Andy McCabe (4:37)

But we still want to complain about it, and we still want you to do something about it that we cannot say what it is.

Alison Gill (4:43)

I mean.

Andy McCabe (4:44)

I mean, clowns.

Alison Gill (4:46)

Yeah. Just.

Andy McCabe (4:47)

Yeah, yeah. So Trump's attacks on the courts have been prolific and ongoing, and they continued in earnest after the tariff ruling. But they're also evident in the staggering number of court orders this administration is defying. So let's talk about that in a story from Politico. This week, the Trump administration acknowledged violating court orders issued by New Jersey's federal judges more than 55 times over the past 10 weeks in cases stemming from the Trump administration's mass deportation push. That's five cases a week for 10 weeks. That's one case every workday for 10 weeks.

Alison Gill (5:27)

They violated. Yeah. Good Lord. Yeah. Associate Deputy Attorney General Jordan Fox, who was tapped in December to help lead the Justice Department's New Jersey office after Alina Haba was forced out, said that those violations were spread across more than 547 immigration cases? Come on. It's only 10% that have flooded the court since early December, straining both prosecutors and judges. The violations include a deportation to Peru that occurred in violation of a judge's injunction, as well as three missed deadlines to release ICE detainees. There were also six missed deadlines to respond to court orders, 12 missed deadlines to provide bond hearings to ICE detainees, 17 out of state transfers after judges had issued no transfer orders, three instances of imposing release conditions in violation of court prohibitions, and 10 instances of failing to produce evidence demanded by the courts. Wow.

Andy McCabe (6:23)

Yeah. But I mean, in their defense, probably in all 10 of those instances, they didn't actually have any evidence to produce. So is that technically in a violation of the order if you've never even had it?

Alison Gill (6:32)

That's like somebody saying, generally, you're supposed to say, I don't have it.

Andy McCabe (6:37)

Somebody says to you, I order you to give me your Ferrari, and you don't actually have a Ferrari, So if you don't give it to him, have you really done anything wrong? I don't know. Okay. Quote, we regret deeply all the violations for which our office is responsible. What attorney ever thinks he's gonna have to say that in the course of his career? We regret deeply all violations. Not just the one, the two, but all 50 for which our office is responsible. Those violations were unintentional and immediately rectified once we learned of them. Fox wrote in a letter accompanying the report. Quote, we believe that the Department of Homeland Security's violations were also unintentional. So, you know, what's the deal? Let it go. Fox's conciliatory approach stood in stark contrast with previous statements from the Justice Department and ICE that have blamed rogue judges for the administration's non compliance. Of course they did. DOJ produced the catalog of violations in response to an order by U.S. district Judge Michael Farbiaz. And actually, I know him. I used to work terrorism cases with him when he was an assistant in the Southern District in New York. So good to see you are now Judge Farbiaz. Judge Farbiaz.

Alison Gill (7:53)

All right. Well, Farbiaz's concerns mirror similar alarms raised by judges across the country who have described increasingly infrequent or, excuse me, increasingly frequent violations. I can't even say it because it's so unheard of. Increasingly frequent violations of their edicts by administration officials carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation surge. Judges in Minnesota, as we know, recently assessed that the administration violated 94 court orders in January alone. And judges across the country have described rampant and purposeful violations of their orders.

Andy McCabe (8:27)

Do you think New Jersey was tempted to just say, what about Minnesota?

Alison Gill (8:33)

Right. Hey, they got more. Twice as many.

Andy McCabe (8:35)

He did more than me.

Alison Gill (8:39)

New Jersey, five, zero.

Andy McCabe (8:41)

Yeah, exactly right. CNN report said a federal judge in Minnesota held a Trump administration attorney in civil contempt for, quote, flagrant disobedience of court orders in the case of a non citizen swept up in the immigration crackdown there earlier this year. The contempt finding by U.S. district Judge Laura Provenzino on Wednesday appears to mark the first time a federal attorney has faced court ordered sanctions during President Donald Trump's second term. And that's kind of amazing that this is the first one. All this nonsense.

Alison Gill (9:13)

It took 13 months. Yeah. Now this judge, who's an appointee of Joe Biden, said that starting Friday, this past Friday, the lawyer, Matthew isahara, must pay $500 for each day that the immigrant is not given back identification documents that weren't initially returned to him when he was released last week from Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as she had ordered. She, she ordered give this guy's papers back. As Provenzino imposed the sanction, she brushed aside Isahara's attempt to explain that the violation wasn't intentional, but instead a result of the case slipping through the cracks amid an enormous volume of cases stemming from Metro surge. He said he's picked up 130 habeas cases just this month.

Andy McCabe (9:56)

I mean, like, if we needed to see one more thing that was horribly wrong with this whole Operation Metro surge, this is it. This is like the government has inflicted this thing.

Alison Gill (10:05)

That one lady Lee who broke down and said, just put me at. Hold me in contempt so I can get some sleep. She, she had 88 habeas cases. This guy's got 130.

Andy McCabe (10:17)

What is the limit of your ha, what's your habeas limit? I mean, her was 80. He's up to 130. And then he broke. Very interesting. Quote, the government's understaffing and high caseload is a problem of its own making and absolutely does not justify flagrant disobedience of court orders. The judge said during a hearing Wednesday, according to a transcript obtained by cnn. Quote, I don't believe I need to do additional hand holding on this. I think it's clear what needs to happen. She added, petitioner needs to get his documents immediately and there will be a $500 sanction any day beyond tomorrow that they are not received by his attorney. Now, I want to add here, Alison, I've been reading about this. Many immigrants have been detained in Minnesota and immediately shuttled off to the facility in Texas. All actually, a lot of them are citizens who are not even immigrants. But because, you know, because of the way they look or their accents or whatever, they're getting scooped up. And these people are taken to Texas. Their documents are seized, documents that prove they're citizens. And then they eventually get in front of a judge and get released because they don't belong there. But they don't get given any of the documents back. So they're stuck in Texas with no money and no id and they're like, they don't, they can't get back to Minnesota. I mean, it's outrageous what they're doing to people. It's just stunning, stunningly awful.

Alison Gill (11:38)

Now they want to build these Amazon prime style warehouses for these to deport people. Yeah, it's horrific. Now, Aaron Reichland Melnick, he's a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. I follow him on Blue Sky. He summed it up as follows. All right, number one, DHS surges 3,000 officers to Minneapolis without doing anywhere near enough prep first. Number two, hundreds of habeas cases overwhelm local courts. Number three, dozens of DOJ lawyers quit in disgust, slash anger. Number four, the DOJ brings in JAGs to cover. Those are military lawyers. And number five, a JAG was just held in contempt and fined $500 a day for ICE's failures. So yeah, that's what's going on here.

Andy McCabe (12:21)

Yeah, very obvious progression there. We also have Georgetown law professor and CNN legal analyst and I should also say good friend of this pod, Steve Vladek said we've seen other cases in which district judges have opened more formal contempt proceedings. But this is the first time we've seen a court directly use its coercive power to try to compel immediate compliance with a court order. The notion that lawyers must themselves pay a price for their client's non compliance with court orders is hardly new, but it may be long overdue in the context of the current administration. So Steve, very, as you would expect, accurately and eloquently summing up what's going on here and you know, it's kind of, I bet you this is one of those things. It's just a matter of like breaking the dam, you know, like once judges get the, you know, the idea that other judges are going in this direction, I bet you start to see more and more of it.

Alison Gill (13:18)

That's what I thought at first too when I first read this that she just, instead of writing a show cause rule, you know, memo to say, you have to tell me why you aren't doing this. And then opening a contempt proceeding with evidentiary hearings and doing that whole rigor, she's just like, all right, bam. Inherent. I have the inherent power for civil contempt. 500 a day until you figure this out. And I think that that's gonna, like you said, open the flood. I think we're gonna see more judges, especially in. In these jurisdictions that are overwhelmed with habeas cases, doing this exact sort of thing. Release this man, or you get $500 a day until you release him. And the lawyer themselves are on the hook for it.

Andy McCabe (14:01)

Especially in situations like this where there's not an. There's no issue of, like, what was your intent? Did you do this, like, because of some sort of bias or in a way that would, you know, you're prejudicing this defendant for some. For some purpose? This is just a straight up, you got to release the guy and give him his documents back on Tuesday. And if you don't cha ching, it's going to start. Start ringing up. Right. 500 a day, whatever it is. And I can tell you these, these attorneys are going to notice that nobody wants to get sanctions. Horrible black mark on your record. And it's also going to be expensive.

Alison Gill (14:39)

Yeah. And here comes this JAG lawyer who's, you know, been put in this position, who's like, oh, hi. And then, bam, 130 cases land on your desk, and you're having 30, 40 actions on 26 dockets a day, and you're gonna get sanctioned if you don't keep on top of that stack of 100. And this judge is like, I don't care if you're overwhelmed. You shouldn't have that. You know, this is your administrative. This is the administration. This is of your own making. Maybe not you personally, Mr. Lawyer, but your client. This is of your client's own making.

Andy McCabe (15:14)

Yeah, I mean, like, who's going to keep raising their hands to come in and try to bail this administration out in places like Minnesota and who knows where else next? These JAG lawyers? Like, I don't think so. I'd love to get out there and do something other than JAG law business, but this could. You know, they're all, you know, I bet a lot of them are looking at this like, hey, maybe I could do really well and I get an offer and I jump over to the U.S. attorney's office or whatever. Maybe not. Maybe it's a horrible thing and you shouldn't do it. It's a bad experience.

Alison Gill (15:44)

I'm also wondering if they have a choice. I mean, these are people who are enlisted in the military and they may be given orders.

Andy McCabe (15:51)

It could be. It could be. Although I did see with the woman who kind of flamed out, said take this job and shove it sort of thing a week or two ago she was a volunteer. She raised her hand to come in and do it. I thought I saw this guy described in another article as a volunteer. But we'll see. There may be others that are just being fallen told as it goes in

Alison Gill (16:13)

the military voluntold never again volunteer yourselves. That's what the Navy stands for. All right, everybody, we have more to get to. We're going to talk about the ongoing saga of the not yet released volume two of Jack Smith's final report and and how Walt Nada and Carlos de Oliveira are actually asking Judge Cannon to destroy it. So let's. We'll talk about that after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back.

Andy McCabe (16:41)

Foreign.

Alison Gill (16:45)

If you've been feeling rundown lately, you're definitely not the only one. More than half of adults say they'd feel better with more sleep. And for a lot of us, stress is the thing that gets in the way. That's why CBD from CB Distillery makes sense. They have natural options for sleep and for stress that can help break the cycle where you're too stressed to sleep and then too tired to handle the next day, which stresses you out more, which makes it harder to sleep. I also like that their products are high quality, third party, tested and made without artificial dyes or fillers. It's the source I trust alongside more than 2 million happy customers. So I want to thank CB Distillery for sponsoring this episode. Right now they're offering a deal to you get 25% off your entire purchase@cbdistillery.com and use promo code UNJUST. The CB Distillery product I cannot live without is the Relief Stick. The CBD Relief Stick. It is amazing. I keep it in the gym bag. If I'm feeling sore after a workout, I use it and I start to feel better almost right away. It's simple, portable and it works for me when I need it to. I also like how easy CB Distillery makes it to shop by the benefit I'm looking for. Whether I'm looking for better sleep, less stress, improved focus, or something after workouts. They even have options for pets so you can shop for the whole household in one place. So if you're ready to start the year off right, go to CB distillery.com and use our code unjust for 25% off. That's CB distillery.com code unjust. CBdistillery.com specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. Hi, I'm Frances Collier. And I'm Angela V. Shelton. And we're Frangela. You know what you need 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, 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. Yeah. 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. All right, everybody, welcome back. We have an update, as I said, on the potential release of volume two of Jack Smith's final report. That's the one about the illegal retention and obstruction of classified documents. And I just want to add a note here in the Fulton county ballot seizure case, the the doj, Trump's DOJ is now arguing. Andy, remember when Donald Trump sued to get his classified documents that he stole back from the government? And Eileen Cannon lost that to the 11th Circuit? Embarrassingly, he's actually the DOJ, Trump. DOJ is actually citing that as the precedent that Trump couldn't have his documents back. Right. In order for Fulton county to not get their ballots back. And the thing is that he was a private citizen at the time, going after the government. This is the state of Georgia, and the state of Georgia didn't steal anything. So they're coming to the court with clean hands, which Donald Trump did not. Anyway, really hilarious to me. But on this news story, bottom line up front. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has set oral arguments over the volume two matter for late June, March, April, May, June, four months from now. But here's some background from Ms. Now, Eileen Cannon has not had a great run at the U.S. court of Appeals for the 11th circu, at least not when it comes to her handling of Donald Trump related litigation. The federal appeals court that covers Florida, where the Trump appointed trial judge sits, has chided her multiple times, most recently calling out the judge's undue delay in ruling on motions seeking to release volume two of former special counsel Jack Smith's classified Documents case report.

Andy McCabe (20:49)

Cannon issued another Trump friendly ruling in response to the circuit court forcing her to finally rule. And now the circuit will have another chance to review her work. Though the appeals court's past critiques of Cannon's actions don't mean it will necessarily reverse her again, the appellate judges will likely be taking a close look. Their latest opportunity to review the district judge comes from appeals brought by the group's American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute, which are pressing for the report's release.

Alison Gill (21:19)

Yeah. And so to recap the events leading up to this latest appeal, Cannon, as we know, dismissed the documents case against Trump and his co defendants in July of 2024 on the grounds that Jack Smith was unlawful. Roughly appointed, the Justice Department launched an appeal to the 11th Circuit Jack Smith. But Trump's presidential election win that November led the Department of Justice to drop the appeal against him due to the government's policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Yet the appeal was still active against the two co defendants, which Cannon had cited as a reason to keep the report a secret. But then Trump DOJ dropped the appeal against the co defendants and said, we're never going to charge them again, thus removing that one rationale for secrecy and preventing the appeals court from ruling on whether Cannon was correct to dismiss the case on unlawful appointment grounds.

Andy McCabe (22:12)

So when Cannon finally ruled in December after her, quote, undue delay, she acknowledged that rationale, quote, appears to no longer apply. But she noted that Trump and his former co defendants argued that the report still shouldn't be released, but because it contains privileged and protected information and is the product of a special counsel that she found was illegally appointed. She said that her injunction blocking the report's release would expire on February 24, giving parties time to seek, quote, appropriate relief before then. Well, in response to that invitation, Trump filed a motion through a personal lawyer asking Cannon to permanently block the release of the report. And the DOJ lodged its own court filing saying that it agreed with the president and his former co defendants, Walt Nada and Carlos de la Vera, that the report shouldn't be released outside the doj. Nada and de Oliveira went even further in seeking an order from Cannon that all copies of the report be destroyed.

Alison Gill (23:16)

This made me think of remember when Jack Smith testified behind closed doors and apparently they sent him a copy of volume 2, but he refused to open it, saying, I don't even want to look at it. I don't even think it's supposed to be outside the Department of Justice Right now. I'm wondering if he viewed those materials and his materials on a DOJ computer in a skiff or something like that. I don't think they emailed it to his house or anything. Or what I'm saying is I don't think he has a copy himself of volume two.

Andy McCabe (23:45)

Oh, I'm sure he doesn't.

Alison Gill (23:47)

Right. That was probably like here you can look at it in this room on this computer and don't take notes or whatever. Okay.

Andy McCabe (23:53)

Yeah.

Alison Gill (23:54)

Now an American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute then asked Cannon to halt her proceedings in her court while they appealed to the 11th Circuit. Siding with Trump now would obstruct their appeal, they said in a joint filing on Monday. Last Monday, which also argues that she lacks the authority to order the report's destruction. Now Cannon hasn't ruled on that matter as of this recording. But meanwhile in the appeals court, American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute filed their briefs last Monday challenging Cannon's denial of their motions to intervene in the case.

Andy McCabe (24:28)

American Oversight argued that it's critical for the circuit court to reverse Cannon because of the important, far reaching interest at stake that American Oversight seeks to address as an intervener, whether the district court may bar the release of or take any other action regarding a government report after the court's legitimate reason for doing so, as well as its jurisdiction no longer exists. Likewise, the Knight First Amendment Institute urged the appeals court to reverse the Trump appointees latest actions and to order the redacted copy of Smith's report in her possession to be posted on the public docket.

Alison Gill (25:08)

Yep. Yep. Now responses from the Trump side are due in the appeals court next month after the court granted a motion to expedite the appeal, which Trump has opposed. But he lost that. And as I said, at the top of the block this past Thursday, according to Josh Gerstein At Politico, the 11th Circuit set arguments on the release of special counsel report tentatively in Jacksonville, Florida in the last full week of June. So I don't think we're going to have a resolution on this matter anytime soon. And I guess expedited is June.

Andy McCabe (25:45)

My God, if this gets decided before 2028, I'll be shocked. I mean, I get it. This is a big deal and there's not really a time clock running on this thing. There's no urgency. Right. Except that public, half the public anyway wants to know. So they're going to. It doesn't surprise me that before they make some sort of decision, they're going to hear some arguments, they're going to receive some submissions, some briefs and do it in kind of the standard form. But it is enormously frustrating.

Alison Gill (26:16)

Yeah, for me, too, because I really want to read that report out loud on the Unjustified podcast.

Andy McCabe (26:24)

Yeah. I would like to participate in that.

Alison Gill (26:27)

Yeah. If you want. Back on the, in this feed on the old Jack podcast, we read the entire 165 page immunity brief and we read the entire, well, what was not redacted, which wasn't much of volume one of Jack Smith's final report. If we get volume two, we'll do that same service for you here on Unjustified. And now I want to talk a little bit about all of these ridiculous charges coming from the Department of Justice. So they're, they're, everything's falling through the cracks in some places and then they're really going out of their way to bring dumb cases in other cases. And there's somebody out there right now, defense attorneys tracking these irregular criminal charges. And we're going to talk about that tool right after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. It's no surprise that newsmakers try to manipulate the audience. They want you to believe that they are the one holding the line and they'll use any trick they can to get hand your you there. But don't let them fool you. Get Unspun. I'm Amanda Sturgill. I've been a reporter and today I teach future reporters to cut the spin and think critically about what newsmakers say. My podcast, Unspun, shows you how to know when you're being manipulated by the news. Learn to spot the tricks and how to make up your own mind about what's true. So if you're tired of being fooled by the news, subscribe to UNSPUN today. Unspun because you deserve the truth.

Andy McCabe (28:02)

Welcome back. Okay. Our next story comes from npr. Some of the nation's leading defense lawyers have been trying to wrap their heads around what they consider abnormal behavior by the U.S. department of justice over the past year. Yeah, you think so? I mean, I'm going through the same problem right here.

Alison Gill (28:18)

Abnormal is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

Andy McCabe (28:20)

That's right. Now they're debuting a tool to help track criminal cases that appear to involve irregular charging practices, including aggressive legal theories and possible political retribution against President Trump's foes.

Alison Gill (28:35)

Aggressive about just wrong.

Andy McCabe (28:39)

Plainly stupid aggressive factual basis. There's all kinds of ways I would describe that. I know aggressive works, I guess.

Alison Gill (28:47)

Yeah. And here's a quote from the story we created. The case tracker. Because you cannot defend against an enemy, you cannot See, that is Stephen Salke, a lawyer in the D.C. area who oversees this project. He went on to say the tracker is intended to spotlight for the next several years the unusual cases being prosecuted by the Department of Justice. I can tell these guys are lawyers by saying unusual, aggressive. That's very lawyerly language. The new database includes the federal cases again against Sean Dunn, sandwich guy, the guy who threw a sandwich at a federal immigration officer. Jacob Samuel Winkler, a homeless man accused of directing a laser pointer toward the Marine One presidential helicopter. That guy was acquitted. Juries in D.C. acquitted both of them, as a matter of fact. So I, I love the idea of this tracker.

Andy McCabe (29:39)

I do as well. Although knowing lawyers as I do, it's probably like, tracker makes it sound very technical. It's probably like an Excel spreadsheet, but I don't know. We'll see. We'll have to take a look at it when it hits the streets. The tracker, sponsored by the national association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, otherwise known as nacdl, also monitors cases where government charges of resisting federal law enforcement have been undercut by videos and eyewitness accounts from protesters. Now, that just added a whole ton more cases to the tracker.

Alison Gill (30:08)

Right.

Andy McCabe (30:10)

Last week, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Pam Bondi batted away allegations that politics have motivated federal law enforcement decisions.

Alison Gill (30:21)

The DAO is $50,000.

Andy McCabe (30:25)

50,000. It's a whole 50. $50,000.

Alison Gill (30:31)

That's. Yeah. I don't know why she measures the Dow in dollars. No, $50,000 is the amount of money that was in the kava bag that Tom Homan took as a bribe from federal officers.

Andy McCabe (30:42)

That must be why she was thinking about it. The case is on her desk.

Alison Gill (30:46)

Why it was on her mind. Right. But judges and juries have been turning a skeptical eye toward the work of the Justice Department. Federal jurists have questioned whether the executive branch is complying with court orders on immigration and other issues at the heart of Trump's agenda. Giving rise to concerns that federal prosecutors will no longer get the benefit of the doubt in court. And again, this is a very tepid language used here by NPR because multiple judges have trashed the presumption of regularity in court. It's not rise to concerns that. That the DOJ no longer gets the benefit of the doubt.

Andy McCabe (31:25)

It.

Alison Gill (31:25)

That word past that. We're so far past that, that, that very even keel judges are like, I can't believe anything that you say because you've lied to me a hundred times. Yeah.

Andy McCabe (31:37)

I mean, you and I have been talking about this from the Very beginning back when judges were actually showing by their orders that they were questioning the presumption of regularity. Now you have multiple judges actually saying they don't believe there's a presumption of regularity anymore. It's blatant. It's out there. There are many examples.

Alison Gill (31:59)

Yeah. Many, many examples. So grand juries across the US have rejected efforts by prosecutors to bring indictments. The story continues. Once considered to be a cinch because of the lower bar to charge defendants at that early stage in the criminal process. And, you know, that's where we get the phrase it's, you can indict a ham sandwich. And you know, to be fair, in the ten years prior leading up to Bondi taking over, there was a 99.5% conviction rate. And now in the D.C. u.S. Attorney's office, where Jeanine Pirro is, it's 79% conviction rate. I mean, it's dropped considerably.

Andy McCabe (32:41)

Yeah, yeah, for sure. So that's where, you know, this new tracker comes in, which allegedly features a map that allows people to follow some of these trends across states, a way to search for specific statutes, and also links to key court filings and judges decisions, which. All of which sounds like it'll be particularly helpful to lawyers defending people caught up in some of these crazy cases.

Alison Gill (33:05)

Right. Because they're. You're going to especially like in these ICE cases, if you can point to 16 cases where ICE agents lied about being rammed with a vehicle when video evidence came out, and your client has been charged with ramming ICE vehicles with their car. Hey, man, you've got this tracker that's got all of the instances of where this particular, you know, the DHS lied about that to the court.

Andy McCabe (33:30)

Yeah. Yeah. So NACDL Executive Director Lisa Wayne said this tracker is an essential tool for an era where federal overreach has become the standard operating procedure. That's pretty serious allegation, but it's one that's hard to argue against, quite frankly, at this point.

Alison Gill (33:48)

Yeah, I agree. I mean, we had Judge Ellis in Chicago laid out a ton of lies by Gregory Bovino and his colleagues at Customs and Border Protection in. In, you know, the case where she was basically issuing restraining order, preliminary injunction in. What was. Is. What was the Chicago operation called? Midway.

Andy McCabe (34:15)

Midway, yeah, something like that. It's been on the airport name.

Alison Gill (34:18)

Yeah. And, you know, she pointed out that Bovino had said he deployed tear gas after being hit in the head with a rock, but the video clearly showed that no one hit him in the head with a rock. And she went through and I outlined him. When this whole decision came out, There were like 15 or 16 instances of DHS, either CPB or ICE officers either lying to her in court, in depositions, or in statements or affidavits. It's blatant. And so to have that tracked, you know, like you said, like you pointed out, Andy, for other lawyers to be able. Defense attorneys to be able to refer to, I think is going to be extremely helpful.

Andy McCabe (34:58)

Yeah, for sure. For sure.

Alison Gill (35:00)

All right, we got one more story. It's about your buddy Kash Patel, Andy, and his use of government assets and resources for his own private life. We have another one.

Andy McCabe (35:13)

I'm shocked. Not.

Alison Gill (35:15)

Yeah. And I'm sure. And I don't know if you saw clips of him and Bongino on Bongino's podcast, who, as we know, is the former co. Deputy director of the FBI. Just sorta. None of the phrases that I usually use, I, I don't. I, I don't feel comfortable using on this show because they're blue in nature. But it was just like a. A glad handing a back and forth about how great each one of them are and will be. It was just.

Andy McCabe (35:48)

I'm so sorry I missed that.

Alison Gill (35:50)

Yeah, I'm sure you are. I'll send it to you. I'll send it to you. And then.

Andy McCabe (35:54)

You're such a propel.

Alison Gill (35:55)

I'll prop your eyes open and put eye drops in them like Clockwork Orange and. And make you watch it.

Andy McCabe (36:01)

Well, it's good that he found some time out of his busy schedule away from, you know, I don't know, protecting America, maybe trying to help find Nancy Guthrie. I don't know. There's a million things that could be on that list.

Alison Gill (36:14)

Investigating Alex Preddy's murderer or Renee.

Andy McCabe (36:16)

Yeah, yeah, dig into, you know, a mutual admiration session with his former deputy co. Dep. Whatever.

Alison Gill (36:24)

Well, wait till you hear where he's going now. We'll talk about it after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Foreign. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. One more story. Like I said before, listener questions. And if you have a question that you want to ask us, you can click the link in the show notes and send us your questions now. This story comes from Caroline at msnow, FBI Director Kash Patel. Your favorite. Andy flew today on the FBI's Gulfstream jet bound for a trip to the Winter Olympics in Italy to watch one of his favorite sports, men's ice hockey. And that's according to three people familiar with his plans. Patel, an avid hockey player, and Fan.

Andy McCabe (37:10)

I would throw the flag on that one.

Alison Gill (37:13)

What I wouldn't give to see some video of Kash Patel playing hockey. He will be at the Olympic festivities and plans to attend the bronze medal competition in men's ice hockey on Saturday and the competition for the gold medal

Andy McCabe (37:26)

on Sunday wearing a women's small jersey. I'm sorry.

Alison Gill (37:34)

All right.

Andy McCabe (37:34)

I'm sorry. That was not fair. That's not fair.

Alison Gill (37:37)

So many people are like, andy's funny for a cop. I. I'm always. I'm always fielding these bad. Like, he is really, really funny.

Andy McCabe (37:46)

I've been off the job for a while, okay? So.

Alison Gill (37:49)

Yeah. Where's your beard, man?

Andy McCabe (37:51)

Where's your beard? I need my. My Brooklyn beard. Okay. An FBI official confirmed Patel's travel plans. That's good. But said he has several official government purposes for attending, including a meeting with an ambassador, briefings on Olympic security, and other government meetings.

Alison Gill (38:10)

Don't you usually get security together before the Olympics happen?

Andy McCabe (38:15)

Yeah, but, you know, why. Why are you going deep on the details here?

Alison Gill (38:18)

Sorry. Sorry.

Andy McCabe (38:19)

Patel's travel to Italy was reported Thursday afternoon by CBS. Government accounts estimate it costs U.S. taxpayers at least $5,000 per flight hour for the FBI Gulf Stream to fly, meaning Patel's trip to Milan is likely to cost as much as $75,000.

Alison Gill (38:37)

That's just welcome.

Andy McCabe (38:40)

You're welcome, Mr. Director. From one taxpayer to you. FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson tweeted late Thursday that Patel's trip was not personal and he was invited months ago. Oh.

Alison Gill (38:52)

Well, why'd it take him so long?

Andy McCabe (38:54)

There you go. That makes it worth spending the 75 grand quote.

Alison Gill (38:59)

The FBI also has a major role in Olympic security, as we do with the World Cup, F1, and more. So we have a US consulate briefing on Olympic security and current FBI posture. It's almost over. As well as thanking FBI personnel on the ground. That's again from Williamson. Major role in Olympic security. Tell me, former Deputy Director of the FBI, what Olympic security has looked like for your agency in the past.

Andy McCabe (39:27)

Well. Well, first of all, that last paragraph sounded a lot to me like somebody's kind of preparing the ground for the public to accept the fact that not only has he gone to the Olympics, he's planning on going to the World cup and a couple of F1 races next year. So, like, it's. If I say it ahead of time, when it comes up, it'll just be normal business. Right.

Alison Gill (39:49)

All right, so bookmark this podcast for when the World cup and F1 happens and Patel takes the Gol Gulf Stream on His, you know, maybe via boondoggle ranch.

Andy McCabe (39:58)

That's right. That's right.

Alison Gill (40:00)

Events.

Andy McCabe (40:02)

Yeah. I mean, the FBI has a very, very, very small role in Olympic security. And you know, we have people at a place called cerg, which is a Critical Incident Response Group. It's within the criminal division. It's kind of the section that houses things like the hostage Rescue team and the bau, the Behavioral Analysis Unit. That's like the profilers, people like that. All these kind of like specialty groups that are kind of administered by headquarters. And there are special events people who are, who help advise other governments, other law enforcement agencies on how to think about securing large events so those folks will travel out to someplace like the UK in. What was that, 2012, I think London had the Summer Olympics or, or Brazil when Rio had it, usually months and months and months in advance. This stuff starts, the prep starts on this stuff like a year out. And you'll kind of advise them on, you know, on how to think about how we approach big event security. And then when the day that the actual event arrives, you'll plus up the staff, like the FBI staff that works in that country anyway. Maybe there's half a dozen people there. So you send them another three or four people. I don't know, a couple more people. Because now you're going to have an influx of Americans, some of whom will have problems that they need to talk to FBI agents about. Maybe they're victims of crime. You know, I'm trying to remember the name of that swimmer who like, got into a whole thing in Rio, like, I don't know, punch somebody out in a gas station in the middle of the night. I don't know, something like that. You know, things like that happen. But yeah, it's not a huge role, but I do have one. Well, let's get to the end of the story, and I'll give you my own personal experience that is maybe relevant to how Mr. Patel decided to handle this. All right, all right. So as director, Patel is required to fly on the FBI jet for his travel in order to ensure he's able to quickly return to Washington in an emergency or be available for secure communications during a crisis involving a mass casualty event or a national security threat. He's also required to reimburse the taxpayers for personal travel up to the cost of a commercial flight. So this is all true. This was something that Congress required after 9 11, that the FBI director must fly on a government plane because he has to be always able to use secure government communications wherever he is. And wherever he goes. But the way most directors handle that is they severely limit their personal travel when they are director because they don't want to needlessly cost the taxpayers, oh, I don't know, 75 grand for a flight to Italy for the. To watch the last part of the Olympics or something.

Alison Gill (42:51)

Yeah. Well, the FBI official said Patel is going to reimburse the government for any portion of his travel that may be personal. But emphasize he's going to. He's going to Italy for government business.

Andy McCabe (43:01)

Oh, yeah.

Alison Gill (43:02)

The last known instance of an FBI director. By the way, were these tickets free or were they gifts to a government official? That's also interesting. He should probably.

Andy McCabe (43:11)

They would absolutely be that. Yeah.

Alison Gill (43:13)

The last known instance of an FBI director traveling to an Olympic setting was in November 2003, when then director Robert Mueller went to Greece for a two day visit. But Mueller made his trip eight months before the Olympics to refuse security prep for the upcoming Summer Games there. So there we go. That answers my story.

Andy McCabe (43:33)

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Exactly.

Alison Gill (43:35)

So not only is it extremely rare because the FBI plays a really small role, but when it does happen 23 years ago, it happens eight months before the Games happen and he's there for two days. Got it.

Andy McCabe (43:45)

Bingo. Yes. Yes. All right, so here's a little bit of compare and contrast, like me versus Patel. So my little known fact, my family on my wife's side really loves to go to the Olympics. So we go to the Summer Olympics. Like, oh, but big bunch of us will go. We've gone to very many of them. It's a terrific trip. So in 2016, when I was deputy director, the Summer Olympics were in Rio in Brazil. And so I wanted to go as part, not part of my job, but this family event. So what did I do? I took vacation. I took Al just like any other normal American would. Said, I'm going to be gone this, whatever week and a half, whatever it was.

Alison Gill (44:28)

Al everyone administrative leave, the other type of leave, Sl sick leave for one year.

Andy McCabe (44:33)

Yes, Al. Which I had a little bit of because I never took any time off. I'm going to go, it's once every four years with the family. In fact, I actually had to cut it short, of course, because some work thing got in the way. So I wasn't even able to travel with my family. I had to get there like days after they did. But nevertheless, I flew commercial by myself, got down there. But while I was there, I said, you know what, I'm here. I'll do some work because I'm here. And why not? It's like an easy button. So I did, I don't know, some things that maybe we've just discussed. I met with the consulate. I went to the consulate because it's not a. We didn't have an embassy there, but I went to the consulate. I met with the whole country team. I met with the whole FBI team. I thanked all my people who were there working long hours. I met with some local security officials. Basically spent a whole day of my vacation touring around, going to, quote, unquote, big government meetings, just like Mr. Patel. But it was on my time, on my dime, on my travel. No Gulf stream involved, no $75,000.

Alison Gill (45:38)

So that's because we, as government employees, we're so careful and cautious about. About being stewards for taxpayer dollars. We do not want to run afoul of any ethics concerns. We don't want to spend. I wanted to give a monthly employee of the month award at the VA call center, and I had to spend less than $20. I couldn't even get a thing. And so I went on ebay and bought a used bowling trophy from 1963 from an estate sale from a guy who had passed away to be the award for this. Now, as it turned out, the. The guy, Glenn. I can't remember his last name. I'll think of it in a minute. Turned out to have been an army veteran and then worked in wildlife game, you know, Harvard interior for, like, 40 years after that. So we called it the Glen Weldon. So I called it the Glen Weldon Customer Service Award because he had been in public service for his whole life.

Andy McCabe (46:34)

It's like, well done. Yeah, well done.

Alison Gill (46:36)

And I had to spend $19.63. I came in right under the thing. And these are the kinds of things we do as government employees to. To ensure that we don't even come toe the line. We don't even come close to violating any ethics costs or procedures. And Kash Patel is just blowing through them and doesn't.

Andy McCabe (46:57)

Blasting past those signs. When you have a meeting, you remember this? You have a meeting, like, maybe a couple of your colleagues. You know, for me, it would have been like a couple of local chiefs of police or something like that. I invite them over to, like, work.

Alison Gill (47:08)

You want to buy donuts and coffee,

Andy McCabe (47:10)

you got to bring it yourself.

Alison Gill (47:12)

Yeah.

Andy McCabe (47:12)

Because if you. If you provide it, you have to ask them to pay for it.

Alison Gill (47:16)

Yeah.

Andy McCabe (47:17)

I was like, you're kidding me. I'm going to ask these chiefs of police for, like, five bucks each for a cold cup of Dunkin Donuts coffee. And they're like, yeah, that's the rule. You have to. I'm like, forget it. I'll just, I'll just buy it, put it in the corner.

Alison Gill (47:27)

You would just buy it ourselves and would pay.

Andy McCabe (47:28)

Of course. You don't spend public money on it.

Alison Gill (47:30)

Actually, if somebody in that room is a subordinate, it.

Andy McCabe (47:33)

Whoa. Oh, yeah. Forget it.

Alison Gill (47:35)

Yeah, Then. Then it's all out the window. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I wanted to put a fridge in the break room and boy, it took a year and a half to get a fridge. I just ended up going to Costco and putting down 150 bucks for a fridge and just be like, it's my fridge when I leave. Yep, yep. So anyway, this is pretty astounding, but not shocking at all. All right, so what do we have for listener questions this week? We've got a few minutes left here.

Andy McCabe (48:04)

Yeah, we had a bunch of good questions, but we also had a bunch of really interesting comments. And so I thought I'd read a couple of these just for the heck of it. So first of all, an anonymous commenter from Canada wrote in to remind us that Bob Dylan, who we talked about last week when a judge referred to Bob Dylan in a court order, she reminded us that Bob Dylan is also a Nobel laureate, which is like, I can't believe I forgot to say that about Bob Dylan.

Alison Gill (48:30)

Right.

Andy McCabe (48:31)

And then this.

Alison Gill (48:32)

I hope people don't think we were belittling Bob Dylan. No, that's why the fact that the judge used it. We love Bob Dylan.

Andy McCabe (48:38)

Of course. Of course. Right. But then, but then her comment got sad because she said, you know, for 20 years we visited America every summer and we don't come anymore and neither does Bob Dylan. It's heartbreaking. Yeah, yeah. Probably not. All right, so then we had another anonymous commenter who mentioned that they were desperate for Alison, another sexy justice calendar, literally demanding a new sexy justice calendar. And also, and also requested some Mr. February merch, which I am really imploring you, please do not create Mr. February merch. Because I don't feel like I want that to continue.

Alison Gill (49:22)

But you don't want that on a shirt out in a row.

Andy McCabe (49:24)

I feel like that would be weird if I'm walking up to people in public and seeing my face superimposed onto some 1950s pin up body.

Alison Gill (49:32)

It's like, it's great. People loved it. I put it all over blue sky, by the way. It's gone viral. Also, Steve P. From Ontario, who loves the pod and wants a way to Support it, Steve. You can become a patreon subscriber@patreon.com MullerShiro $5 a month. You get not just access, early access and ad free access to this podcast, but we also throw in the daily Beans podcast as well. So that was from Steve Peat.

Andy McCabe (49:58)

Yeah, yeah. And then we got Andy from Virginia who. Not, not me, a different Andy from Virginia who confirmed he was like well done on your story about Morton Downey Jr. Who, who, Andy, because of a prior job that he had. I want to be too specific. Absolutely confirmed that it was down. Morton Downey Jr. Faked his own beat down by a bunch of anti Semitic skinhead. And he pointed out that one of the ways that people figured it out was he drew the swastika on his face backwards because he was looking in the mirror when he did it.

Alison Gill (50:33)

Yeah, it's like Mean Girls when she puts the K on her cleavage and it's backwards.

Andy McCabe (50:42)

Classic. So thank you for that, Andy.

Alison Gill (50:44)

Oh man. Andy from va. It's sure it wasn't you. You didn't write in about yourself?

Andy McCabe (50:48)

No, no, no, I'm not that smart. I would not have remembered all those details.

Alison Gill (50:52)

Ah. And. And John with a Hotmail address who said we were right about Maduro. What was that about?

Andy McCabe (50:59)

Well, he just said he cite. He threw in a site, a website that I have not hit yet. But he was giving us props for like laying down the whole what's the plan with Maduro? Why is he here? And I think people are probably the

Alison Gill (51:11)

Reuters story where Tulsi Gabbard went down to Puerto Rico, took their voting machines in an like an opened DOJ criminal investigation into Maduro in Venezuel interfering in the 2020 elections.

Andy McCabe (51:26)

Yes. Yeah, I believe, I believe that I'll have to go back and look at that. But yeah, is. I think, I think that all of our comments on Maduro are, are kind of being, I don't want to say copied, but maybe reflected in the comments of others now, which is good. Good to see people are thinking the same way about it. But anyway. All right, so we're ready for our question for this week.

Alison Gill (51:51)

Yeah, we got time. Yeah, we got time.

Andy McCabe (51:53)

All right, here we go. So this one comes to us from Kiki and Kiki says I'll pick this one because this is such a huge topic this week, especially after the events yesterday in England, but. Or Thursday, I'm sorry, in England. Kiki says now that the former prince, meaning Andrew Mountbatten from Windsor or whatever his name is, has been arrested in England. Is there any way that charges could be brought against the current occupant in the White House? For instance, if one of the survivors came forward and could prove they were one of the young girls that are in the documents where his name was and then was redacted, could this woman go through a state court instead of a federal court? So let's pick this apart just for a second. The great. And I mean that in a very facetious and sarcastic way. The great immunity ruling by the Supreme Court would not cover this because we're talking about conduct that took place long before he was president and certainly would not not be considered part of his current presidential duty. So no immunity for this.

Alison Gill (52:58)

And federal sex trafficking, I believe, has no statute of limitations.

Andy McCabe (53:03)

Yeah. So that I, I think in theory. In theory, there are no, like, statutory obstacles or Supreme Court obstacles to doing, but there unfortunately are many others, the biggest being that it would have to be the Department of Justice that picked up that sort of prosecution at the federal level. And there's nothing a snowball's chance. And you know what, that they would ever do that. There's also other problems, because you're talking about building because Trump's direct involvement with these victims or alleged direct involvement with these victims was so long ago. You're talking about cases that you would need would be based on witness testimony and victim testimony. That's. None of that is getting any better with time. There's all kinds of kind of embedded weaknesses, and trying. These cases are hard to bring under the best circumstances, and trying to do them 20 years later can be very challenging. You would be putting a ton of pressure on victims to have to come in and relive these experiences in court, which very reasonably, many of them will not want to do. So there's all kinds of potential challenges there. Could you do it in state court?

Alison Gill (54:10)

Same challenges, same challenges.

Andy McCabe (54:12)

You probably also have. You could also have statute of limitations problems there. So it's. That's a huge, huge reach.

Alison Gill (54:19)

Yeah. And I also want to point out that Andrew, the. The formerly known as Prince was not arrested for rape or sexual assault or sex trafficking. He was arrested for giving trade secrets to Epstein.

Andy McCabe (54:32)

That's right.

Alison Gill (54:33)

And so we see this a lot. You know, now, Jack Smith charged Trump with his crimes, but, like, if you go back to the Mueller investigation, even though it was determined there was enough evidence to charge Manafort with conspiracy, they didn't. They charged him with tax stuff and defrauding the United States. 371, I think. I think, is the statute of memory serves they got out, you know, Al Capone on tax evasion. Like usually you go after some more easily gotten low hanging fruit crimes that somebody who is a, you know, career criminal like Donald Trump has certainly committed. So that I think is, and, and that's usually a prosecutorial discretion decision by the federal, the feds. And we have an attorney general who's not into that. I think you have a better chance, believe it or not, and people think I'm nuts for this. But like let's say if Jack Smith gets to be attorney general in 2029, I think you got a better chance of, of resurrecting the insurrection case against him and seeing if you can litigate the fact that the, maybe the statute of limitations was told while he was president because you can't prosecute a. Which is the reason that Jack Smith actually spelled out that he wanted those cases, that case dismissed without prejudice so it could be brought again because he mentioned that, he said, you know, it's never been litigated that we can toll a statute of limitations if somebody's president because they can't be. You know, he kind of, he kind of hinted at it. I think you have a better chance doing that than you do of getting a federal case against him for sex trafficking in this. But it doesn't mean it's impossible because again, like I said, there's no statute of limitations, but we definitely have to get a different attorney general.

Andy McCabe (56:17)

Yeah. Or in your example, could you construct a theory of ongoing, an ongoing conspiracy to commit based on his false statements about it which he makes almost daily now talking about the election being stolen from him. Him and then all to obstruct. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know. Crazy, crazy times. But thanks for the question, Kiki.

Alison Gill (56:45)

Vote. All right everybody, full on that is this week's episode of Unjustified. Thank you so much for listening. I am going to be on vacation next week, so Andy's going to take over the show. So it's going to be chaos. It's going to be amazing. There's going to be all sorts of F bombs flying everywhere because he's definitely the, the of the two of us, the, the more unscripted guy. So watch out. It's gonna be amazing.

Andy McCabe (57:14)

Yeah, it's gonna be like letting your five year old drive everybody else to school or something. It's gonna be like dogs and cats living together.

Alison Gill (57:27)

Look at us, tag team. We're not a Ghostbusters reference.

Andy McCabe (57:30)

Nice.

Alison Gill (57:32)

Got a good, good, the good 80s pop culture references. We Got to sneak in once, at least one a week Anyway, appreciate you, appreciate your questions. There's a link in the show notes if you want to submit your questions. Andy, I'll see you next week. I'll see you the week after. We really, really appreciate you. And again, if you want to support this show, we never really talk about this, but you can. It's just five bucks a month and you can do it at patreon.com Muller she wrote. We really appreciate it. Really thriving community. We don't just do ad free and early episodes, which is great, you get a premium fee. But we also do monthly happy hour hangouts where you can come and chat with us and ask us questions. You'll get pre sale tickets to our galas. We've got a couple coming up this year. I'm trying to do one on election night so we can all watch the returns together and one on June 20th. So you get pre sale tickets, information on that. Any live events we do. You get VIP meet and greet stuff. It's a, you get some, there's some cool merch. We'll throw you some stickers. It's a really good, really cool community for just five bucks a month. So we want to give a shout out to all of our current patrons and thank you for your support, but that's the show. Any final thoughts, my friend?

Andy McCabe (58:39)

No, just looking forward to doing it. A little frightened, not gonna lie a little bit anxiety about next week, but we're gonna get through it one way or the other. There will still be a show by the time you get back from vacation.

Alison Gill (58:50)

You put on a show every time you do a class, professor.

Andy McCabe (58:53)

So there you go.

Alison Gill (58:54)

It's gonna be fine and it's gonna be very informative. Thank you all so much for listening and please, you know, have try to take some time this week for yourself. I'll be doing the same thing. I'm Alison Gill.

Andy McCabe (59:04)

And I'm Andy McCabe.

Alison Gill (59:06)

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 network, a collection of creator owned independent podcasts dedicated to news, politics and justice. For more information please visit mswmedia. Com.