Corruption Confirmed

Summary

UnJustified – Episode 81: "Corruption Confirmed"

Hosts: Alison Gill & Andrew McCabe
Date: August 9, 2026
Theme: Documenting the Erosion of Civil Liberties and the Rule of Law under Trump’s DOJ

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Alison Gill and Andrew McCabe dissect an “another crazy week” in American justice and governance, focusing on systemic corruption, politicization within the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the unraveling of accountability mechanisms under Trump’s second administration. Through legal updates, in-depth discussions, and characteristic candor, they trace the aftermath of controversial DOJ decisions—especially Todd Blanche’s confirmation as Attorney General, the dismissal of high-profile cases related to January 6th and government corruption, and the implications for American democracy. The episode is rich with historical context, legal insight, and sharp critique.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. John Solomon, "Oxford Comma," and the Russia Investigation

Starts at [02:08]

• John Solomon's "leak": Alison calls Solomon “the WikiLeaks of D.C.”, having released an FBI electronic communication from 2017 about "Oxford Comma," an individual counterintelligence case into Donald Trump after Comey's firing.
• Hosts’ clarification: The hosts stress none of this is new; the investigation into Trump’s Russian ties and obstruction for firing Comey was already public, testified to by Comey in 2017.
  • Gill: “If John Solomon had just listened to the Mueller She Wrote podcast or read the Mueller report...” [07:02]
• Procedural Deep-Dive: McCabe details how the FBI manages counterintelligence cases, correcting misconceptions fueled by right-wing disinformation.
  • McCabe: “Crossfire Hurricane is just the umbrella case…We opened an individual case on Donald Trump in the wake of Jim Comey's firing.” [06:26]
• Assessment: The release is intended to muddy perceptions, but instead confirms known facts—often undermining Trump’s defenders.

---

2. Confirmation of Todd Blanche as Attorney General

Starts at [09:44]

• Procedural drama: Blanche confirmed 50-49, with Murkowski and Collins opposing, Cassidy offering a tearful, conflicted support possibly due to political and personal pressure.
  • Gill: “It felt like he was being held hostage or something...did Trump go to him and say, ‘That’s a nice school your wife has. Would be a real shame if something happened to the federal funding behind it.’” [11:42]
• Policy Concerns:
  • Issues raised over $1.8 billion "compensation" fund (potential MAGA slush fund) and tax/audit immunity for Trump and his businesses.
  • Blanche’s written assurances to narrow scope are characterized as insincere and legally tenuous.
  • McCabe: “He didn’t negotiate that agreement. He just dreamed it up…That’s you doing what your boss wants.” [15:21]
• Political Calculus: The hosts analyze the political dynamics—“buffer zone” for opposition votes, Blanche’s placeholder nature, and the normalization of norm-breaking conduct at DOJ.

---

3. Dismissal of Seditious Conspiracy Charges against Oath Keepers

Starts at [23:51]

• Backdrop: Judge Amit Mehta “expressed deep regret” in granting DOJ’s request to throw out charges against eight Oath Keepers, following similar dismissals for Proud Boys.
• Judicial hand-tying: Meticulous rundown of the judge’s reluctance and the “bare bone justification” supplied by DOJ, driven by prosecutorial discretion and (confusing) invocation of Trump’s blanket pardon proclamation.
  • Quote (Judge Mehta via McCabe): “The government thus asks to absolve these defendants of crimes against the United States itself. In this court’s view, that is not in the public interest.” [30:22]
• Systemic impact: The decision “diminishes the gravity of [January 6th], denigrates the work of…prosecutors…excuses criminal acts…The court cannot write a different ending.” [33:13-33:57]
• Critical context: The hosts emphasize the scope of prosecutorial discretion and the crumbling “presumption of regularity,” reiterating warnings about re-electing corrupt executive leadership.

---

4. Reflecting Pool Vandalism Case: Politicization and Fallout

Starts at [38:10]

• Summary: Charges against Olympic canoeist Davey Hearn and others for vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool have been dropped after evidence showed damage was due to a botched contractor job, not "vandals."
  • McCabe (humor): “Federal prosecutors literally fabricated a crime…” [42:32]
• Political interference: Jeanine Pirro’s decision to drop the charges drew Trump’s ire; he accused her of “choking.” The hosts underscore the chilling effect of such politicization on ordinary lives.
• Systemic lessons: Example of weaponizing the DOJ; highlights the government’s tendency to indict first, investigate later—a reversal of professional prosecutorial practice.
  • Gill: “When the government upends your life like this…there’s not that much you can do.” [45:39]
  • McCabe: “Historically, federal prosecutors are really careful before they indict someone…The idea of getting an indictment and then having to dismiss it has always been a disgrace.” [46:43]

---

5. Jack Smith’s Upcoming Senate Judiciary Testimony

Starts at [52:55]

• Smith’s role: Having left the DOJ, Smith is now speaking out about the “corruption and politicization” under Trump and will testify before Senate Judiciary. GOP senators are eager to confront him over debunked claims of DOJ weaponization (the "Arctic Frost" probe), but are unlikely to succeed.
  • Gill: “If you’re going into a battle of wits against Jack Smith, unarmed as Senate Republicans are, it’s a bad move.” [54:05]
• Smith’s warnings: He’s been vocally critical about attacks on public servants and the erosion of rule of law.
  • Smith (quoted): “I think the attacks on public servants…have a cost for our country that is incalculable.” [55:30]

---

6. Listener Q&A: The Fate of the 'Weaponization Fund' and Audit Immunity

Starts at [57:57]

1. Fund and Immunity Status:

   • Outcome: The tax audit immunity for Trump and family remains; “narrowing” is likely cosmetic. Although Blanche pledged not to advance the $1.8B slush fund, the foundational (and deeply problematic) DOJ-Trump “settlement” underlying it was not rescinded and could easily be revived.
   • Gill: “Donald Trump can sue the DOJ, who’s his friend, for not following through…and get the fund stood back up.” [58:44]
   • Ongoing lawsuits and scrutiny continue; no real assurances the mechanisms won’t re-emerge in another form.
   • McCabe: “It’ll hang out there in its current amorphous quality…It’s going to be a fight in court forever and ever.” [62:23]

2. Humor & Human Moments:

   • Listener “Mel from Sherman Oaks” admits enjoying the hosts’ Jeanine Pirro impressions and lobbies for an MSW Media box wine tasting tour.
   • Gill: “No, you’re actually really funny.” [64:48]
   • McCabe: “Box wine tasting tour…I like the sound of that, if not so much the taste of the box wine.” [64:55]
   • Assurance: Jeanine Pirro will remain in their impersonation repertoire.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Blanche's confirmation:
  "There is none. There’s only opposite evidence. Quote, Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this. Oh my gosh…" — Alison Gill [13:40]

• On seditious conspiracy dismissals:
  "This book is now closed. Today's epilogue diminishes the gravity of that day. Denigrates the work of the prosecutors and law enforcement…excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries long pillar of our democracy…to buckle.” — Alison Gill, quoting Judge Mehta [33:10-33:57]

• On politicization of the DOJ:
  "This was the epitome of the politicization of the criminal justice system…gut wrenching reality of it.” — Attorney David Benowitz, relayed by Alison Gill [42:32]

• On recurring DOJ abuses:
  "Todd Blanche shouldn’t have been confirmed because he’s been a terrible acting Attorney general. This department is off the rails. It’s plagued by incompetence, by politicization, by vindictive prosecutions." — Andy McCabe [34:26]

---

Summary Timeline

• [02:08] John Solomon and “Oxford Comma” revelations
• [09:44] Todd Blanche confirmation saga
• [23:51] Judge Mehta grants DOJ’s motion to dismiss Oath Keepers cases (seditious conspiracy)
• [38:10] Updates on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool charges
• [52:55] Jack Smith to testify before Senate Judiciary
• [57:57] Listener Q&A: Weaponization Fund and Audit Immunity, MSW box wine humor

---

Tone & Takeaways

The episode is candid, outraged, and leavened with wry humor. McCabe’s and Gill’s expertise, combined with palpable frustration over democratic backsliding, inform their deeply skeptical take on DOJ developments. From procedural mechanics to raw political calculation, the hosts call out normalization of corruption and the dire consequences for American democracy. The running theme: accountability mechanisms are being systematically dismantled, and the rule of law is under existential threat.

---

For Further Investigation

• Watch Alison Gill’s interview with Katie Fang (Midas Touch Network), noon PT / 3pm ET, for deep dive into DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files.
• Listener questions are welcomed via the link in show notes, with future episodes to continue tracking these critical legal and political issues.

---

Final Note:
This episode is essential listening for those tracking the rapid erosion of government accountability, the fate of rule-of-law institutions, and the fight for democratic norms under sustained attack.

Transcript

[Alison Gill]

Diamond Dames, mount up.

[Charlotte Clymer]

I'm Charlotte Clymer.

[Alison Gill]

And I'm Alison Gill. Hey, Charlotte, what if you and I joined forces to create a weekly podcast

amid all the chaos of the news

to chat about the most recent episode of season four of Ted Lasso?

[Charlotte Clymer]

Well, Allison, we'd be taking delight amid the spite to sit and write and bring some light on Wednesday nights. I mean, look, everything right now is ridiculous. I know we're all stressed out with the state of the country, and we all deserve some joy. Ted Lasso was there for us in the middle of the pandemic, and he's back to offer us a respite from Trump 2.0 right before the midterms.

[Alison Gill]

That's right. We believe in Rom communism.

I mean, if Tom Hanks and Meg

Ryan can go through some heartfelt struggles and still end up happy, then so can we. So subscribe to Diamond Dames for free right now to get notifications, and then you can join us every week after each episode of ted Lasso Season 4, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Charlotte Clymer]

And remember, be a goldfish. Diamond Dames, Dismount.

[Alison Gill]

Barbecue sauce. MSW Media.

[Andy McCabe]

More Reflecting pool vandalism charges have been dropped by Jeanine Pirro's office.

[Alison Gill]

Former special counsel Jack Smith has accepted an invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Andy McCabe]

Todd Blanche has been confirmed by the U.S. senate as Attorney General.

[Alison Gill]

And Judge Amit Mehta reluctantly dismisses the seditious conspiracy charges against the Oath Keepers for their role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 80 of unjustified. Or is it 81? 81.

[Andy McCabe]

I think we're at 81, Allison.

[Alison Gill]

We are. It is Sunday, August 9th, 2026. I'm Alison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe. Another crazy week. Another crazy week. I mean, holy cow.

[Alison Gill]

A couple of things that didn't quite make it into the headlines there. John Solomon, who is a right wing journalist, has.

[Andy McCabe]

Can we really call him a journalist anymore?

[Martin Sheen]

No.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Okay. He's like the WikiLeaks of D.C. he's released a surprising and shocking document, an electronic communication from the FBI from May of 2017 about a investigation called Oxford Comma. And we can't talk too much about this, Andy, because I know there's a current case brewing down in where Judge Eileen Cannon sits. That's right, in Florida that's investigating John Brennan and a host of other people, including yourself, for some kind of massive deep state conspiracy to hang Russia and other crimes on Donald Trump, which he did to himself. But regardless, I just wanted to kind of briefly touch on it because, you know, Fox News is like this super secret investigation. I'm like, no, we all knew about it because Jim Comey testified in March of 2017, before he was fired, that there was a counterintelligence probe with a criminal element open to look into Russian contacts with the Trump campaign. And then I guess a few days after Comey was fired, there was a, like, folks at the FBI were like, all right, well, what investigations are still going on under the Crossfire Hurricane investigation? And this electronic communication was created to talk about a counterintelligence probe to determine whether or not Donald Trump was a witting or unwitting Russian asset, and then also to look in potential, into potential criminal charges against James Comey and. Or, excuse me, against Donald Trump for firing James Comey. That's right. Obstructing the Russia investigation. And we knew all about this. I recorded a live, a video in my living room almost a decade ago about the, you know, 40 or so FBI agents co located with Mueller that were running a parallel counterintelligence investigation back when, you know, I was doing the Mueller She Wrote podcast. There was nothing secret about this. It was nothing odd or weird. And, you know, in fact, it's been written that, you know, Rod Rosenstein said, okay, and everybody went down and briefed the gang of eight about this, about this probe, and nobody had any objections or problems with it. They were just like, okay, thanks for letting us know. But, you know, Solomon's releasing this document as though it was some sort of super secret thing that was happening. Like everybody did, you know, that Trump was being investigated for his ties to Russia.

[Andy McCabe]

Like, yeah, I mean, the whole thing is just, it's just so crazy. I is, you know, as you've laid out, and I'll, I'll keep my comments to this pretty, pretty restricted. But yeah, with the fact that we were investigating what Russia did was well known, as you said, Jim Comey testified about it. The fact that we reconsidered that investigation after Comey got fired and that we decided to. Then there were several cases under diff. So you have Crossfire Hurricane, which is just the umbrella case, right? Like, it's the overarching effort every time you, this is just the way FBI opens cases and manages that sort of information. Anytime you opened a, anytime you had another person who you decided needed to be investigated in that Crossfire Hurricane effort, you have to open the case, an individual case on that person. So it's well known that the first Four were Carter Page and Paul Manafort and George Papadopoulos and Mike Flynn. There were individual cases open on each one of those people. It's also been well known that we opened an individual case on Donald Trump in the wake of Jim Comey's firing. So what you saw today or last week, that the case titled Oxford comma is just the individual case. That's the document that you have to create and state, like, what's the predic for the case? What's the purpose?

[Martin Sheen]

And that.

[Andy McCabe]

So that's the one that was written for the case on Donald Trump. I wrote about this in my book years ago. People have testified about it many, many times. So, yeah, normally you don't hear about these things, but of course, this case has been picked over. This investigation has been picked over 10,000 times, and apparently we're not at the end of that process. So, yeah, it's just kind of. You're seeing the behind the scenes, like, mechanics of the paper, but it doesn't really change, you know, what. What we know about what we did. So it's all publicly reported.

[Alison Gill]

And if, you know, John Solomon had just listened to the Mueller She Wrote podcast or read the Mueller report or.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I mean, like, I mean, it's all.

[Alison Gill]

Dude.

[Andy McCabe]

For somebody who's so obsessed with this stuff, I thought he'd be a little smarter about it, but I, you know, clearly that's not the case.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, yeah, whatever. He. He likes to release documents that he thinks help Donald Trump, but actually hurt Donald Trump. We recently saw him do that with the stuff where they found. Released election documents finding that no votes were changed in 2020. Donald Trump really lost. Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Smh. How does this.

[Charlotte Clymer]

What.

[Andy McCabe]

What president of any party, either party, whatever, any time in history would want this stuff released about him? I mean, it's. I. I don't know.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, he released a document showing that, you know, Rudy Giuliani colluded with Russians to make stuff up about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and Burisma. Like, oh, thanks. Thanks for. We thought so. Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

And like. And they literally hired John Solomon to join the White House team. He's not a journalist. He's not serving as a journalist. He is a. An employee of the White House. And this is, I guess, his job now to, like, cull through things that used to be classified, have Trump declassify them, and then put them out to the public to, I don't know, make Trump look worse.

[Alison Gill]

I think what they're trying to do is they're trying, you know, the old yarn that they spun forever that the entire investigation was based on the Steele dossier. And he's like, well, this Oxford comma came after the debunked Steele dossier, completely forgetting to and failing to mention that Crossfire Hurricane was open well before the Steele dossier and had to do with Alexander Downer and George Papadopoulos. And like it's, you know, and there were things in, as it shows in that electronic communication about Oxford comma, there were things in Crossfire Hurricane that instructed agents to open certain cases if certain criteria were met when they were investigating Crossfire Hurricane. And that's kind of how everything else came to be, including Oxford comma. I don't know the code names for the Manafort Flynn, Rick Gates, Papadopoulos.

[Andy McCabe]

Neither do I. Yeah, I didn't really care. Jeez, it's like, can you recite your car's vin? No. Who cares? Number that identifies your car. Like we, you know, whatever. I mean, we met about this case a thousand times and yeah, we didn't really, I wasn't really focused on the, what the individual case code names were. Sorry.

[Alison Gill]

Katie Fang is in the middle of an interesting court battle after Todd Blanche handed over about 10 or so documents unredacted for Judge Sullivan to review in camera behind closed doors. Yep. Sullivan came back and said something fishy going on here with your widened definition of what a victim is and that people can just self declare as victims. And Todd Blanche said you failed to follow my court order because you didn't hand in any documentary evidence proving the victimhood of some of these redacted names. And so now I'm going to call you in to a hearing Aug. 13 this week and you can explain it to me. And there's a couple other things that he's got to be prepared to explain too. And I'm going to discuss all of it with Katie Fang today, Sunday at noon on the Midas Touch Network, noon Pacific time, 3pm Eastern. So that's all going on in the background while early this morning Saturday, as we record this top Blanche was confirmed 50 to 49 with two Republicans voting no. And of course Mitch not voting, Mitch McConnell not voting. And it was Murkowski and Collins. So they were allowed to vote no because they had the buffer zone there. But he was confirmed despite everything. And Cassidy could have been the deciding vote. But Cassidy got up and gave a speech on the floor of the Senate saying like he was choking up, like he was holding back tears. And he's like, I'm going to be ridiculed for this vote, but, you know, almost blubbering about it. And it was just, I thought it felt like he was being held hostage or something. Like, I don't like, you know, his wife has a special needs school that gets 20% of its funding from the federal government. And I'm like, did he, did Trump go to him and say, that's a nice school your wife has. Would be a real shame if something happened to the federal funding behind it. Like, I don't know what they did to Cassidy, because he's got nothing to lose.

Right.

He's already lost his. He's not going to run again. He's not running again.

[Andy McCabe]

I mean, here's a guy who is almost, I don't want to say singularly responsible, but, but quite responsible for the confirmation of rfk.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Right. And which is something that, like he's made comments about regretting that, well, dude, here's your chance to step up and do the courageous thing that you failed to do on that confirmation. And yet he just folded again. I mean, this guy is. Yeah, I don't know, you know, this is your moment. You're leaving anyway. Why? There's no better time than now to do the right thing. And once again, Bill Cassidy let that moment just slip through his fingers. But, yeah, yeah, it's an interesting, interesting development. I mean, I. So to go back through, kind of, let's cover the background on this because a lot's happened over this case in the last, in the last few days. So obviously after, you know, reaching a slush fund and tax immunity deal with Senators Cornyn and Tillis, and after overcoming a possible no vote from Cassidy, Todd Blanch, as we now know, has been confirmed. New York Times reported that Senator Cassidy said on Friday that he would support Todd Blanche's nomination as Attorney General, effectively saving the confirmation of President Trump's pick. After two other Republican Senators said they would oppose him.

[Martin Sheen]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump backed challenger, said in a speech on the floor that he had deep concerns about lawfare, the phrase he has used to refer to the Justice Department's targeting of the President's political enemies. But Cassidy said that after much consideration, he had come to believe that Blanche, who served as the President's personal lawyer, would be better positioned to push back against Trump's norm busting demands.

[Andy McCabe]

What, what on earth would give that idea? I would love to see the evidence behind that.

[Alison Gill]

There is none. There's the only opposite evidence. Quote, Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this. Oh, My gosh. But their choice, the choice is not between perfection and Blanche. It's between Blanche and another acting attorney general who might not run the department effectively under Trump. Okay.

[Andy McCabe]

He announced his decision hours after Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska became the second Republican to oppose Mr. Blanche's confirmation, joining Senator Susan Collins of Maine. Now, that threw the nominee's fate into doubt, given that he could not afford additional Republican defectors and intensified attention on Mr. Cassidy. Ms. Murkowski said in a statement that she, too, harbored concerns over the politicization of the Justice Department. But the conclusion she reached was the opposite of Mr. Cassidy's. Thank you. She said that she feared that Mr. Blanche would, quote, fail to check the worst impulses of this administration. And she's got plenty of examples to point to to support that fear. Mrs. Murkowski cited the department's handling of the release of the Epstein files, which Mr. Blanche oversaw, and the settlement agreement that Mr. Blanche negotiated in Mr. Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, which included the creation of a $1.8 billion compensation fund that could have been used to pay people charged with the January 6 attack on the Capitol. And I will disagree with, I think this is the New York Times phrase, that Mr. Blanche negotiated that agreement. He didn't negotiate that agreement. He just dreamed it up. There was no one on the other side of the table. When you sit at the table by yourself and draft an agreement, that's not a negotiation. That's you doing what your boss wants.

[Alison Gill]

And that's what the judge in Miami found as well. Now, Collins, who, as we know is running against Troy Jackson in Maine, said on Tuesday she would vote against Blanche over similar concerns. There she is concerned again. Given the continued absence of Senator Mitch McConnell, Mr. Blanche could afford to lose no more than two votes, and that's exactly what he lost. So this is why Collins and Murkowski were allowed to vote no and Cassidy was not. Murkowski, Collins, and Cassidy are the only three remaining Republican senators who voted to convict Trump on impeachment charges after January 6 sixth.

[Andy McCabe]

Mr. Blanche's nomination has had a rough road. The Judiciary Committee delayed advancing it to the full Senate after two Republican senators, John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, raised questions about the $1.8 billion fund, which Mr. Bland had said would not move ahead, and the extraordinary immunity from tax audits given to Mr. Trump and his businesses in his resolution of the IRS lawsuit. After days of negotiation, Mr. Blanche on Sunday night provided written assurances that the fund was dead and that the immunity for the President would be narrowed and Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Tillis dropped their objections.

[Alison Gill]

Narrowed is him and his sons and his businesses not having to be audited for their taxes. I don't know how that's narrowed at all. I guess all the other hundreds of Trump businesses, maybe the ones that were shut down by Capitol One, I don't know, aren't part of that. But I mean, it's still Trump and his businesses. So I just don't understand what the narrowing is. And nobody's really been able to explain it.

[Andy McCabe]

Well, yeah, so far there isn't any. It's just him saying, we'll do something, which I take him at his word. Never. And also there's this problem that the, that the quote unquote agreement itself depends upon the consent or the agreement of, in this case, the plaintiff, Donald Trump. So he can't really walk out of that agreement that he signed and without Trump's approval. You think Trump's going to agree to that?

[Alison Gill]

No, no, absolutely not. And for the New York Times to say in his resolution of the IRS lawsuit, the judge has explained multiple times that whatever Todd Blanche and Donald Trump put together is not a resolution to a lawsuit because the lawsuit was a fraud on the court. Now, Cornyn and Tillis focused their demands on the terms of the settlement. Murkowski and Collins made a broader case that Blanche's participation in the plan's creation itself was disqualifying. Now, in her statement, Murkowski said she also worried that Blanche's commitments could be easily undone and the fund could too easily be restored after his confirmation.

[Andy McCabe]

Like Ms. Collins, Ms. Murkowski is a supporter of abortion rights. In announcing their opposition, both referenced Mr. Blanche's telling anti abortion groups that he would take a hard line in enforcing the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. In his speech on Friday, Mr. Cassidy also criticized Mr. Blanche's involvement in negotiating the fund and audit protections, calling it

[Alison Gill]

poor judgment, but I'll vote for him anyway.

[Martin Sheen]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Cassidy said he'd been influenced in part by Trump's threat to keep Blanche as the acting Attorney General indefinitely, effectively ignoring any resistance from Congress. Oh, I might as well vote yes, then. Yeah. The senator said he believed the Senate confirmation vote would give Mr. Blanche greater leverage to push for things that. Okay, blah, blah, blah. I don't even know what you're trying to say there, bro. He also cited Blanche's support of Bill Barr, who served as Attorney General during Trump's first term, but resigned rather than promote or investigate Trump's lies about the 2020 election. Yeah, that's not something Todd Blanche has said publicly.

[Andy McCabe]

No, not at all. Mr. Cassidy, who has become more openly critical of the president since his election defeat in May, said his views about Mr. Trump did not factor into his decision about Mr. Blanche.

[Alison Gill]

Quote.

[Andy McCabe]

I have a history with Mr. Trump, he said, but that history does not matter one bit.

[Alison Gill]

Yep. And like I said, on Friday, he appeared to grow emotional as he announced his decision. I'll be criticized for this vote. What's new? And then he sat silent. He paused to collect himself, and his voice was shaky as he said his constituents could be assured that I worked hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay, keep telling yourself that. In the meantime, what's new? Nothing. It's just the same as you knowing that RFK Jr. Should not have been confirmed as HHS Secretary. You knew you shouldn't and you voted anyway. And now it's a complete disaster. Well, here you go. This is round two. Basically the same thing.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And whatever he does after this, that's what Cassidy is going to be remembered for. Yes, I guess.

[Andy McCabe]

Holding twice.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. All right. This is not the best news day in the world because next we're going to talk about Judge Meta dismissing the seditious conspiracy charges and everything that he had to say in his filing. I promised folks who listen to the daily beans I'd go We go over this in more detail today here on Unjustified. And that's what we'll do after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. I miss summer as kids when you had your biggest responsibility was just figuring out what to do until dinner. Adult freedom looks a little different, and paying less for wireless absolutely counts. Mint Mobile has all of their plans now for just 15 bucks a month, even unlimited with high speed data on the T Mobile 5G network. One of our producers made the switch from his old carrier and he was able to keep his phone and his phone number and all his contacts. And now he has the same great service at almost half the cost. So please support our show and check out Mint Mobile. Make the [e-mail] unjust wireless should not be expensive, confusing or harder than it needs to be. Mint Mobile fixed that with Premium Wireless for $15 a month. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text on the nation's largest 5G network. You can keep the phone you already use, keep your current phone number and switch without having to start over from scratch. Mint also lets you choose from 3, 6 or 12 month plans so you can leave the usual monthly billing cycle behind. The sign up process is easy too. Everything starts online and you can get three months of premium wireless for just 15 bucks a month. That gives you a comprehensive service map, straightforward pricing and one less overpriced bill showing up every month.

So to get your new wireless plan

for just 15 bucks a month, go to mintmobile.com unjust that's mintmobile.com unjust. You can cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com unjust. That's it. There's no catch. Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 months. Plan required, $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when the network is busy. Includes up to 20 gigabyte hotspot capable device required. Availability, speed and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com for details.

[Martin Sheen]

Hello, Martin Sheen here and I have a question for you. What do you do on Sunday to relax and unwind? Sleep in, read the paper, eat stuff? You shouldn't binge watch the shows on your My Stuff list. Okay, all good and fine, but I think this routine could be a bit better. Let me offer something to make your me time really special. My podcast. And I think once you hear it, you'll realize it is the perfect addition to your Sunday or whenever you're looking for a chance to unwind. Tune in as I share the stories of my life along with some poetry and an occasional personal reflection in a way that will have you saying, that was time well spent and I didn't even have to get out of my pajamas. Season four of the Martin Sheen Podcast with yours truly, Martin Sheen of course is underway with 10 brand new episodes. I know our lives can be very busy and demanding these days whose are not. So join me on a storytelling journey that you can enjoy from the comfort of your favorite easy chair and a chance to relax and be in the moment. So check out the Martin Sheen Podcast Season four, underway right now and make it part of your self care routine. And as always, thank you for listening.

[Alison Gill]

All right everybody, welcome back. Next up, this is from the Times. This is the introduction from the New York Times. A federal judge expressed deep regret Tuesday as he granted a request by the Justice Department to throw out criminal charges against eight members of the far right Oath Keepers Militia who were charged with seditious conspiracy and among other things, for their central role that they played in storming the Capitol on January 6th. The move by the judge, Amit Mehta, came less than a month after one of his colleagues, Judge Kelly in Washington, made a similarly pained decision to dismiss January 6th related charges against five members of the Proud Boys, who also played a key part in the attack. The twin rulings, which both judges made, claiming that their hands were tied by law, amounted to a final erasure of the vast investigation into January 6th, the largest criminal inquiry undertaken in the Justice Department's 156 year history. And so we've got some excerpts from Judge Mehta's ruling.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah. So Judge Mehta ruled. After securing vacator of the convictions of eight defendants in this case, all members of a group known as the Oath Keepers, the United States now moves pursuant to federal rule of Criminal Procedure 48A, to dismiss the indictment. Reluctantly, the court grants this motion. Back before this court, the government moved on May 22, 2026 to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Rule 48A. The government's two page filing said little more than that the government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interest of justice.

[Alison Gill]

I remember that it was because we said so Clause. Judge Amit Mehta goes on to say this court was not satisfied with that bare bone justification. And in an order issued May 29, the court deferred ruling on the government's request until it received additional information. The government then supplemented its motion on June 18. That filing detailed the long procedural history of the case, expressed the government's view of the proper standard of review, and offered various grounds for the government's decision to seek dismissal. And this is funny, shoots down all of their grounds. But he still has to grant the motion, right?

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, so he says. The government now, having filed such a statement, the court's task is to evaluate whether the proffered reasons for dismissal are, quote, substantial. Amidown does not define what it meant by substantial, but that standard cannot be reasonably understood to impose an onerous burden on the prosecution given its broad discretion in charging decisions. Now, Amidown, of course, is a case that established the standard for judicial review of a dismissal like this. Okay, so he goes on to say, before turning to the government's proffered justifications for dismissal, it is important to note the reasons it has not offered. The government does not say that the charges were legally deficient or that the evidence presented is insufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions. It confesses to no prosecutorial misconduct, nor does it assert any denial or compromise of a defendant's rights. And it does not identify any legal error that resulted in an unfair trial or a wrongful conviction. Remarkably, then, the government does not maintain that dismissal is in the public interest to rectify a fundamental error or grave injustice.

[Alison Gill]

He goes on to say its lead argument is rather that dismissal is appropriate to protect the defendants from harassment. That is a strange argument. This is not a case of charging, dismissing and recharging to which the prosecutorial harassment rationale ordinarily applies.

[Andy McCabe]

Kind of like a Jim Comey situation. But I digress.

[Alison Gill]

After all, the government has given no indication that it will recharge these defendants in the District or elsewhere. To the contrary, it bestows upon them unearned grace by wiping their records clean. The harassment rationale has no place here.

[Andy McCabe]

Next, the government argues that dismissal effectuates the President's January 20, 2025 proclamation. Recall that the President's proclamation issued a full pardon to those convicted of January 6th offenses except to 14 specifically named individuals, including these eight defendants whose sentences were only commuted to time served. Defendants convictions thus remained intact. The proclamation also directed the Department of Justice to dismiss all pending indictments in January 6 cases. The government's argument relating to the proclamation is a head scratcher. The President's decree expressly carves these defendants out from the greater clemencies of pardons and dismissals that it affords others. The President could have pardoned them too, but elected not to. Or he could have directed the dismissal of their cases on appeal. But he did not do that either. The government nowhere explains what has changed. Nor has it said that the President has authorized the Department of Justice to grant defendants more favorable treatment than what the Proclamation provides. To the extent the government explains that once these defendants convictions were vacated by the circuit, the proclamation requires the Department of Justice to move to dismiss these cases with prejudice. Well, that reasoning is circular. True, the proclamation requires dismissal, but that circumstance arose only because the government moved to vacate the defendant's convictions. That begs the question why the government did so in the first place. The explanation to the D.C. circuit was formulaic and none is supplied to this court. The government's reliance on the proclamation to justify the dismissal of this case therefore provides no answer at all. This is like, it's a little bit confusing as you read through it, but basically he's saying, you can't say that you have to do this based on the proclamation because the proclamation could have done it but chose not to, right? And so then instead they turn around and say, well, we have to vacate the convictions because, you know, they were released and the Proclamation requires this dismissal. But that's not true. You can't say that what you did now requires dismissal, and that's based on the proclamation. Like, you're here because you took this step. It wasn't required in the proclamation, and

[Alison Gill]

you carved them out of the proclamation in the first place. So why'd you do that? That begs the question. Now, as its final reason, the government posits that the public's interest in a trial of these defendants is already fully vested. That position is surprising. The government is ordinarily of the view that accountability, not mere publicity, is what is in the public interest. That justice is achieved when a group of 12 people with no interest in the case's outcome and no perceived notion of the facts decides whether a defendant is guilty of the charged conduct based on the law and the evidence. The government is right. That dismissal will not erase the public record. It will, however, erase the legal judgment that these defendants broke criminal law, and not just any criminal law laws aimed at punishing those who conspire to commit extralegal violence to prevent the execution of the laws or carrying out of official duties. The government thus asks to absolve these defendants of crimes against the United States itself. In this court's view, that is not in the public interest. Because what Trump is basically arguing here is, hey, we got a trial. So the public interest is served.

[Martin Sheen]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

So, as if to say, well, we'll just try criminals, and then they can. Then they're done.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Okay.

[Charlotte Clymer]

It's.

[Andy McCabe]

It's preposterous. He goes, then he gets to his unfortunate and clearly regretful conclusion. He says, ultimately, though, this judicial officer's mere difference of opinion is of no moment. Courts lack the authority, quote, to deny a prosecutor's Rule 48, a motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution's exercise of its charging authority. This court does strongly disagree, but that alone is not a valid basis to deny the motion. The court must give way to the primacy of the executive branch in making charging decisions. And importantly, the court has no evidence before it to question whether prosecutors here have properly discharged their official duties. If it is their view that the public interest is served by surrendering convictions for crimes against the country to the gloss of an enduring public record, then that is an assessment to which this court must yield.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, I don't know. Disagree.

[Andy McCabe]

I. I mean, I. I think he's right. He's right. On the law. He's right. They. They have court. I mean, look at. You know, I would have at least

[Alison Gill]

asked for an Amicus, you'd be in

[Andy McCabe]

the same place as. I can't even remember his name. Who was the judge over the Mike Flynn dismissal.

[Alison Gill]

Right.

[Andy McCabe]

It's the same thing they did at the end of the day. Well, there at the end of the day, Trump pardoned him, so it kind of cut his legs out from the whole thing. Yeah, but Judge Walton was kind of getting to that same place.

[Alison Gill]

He asked for an amateur and John Gleason wrote him one.

[Andy McCabe]

He did.

[Alison Gill]

And before he could render a decision, Trump was forced to pardon. And that's what I was hoping would happen here. This is the last of the prosecution seeking to hold accountable those responsible for the events of January 6th. That book is now closed. Today's epilogue diminishes the gravity of that day. Denigrates the work of the prosecutors and law enforcement officers who secured these convictions and excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries long pillar of our democracy, the peaceful transfer of presidential power to buckle. The court cannot write a different ending for the foregoing reasons. The government's motion to dismiss and the supplemental motion to dismiss are granted. It is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, it's wildly unsatisfying, but I don't hold him responsible because as I said, I think he's right on the law here. Once again, the problem here is in the Department of Justice, there was absolutely no reason to do this whatsoever. Donald Trump didn't even do it. He could have just pardoned them along with the other 1600 people he pardoned in that proclamation, but he decided not to. He decided to let the convictions of these, the most violent, the most serious and the longest sentence serving defendants stand. And in. And with that record, this DOJ was under. Todd Blanche decided to do this for some reason that only he could explain to you. Totally, unnecessarily, completely unnecessary and improper. And which gets me back to the last, our last topic, like put the IRS agreement and the settlement of the case, this quote unquote settlement of the IRS case, the IRS immunity, the $1.8 billion fund. Put all that stuff aside. Todd Blanche shouldn't have been confirmed because he's been a terrible acting Attorney general. Yeah, this department is off the rails. It's plagued by incompetence, by politicization, by vindictive prosecutions. There's been one terrible decision after another under his watch. Look at the Epstein files alone. Should have been enough to disqualify him from ever serving as a confirmed Attorney General. But you know, that doesn't matter to our friends in the Senate.

[Alison Gill]

I guess yeah, no, I really would have just liked to have read a John Gleason amicus on this, though. I really, really would.

[Andy McCabe]

I'm sure.

[Alison Gill]

Sure. I don't know that he would have come to the same conclusions. I don't think he did in the. In the Flynn case. I think he said that it would be inappropriate. So. But prosecutorial discretion is broad. That's why we were screaming from the rooftops not to elect Donald Trump again, because prosecutors can pretty much get away with murder. Now, obviously, the presumption of regularity has crumbled, which we talk about quite a bit on this show, but this is where we have ended up again. I understand his reasoning here. I would have asked for an amicus brief because there's no adversarial point of view on this, and I would have had Gleason write something up that might have made me feel a little better in my soul, but the end result would still be the same.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I think that's right.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. All right, we got some reflecting pool updates. You'll. You'll recall last week we were discussing the Davey Hearn case as the news broke that Jeanine Piro had filed a motion to dismiss. We have updates, but we're going to do that after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back.

Diamond Dames, mount up.

[Charlotte Clymer]

I'm Charlotte Clymer.

[Alison Gill]

And I'm Alison Gill. Hey, Charlotte, what if you and I joined forces to create a weekly podcast

amid all the chaos of the news

to chat about the most recent episode of season four of Ted Lasso?

[Charlotte Clymer]

Well, Allison, we'd be taking delight amid the spite to sit and write and bring some light on Wednesday nights. I mean, look, everything right now is ridiculous. I know we're all stressed out with the state of the country, and we all deserve some joy. Ted Lasso was there for us in the middle of the pandemic, and he's back to offer us a respite from Trump 2.0 right before the midterms.

[Alison Gill]

That's right. We believe in Rom communism.

I mean, if Tom Hanks and Meg

Ryan can go through some heartfelt struggles and still end up happy, then so can we. So subscribe to. To Diamond Dames for free right now to get notifications, and then you can join us every week after each episode of ted Lasso Season 4, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Charlotte Clymer]

And remember, be a goldfish. Diamond Dames dismount

[Alison Gill]

barbecue sauce.

[Andy McCabe]

Welcome back. Okay, next up is some more information on the reflecting pool case.

[Martin Sheen]

Okay, You'll.

[Andy McCabe]

You'll recall last week we were discussing the charges when the news came out, as you just mentioned before we went to break, that Jeanine Pirro had filed a motion to dismiss the vandalism charges her office brought against Olympic canoeist Davey Hearn. And I love that we can call him Davey. It's a great name. Now, we have some updates for you. This one is from cbs. They say amid the Trump administration infighting over a decision to move to dismiss a felony criminal charge against a former Olympian who was accused of damage damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, prosecutors in Washington moved to drop charges against three other defendants who were similarly accused of damaging the pool. Court filings reviewed by CBS News in D.C. superior Court show In recent days,

[Alison Gill]

federal Prosecutors in the U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro's office moved to dismiss three misdemeanor cases following a Friday court filing that moved to dismiss vandalism charges against Davy Heard. In addition to Hearn, prosecutors dropped misdemeanor charges against three others accused of similar damage, Justin Carraino, Sophie Dennison Gibby, and Cameron Thayers. According to the court filings, the three were accused of destroying property of value less than $1,000. So they couldn't even, because Hearn was with more, you know, more than a thousand. And these were, these folks were less than a thousand. They couldn't even get to any dollar damages.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, okay. So. Despite accusations from Piro that Hearn had damaged the pool, prosecutors on Friday said they dropped the case after new information came to light that the damage was caused by a, quote, botched installation by a contractor in the rush to finish the project ahead of the America 250 events in Washington. Piro's office said the Department of the Interior had recently obtained internal documents to that show the pool had frequent setbacks due to poor weather and damage occurring to the pool while sealant was being applied. Attorneys for Hearn said in a statement on Friday that the case should never have been brought and that the government owes Mr. Hearn an apology.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, Piro's decision to drop the charges caught the ire of Trump, who said she choked and made a mistake when he insisted that vandals damaged the pool. And he's still going on about it on true social like, oh, yeah, he won't shut up about it. I was disappointed with Janine. That's what Trump told reporters in the Oval Office last Monday, adding, I don't know what the hell happened.

[Andy McCabe]

You should just, you should, he should put that comment on a loop and just play it all the time. People like, what's happening with the war in Iran. I don't know what the hell happened. Just that could be his go to answer for everything.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Doug Burgum, secretary of the Interior, echoed the White House echoed Trump, saying in a post on Twitter on Saturday that the evidence is clear. Vandals have repeatedly caused damage to the Reflecting Pool. Doug Burgum, what happened to you, Doug?

[Andy McCabe]

It's not clear on that. In fact, it's clearly the other way. All right. Piro is later spotted visiting the White house hours after Mr. Trump's comments. Alan Dale, an attorney representing Theor's, said in a phone interview on Monday that his client was happy now that this case has been dismissed, but that the last six weeks since he was charged have been a nightmare. He's glad it's over and wants to put it behind him, dale told CBS News. Dale said he found out the Justice Department chose not to prosecute theirs by email overnight on Sunday.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And in a statement to CBS News, Jamison Kohler, who's an attorney representing Dennis and Gibbe, said his client was arrested for a crime any rational person knows she did not commit. Now, David Benowitz, a partner at Price Benowitz LLP who represents Carino, said his client was a government contractor who was fired days after he was arrested, resulting in Carrera moving Carena, excuse me, moving from his home due to being unable to afford rent during the tragedy that his client faced. Quote, we were all at the pool. There's no slashes. That's what Benowitz said in a phone interview with CBS as part of a visit to the pool to investigate the damage. Benowitz said he and other lawyers saw the flawed seams in the pool where the liner bubbled up.

[Andy McCabe]

Instead, the government literally fabricated a crime, Benowitz said, adding that his client is considering all legal options against the government after the dismissal. This was the epitome of the politicization of the criminal justice system, benowitz said. It's just the sort of gut wrenching reality of it. The guy just goes down to the reflecting pool and walks out with a misdemeanor and is fired from his job. ABC reports that President Donald Trump did not rule out potentially firing U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro after she filed the motion to dismiss the case against those charged with vandalizing the Reflecting Pool, saying, quote, I haven't made a determination Tuesday when he was asked if her job is safe.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, well, either Burgum lied to him or Pirro, you know, who knows what he's going to do.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

About this. But I mean, it. Like that lawyer said, this is a perfect example of the politicization of the Justice Department and why Todd Blanche should not be Attorney General.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I think it's such a. I mean, this whole thing came up as like such a goofy story, but it really captured the public's attention. And I do think it's significant on a deeper level. And because it's particularly with the revelations that the New York Times has published in the last couple of days about kind of the whole, the way the whole thing started when they decided, for whatever reason, Trump decided he wanted to fix the reflecting. Reflecting pool. Then he dispatched the manager of his golf course to a cement conference in Las Vegas, I think, or the west coast, something like that. And this, that's how this golf course manager met the people from the company that did the liner. I think it's Atlantic, Atlantic resurfaces or something like that. Yeah. So that's. They figured out they wanted to do this job and that's, that was the way they did it. Completely ignoring the government procurement process, which is a pain in the ass. Nobody likes. Takes a long time. There's a lot of, like, bureaucracy around it, but it has a purpose. Right. You would, you would put out a request for proposals. Hey, we have this big reflecting pool. We want to fix it. These are the problems. People would submit bids laying out exactly what they would do, how they would do it, why it would work and how much it would cost. Then you'd have experts within the government evaluate the bids and pick the best one. Like, there's a reason why we have that process. It's to avoid corrupt, incompetent blunders like this one. And when the whole thing failed, what, what did Trump do? He literally manufactured a criminal case against a private citizen in order to shift the blame away from himself, away from his own corruption and inadequacies and blame it on someone else. I mean, it's horrific what they did with this thing from the very beginning. To Davey Hearn.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And it's symbolic of corruption, cover up politicization that, that occurs on a large scale every day in this country.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

So we'll keep an eye on that because I think that the lawyers for Davey Hearn might be trying to seek their fees being paid. There's not much you can do. Again, because of broad prosecutorial discretion. There's not much you can do. There's not much retribution. You can't sue for damages. You can't do any of that. The best you can do is maybe to try to get your court costs covered, and they may try to ask the judge to look in behind the scenes to see if there was any contempt here on behalf of the Department of Justice. Maybe look at the grand jury transcripts, find out what they said to the grand jury. Because even the expert was like, was no damage done worth any dollars? It was already damaged. They're one expert witness. Right, right. And so maybe look there behind the scenes to see if there's any referrals that can be made to bar associations or whatever for the lawyers that participated in this. But beyond that, there's really not that much you can do when the government upends your life like this in a criminal investigation. And I happen to be friends with a couple people that's happened to.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes, I've heard that about you.

[Martin Sheen]

Yeah,

[Andy McCabe]

you're absolutely right. It's one of the reasons why, historically, federal prosecutors are really careful before they indict someone and they actually take a hard look at the case. They challenge all the evidence. They interrogate the investigators and really push them to get as much solid evidence as they can. They talk to every cooperator. They try to figure out if anyone's got a motive or to lie or has been that they're operating on. On bad evidence or insufficient evidence. Because the idea of dismissing and getting an indictment and then having to dismiss it has always been a disgrace for federal prosecution. They try to avoid that like the plague. And they avoid it by being careful and only bringing cases that are really.

[Alison Gill]

I'll bring all the crimes. I don't care. That's, you know, I don't care about not guilty. I don't care about no true, Bill.

[Andy McCabe]

You just wait. We've got lots of evidence that shows he's guilty. Come to the trial, you're safe for yourself. A week later, I was wrong. Dismissed.

[Alison Gill]

Well, you know, Jeanine Pirro knows. I mean, she might not know a lot, but she knows enough to know that when you have discovery, you have to hand over exculpatory evidence.

[Martin Sheen]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Which means evidence that would clear the person that you're trying to charge with a crime you have to hand over. You know, it's called Brady material. There's also Jenks material. If any of the witnesses can be impeached, like this expert that she brought in or whatever, she has to hand that over. And discovering if she doesn't, she could be referred to the bar for, you know, doing things wrong, not being a proper officer of the court. And so she saw the Evidence which, by the way, was presented. She knows. She says, oh, we've learned from the Department of Interior, like, no, you didn't. There was never in whatever she. She realized discovery wouldn't go well for her and this would never make it to trial. So.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah. All things that they could have figured out before indicting him.

[Alison Gill]

Yep.

[Andy McCabe]

Where's he gonna go? Be like an international.

[Martin Sheen]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

He's gonna flee the country on. I mean, no. Like, they could have interviewed him, cut him loose, done an investigation, gotten all the documents about what happened at the Reflecting Pool, and then figured out that there's no case here and walked away. But instead they ruined this guy's life.

[Alison Gill]

And that's why stuff like the January 6th investigation into Donald Trump, the Mar A Lago documents, investigation into Donald Trump, that' why those things take so long is because you can't indict first and then go and gather your evidence. Especially when you run into things like in the January 6th case where 14, we thought it was 8, but it's grown to 14 witnesses, key witnesses who you cannot go to trial without refused to testify truthfully, claiming executive privilege and had to be sued by the Justice Department to compel their testimony. That took like a year. Yep. To do that because the courts were so backed up and that was a court timeline that wasn't people dragging their feet at the DOJ. The courts were backed up because of the January 6th prosecutions. And, you know, I mean, Covid. Any number of factors, the fact that the bench is already half the size it should be for the regular amount of cases, let alone with the COVID shutdown and the largest investigation in the department's 156 year history. And there's a speedy trial thing. If we had arrested Donald Trump on January 7, he would have said 70 day trial and then he would have had his people say executive privilege. And we wouldn't have gotten any witnesses, we wouldn't have been able to get any paperwork, we wouldn't have been able to get the Twitter stuff because Elon Musk was withholding that and fighting it in court. We couldn't have get. We couldn't have gotten Scott Perry's phone, Eastman's emails from Chapman University. That took a year to get. You know, none of that would have. Would have happened. They would have lost a trial. And, and that's what, you know, is this kind of case is indicative of that process taking so long.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. So that's why you're careful.

[Alison Gill]

That's why you're Careful.

[Andy McCabe]

That's why you don't get out ahead of your skis and say you're coming to crime. I'll show you what we got. No, you got nothing. Yeah, she walked in. If she gets fired, I mean, like, honestly, she made this bed, she's got only herself to blame, but they'll replace

[Alison Gill]

her with somebody just as awful. And I just want to kind of go on the record saying everyone, whether it's Todd Bland, any appointed person is going to be horribly awful. So when people get fired, I still take joy in that. Even though the replacement is going to be awful. It's just nice to see somebody get fired. And it brings me a tiniest, tiniest bit of joy.

[Andy McCabe]

Yep.

[Alison Gill]

All right, we have one more story about Jack Smith before we get to a listener question, but we have to take one more quick break, so stick around. We'll be right back.

Foreign.

[Martin Sheen]

Sheen here. And I have a question for you. What do you do on Sunday to relax and unwind? Sleep in, read the paper, eat stuff? You shouldn't binge watch the shows on your My stuff list. Okay, all good and fine, but I think this routine could be a bit better. Let me offer something to make your me time really special. My podcast. And I think once you hear it, you'll realize it is the perfect addition to your Sunday. Or whenever you're looking for a chance to unwind. Tune in as I share the stories of my life along with some poetry and an occasional personal reflection in a way that will have you saying, that was time well spent and I didn't even have to get out of my pajamas. Season four of the Martin Sheen Podcast with yours truly, Martin Sheen, of course, is underway with 10 brand new episodes. I know our lives can be very busy and demanding these days. Whose are not. So join me on a storytelling journey that you can enjoy from the comfort of your favorite easy chair and a chance to relax and be in the moment. So check out the Martin Sheen Podcast, season four, underway right now, and make it part of your self care routine. And as always, thank you for listening.

[Alison Gill]

All right, everybody, welcome back. One more quick story before we take a listener question or two. This one comes from Ms. Now, Jack Smith has accepted an invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is what Bennon writes for a Matto blog. He says that if GOP senators hope to get the better of the former special counsel, they should start tempering their expectations. There's no great secret as to what Republican senators want to talk about. Grassley and other Republicans on the committee have spent months insisting that Smith improperly obtained information about their communications as part of an known as the Arctic Frost probe. Those claims were discredited months ago, but Republicans seem determined to go after Jack Smith anyway, in part because their intent to write or to rewrite the recent past, and in part because the party doesn't appear to have anything else it wants to talk about ahead of the midterm elections. And I don't know if you're going to go into a battle of wits against Jack Smith, unarmed as Senate Republicans are. It's a bad move. And, you know, honestly, I think it's just to get more time in Congress so they can see if they can get them in a perjury thing or, you know, some, yeah, kind of ridiculous bs.

[Andy McCabe]

As the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee prepare for the hearing, however, part of their process should be to lower their expectations. After all, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee also seem to think that they could get the better of Smith during two separate hearings, and the prosecutor ended up embarrassing them, leaving GOP members with little more than questions about why they thought this would be a good idea. Now, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan recently referred the former special counsel to the Justice Department for a possible prosecution, but that request was laughable on its face. As for Smith, it seems the former special counsel is making up for lost time, speaking out in bold ways after his prolonged silence.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. In May, for example, he publicly accused the Justice Department of having been corrupted by Trump loyalists who he claimed were demolishing its credibility and seeking to undermine the rule of law. And it's not just him claiming it. It's in hundreds and thousands, like maybe even thousands of judges, orders about this. That followed remarks that Smith delivered at George Mason University, where he sounded an alarm about intensifying threats to the US Legal system. My career has been about the rule of law, and I believe that today it is under attack like no other period in our lifetimes. That's what Smith said. And around the same time, he appeared in a video to lend his public support to DOJ employees who had been fired or forced out by the Trump administration.

[Andy McCabe]

Soon after, during an interview with former prosecutor Andrew Weissman at the University College London, Smith condemned Republican criticisms of his work as ludicrous, adding, I think the attacks on public servants, particularly nonpartisan public servants, I think it has a cost for our country that is incalculable, and I think that we it's hard to communicate to folks how much that is going to cost us. More recently, the former special Counsel also sat down with Ms. Now's Nicole Wallace for a lengthy interview. Smith wasn't able to make his case in court, but with increasing frequency, he's bringing up his arguments to the public in a forceful and unrestrained ways.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, he is speaking out quite a bit. And he actually, I believe, told Nicole Wallace he, you know, he, he won't criticize his past boss there, Merrick Garland, but he has, he has said he wishes communication. He said communication could have been better. And I think he, that's why he's kind of taking this show on the road, you know, because he's trying to throw up protections for the rule of law and trying to dispel the idea that there were corrupt people working at the Department of Justice doing, you know, weaponizing and politicizing it when in fact the opposite was true.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I agree. And I, you know, it's good to have him out there and I, I would encourage him to speak as often and anywhere that he can because there are not a lot of former DOJ people, certainly not with his visibility, at his kind of level of renown, speaking up in this way. And, you know, everybody's got their own reasons for whatever what the decisions they make. But, like, it's getting frustrating. I mean, I know from my own perspective, as a very rare example of a former FBI senior leader who speaks out about this stuff, there's a lot of people who could that choose not to. And, you know, ultimately that's doesn't help.

[Alison Gill]

I would love to hear if Chris Ray stand up, but after he folded after the election, you know that that's not going to happen.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I wouldn't, I wouldn't hold your breath for that.

[Alison Gill]

No, no, precisely. All right, time for listener questions. If you have a question, we have a link in the show notes you can click on to submit your questions to us. What do we have today, Andy? We got a few minutes.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. So we have really one question and then one. It's mostly a comment, but I thought it was like totally called for today. So the first, first the question, this one's coming to us from just looking for some truth and just looking for some truth says, did the weaponization fund and the audit immunity really get killed? Aaron Parnas is saying it did not. It would be great if you could cover this in detail this week. I listen every Sunday morning and look forward to hearing your perspective on this.

[Alison Gill]

Thank you.

[Andy McCabe]

Well, what do you think? Because I read this question, I'm like, I think we should both not make a prediction because that's always dangerous. But just what do you think? We're gonna see these things again in one form or another?

[Alison Gill]

Yes, I think we will see these things again. And here's why. First of all, the tax immunity never was taken away.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

And I don't even understand how it was narrowed because it seems to be the same to me. And that wasn't even signed. The only thing that was signed was that the slush fund wouldn't go forward. The problem with that is that in the original quote, unquote settlement, which is just basically something dreamed up by Trump and Blanche and put on paper, the original settlement says if you're going to modify this, it has to be signed by all parties. And it wasn't. It was just signed by Todd Blanche. And that underlying settlement to ordering the establishment of the fund, it has not been rescinded, just the fund has been. So Donald Trump can sue the doj, who's his friend, for not following through on the quote, unquote settlement that they reached in order to get the fund stood back up. Donald Trump has said multiple times he wants this fund to go forward. And so, you know, I don't think it's. I don't think it's over. I don't think it was properly quashed. There are still multiple lawsuits, including mine. I know the Floyd, the former prosecutor, one in Virginia has filed a supplemental amended complaint, so to add the tax immunity thing, because they've put the tax employee union folks on that lawsuit as well. So those are, I think, will continue to go forward. And I know that Senator Whitehouse has said about his rescission, Todd Blanche's rescission of the slush fund, that it's a legal farce. It doesn't address the underlying quote, unquote settlement. It's not signed by all parties, and it's therefore, it's not even a valid thing. So that's my prediction, is this will come back as something. And even if our lawsuits are dismissed, they'll probably be dismissed without prejudice in case it does come up again.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I think 100% the fund is going to come back in a different form with a different name, possibly less clearly administered by the Department of Justice, like the DOJ would be in some sort of advisory role simply to confirm whether or not someone who had submitted a claim against the fund actually was a victim of weaponization, whatever that is, but it'll be overseen by some other entity, some other board funded in a different way. It's going to happen. He's still 100% committed to this idea. Again, why? I don't know. I don't know who likes this other than him. I don't know whether this is going to get him more, you know, get. Earn more Republican votes in the, in the midterms. I mean, like, I really have a hard time seeing that, but whatever. And the immunity. Well, the IRS immunity. Yeah. There's not. There's been no change as to the. What it was, was a pledge by the Department of Justice saying we shall not ever investigate you or your family or your businesses for this stuff. And I know there was.

[Alison Gill]

That's illegal, by the way.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. The whole thing is ridiculous, but it's gonna ha. It'll hang out there in its current amorphous quality. First of all. Well, he's not in any threat whatsoever of being investigated while he's president, not when he controls all the levers of government. This is an attempt to bind a future irs, a future doj, to not start looking into this stuff. It is entirely possible that those future entities will look into it anyway. Say we don't subscribe to this agreement. We think it's illegal. We're going to do what we're going to do.

[Alison Gill]

The problem is, in the future, DOJ can throw that fund out. Can. And throw the tax immunity out. Can overturn it.

[Andy McCabe]

They can. But if he's in, if he's investigated and then, let's say, charged with some sort of tax offense, this thing is going to come out of his defense attorney's pocket and say the whole thing was illegal from the start. And so it'll still exist. As you know, it'll be a fight. There'll be a fight over it in court forever and ever.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And he thinks he can roll the dice with this Supreme Court, which is.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. That's right. So, no, I don't think they go away either. It's a problem that was invented by Todd Blanche, the now Attorney General of the United States of America. And the country will have to deal with it for as long as Donald Trump and his family and his businesses are around.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Oddly enough, covers that whole time when Capital1 closed 300 of his accounts for money laundering.

[Andy McCabe]

Money laundering.

[Alison Gill]

Which we only found out because Trump sued over it. Capital One's like, you don't want us to tell you what? Because you know Capital One can shut a bank account down. They don't have to. Why?

[Andy McCabe]

That's right.

[Alison Gill]

Like you trust me, you don't want us to tell you why. You really don't want us to tell you why? He's like, no, I want discovery. I demand discovery. Maybe he thought there'd be emails that said, I hate that January 6th villain. Let's. Let's close down his accounts. Right? But what he got instead was like, several in depth money laundering investigations and a determination that there were red flags for money laundering on his accounts. Trump wine, Trump water, one of his golf courses, a construction payroll company. Like, come on, Walter White. I know what those are.

[Andy McCabe]

All right, so now, in an effort to end on a high note, we go to Mel from Sherman Oaks, and Mel writes, am I a bad person? With all the mess about Jeanine Pirro if she gets fired, which may have happened before you record this week. Hasn't happened yet, but we'll check again. My biggest problem is how much I will miss your vocal impressions of her. Both of you. It does. That doesn't seem to be the most important issue with her tenure, but. Well, there I am. Can we have an MSW media box wine. Hold on a second. Can we have an MSW media box wine tasting tour? That might help. Am I a terrible person for suggesting that too? Mel, you are not a terrible person.

[Alison Gill]

No, you're actually really funny.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes.

[Alison Gill]

A box wine tasting.

[Andy McCabe]

Box wine tasting tour. I mean, I really like the sound of that. That if not so much the taste of the box wine, but I, I'd get on board for sure. Yeah, I like the.

[Alison Gill]

All the jokes that were going around when CNN caught some photos of Jeanine Pirro going in and out of the White House with a big box of evidence. Everyone's like, that's a big box of wine she's got.

[Andy McCabe]

I'm bringing all the wine to the White House. We're having a meeting. I'm bringing a box of wine on wheels. So big. Oh, my God. Yeah. Well, Mel, don't worry. Jeanine Pyrrho is not going anywhere. And every time her head rears itself on our show, you're gonna hear a little bit of Jeanine Pyro watch just for the hell.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, I concur. And she'll, she, you know, she won't be. Disappear into obscurity. She'll work for that American shield thing or whatever with, you know, she'll be around doing something. She's gotta work for Trump for free in order to get her pardon. So I don't think she's gonna leave the administration if she gets fired. She'll just be put in the, in the, the Siberia that's known as the field project or wherever Where's. Is that where Lindsay Halligan is and Alicia.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

That's like, in Godfather terms, that's like getting sent out to Vegas, you know, like, this is.

[Martin Sheen]

You didn't.

[Andy McCabe]

She didn't get the full, you know, Joe Pesci treatment. Like the Pam Bondi treatment. Like Pam Bondi got the Joe Pesci treatment.

[Charlotte Clymer]

Right.

[Andy McCabe]

That's. She's just gone. No job for you. But, you know, you. You go out and work with Fredo in Vegas for a while, you just kind of like, step aside. Yeah. I think that's what Jeanine Pira will get. That's just my guess.

[Alison Gill]

Ah, well, wonderful. So, nope, you're not a bad person. That's the consensus here. And I think all the listeners would agree. If anyone has a question or a comment, you know, please feel free to send it to us. There's a link in the show notes to do just that. And I know we didn't hit me in the head with a bat today, but, you know, I think that kind of underlies everything that.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

That we talk about. So this was just an entire episode of Hit Me in the head with a Bat. But don't worry,

[Andy McCabe]

they'll be coming back.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, you're stuck with it. Anyway, that's. That's the show. And everybody, if you get a chance to check out Katie Fang and I today at noon, I'll have a link this morning@military road.com and over on my Blue sky account as well to that interview because I think it's really worth talking about what's going on in parallel behind the scenes, you know, with Todd Blanche again failing defy to defying another court order. And this one's about the Epstein files. So looking forward to talking with Katie about that today. Anything else you want to throw in there?

[Andy McCabe]

No, looking forward to that interview. I think it's a really. It's a really interesting kind of like legal investigative question that it's really hinging on now. So.

[Martin Sheen]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Anxious to see how that goes.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And then everybody, of course, will see you here next week as well. Thanks for listening to Unjustified. I'm Alison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

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 MSW Media. Diamond Dames, mount up.

[Charlotte Clymer]

I'm Charlotte Clymer.

[Alison Gill]

And I'm Alison Gill. Hey, Charlotte, what if you and I joined forces to create a weekly podcast

amid all the chaos of the news

to chat about the most recent episode of season four of Ted Lasso?

[Charlotte Clymer]

Well, Alison, we'd be taking delight amid the spite to sit and write and bring some light on Wednesday nights. I mean, look, everything right now is ridiculous. I know we're all stressed out with the state of the country, and we all deserve some joy. Ted Lasso was there for us in the middle of the pandemic, and he's back to offer us a respite from Trump 2.0 right before the midterms.

[Alison Gill]

That's right. We believe in Rom communism.

I mean, if Tom Hanks and Meg

Ryan can go through some heartfelt struggles and still end up happy, then so can we. So subscribe to Diamond Dames for free right now to get notifications. And then you can join us every week after each episode of ted Lasso Season 4, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Charlotte Clymer]

And remember, be a goldfish. Diamond Dames, dismount

[Alison Gill]

barbecue sauce.