State Department has offered a $10 million reward. Your taxpayer dollars at work for information leading to the identification of the Handala hack team.

[Andy McCabe]

After the start of the war with Iran, the Justice Department said Handala was responsible for a number of cyber attacks, including the malware attack against a US Based multinational medical technologies firm. In another cyber incident, the department alleged that Handala Group had posted the names and sensitive other data from approximately 190 individuals associated with or employed by the Israeli Defense Force or the Israeli government. In an online post, Handala Group appeared to announce its successful attack against Patel's email. In the post, it referenced the seizure of its domains by the United States government and said, quote, unquote, we decided to respond to this ridiculous show in a way that will be remembered forever.

[Alison Gill]

Here's a quote. Kash Patel, the current head of the FBI, who once saw his name displayed with pride on the agency's headquarters, will now find his name among the list of successfully hacked victims. The so called impenetrable systems of the FBI were brought to their knees within hours by our team. The group added. Again, I think this is a private email address, but yeah, that's their statement. The post includes photos of Patel, as well as a copy of what appears to be his resume. Is he looking for a job already? No, it's probably. Which includes his personal email account. So I don't know. I keep thinking back to your colleague Hannah Rabinowitz's reporting from March 3rd. That said, just days before the US launched a military operation in Iran, FBI Director Kash Patel fired a dozen agents and staff members from a counterintelligence unit tasked with monitoring threats from Iran. That's according to two sources familiar. So, yeah, he did that. Probs don't fire the Iran experts because they were part of the classified documents investigation.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I mean, this whole thing is, is really kind of ridiculous. Like, and I agree with you, it's probably his personal account. So it's not quite the success that this Handala Group is trumpeting. They brought the FBI security systems to their knees. Not exactly. And I will say, if you have a sophisticated hacker group, if you're just any regular person and a sophisticated hacking group goes after your personal email, there's a pretty fair chance that they're going to get in there. There's all kinds of ways through social engineering that they, they target folks. But Cash Patel is not any old Joe. Cash Patel is the Director of the FBI. And I know from having gone through this process that even when I became Deputy Director, all of a sudden this massive security apparatus starts to take over your life. And I won't go through the details of all of it because it's something that the Bureau does to protect its senior leadership. But yeah, you get some very direct counseling on how you have to now be very careful about your personal accounts, email accounts, Phones, computer use, all that kind of stuff. And they also spend a lot of time monitoring it. So I don't know what happened here. Obviously, maybe he didn't get that briefing or didn't follow it or something, but, yeah, it's embarrassing. It's deeply embarrassing to the Bureau and to him, and I guess it's just the most recent embarrassment connected to him.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And, you know, look, if you don't want to keep FBI agents on at the FBI who worked on the Mar A Lago classified documents case, maybe don't steal classified documents that have to do with Iran. I, you know, I just thought, I mean, that's probably why some of these experts were put on that case. There were some very highly classified documents about Iran in the documents that he took. And we'll talk in a little bit about the motive now that we have from Jack Smith, which I never thought we'd get because of the injunction placed by Judge Eileen Cannon on volume two. But I have to imagine, Andy, if you're one of those Iran counterterrorist experts at the FBI and there are classified, stolen, illegally retained classified documents that have to do with Iran, then maybe that's why you're there as an analyst to work on that case and not because you want to take down Trump as part of the deep state.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, no question. Look, these are smart, experienced, highly trained people who are very good at a rare and important specialty. And you're going to sacrifice that experience, that capability on the eve of hostilities with that country simply because you're trying to settle a political score for the president. You're so desperate to generate positive attention from the president that you're willing to ruin these people's careers and lives and fire them right when you need them the most. It's just, it's mind numbing. I don't, I. There's no common sense or logic here, but yet another bad decision.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And speaking of an act of desperation to try to discredit Trump's political enemies, we're going to come up next here after this quick break with a story about Pam Bondi maybe probably accidentally revealing Trump's motives for illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing the investigation into making sure they were returned. But like I said, we got to take a quick break, so everybody stick around. We'll be right back. I have gotten a lot less patient with wireless bills over the years. I mean, at a certain point, it started to feel just ridiculous to keep paying so much money every month for service, then watch extra charges and so called perks Push that total higher over and over and over again. My old carrier always seemed to find new ways to make the bill more annoying for me and that's why I switched to Mint Mobile. It felt like such a relief compared with what I had before. It was more affordable, more transparent, and the coverage might even be better. So please support our show and check out Mint Mobile make the [e-mail] unjust Mint Mobile is for anyone who is tired of paying more for wireless just because that's how the industry has always done it. Their plans at Mint mobile start at 15 bucks a month and you still get high speed data, unlimited talk and text on the nation's largest 5G network. I use Mint Mobile and I would absolutely recommend it because the service has been every bit as reliable as my old provider, but the cost is much, much, much lower. You can bring your own phone, keep your number, activate with ESIM in minutes and start saving right away without getting stuck in a long term contract. So if you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop [e-mail] unjust that's mintmobile.com unjust upfront payment of $45 for 3 month 5 gigabyte plan required equivalent to $15 a month new customer offer for 3 months only then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extras. See Mint Mobile for details. History is messy. It's weird, wild and anything but boring. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that make you stop and ask, wait, is this real life? From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales, we explore the moments where people behave badly and sometimes beautifully. We've got naughty politicians, cultural chaos, and a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot. It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious, and always entertaining. Let's fall down the rabbit hole. MSW. All right everybody, welcome back. As you know, there is a current injunction, an order from Judge Eileen Cannon, that says no materials related to the classified documents case against Trump, including volume two of Jack Smith's final report, can be released outside of the Department of Justice. That is the current standing order. It's being fought by, you know, a couple of groups who, who are trying to, you know, rest free Volume two so we can see it. But that's as it stands right now, even though that's being fought in Eileen Cannon's court and the 11th Circuit. And you'll recall Andy, during Jack Smith's testimony, both of them before Congress, he refused to answer Any questions about the case because of Judge Cannon's injunction, and even refused to open a copy of volume two that he had been sent by the Department of Justice in preparation for his deposition and testimony, saying, I don't even want to look at it because of this court order that's in place. Yeah, but Pam Bondi, either on purpose or I actually think by accident, in her haste to send out all the Arctic frost. January 6, Trump investigation materials has handed a Jack Smith memo discussing both cases, including the classified documents case to Congress, which Jamie Raskin then promptly released to the press.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, so Carolineg at msnow reports that special counsel Jack Smith gathered evidence that then candidate Donald Trump took many top secret documents that related to his worldwide business interests. And investigators considered this a likely motive for Trump concealing them at his Florida club after he left the White House. According to newly released case records. The special prosecutor also had evidence indicating that after leaving office, Trump had shown a classified map to passengers on a private plane, including his future chief of staff, Susie Wilds, and took at least one document that was so secret that only six people in the entire government had the authority to review it, according to a memo reviewed by Ms. Now and cited by House Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland.

[Alison Gill]

Huh. Okay, so this is interesting. Trump's reason, by the way, for taking hundreds of pages of classified documents when he left office in January 2021 and then concealing them when the Justice Department subpoenaed him for their return in May of 2022 has been one of the larger mysteries of the case. Andy, we talked about this so many times, we never knew the motive. FBI agents conducting an unannounced search. I would like to put a pin in that because it was very much announced and with his lawyers before it happened. A search of Trump's Mar? A Lago residence in August of 2022 discovered hundreds more pages of top secret records that Trump and his lawyers failed to return to the government pursuant to that subpoena. In May, after claiming they had fully returned, We. Oh, we've completely, totally complied. We've got them all. Here's the red weld envelope with all of the documents. And they got a warrant that they believed there was more classified on the, on the premises and went in and found a bunch. So that's right. In January of 2023, in a progress memo, and I'm going to ask you what this is. This progress memo reviewed by Ms. Now Smith's office, discussed the possible motive after the FBI discovered that Trump held onto many documents related to his businesses. So, before we continue with the story, Andy, what is a progress memo? These are generally not something that we get in the public eye.

[Andy McCabe]

No, it's definitely not. And it's actually not something that I'm familiar with as a regular piece of a normal prosecution that you're building. And I think the reason is because if you're. If you're working on a prosecution in a U.S. attorney's office, like, you're interacting with your superiors all the time, and so they know, if they want to know what the progress is, they come by your office or they ask you to come by and brief them, something like that. That obviously can't happen with a special counsel because they're working in a separate place and they're very independent. So I think periodically it's likely that Jack Smith prepared these memos or somebody on his staff prepared them for him. But anyway, all that stuff is in the. In the custody and care of the Department of Justice now. So it feels to me like almost a preliminary pros memo, a prosecution memo, which is something that's an official document done on all cases. That's where the. Pretty much the investigation is over. You're ready to, like, indict people and really kick off the prosecution. And typically the United States, the AUSAs will write a prosecution memo, put that in the file. And those are not shared, not with the FBI or the public or anything like that. The comment that they think that this is indicative of his motive is really interesting to me because it's not something that they would have to prove at trial. Right. It's not. Motive is not an element of really any offense, but it is something that prosecutors feel a lot of pressure to be able to speak to at trial, because jurors quite normally want to know, why did this happen? So this was probably a memo.

[Alison Gill]

Let me ask you about that, because Caroline Levitt said, oh, this is BS Deep State, whatever. This motive wasn't even included in the indictment. And my very first thought was, we don't put motive in an indictment. Of course, it's not even something, as you said, that's required. It might help to go to prove intent when you talk about retention of classified documents. But it is something that you would bring up at trial, of course, and something that you wouldn't necessarily tell the defense. You have until it's brought up at trial.

[Andy McCabe]

Until you had to in discovery or something like that. No, that's absolutely right. There's no legal requirement to prove motive as an element of the offense. So you don't have to enter any evidence that goes to motive. But, you know, people want, you know, there many crimes, pretty obvious what the motive is. If you get, if you're being prosecuted for selling narcotics, the motive was you wanted to make money from selling narcotics here. It's a, it's a, there's a question that resonates through this investigation, like, why did he have all this stuff? So it's interesting to me that they were talking about this in the context of this progress memo, which means they were thinking about it as a strategy, part of their trial strategy. We're going to, we're going to need to, and we should enter this as evidence relevant to motive because it's, it makes the presentation to the jury richer and more detailed and more convincing.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And Carol Lennig actually has some of the language from the memo, does she not?

[Andy McCabe]

She does. So here's a quote. Trump possessed classified documents pertinent to his business interests, establishing a motive for retaining them, according to the memo, which tracked progress in the documents and election interference investigations. Quote, we must have those documents now. In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday, Raskin insisted that Trump's Justice Department has sought to cover up the details of Trump's hoarding of classified government secrets and storing them in his Mar a Lago club, showers and closets, which put national security at risk as well as the clues to Trump's motives for doing so.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, and here's a quote from Raskin in that letter to Bondi. He says, these new disclosures suggest that Donald Trump stole documents so sensitive that only six people in the entire US Government had access to them. That the documents President Trump stole pertained to his business interests. The glimpse into the trove of evidence behind the COVID up reveals a President of the United States who may have sold out our national security to enrich himself. End quote. Now, we all sort of, I think, had guessed like I was back in, I was back in 2020 before, before the election of Joe Biden. I was like, he's going to take our secrets and sell them, isn't he? He's going to sell our secrets to pay off, isn't he? And so, I mean, it's, it's so

[Andy McCabe]

consistent with his personality. The, the, the most transactional politician in the history of American politics. Right. He's totally self absorbed, constantly looking to make a buck, so. To make sense on that level.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And, and, you know, along those lines, I don't think anybody's blown away by the revelation that this was for. To enrich himself.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly.

[Alison Gill]

But what blows me away is that this memo made it out to Congress.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

While that injunction is in place. And probably accidentally.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, that's for sure. So in a statement to Ms. Now, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended Trump. Sure. You're shocked. And denied the allegations in Smith's progress memo. Quote, it's pathetic that Democrats with zero credibility like Jamie Raskin are still clinging to deranged Jack Smith and his lies. In 2026, Jackson said, quote, president Trump did nothing wrong, which is why he easily defeated the Biden DOJ's unprecedented lawfare campaign against him and then won nearly 80 million votes in a landslide election victory.

[Alison Gill]

800 lies in that single statement, but it's the same over and over. I mean, that's the mess. That's how they're trying to rewrite the history of this now.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, this.

[Alison Gill]

The story goes on to say Smith has been largely barred from discussing details of his work or evidence in the case that's not yet public. But in January, Smith declined in public testimony before Congress to describe his work other than the public filings and successful indictments he brought against Trump in the summer of 2023. He cited Trump Justice Department instructions that he could not discuss the evidence in or conclusions of volume two of his investigation, which is not yet public. Smith testified he believed Trump's Justice Department would try to use any misstep by him as a justification to investigate him or bring criminal charges against him at Trump's request if he talked about what was in volume two. With that specific instruction not to and Judge Cannon's order, Smith believed if he said anything about the classified documents case, he could be under arrest. Well, I'm sure the same standard doesn't apply to Pam Bondi for releasing this information.

[Andy McCabe]

No, I was just a mistake, you know. Come on. Indeed, Trump took to social media on the day of Smith's scheduled testimony to urge Bondi to investigate Smith for weaponizing the investigation against him. Quote, jack Smith is a deranged animal who shouldn't be allowed to practice law. If he were a Republican, his license would be taken away from him. And far worse, Trump wrote on Truth Social media. Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he's done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me. Now there's, there's Trump veering to a little bit of the inside ball.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Like we don't know who he's referring to there, but clearly he's thinking of Someone or some group of people, probably

[Alison Gill]

that one cooperator guy, remember, who was trying to get de Oliveira to join him in the cooperation.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, maybe. Maybe. Very interesting.

[Alison Gill]

Man. I still. God, I can't wait to read volume two. All right. Last month, Judge Cannon approved Trump's request and blocked the Justice Department and Jack Smith from ever releasing volume two of his report on the classified documents case he brought in Florida and all the evidence he had gathered. After Smith's team presented evidence against Trump, a grand jury indicted Trump on 37 counts of withholding classified national security information and obstruct injustice by misleading investigators and something that's not in this article. But I want to mention there was a superseding indictment that I think brought it up to 42 felony counts, but. But Smith's case collapsed. I wouldn't say that Judge Cannon collapsed it when she dismissed the charges in July of 2024 after her wrong conclusion that Smith had not been properly appointed. That's still hasn't been resolved, by the way, whether or not he was properly appointed.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, and likely never will be. Not in the context of this case, but in any case. These new revelations emerged after Trump's Justice Department released a tranche of Records on March 13th to the House Judiciary Committee. Most of them deal with the FBI's Arctic frost probe, which examined how Trump's campaign and Republican allies sought to block the certification of Joe Biden's election victory. But that tranche, Raskin. Sorry. Raskin said, included the January 2023 tracking MEM from Smith's office following both cases, which much of the Justice Department's release focused on. Republicans in Congress have cited some specific documentation in the election interference case to claim that Smith and the Biden era DOJ politically and improperly targeted Trump and Republican allies for investigation.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, that's the oopsie part of this quote. Apparently blinded by the frenzied search to find any scrap of evidence that could be twisted and distorted to level an attack against Special Counsel Counsel Smith. Despite constantly coming up empty handed, you have quite amazingly missed the fact that some of the documents you provided include damning evidence about your boss's conduct and may well violate the gag order your DOJ and Donald Trump demanded from Judge Eileen Cannon. That's what Raskin wrote, and that's what I think happened here. I think in her frenzied search to discredit Jack Smith, she violated that court order and the DOJ gag order.

[Andy McCabe]

Maybe she should have had those lawyers working on getting more of the Epstein files out. I don't know. I might have been better used to their time. DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin called Raskin's claims about Trump's conduct and his DOJ quote a cheap political stunt. This one, this one's really over the top. Quote, Jack Smith's team was desperate to prosecute Biden's top political opponent, so it is no surprise that his files contain salacious and untrue claims about President Trump. Now, like, those two things don't even connect. Like, there, there's no logical connection there. Like, even if he was desperate, which he wasn't, that doesn't mean files should necessarily contain salacious things. So, yes, it's a surprise. Sorry, Gil. Gilmart said this, quote, the accusation, the accusations Raskin makes are baseless. Judge Cannon's protective order was not violated. And none of the documents Produced by DOJ Violated 6e, as none of them disclose matters occurring before a grand jury. That's just basically like, don't believe what you hear. Do not believe what you see. Do not believe what you experience. Just listen to me and I will refute it all.

[Alison Gill]

If releasing that memo doesn't violate Judge Cannon's order, then just release volume two, because that wouldn't either.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, and why does he got to take that? And we didn't violate 6e, by the way. Like, nobody accused you of that yet? I don't think so. Maybe shut up on that count. I don't know.

[Alison Gill]

I have to wonder. I really do have to wonder. When the Knight Institute of Columbia University, who's going after volume two right now in court, does Pam Bondi's release of this DOJ memo pertaining to volume two or the classified documents case, does that somehow open the door for the Knight Institute to argue DOJ has lifted its own gag order on volume two or things that pertain to the classified documents case by releasing this. So we should be able to get volume two now, like maybe to the 11th Circuit or something like that. But, you know, I imagine at least that would have to force the DOJ to say we accidentally did it because we're dumb. You know, I, I don't know.

[Andy McCabe]

I don't, I don't think it's going to get you the whole file. You could make the, you go in and make the argument it would be embarrassing to a already constantly embarrassed doj. And likely they would come in and say this was an administrative error by someone other than the Attorney General, and

[Alison Gill]

therefore the judge should sing things that have to do with it. I mean, yeah, they're going to say

[Andy McCabe]

it was a mistake and the judge shouldn't hold it against them and it doesn't obviate the whole protective order. So I don't, I don't think it would go anywhere. But just because it would be harassing them in a, in effective way, I'm supportive of it. Points out the. Yet another example of the rank incompetence basically going.

[Alison Gill]

They're only deciding, they're only choosing to re. I would make the accusation that the Department of Justice is only choosing to release classified documents, information that suits them for a political purpose.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

And. And so therefore, since they're willing to release some of it, they should release all of it. That would be my argument again, like you said, probably wouldn't win the day, but it would be fun.

[Andy McCabe]

I like the argument. You probably need more than one example to, to point to. Like, but if they had done it, if there's multiple documents over a period of time where they're clearly like opportunistically cherry picking stuff from the report or from the investigative file and throwing it out there, then yeah, well, all we

[Alison Gill]

have to do is wait a bit, a little bit longer for Red and Quinones to, to let slip some documents about Mar A Lago and the search on Mar A Lago to Somehow tie the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment to a grand conspiracy. That's how they're doing it in Florida and that's how they're getting around the statute of limitations is by saying it also is connected to the search at Mar A Lago. If he lets slip a bunch of stuff, we've got the DOJ releasing more stuff that has to do with the case against Donald Trump and then maybe you've got some more ammo for it. But I just got. Sometimes with this administration, you just gotta wait for them to screw it up themselves.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, they're gonna open up a door and you can run right through it. So let me. Before we finish on this one, I. There were a few questions this week on the. Very similar to this one. So I'll just real quick run through this. Martha said, just like else. I love and appreciate you guys. Now that the unclassified documents case is back in the news, I admit I've lost the thread. What happened to all the documents illegally stored at Margo? Were they recovered or did Judge Cannon stop the case and all the documents are still there, so. No, all the documents were recovered when they went and executed the infamous search warrant. They. I mean, we think there's.

[Alison Gill]

The INF boxes were still missing and

[Andy McCabe]

the, the, the closet with the padlock that they did not go into, but the ones we know about, they took. And so that would have all gone back and, and gone into the evidence locker, likely somewhere at the FBI, probably the, the Washington field office. It was used as a part of Jack Smith's investigation. The question is what happens to them after she dismissed the case? Likely if they had to purge all the records that they had, they would have had to give those documents back to the like lawful owner. So it's either the agencies or maybe the national archives. So I think it's probably would have gone back to the archives. Now having said that, if that happened, Trump is president again. So anything he wants, he could just say, call up the archives and tell them to give me XYZ documents. So where those things are now I think is a fairly open question. But they weren't left at Mar a Lago. Yeah, they made the round trip back at the.

[Alison Gill]

Maybe he's keeping him in the east wing. Oh, no, he's not, because he's completely.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, that's gone.

[Alison Gill]

All right, everybody, we've got some more stories that we want to cover this week, but we have to take another quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Hi, I'm Frances Collier. And I'm Angela V. Shelton. And we're Frangela. You know what you mean in your life. The final Word podcast. Yes, you do. That's right. It is the final word on all things political and pop cultural, where we make real news, real funny, where we inspire you so you can hashtag, resist, subscribe and get a new episode of the Final word podcast each week. It's the news we think you need to hear. That's right. We think you need to hear it. Okay.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

It's what we say, so. That's right. And because all we do is give. Every Thursday, you can listen to our hysterical podcast, idiot of the week. We round up the stupid. Because you know what? Somebody has to. Okay. All we do is give.

[Andy McCabe]

Welcome back. Okay, our next story comes from the post. A top deputy to U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro acknowledged.

[Alison Gill]

Sorry, like, just.

[Andy McCabe]

Is it the U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro line that throws you over the edge?

[Alison Gill]

No, it's just this story. It's this whole story. Sorry. Please continue.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay. Okay. A top deputy to U. S. Attorney Janine Pirro acknowledged in a closed door hearing this month that the justice department did not have evidence of wrongdoing in its criminal investigation of the Federal Reserve over the cost of its building renovations. According to A transcript of the court proceedings. The prosecutor's admission, which has not been previously reported, undercuts President Donald Trump's claim that, quote, there is criminal personality in the 2.5 billion dollar overhaul of the Fed's headquarters overlooking the National Mall.

[Alison Gill]

It's so fun. Like, we know Boasberg tossed these subpoenas, and we know the Trump White House was like, it's BS and the DOJ was like, that's. This is the wrong. I think Janine Perot was like, it's an activist judge because we should be able to subpoena people. Our subpoenas were real. But if you go in and tell the judge that there's no actual crime that you can point to, he's not going to let you. Okay.

[Andy McCabe]

You're supposed to have some information about wrongdoing and criminality when you start an investigation of wrongdoing and criminality.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. So to admit that you don't have any, but you want to subpoena them anyway, and then to be mad that the judge wouldn't let you to say, it seems that the subpoena's sole purpose is harassment, but you didn't give any other purpose for the subpoena.

[Andy McCabe]

Not a good look. Not a good look.

[Alison Gill]

Filling in a lot of gaps from that initial story of Boasberg's, you know, quashing of these subpoenas. It goes on to say attorneys for the Fed and the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. battled over the legality of two grand jury subpoenas at the center of the investigation during a sealed hearing on March 3. A transcript of those proceedings was later unsealed. And that's why we have this information now. Both subpoenas were quashed this month by a federal judge who described them as an illegal effort by the Trump administration to pressure Fed Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates or quit. Right. To resign from the independent central bank.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. Pirro, the top federal prosecutor in D.C. and a Trump ally, opened the inquiry after Powell gave brief testimony on the renovations costs during a congressional hearing last year. The criminal investigation followed years of criticism from Trump over the Fed's handling of monetary policy and his public demands that the Justice Department target his perceived political foes. Prosecutors are weighing whether the cost overruns amount to fraud and whether Powell gave false testimony to the Senate Banking Committee.

[Alison Gill]

No and no. And as you know, top deputies in Jeanine Pirro's office admitted in court they also don't have any evidence of any of that. But Ga Masuko Latif who was recently named chief of the criminal division of the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. under Jeanine Pirro there, said at the March 3 hearing that the Justice Department lawyers, quote, do not know at this time what evidence there is of fraud or criminal misconduct, arguing only that the project is a $1.2 billion over budget and it just doesn't seem right. That's their argument. There are 1.2 billion reasons for us to look into it. That's what Masuko Latif told Chief U.S. district Judge James Boasberg. Don't say that kind of dumb stuff to James Boasberg.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. Or how about we, quote, do not know at this time. That's just. We have no idea. We have nothing. Zero. He tried. He hits the at this time. Like that's a qualifier that would make it likely that we will have at. At some time other than this one.

[Alison Gill]

Kind of like Lindsey Halligan in front of the grand jury saying we'll have better evidence at trial.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I don't have a billion dollars at this time.

[Alison Gill]

Same.

[Andy McCabe]

I'm never gonna have a billion dollars. Like, come on. Pressed by Boasberg, Masuka Latif also said, quote, we don't know what statements from Powell's congressional testimony were false, adding that, quote, there are certain areas that he addressed that caused concern. According to the transcript, Again, you can't cite certain areas and not say which areas. What is it that you allege is false? You can't. You can't investigate someone for making a false statement when you have no idea what the statement was that you say is false.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And. And in a lot of cases, even if you do know the statement that you think is false, it has to meet a really high standard of falsehoods.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. It has to be like talk, laser

[Alison Gill]

talk about that ad nauseam. With the Jim Comey thing and the yes, Bronston literal truth defense and all this other stuff. It's like you can't. You can't just. He sounds fishy.

[Andy McCabe]

He's got an odd look. I don't like the cut of his jib. Open up the investigation. We'll find something. All right. A spokesperson for the U. S. Attorney's office said Tuesday that the pur. A grand jury investigation is to determine whether there is probable cause that a crime was committed. Quote, that is exactly what we're doing here as we investigate the discrepancies in the Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell's testimony before Congress and the billion dollar plus cost overrun. The spokesperson said, okay, that's incorrect. That is the purpose of the grand jury investigation. But you can't do it with just nothing. You gotta have something to lead you to believe there might be. And also, we're going to investigate the discrepancies in his testimony, but you can't say what those discrepancies are. It's insane.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. I remember back in the day when we were following the Jack Smith investigation or the Mueller probe, that if there was a grand jury that had been impaneled, then that must mean that there is a crime being investigated, like probable cause of a crime being invested, at least a predicate of a crime being investigated, because you are not allowed to use the grand jury to do exactly what they were trying to do in this case. And either they know that and they're trying to get it around Jim Boasberg, or they don't know that and shouldn't be working at the U.S. attorney's office anyway.

[Andy McCabe]

Yikes.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. So this goes on to say the U.S. attorney's office has alleged in written filings that Powell's testimony contained possible discrepancies and that the cost overruns had raised the specter of fraud. But possible specters don't get you to subpoenas because there were no details. Piro's office had said prosecutors reviewed about 600 documents that the Fed submitted to Congress about the renovation before issuing the subpoenas, as well as an audit, an audit that occurred more than four years ago by the Fed's inspector general that actually didn't raise any concerns about criminal conduct. Do you know how clean you have to be to not raise any. Any issues with an inspector general?

[Andy McCabe]

You can just hear, like, Jeanine Pirro. We looked at the audit. It didn't say anything, so we didn't like it. But we're going forward anyway.

[Alison Gill]

This is, I think, one of the first times in history I've heard of an inspector general's report coming back clean. And by the way, what's interesting is when they did that audit and couldn't find anything in the Fed's inspector general report, mysteriously and for probably no reason at all, they moved Michael Horowitz, the Department of Justice Inspector General, over to the Fed Reserve,

[Andy McCabe]

the favorite IG of the Trump administration.

[Alison Gill]

Him and Kufari.

[Andy McCabe]

He'll land another plane. Yeah, he'll land that plane for us, just like the first time.

[Alison Gill]

Now another audit of the construction costs by the inspector general is underway at Powell's request.

[Andy McCabe]

So, yeah, that's what you do when you look at massive cost overruns that you think, man, that seems crazy. A billion dollars, too much money. You send the auditor in to look at it. You don't open a criminal investigation on the head of the Fed. Like you don't have any information to indicate a crime has been committed. Like, do the audit first, figure out where the money went and then come back.

[Alison Gill]

And it's actually not unusual. DHS budget for construction went over 1.8 billion. The Reagan Building, billion and a half over budget. Like it happens a lot.

[Andy McCabe]

Very frequently as, as does over budget. Construction issues happen in the private sector. You know, all. It's not, I'm not saying it's okay, but there's a proper way to respond to it. The.

[Alison Gill]

Well, you know, Andy, the ballroom was only supposed to cost 150 million and now it's upwards of 400 million. So. Yeah, right. There are 250 million reasons we should open a criminal investigation. According to the deputy from U.S. attorney Office for Jeanine Pirro.

[Andy McCabe]

I see a false statement somewhere. Let's go.

[Alison Gill]

It's very.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes. Boasberg said in his ruling to quash the subpoenas that the U.S. attorney's office had provided, quote, quote, essentially zero evidence of a crime and had declined an offer to show him evidence in private without attorneys for the Fed being present, quote. Indeed, most members of the committee that Powell testified before, including a majority of each party's members, as well as the committee's chair, have said that they do not think he committed a crime, the judge wrote. Now, Pirro has said the Justice Department plans to appeal Boasberg's decision on the subpoenas. The U.S. attorney's office also submitted a filing asking Boasberg to reconsider his ruling. I don't know. He didn't really sound like he's on the fence in those quotes, so I don't see that going anywhere.

[Alison Gill]

You know, now that you mention it, he does seem fishy. Yeah, like that's.

[Andy McCabe]

Hey, you got me. Judges rarely grant such requests and I really do not see one happening in this case.

[Alison Gill]

No, me neither. He might pull two Trump judges on a three judge panel at the D.C. circuit, but that'll be quickly overturned. The Federal Reserve has retained, get this, Jerome Powell and the Fed Reserve, they've retained Robert K. Herr, former special counsel who investigated but declined to seek charges against President Joe Biden over his handling of classified documents to defend the central bank against the subpoenas. I can see the report now, Andy. Look, Jerome Powell is a feeble old man who would be sympathetic to a jury.

[Andy McCabe]

So what he's not done any. We have no evidence of wrongdoing. But we really don't like him and we think he should have done a much better job lowering the interest rates and therefore he's bad.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Now Powell himself has hired Gerson Zweifoch. I don't know if I'm saying that properly. Former general counsel of News Corp. And 21st Century Fox as his outside counsel. Pirro has Pirro Co. Ausas that she got from a Craigslist advertisement straight out of college from in Texas. All right. Pirro who I no shade to Texas. There's some excellent law schools there. I take that comment back. Pirro, who previously was on a Fox News host, has assigned at least three prosecutors to this case. The Trump administration has signaled it has no intention of backing off even as some of the president's allies have questioned whether he should find an off ramp in this confrontation with Powell to just clear the way for a swift confirmation of Kevin Warsh, who's the president's nominee to become the next Fed chair. May is when Jerome Powell's time as Fed chair ends. But if this is still in litigation and Trump is pushing back, it could postpone his replacement as Fed chair. He was going to he's scheduled to go from Fed chair to just Fed

[Andy McCabe]

board member in May because the confirmation process has stalled because Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who holds a pivotal vote on the Senate Banking Committee. He's pledged to block Warsh's nomination until the Powell matter is closed. Powell in turn has pledged to keep serving as Fed chair on an acting basis until a new chair is confirmed. So there you go. Pirro has backed Donald Trump right into having Jerome Powell as the Fed chair for longer than his term. Well done.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. But also his illegal war of choice in Iran driving oil prices up has also really complicated the ability of the Fed reserve to lower interest rates anytime

[Andy McCabe]

soon as we expect inflation to go back up to 4%. And I should just add too like this, the fact that she's got three counts prosecutors on the case. That is simply the more cowbell strategy of prosecution. You don't additional prosecutors doesn't actually create evidence of illegality.

[Alison Gill]

You. No. No it doesn't.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay.

[Alison Gill]

I'll remember that way my six lawyer defense team might have words for you but I don't have one of those. But we have one other quick story before we get to hit me in the head with a bat. What do we got from NBC?

[Andy McCabe]

All right, this one is from NBC. A career prosecutor is set to lead the U.S. attorney's office for the District of New Jersey. Yay, Jersey. After successful consultations between federal judges and, and the Trump administration that were preceded by months of legal fights and significant turnover. So Robert Frazier, who has served in the New Jersey U.S. attorney's office for more than two decades and was most recently its senior trial counsel, he's going to become the top federal prosecutor in the state. The chief judge for the district signed a one sentence order on Monday appointing Frazier. The same day, a letter signed by an Assistant U.S. attorney in the office said Frazier's appointment, quote, followed consultation between the district court and the Department of Justice's senior leadership spokesperson for the DOJ welcomed Frazier's appointment. Look at that. Everybody's all on team together.

[Alison Gill]

So I guess the previous four or five U.S. attorneys that have been appointed by the courts that were immediately turned around and fired by Blanche, maybe that caused this particular office to work with Department of Justice and the judges to just say, if we put this person in, are you going to fire them immediately? And maybe they went through a few names until they found somebody that the Justice Department was fine with.

[Andy McCabe]

I, I heard some reporting on that on that count. So they found someone that DOJ could tolerate, and then they just, they just did it because, like, honestly, you can't have all these cases being attacked in court and thrown out after the fact and lost convictions of violent criminal. It's, it's, it's ridiculous. Yeah, but here we are.

[Alison Gill]

Here we are. All right, everybody, we'll be right back with Hit Me in the Head With a Bat. Stick around. All right, everybody, welcome back. Time for Hit Me in the Head with a Bat. That's the working title for this particular segment. I was going to write a jingle, Andy, but nothing rhymes with presumption of regularity.

[Andy McCabe]

That's a challenge right there.

[Alison Gill]

Yep, there you go.

[Andy McCabe]

All you listeners heard that.

[Alison Gill]

All right, I've thrown down the gauntlet. But this is the segment where we give more examples of the complete and total destruction of the presumption of regularity that the Department of Justice has long enjoyed. First up, even during the first Trump administration, right. There was still some presumption of regularity, for sure. Every once in a while it get weird. Like when the census question, the citizenship, citizenship question on the census case was closed and Trump ordered it. Go back and try it again. And the DOJ found themselves in the courtroom with the judge, and they're both looking at each other like, I didn't do. Do you know, I don't know what's going on. We're sorry. This not, we didn't mean to do this. We're super sorry. And then immediately after the Mueller investigation was closed, there were hearings on the docket. Like, it seems to have taken some of the members of Mueller's team off guard that the investigation was over and they showed up in court like, sorry, your honor. We, we had this April 3rd thing set. We, we meant to be here. We didn't know. It seemed like it got closed in kind of a hurry. And maybe we'll learn about, about more about that as time goes on. But anyway, time for Hit Me in the Head with a Bat. First up from Raw Story. Attorneys and legal observers were left in disbelief after a federal judge in Minnesota tore into the legal team for U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement on Thursday for submitting a brief quote riddled with misreadings and misquotations and said she questioned defense counsel at the hearing and received unsatisfactory responses. That's very nice language for what happened here. U.S. district Judge Nancy Bracel. I don't know if I'm pronouncing that properly. Please let us know if I'm not. Issued a scathing 69 page preliminary injunction against ICE's detention practices at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minnesota, ordering the agency to restore detainees access to attorneys, phone calls and legal materials, the ruling delivered a sharp rebuke to the government's lawyers.

[Andy McCabe]

In contesting the injunction, ICE's legal team twice cited Planned Parenthood versus Rounds for the propositions that mandatory injunctions are, quote, particularly disfavored and that plaintiffs must meet a, quote, heavy and compelling weight of evidence standard. Now, an aside, if you think that sounds like an odd legal standard, hold that thought in your head for just a minute because neither quote appears in that case NOR in any 8th Circuit case the judge could find mind, quote, neither of these quotes appear in Planned Parenthood NOR in any 8th Circuit case the court has found that addresses injunctions. Brazel wrote flatly, quote, even under the most charitable of readings, Planned Parenthood cannot possibly stand for such a proposition. The case discusses the heightened burden that applies to enjoining state statutes and does not involve mandatory injunctions at all.

[Alison Gill]

Oops. Quote, the 8th Circuit does not apply and has specifically rejected a heightened standard for mandatory injunctions.

[Andy McCabe]

That one hurt. Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Ouch. So not only did you misquote, you got it completely backwards.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

The non existent citations came in a case where the judge had already found ice's sole witness not credible, calling the witness's testimony inconsistent at Best and incredible at worst to boot. The agency was found to have violated detainees Fifth Amendment rights by blocking access to attorneys during Operation Metro Surge. So. Ouch.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, that's not good.

[Alison Gill]

Full disclosure, the AUSA who submitted that is named Brett Shumate. He's also the Department of Justice lawyer on a couple of my FOIA cases that are in federal court.

[Andy McCabe]

Oh, wow, look at that.

[Alison Gill]

So guess who's going to be keeping an eye out for fake citations in future filings?

[Andy McCabe]

You want to take a really close look at those filings? For sure. All right, next up from Politico. In a growing number of cases, the Trump administration has recently beg admitting to judges it is unable to defend some of its decisions to detain immigrants. Huh. In dozens of cases over the past several weeks, Justice Department lawyers have declined to push back on detainees claims that they are owed a chance to make a case for their release. In those cases, the administration has simply agreed to provide a bond hearing or even outright release, telling judges that officials, quote, quote, do not have an opposition argument to present or saying that they couldn't cobble together enough information to mount a defense, quote, unresigned counsel was unable to obtain documentation sufficient to provide factual support for a response. That is the lawyerly way of phrasing, your honor, we got nothing. A Justice Department attorney wrote in March 13 response to a detainees lawsuit in Arizona. Arizona, quote. Accordingly, administration officials do not oppose the court ordering petitioner to receive a bond hearing at this time. This is huge because those bond hearings are basically like the judge says, okay, here's what I want for bond. You're, you know, you, you're allowed to go, right?

[Alison Gill]

That's, I've never seen the Justice Department saying, we don't have anything for you. We don't have an argument to present by like, wow. All right. Finally from abc, the Department of Justice notified a federal judge that it has been erroneously relying on an ICE memo to justify arrests in courthouses. That's according to a new court filing. The filing is part of an ongoing federal case in New York brought by civil rights groups challenging a policy of arresting people in immigration court. Federal prosecutors said Tuesday they had repeatedly cited a memo call called 2025 ICE guidance to defend this policy of arresting people in courtrooms. And that led to courthouse arrests nationwide. Quote, we write respectfully and regrettably to correct a material mistaken statement of fact that the government made to the court and the plaintiffs. That's Jay Clayton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, admitting. Yeah, that memo doesn't say what we said, it said head.

[Andy McCabe]

Oof.

[Alison Gill]

About arresting people in, during, in courtrooms, specifically, I think this case, 26 Federal Plaza. Anyway. Wow. All right, so that's our. Hit me on the head with a bat today. All kinds of errors and mistakes and admissions of wrongdoing which we rarely see from this administration as well.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. And I wonder, in the, in the vaunted history of the Southern District of New York is Jay Clayton maybe The only any U.S. attorney that's ever had to send a letter like that there?

[Alison Gill]

I don't know.

[Andy McCabe]

Might be. Might be.

[Alison Gill]

All right, it looks like we have time for. We had a listener question that we kind of plugged in earlier in the show, and I think we have time for one more.

[Andy McCabe]

All right, this one comes to us from Grumpy Grams and Grumpy Graham says, how was Donald Trump able to vote in the recent special election in Florida when convicted felons are not allowed to vote in Florida? And, and Grams, you are, according to your own assertion, grumpy. But you're not alone, because a lot of other people wrote in a very similar question on this issue. And it's really kind of a unique thing because as, as we know, Florida is like, particularly harsh on people convicted of crimes in Florida. First their criminals had their voting rights restored few years back, and then when the Republicans took over the state House, they, they passed a whole slew of requirements. You got to pay all your fines before you get them back. So every, every done everything they could to kind of delay this. But one thing that Florida law does specify is that if a voter has an out of state conviction, then Florida will defer to that state's laws for how a felon can regain his or her voting rights. So this is interesting because Trump, of course, was convicted in New York, which means that Trump benefits from a 2021 New York law that allows people with felony convictions to vote vote as long as they're not serving a term of incarceration at the time of the election. So in New York, under. Right. In New York, under New York law, you lose the right to vote not when, just when you're convicted, but when you're convicted and sent to prison. And when you get out of prison, you get your right to vote back. And since Trump has never been sentenced to time in jail or prison, that he's not currently in jail, I know that's. He's never lost his right to vote and therefore he doesn't lose it in Florida.

[Alison Gill]

So Trump can vote because of Democrats expanding voting rights.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly.

[Alison Gill]

Okay. He also voted by mail in the last special election.

[Andy McCabe]

He did. He did.

[Alison Gill]

He was very Melanian. So did Barron. And his endorsed candidate lost to a Democrat. So now a Democrat represents the district in the state legislature where Mar A Lago is, I think. I love that. I love that for them.

[Andy McCabe]

It's awesome. He said this week that he voted by mail because, you know, he's the president and he couldn't be there because he has important work to do somewhere other than Florida, you know, notably in D.C. and therefore, because of that, he. It's okay for him to vote by mail, which is interesting to me.

[Alison Gill]

But a reporter said. But you've been in Palm beach this whole time, every weekend.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, during the. During the. During the early voting period. He was there multiple times. Okay. Put that minor fact aside. His. His excuse for himself, to me sounds a lot like the same thing that. Oh, I don't know, any working person in the state of Florida might say, who's busy during the day when the polls are open for early or regular voting, and it's just more convenient for them because they're busy, I don't know, trying to, you know, put food on the table and keep your kids on a straight line and whatever else it is they're doing down there.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, but you're not the president. I'm the president. I have many important, tremendous things. People crying, calling me, saying, sir. They have tears in their eyes. It's incredible. I'm very busy. I'm very busy shaking hands. That's why it's bruised.

[Andy McCabe]

He's a very special man. He's not like you and me. He's different. He doesn't have to go to jail for crimes, and he gets to vote by mail. The rest of us should have to crawl to the pole. Right?

[Alison Gill]

It's a very special man.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes, he is.

[Alison Gill]

And Melania Trump wasn't born here, but she can vote. Right? Okay.

[Andy McCabe]

No problem with that either, because, you know.

[Alison Gill]

Problem with that. All right.

[Andy McCabe]

She's Melania Trump. I guess that's her reason. So there you go.

[Alison Gill]

All right. So. Got it.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. But for all of us who are not the president, specifically President Trump. Yeah. For all the rest of us, please get out and vote. Mail in person early on the day. Whatever. Whatever you can pull together. Please, please go exercise your right to vote.

[Alison Gill]

Just see Andy's eyes right now, please.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah,

[Alison Gill]

yeah. Vote early. Vote. Vote early. And like, I'm in California, right. We have 100 mail in voting now, but I actually walked my Prop 50 ballot to A. To A Dropbox and. And in the midterms I might walk my ballot to the registrar's office. Like I've not taken any chances with the mail. But I don't want to, you know, I'm not gonna disparage mail in voting. I'm just, I'm no, there's gonna be so many shenanigans.

[Andy McCabe]

It's lawful, it's totally secure. People should be allowed to do it. Tons of. Of particularly older people who. It's hard for them to get out, move around and get to the polls wherever.

[Alison Gill]

Military.

[Andy McCabe]

So military folks overseas. Overseas. It's. See, it's absurd. But anyway, keep voting everyone.

[Alison Gill]

Well, thank you so much for your questions, everybody. We got to a couple today. Send them into us. There's a link in the show notes where you can submit your questions and you know, we'll see you next week. Who knows what's going to happen between now and then. And again, we're still taking suggestions for the segment Hit me in the head with a bat. I just, I'm using that one because it just makes me laugh, particularly when it's just all one word like that. But we're still open to suggestions, so send them in to us. Again, that link is in the show notes. Any final thoughts before we get out

[Andy McCabe]

of here this week? Just that I'm looking forward to next week. And once again, you get to hit me in the head with a bat

[Alison Gill]

that I really liked. That way that you spoke that maybe we'll take that and just like make a remix with it. It'd be a dead with a bat. Just you doing that over and over again.

[Andy McCabe]

That's free. That's free. You do whatever you want with Meet

[Alison Gill]

me at the cottage. Bum bum bum bum bum bum for all you heated rivalry fans. All right, that's a banger song. All right, everybody, we'll talk soon. I'm Allison get.

[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.