Cumulative Irritation

Summary

Podcast Summary: UnJustified Episode 25 - "Cumulative Irritation"

Release Date: July 13, 2025
Host: Alison Gill
Co-Host: Andy McCabe
Description: In this episode of UnJustified, hosted by Alison Gill and Andy McCabe of MSW Media, the discussion delves into the erosion of civil liberties and the rule of law under President Trump's Department of Justice (DoJ). The episode covers various high-profile legal and political issues, including demands for the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report, the handling of the Epstein files, Emil Bovey’s controversial nomination, and the ongoing Abrego case.

---

1. Introduction

The episode opens with Alison Gill and Andy McCabe setting the stage for a deep dive into the numerous challenges and controversies surrounding the DoJ under the Trump administration. The hosts highlight the abundance of news and issues to cover, emphasizing the complexity and depth of the topics at hand.

---

2. House Judiciary Democrats' Letter Demanding Jack Smith's Report

Timestamp: [02:33]

Alison Gill and Andy McCabe discuss a letter sent by Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee to Attorney General Pam Bondi. The letter, dated July 8, aggressively demands the immediate release of Special Counsel Jack Smith's full report, including any references to Donald Trump in the Epstein files.

Key Points:

• Dismissal of Cases: The DoJ dismissed cases against Walt Nada and Carlos de Oliveira, which the Democrats argue deprived the public of crucial evidence regarding Trump's alleged misconduct.
• DOJ's Deceptive Practices: The letter criticizes the DoJ for concealing evidence and using internal policies to obstruct transparency.
• Comparison with Previous Reports: The letter contrasts the handling of Trump’s report with the full release of other Special Counsel reports under Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Notable Quote:

"Your conduct is particularly worrisome as it appears to be part of a pattern of using the DOJ to cover up evidence of criminal wrongdoing by President Trump, including information allegedly contained in the Epstein files."
— House Judiciary Democrats' Letter, [04:08]

Andy McCabe's Commentary:

"I don't think that's going to hold a lot of weight or be very persuasive. In fact, I don't think much will come of this."
— Andy McCabe, [11:46]

---

3. Handling of the Epstein Files and Transparency Issues

Timestamp: [08:23]

The hosts delve into the controversy surrounding the Epstein files, highlighting the DoJ’s inconsistent statements and lack of transparency.

Key Points:

• Incomplete Release: The DoJ released only part of the Epstein files, prompting allegations of withholding information pertinent to President Trump.
• Public Pressure and Backlash: The partial release has fueled conspiracy theories and dissatisfaction among the public, especially within the MAGA base.
• Internal Struggles: Deputy Director Dan Bongino’s reported meltdown and potential resignation reflect the internal turmoil within the FBI regarding the handling of these sensitive files.

Notable Quote:

"Your DOJ has not only failed to live up to this promise, but you have also consistently hidden from the American public materials and information that may be damaging to President Trump."
— House Judiciary Democrats' Letter, [08:23]

Alison Gill's Observation:

"It's definitely already fanning the flames... The MAGA base is angry about the Epstein files."
— Alison Gill, [12:31]

---

4. Emil Bovey’s Nomination and Senate Judiciary Committee Questionnaire

Timestamp: [22:27]

The discussion shifts to Emil Bovey, the top DoJ official and nominee for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. His responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire reveal significant red flags.

Key Points:

• Avoidance of Critical Questions: Bovey declined to comment on whether the Constitution permits Trump to run for a third term, labeling it as "inappropriate."
• Controversial Past Actions: Accusations against Bovey include orchestrating a quid pro quo to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams in exchange for support of Trump’s immigration policies.
• Lack of Transparency: The release of Bovey’s texts and emails by whistleblower Arez Raveni further undermines his credibility, showing his involvement in efforts to manipulate legal outcomes.

Notable Quotes:

"It would be improper for me to offer any such comment as a judicial nominee."
— Emil Bovey, [25:20]

"I have the receipts for real."
— Andy McCabe, [30:17]

Alison Gill's Critique:

"I think it's pretty persuasive... This guy doesn't have the temperament or the ethics or the respect for the court and the rule of law that is absolutely essential to a circuit court judge."
— Alison Gill, [31:32]

---

5. Judge Sinise’s Frustration in the Abrego Case

Timestamp: [37:33]

The hosts examine Judge Sinise’s ongoing frustration with the DoJ's handling of the Abrego case, focusing on the lack of clear answers regarding the deportation and potential removal of Mr. Armando Abrego.

Key Points:

• Lack of Credible Information: Judge Sinise expressed exasperation over the DoJ’s inability to provide concrete plans for Abrego’s potential removal to a third country.
• Legal Safeguards Needed: The judge is pushing for legal measures to protect Abrego from being deported without due process.
• Systemic Issues: This case is indicative of broader problems within the DoJ, where similar deportation cases have met with non-compliance and obfuscation.

Notable Quote:

"This has been the process from day one, you have taken the presumption of regularity and you've destroyed it, in my view."
— Judge Sinise, [39:13]

Alison Gill's Insight:

"Judge Sinise did not specify when she would issue the order protecting Mr. Abrego, but she said she wanted to address the question before the judge in the criminal case."
— Alison Gill, [43:08]

---

6. Weaponization of the Department of Justice

Timestamp: [45:58]

Alison Gill and Andy McCabe explore claims that the Trump administration is weaponizing the DoJ by targeting former officials like James Comey and John Brennan.

Key Points:

• Criminal Referrals: CIA Director John Ratcliffe has referred John Brennan to the FBI for allegedly lying to Congress, a claim that lacks substantial evidence.
• Crossfire Hurricane Scrutiny: The DoJ is also examining James Comey's role in the Russia investigation, extending beyond the statute of limitations.
• Internal Criticism: The recent CIA review criticized Brennan’s oversight in the 2016 Russia investigation, highlighting perceived rushed processes and excessive senior management involvement.

Notable Quote:

"The weaponization Task force that is looking. Not the weaponization Task force that is looking. Looking back at weaponization..."
— Alison Gill, [45:52]

Andy's Commentary:

"These are all like... Nothing in it that says this was a political hit job produced to attack Republicans, which is, I'm sure, what Mr. Ratcliffe was hoping for."
— Andy McCabe, [49:25]

---

7. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s Initiative

Timestamp: [49:50]

The episode covers Tulsi Gabbard’s creation of the Directors Initiative Group (DIG), aimed at combating what the administration deems the weaponization of federal agencies.

Key Points:

• Ambitious Goals: DIG seeks access to emails and chat logs from major US spy agencies to utilize AI tools in identifying efforts to undermine the administration's agenda.
• Internal Concerns: Senior officials within the intelligence community express apprehensions about privacy and counterintelligence risks associated with DIG’s data aggregation efforts.
• Lack of Cooperation: As of the episode's recording, no spy agencies have complied with DIG’s requests for data.

Notable Quote:

"It's like Donald Trump wanting to Google himself within the spy agency documents he wants."
— Alison Gill, [50:47]

Alison Gill's Critique:

"This goes on to say that the unprecedented interest in data by officials at the DNI startled some senior agency officials who have expressed concerns..."
— Alison Gill, [50:41]

---

8. Listener Question: Legal Classifications of Undocumented Individuals

Timestamp: [54:21]

A listener named Gail poses a question regarding the legal classifications of undocumented individuals, misunderstandings about deportation, and the processes involved.

Key Points:

• Misconceptions Clarified: The hosts explain that undocumented individuals are not incarcerated for misdemeanors but are detained due to lack of legal status.
• Deportation Process: Typically involves removal to the country of origin, but the current administration is pushing towards deportations to third countries, which is rare and raises legal concerns.
• Legality and Due Process: The discussion highlights the complexities and legal safeguards required in deportation cases, contrasting with the administration's current practices.

Notable Explanation:

"Technically, when people are detained on immigration grounds, they're not being incarcerated, they're not serving a sentence..."
— Andy McCabe, [56:55]

Alison Gill's Addition:

"Sending people to El Salvador to see code under the Alien Enemies act that the, the utilization of the Alien Enemies act is still being litigated..."
— Alison Gill, [59:22]

---

9. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Timestamp: [60:02]

Alison Gill and Andy McCabe wrap up the episode by reiterating the significant issues addressed, including the systematic challenges within the DoJ and the broader implications for civil liberties and the rule of law.

Closing Remarks:

• Emphasis on Transparency: The hosts stress the importance of accountability and transparency within governmental institutions.
• Upcoming Events: Andy McCabe promotes his documentary "String Theory Guitar Obsessed," highlighting the collaborative and creative efforts outside the realm of political discourse.

Alison Gill's Farewell:

"We really, really appreciate you listening. We appreciate your thoughtful questions."
— Alison Gill, [63:08]

---

Additional Notes:

• Advertisements Skipped: The summary omits the advertisements for CB Distillery and Mint Mobile, which were interspersed within the episode.
• Listener Engagement: The episode encourages listeners to submit questions, fostering an interactive community.
• Further Resources: The hosts recommend following reporters like Anna Bauer and Roger Parloff for in-depth courtroom coverage.

---

Conclusion

Episode 25 of UnJustified provides a comprehensive analysis of the Trump administration's actions within the Department of Justice, highlighting issues of transparency, abuse of power, and the undermining of established legal norms. Through detailed discussions and critical quotes, Alison Gill and Andy McCabe shed light on the challenges facing civil liberties and the rule of law in contemporary American politics.

Transcript

[Alison Gill]

MSW Media.

[Andy McCabe]

President Bukele of El Salvador told the United nations that the United States has constructive custody of the prisoners sent to secote.

[Alison Gill]

Former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan are under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice for their roles in the Russia investigation.

[Andy McCabe]

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have demanded Attorney General Pam Bondi release Special Counsel Jack Smith's full report, as well as any mention of Donald Trump in the Epstein files.

[Alison Gill]

And Judge Sinise becomes frustrated with the Department of Justice's failure to produce a witness with knowledge of the next steps for Mr. Abrego in a series of hearings. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 25 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, July 13, 2025. I'm Alison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe. All right, I'm not going to say it, Allison, because I've been getting chirped at by some of our listeners on the question. So I'm not going to say what I usually say. Instead, I'm going to say it's a standard day here on the podcast. It's a regular week, the kind we get every week, which, as you know, is always chock full of news. So got a standard week here for us.

[Alison Gill]

So, so much to talk about. Yeah. The concept of what is standard has changed. Drama. In the past few years. We've got a lot. There's a lot more, I feel, that we have to cover than what was just in those headlines. I feel like there's more.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. The challenge here's a little. I mean, you will understand this, but a little behind the scenes here. The challenge is always like, what do we cram into this show? How do we cover things? The amount of detail with the facts that we know our audience really enjoys. Um, but, you know, if you go a mile deep, then you can only go a couple inches wide. So can we go wider but less deep? So it's a. It's a battle because there's just so much stuff to pick from. Anything related to DOJ and the characters therein is kind of fair game. And so, yeah, there's a lot to work with.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Big balance between frequency and amplitude and we're going to try to walk that line. Um, where do you think we should start? I mean, there's so much.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, well, I mean, I feel like since we got a shout out to our old bestie Jack Smith, maybe we start there.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. All right, all right, let's start there. His name was invoked in a letter from House Judiciary Democrats to Attorney General Pam Bondi this week. So let's get into this. The letter is addressed, like I said, to Pam Bondi. It's dated July 8, and it says five months ago the Department of Justice dismissed the pending case against Walt Nada and Carlos de Oliveira, depriving the American public of an opportunity to hear the evidence of how they conspired with Donald Trump to help him stash hundreds of highly classified records at his Mar a Lago club, defy subpoenas, obstruct law enforcement, hide evidence, and lie about his continuing retention of those records. Since then, you've continued to conceal the evidence against Donald Trump and his co conspirators by refusing to release the report that of Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into this matter. You have done so even as House Judiciary Committee Republicans continue to make baseless claims of bias and misconduct on the part of Special Counsel Smith and compel testimony from members of his team, all without a shred of evidence. Your conduct is particularly worrisome as it appears to be part of a pattern of using the DOJ to cover up evidence of criminal wrongdoing by President Trump, including information allegedly contained in the Epstein files. We write today to demand that you release the Smith report immediately, as well as any evidence mentioning or referencing Donald Trump in the Epstein files.

[Andy McCabe]

Wow. That's a lot. And it goes on to say Attorney General Merrick Garland publicly released volume one of Mr. Smith's report in January, consistent with DOJ regulations, long standing precedent, and the orders of both Judge Eileen Cannon and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. At that time, the DOJ did not publicly release volume two of Special Counsel Smith's report regarding his investigation into Mr. Trump's retention of classified documents at his Mar a Lago club after his first term in office to avoid any prejudice to President Trump's co defendants Walt Nada and Carlos De La Vera while the criminal case against them was still ongoing. That's a long sentence. The DOJ has since dropped the case against Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira and their case was dismissed on February 11, 2025. Yet, according to DOJ's court filing in March of 2025, you have sought to indefinitely block the disclosure of the remainder of the report. This position is plainly impossible to reconcile with the Department's regulations and longstanding practice of publicly releasing reports by Special counsels. Your predecessor, Attorney General Garland, released in full and without any redactions, three Special counsel reports written during his tenure. Special Counsel Robert Herr's report on President Joseph Biden's possession of classified documents, Special Counsel David Weiss's report on Hunter Biden's tax and gun offenses and volume one of Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on President Trump's efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election. Attorney General Garland also released Special Counsel John Durham's report on the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's investigation of links between Russian officials and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, I think it's interesting though, trying to tell Pam Bondi what DOJ policy is and what long standing norms are. I mean, yeah, you know, it goes on to say your approach is also at odds with your decision to cooperate with House Republicans continued probe of Special Counsel Smith's investigation and prosecution of Trump in their failed effort to find any evidence of bias or misconduct. Thus far, Chairman Jordan has taken the deposition of Jay Bratt, counselor to Special Counsel Smith, who asserted his Fifth Amendment privileges due to reasonable concerns that he was being targeted by the Trump administration for doing his duty as a prosecutor. Committee Republicans have also requested and obtained the testimony of two additional former line level prosecutors in Special Counsel Smith's office who Chairman Jordan baselessly accused of having orchestrated a partisan and politically motivated prosecution of President Donald J. Trump and his co defendants. Your Department of Justice has acquiesced to these requests without objections or restrictions, taking a highly unusual position at odds with decades of long standing DOJ policy to protect line prosecutors and prosecutorial deliberations. There we go with the decades long standing DOJ policy again. It is particularly instructive that you have apparently decided to allow prosecutors to testify about their years long investigation of Trump even as you refuse to release the fruit of that investigation, forcing the prosecutors to defend themselves essentially with hands tied behind their backs. DOJ officials have also repeatedly sought to disparage and discredit Special Counsel Smith's investigation. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bovey, in his confirmation hearing for his nomination by Trump to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, attacked Mr. Smith's office as weaponized and falsely claimed that members of Mr. Smith's team, quote, acted based on their political beliefs as opposed to the law. Just as revealing Chairman Jordan has refused to join our calls for the release of the full Smith report, presumably a key piece of evidence in his investigation. Although he professed in his March 17, 2025 letter to you to, quote, share your commitment to restoring accountability and transparency at the Department.

[Andy McCabe]

This administration has repeatedly claimed that President Trump is, quote, the most transparent and accessible president in American history. Wow. So far your DOJ has not only failed to live up to this promise. But you have also consistently hidden from the American public materials and information that may be damaging to President Trump. Earlier last month, Elon Musk, the former senior adviser to President Trump and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, posted on his social media website X that President Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. At his confirmation hearing, Director Patel vowed to release the Epstein files, stating that he would, quote, make sure the American public knows the full weight of what happened. In February of 2025, you came under intense public criticism after releasing the first phase of roughly 200 pages of the Epstein files that consisted largely of information that was already public. Subsequently, you reportedly ordered hundreds of FBI agents, many of whom were usually focusing on national security matters, to review the Epstein files. Agents that were assigned for this review reportedly clocked more than 100 hours of work over the most recent two week pay period, including a marathon session last weekend during which they slept on desks while waiting for new batches of Epstein records to process. In April, you claimed the FBI was reviewing tens of thousands of videos of Mr. Epstein with children or child porn. Despite this immense effort, no additional Epstein records have been released. And just this week, the FBI stated that it has determined no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted. This raises the question of whether the White House has moved to prevent the declassification and public release of the full Epstein files because they implicate President Trump and whether these massive redaction efforts and the withholding of the files were intended to shield your boss from embarrassing revelations within those files.

[Alison Gill]

If I were a betting woman, yeah. It goes on to say it is not a coincidence that Trump installed his personal legal team to top positions at the Department of Justice, appointing you, Todd Blanche, Emil Bovey, who all served as his defense counsel at one time or another to the three most senior positions at doj, and Stanley Woodward, defense counsel for Trump's co defendant, Walt Nada, in the classified documents case as the Associate Attorney General, another top position at doj. By doing so, DOJ has all but turned into President Trump's personal law firm, ensuring that damaging information about him would remain hidden from public view. The American people deserve uncensored answers and authentic transparency from this administration and a full understanding of Mr. Trump's actions. We call on you to stop protecting your boss and former client. Release the Smith report in full without redactions immediately, and publicly release all documents in the Epstein files that mention or reference Donald Trump. And of course, that was signed by all of the members, the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. So I guess my first thought is, I'm absolutely with you. That the argument you're violating norms and procedures is likely to have about as much weight as my argument daily to my golden retriever that the policy is. He gets dinner and breakfast, but not lunch. And he looks at me like, what does policy mean? I don't care. Where is the kibble? So, yeah, I don't think that's going to hold a lot of weight or be very persuasive. In fact, I don't think much will come of this. But it might have the effect of continuing to fan these flames of outraged conspiracy theorists, which seems to be causing the Republicans quite a bit of angst right now.

[Alison Gill]

Oh, it's definitely already fanning the flames. I mean, if you think about, you know, the fact that DOJ said it released the full RAW files of the Epstein jail video, but then a minute was missing. And now Wired magazine, of course, everybody ran with the minute missing. And now Wired magazine is reporting that the metadata on those files shows that they were manipulated. And not necessarily for, you know, bad purposes or anything, but they weren't the raw, full files. Um, they. They had been, I think, reprocessed using Adobe, and the metadata shows that. So they aren't the full RAW files. So, you know, a lot is coming out around this. It's a very big issue, especially with the MAGA base. They're tearing each other apart about this right now. And I mean, so much so that didn't Deputy Director of the FBI Dan Bongino, like, storm out of Washington D.C.

[Andy McCabe]

That'S what CNN is reporting like as we record this on Friday afternoon. He apparently had some sort of a meltdown yesterday, left and did not come to work today, and has is reported as having said to people that he's considering resigning, which, you know, let's not forget that Dan Bongino is. Was one of the primary guys fanning the flames of these conspiracy theories for years. He became deputy director and, you know, you light that bonfire on your front yard because you think it looks cool and it attracts all your friends. Well, you can't complain when the bonfire consumes your house like, he did this. And now he's apparently getting pilloried by his former, I guess, podcast listeners and followers and things like that who are pretty upset about the fact that he's come out and said the guy killed himself. There's nothing else to see here. You know, he saw, he signed the statement that was Released. Allegedly he signed it, as did Patel and Bondi and maybe Blanche. Although the media reports that the statement itself that they put out, you know what, on the Sunday night of Fourth of July weekend. Classic Washington move about trying to hide something. The statement itself came out unsigned, but there are. There are. There is reporting that he was on board with it, but now apparently he's got some huge problem with the Attorney General about it, and he's thinking about quitting. So all this just really casts. I mean, my perspective is always a little bit jaundiced here. I'm always most concerned about what's happening at the FBI and what's happening to FBI people threatening to quit over some beef with doj that's really about public relations more than it is about substance. And not a good look for the men and women. You have to lead into really dangerous and demanding situations every day. Really, really awful. And it's yet another kind of arrow that the Bureau has had to sustain. Along with the revelations yesterday from the New York Times about Cash Patel's wave of required polygraphs for everybody he thinks doesn't like him or something. I don't know what standard he's using, but the include things like, have you ever said anything bad about the Director Patel?

[Alison Gill]

Oh, my God.

[Andy McCabe]

Good luck finding someone who hasn't.

[Alison Gill]

Did you put Director Patel in your burn book like it's high school? Yeah, it's high school. And, you know, with what I imagine, you know, kind of knowing this administration a little bit, at least, kind of the way that they act about certain things, I just imagine Bongino, Patel, Bondi in an office trying to make someone besides them take the blame. Like, I think Patel and Bongino want Bondi to take the blame for the Epstein files. I think Bondi wants them to take the blame. Like, they're just trying to figure out. Because honestly, I think Dan Bongino's number one priority is himself and his followers and his podcast people. And he wants to be able to turn to them and say, hey, this wasn't me. This was Pam Bondi in the deep state or something. You know what I mean?

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

They all kind of want to dump the blame. They want to fall guy for this because it is upsetting the MAGA base this much, you know?

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. And come on, no coincidence that when this conspiracy theory that's been peddled by Dan Bongino, by Cash Patel, by Donald Trump on the campaign trail is completely collapsing in a flame of glory the same time, all of a sudden, now we're Opening cases on Jim Comey and John Brennan. I know we're going to talk about that later in the show, but like, the timing here is so obvious. Oh, yeah, it's just, it is just patently evasive from the most transparent administration in the history of administrations.

[Alison Gill]

The MAGA base is angry about the Epstein files. We need some red meat for them. Let's throw them Comey and Brennan. Yeah, I mean, that's something else that Bongino and Patel talked about endlessly. Yeah, right. And Donald Trump prosecuting, prosecuting the people who put together the, you know, Crossfire Hurricane, the Russia investigation and continuing to like. And the thing, you know, Donald Trump at a Cabinet meeting was asked about the missing minute or Pam Bondi was asked about the missing minute in the Epstein tape, the jail tape. And Donald Trump jumped in and said, why are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This is so old. This is, he's a creep. It's over. He, this was years ago. Why are you still talking. The guy who's still talking about Crossfire Hurricane, the guy who's still talking about 2020.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

The guy who's still talking about Jim Comey. That guy is wanting to know why people are still talking about Jeffrey Epstein. And it's, it's like that combined with the lack of transparency and honestly I thought it was very interesting that it was put in a, in a letter from House Judiciary Democrats alongside Jack Smith's report. We also want the Epstein files where, where Donald Trump is mentioned and to go as far as alleging that the Judiciary, House Judiciary Dems think that the reason that they aren't being forthcoming is because they are protecting Donald Trump. And they quoted Elon Musk. I've never seen that in a congressional letter before.

[Andy McCabe]

Never thought I'd see House Democrats relying on Elon Musk to prove their point. But here we are. It's, it's upside down world.

[Alison Gill]

So it is. Well, that letter also mentioned the current paydag and nominee to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Emil Bovey, who has handed in his answers to the Senate confirmation questionnaire while having to confront text and email evidence that he did in fact instruct DOJ lawyers to tell the court to fuck off. And we're going to go over his answers and those emails and texts after this quick break. So stick around. We'll be right back. Hey everybody, if you're still tossing and turning all night or feeling edgy during the day, it's time to talk about CBD from CB Distillery. Millions of people are turning to CB Distillery for relief because it works. In fact, over 90% of customers report better sleep. But it's not just about sleep. CB Distillery offers targeted CBD formulations for everything, including stress, mood, focus, even recovery after exercise. They even make CBD products for pets, all with clean, high quality ingredients and no unnecessary fillers. So I want to thank CB Distillery for sponsoring this episode. You can get 25% off your entire purchase at CB distillery.com and use promo code UNJUST. I first tried CB Distillery a long time ago. I was dealing with some post workout soreness and then also I couldn't sleep at night. Their sleep gummies are amazing and the pain stick was a total game changer. It's like a solid lotion bar. You rub directly where it hurts and within minutes the tension eases. I keep one in my gym bag now because I never want to be without it again. And then those sleep gummies I was talking about, those knocked my bedtime routine into a new gear. No fog, no grogginess, just a calm slide into real, restful, deep sleep. And I wake up feeling rested and ready to take on my day instead of dragging myself through the morning. With over 2 million satisfied customers and 100% money back guarantee, there's no risk. CB Distillery is the source I trust. So if you've been struggling with sleep, stress or recovery and you haven't found relief, this might be the move for you. Millions have made the switch, so maybe it's time for you to join. Join them. So for a limited time, you can save 25 on your entire purchase. Just visit CBDistillery.com and use promo code UNJUST. That's CB Distillery.com promo code UNJUST one more time. CBDistillery.com promo code UNJUST Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. All right, everybody, welcome back. All right, let's turn to Emil Bovey now. This reporting comes from cbs. Emil Bovey, top Justice Department official who previously served as Trump's criminal defense attorney, declined to rule out the possibility of the president running for a third term and did not denounce the January 6 attack on the Capitol in a questionnaire submitted to a Senate panel considering his nomination for a lifetime appointment as a third Circuit judge. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote this week on whether to advance Bovey's nomination to serve on the U.S. court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. CBS News obtained the 165 page questionnaire that Bovey submitted to senators in response to their written questions. And I have to say, Godspeed to anybody who has to read 165 pages of Bovee responses.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I bet there are a lot of them that are pretty short in his answers. Bovey also wrote that he does not recall which January 6th criminal cases he helped supervise when he served in the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. Boy, that's convenient. I'm sure there's probably places you could go to figure that out. But anyway, in response to the question, quote, do you denounce the January 6th insurrection? Bovey wrote the characterization of the events on January 6th is a matter of significant political debate, and he said it would be inappropriate to address this question, giving ongoing litigation over pardons of January 6th defendants. Oh, please. Please what? Somebody's trying to have the pardons thrown out. It's not a thing. In the Senate questionnaire, Bovey argued his role in shuttering the corruption prosecution of New York Mayor Eric Adams earlier this year has been mischaracterized. Bovey was accused of pushing a quid pro quo in which the Justice Department would drop its criminal case against Adams in return for the mayor supporting Mr. Trump's immigration policies. Several prosecutors and Justice Department officials resigned in the fallout of Bovey's order to drop the case.

[Alison Gill]

Bovey was also accused of pressuring Justice Department employees to support the effort or face possible employment actions, an accusation he disputed in the questionnaire, saying, it was never my intention to coerce, pressure, or induce any DOJ attorney through adverse employment actions, threats, rewards or otherwise, to sign the motion to dismiss the charges against Mayor Adams. Wow. No wonder we didn't get those meeting notes. Multiple Democratic senators pressed Bovey in their questionnaire to clarify if Bovey believes the Constitution permits Trump to run for a third term despite the restrictions of the 22nd Amendment, which states that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice, quote, as nominee to the Third Circuit, it would be inappropriate for me to address how this amendment would apply in an abstract, hypothetical scenario.

[Andy McCabe]

It's a pretty specific hypothetical. I don't know about the abstract part. Unless he's going to argue that a third term is technically not more than twice right.

[Alison Gill]

He goes on to say, to the extent this question seeks to elicit an answer that could be taken as opining on the broader policy or policy debate regarding term limits. Is there a debate regarding term or on statements by any political figure, My response, consistent with the positions of prior judicial nominees, is that it would be improper to offer any such comment as a judicial nominee. That is just bs. Now, if you ask A judge, how they would rule if something came, if a specific case came to them. Sure, they'll say, I, I not going to opine on that.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

But can you tell me if the Constitution says a thing?

[Andy McCabe]

You can't talk about the law at all now if you're being nominated to be a judge. I mean, what are they going to talk about? What do you think? Talk about, like, Mr. Bovey, what. What was your favorite movie that you've recently seen? Are you an F1 guy? Did you like the F1? The movie?

[Alison Gill]

Is the Sky Blue? Well, considering that Rayleigh Scattering is up for debate, I can't opine on the color of the politically motivated color of the sky.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes. Yes. When asked whether President Biden was duly elected in the 2020 election, Bovey responded, quote, president Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th president of the United States, adding that it would be improper for him to opine on the broader political or policy debate regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election or on statements by any political figure or on any statements that might offend a particular political figure who he hopes to work for as a judge on the Third Circuit. Okay. I added that part of the.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, fair.

[Andy McCabe]

Bovey wrote that he does not recall where he was on January 6, 2021, and he declined to answer if he would characterize the Capitol siege as an insurrection. He also acknowledged that he provided Mr. Trump with legal advice about his pardons of those involved in the attack. When asked if he supported the pardons of violent January 6th attackers, Bovey wrote, as I explained in my confirmation hearing, it would not be appropriate for me as a nominee to comment on President Trump's use of the pardon authority. Actually, I don't feel like there's any conflict there at all.

[Alison Gill]

No.

[Andy McCabe]

As a judge, he would never be called upon to weigh in on the pardon. The pardon power is absolute, and it's not the source of.

[Alison Gill]

I suppose somebody could challenge one of the pardons and he might have to rule that the pardon power is broad and absolute, but I don't know.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, but I mean, that's pretty far out there. That's a pretty abstract hypothetical.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Oh, and by the way, in addition to the answers to these questions and the upcoming vote, it seems as though Arez Raveni, the protected whistleblower who wrote the 27 page letter that we read and we did an audio version of here on, on this podcast feed, Arez Raveni sent all of his texts and emails that back up his 27 page whistleblower letter.

[Andy McCabe]

Oh.

[Alison Gill]

To the Senate Judiciary Democrats, who then released them to the public ahead of this hearing or ahead of the vote. And it's. I mean, you know, that letter was a banger. Right. But, yeah, these texts and emails prove everything that's in the letter. So all of the, you know, all of the Republicans, including Chuck Grassley, who's a big whistleblower supporter, is like, this is an attack. He. We have the text and emails now to. To show that it wasn't. There's texts between Arez Ruveni and another colleague when Drew Ensign was in court saying that he didn't know if more planes were taking off or planes were in the air. And the text messages with the time stamps on him. So he just lied to the court. Oh, my God. Yeah, he did. Whoa. It's gonna be around and find out time. I mean, this is like their texts.

[Andy McCabe]

Wow.

[Alison Gill]

And the other guy's like, it's been nice working with you, and, like, just absolutely bonkers. And then they reference when, you know, when they said Emil Bovey told a bunch of people to tell the courts to you, that came up in a couple of text exchanges, like, oh, I guess this is the you part. And, you know, like, yeah, kind of supporting and backing up everything that a Reserveni put in that letter. So all of that has now come out.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, he's got the receipts for real. And. And, you know, this reminds me of, like, because some people will look at these messages and be like, well, he didn't exactly say in the message that. Oh, do you remember the time when Todd Blanche said, we're going to have to tell the courts of alcohol? No, that never happens. Like, this is like reading. This is like reading transcripts of a cooperator calling the subject of your case. And, you know, you say, like, listen, you got to get him to talk about the homicide you guys did a year ago. The conversation is never, hey, remember when you and I got in the red car, drove to Brooklyn and killed Joe? It's not like that. It's like this is kind of like a Joe moment. You know what I'm saying? Like, it's always vague, but it is what it is. And these things really, I think, stand on their own. The. The messages that I've seen so far.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, yeah. And I mean, there's. There's tons of them. And. And the emails. Remember how he said, I kept sending emails to tell everybody, and they kept telling me, stop. Stop sending emails.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

You know, quit calling me. Like, you Know, you know, mostly to avoid foia, but, you know, for other purposes, too. And so it's all there in black and white.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. It's certainly not. It's not a political attack. Yeah. Is Raveni going after Bovey? Yes, he is, because I assume he believes he would be a. A terrible candidate to be. To become a circuit court judge, but he's got the reasons why he believes that this is not. He's not saying you shouldn't approve this guy because he's a Republican. He's saying, you sh. This guy doesn't have the temperament or the ethics or the respect for the court and the rule of law that is absolutely essential to a circuit court judge. And he did these things and. Oh, here's now all my messages to prove the things that he said and the impact that he had on the people he was leading, the sort of misdirection he was giving them. Yeah, I think it's. I think it's pretty persuasive.

[Alison Gill]

I think so, too. I think so, too. And it'll be interesting to see what Chuck Grassley says about the. Well, that's not. Yeah. Who knows what he'll say? They might not say anything. They might just steam. Go full steam ahead and vote.

[Andy McCabe]

Who knows? Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Also in that whistleblower letter, Raveni talked about multiple cases, as we know, three major ones, including the Abrego case, the JGG case. Right. Both. That's. That one's before Judge Boasberg. Abrego is before Judge Sinis. Both are related to the removal of people to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies act without due process. Now, the government's been arguing this whole time that we can't return these men from El Salvador because we don't have constructive custody of them. Once they got off the plane, whoops, they're in Salvadoran custody. And President Bukele is, you know, well, El Salvador is a sovereign foreign nation. We can't tell him what to do. Sure.

[Andy McCabe]

Ye.

[Alison Gill]

But then this week, President Bukele contradicted that in a statement he made to United nations committee that was investigating the removals of people to El Salvador. He said, in this context, the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities. He's talking about the United States use.

[Andy McCabe]

Of the word competent in that sentence. But anyway, go. Go ahead.

[Alison Gill]

By the beautiful, fantastic foreign authorities, by virtue of international agreements signed and in accordance with the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation in criminal matters. This is Bukele saying, we signed an agreement that says that Trump has that the US has constructive custody.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

No wonder he hasn't been cooperative or the government hasn't been cooperative in the discovery process in Judge Sinis's courtroom. Because we, you know, we've been saying he doesn't want anybody to see that agreement with El Salvador. And here is Bukele saying in the agreement, it says that he, that the United States maintains custody. And additionally, we found out this week from a New York Times report, Trump tried to use those 250 men in seacoat as bargaining chips for a prisoner swap with Venezuela as recently as May.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Which means, which means you can't have, you can't use a prisoner as a bargaining chip in a swap if you don't have custody over them.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly. Exactly. Right. We, you know, to be clear, the idea there is a, the legal concept of, of constructive custody means you don't hold the key to the door that they're locked behind, but you have the ability, the, the authority to say whether those people are, are detained or released. And that is a. Abundantly clear. It's been clear from the beginning the administration has been saying patently ridiculous things like, oh, we can't possibly tell our colleague Mr. Bukele what to do when we all know that, you know, this is the same administration that's literally trying to extort the country of Brazil to drop a criminal case against Bolsonaro, saying that if you don't drop the case, we're going to raise tariffs on Brazilian goods by 50% like the.

[Alison Gill]

And Israel to drop the case against Netanyahu.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly. So this is not an administration afraid of telling other countries what to do. And certainly they could have done it here. But now these statements like, officially, this is the, the Salvadoran government officially acknowledging that, like, hey, we're getting paid to hold these people. We don't decide where they go or when they go there. And then, of course, your point is spot on. If you're thinking, if you're thinking about moving those people one more time to Venezuela in return for getting some Americans and political prisoners back, whether you agree with those kind of bargains or not. Clearly the administration was confident that they had the ability to swoop those 250 people out of sea coat anytime they wanted.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And right now, at this moment, Mr. Abrego is in criminal custody in Tennessee, and his legal team was in court three times this week trying to get a guarantee that if he's released on bail from his criminal stuff, that he would not be disappeared to a third country without due process by ice and we're going to discuss those hearings after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Wireless service should be dependable and budget friendly. Mint Mobile understands that, and they've built their plans around exactly those principles. So if you're spending the summer traveling, hosting or just managing your everyday routine, Mint makes staying connected easy and affordable. Mint Mobile offers high speed data with unlimited talk and text, all on the nation's largest 5G network. That means excellent coverage without the bloated costs or confusing contracts. So please join me in thanking Mint Mobile for sponsoring unjustified get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a [e-mail] unjust there's no reason to keep overpaying for wireless. And Mint Mobile offers high speed data, unlimited talk and text, and top tier coverage. You don't need a new phone and you can keep your phone number and your contacts. It's refreshingly simple to switch. And the best part is that right now you can get three months of unlimited service for just 15 bucks a month. That's real savings without giving up performance. So if your wireless bill has been out of control, Mint Mobile is your way out. One of our show producers signed up with an old Android phone he had lying around and within days and he had a second number set up and running thanks to Mint's quick SIM delivery and simple instructions for 15 bucks a month. He says he's never had a more budget friendly plan this year. Skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer for your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com unjust that's mintmobile.com unjust upfront payment of $45 required equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and fees. C Mint Mobile for details.

[Andy McCabe]

Welcome back. Okay, there was one hearing this week in the Abrego case that stretched over three days regarding what might happen to Mr. Abrego should he be released on bail from custody in his criminal case in Tennessee on July 16th. So during the first hearing, Judge Sinise could not get a straight answer from the DOJ lawyers. I'm sure you're all shocked. So she ordered the government to produce a witness with knowledge to answer her very basic questions. Would ICE remove Mr. Abrego to a third country if he's released from criminal custody? And if so, which country? And would he be given notice to oppose his removal? The witness, Mr. Giles didn't have the answers to her questions. And that hearing spilled over into the next day with arguments from both parties.

[Alison Gill]

Yep. And the New York Times reports on this, saying a frustrated federal judge, that's putting it mildly, signaled on Friday she would probably issue an order protecting Kilmar Armando Abrego, the immigrant who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador, from being hastily expelled from the United States again after he was brought back last month to face those criminal charges. The suggestion by Judge Polissinis, who's handling the original civil case, emerging from the wrongful deportation came during a hearing in Federal District Court in Maryland, where she exploded at the Justice Department for having badly damaged the bonds of trust that are normally afforded by the courts to lawyers for the government. Quote, this has been the process from day one, she said, who in the past several months has chided the administration over and over for how it's handled Mr. Abrego's case. Quote, you have taken the presumption of regularity and you've destroyed it, in my view.

[Andy McCabe]

Wow.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, that's heavy.

[Andy McCabe]

It's not good. Expressing their own frustrations, Mr. Abrego's lawyers have asked Judge Sinise at a series of hearings this week to give them the chance to challenge any efforts by the Trump administration to redeport their client if he's released from custody in his criminal case and hand it over to immigration officials. Now the lawyers want Judge Sinis to bar the administration from beginning removal proceedings for two to three business days if Mr. Abrego is freed from criminal custody, which could happen as early as Wednesday, when there is a separate hearing in his criminal case in Nashville.

[Alison Gill]

Yep. And while the Justice Department initially vowed to take Mr. Abrego to trial on these charges of smuggling that were filed against him in Nashville from a traffic stop in 2022 from which he was let go, department lawyers have more recently indicated that the Department of Justice, or Department of Homeland Security, excuse me, would seek to redepport him before trial took place, perhaps to a third country where he's never lived. Judge C said some legal safeguard was needed because the administration has already shown in this and other deportation cases that it could not be trusted, she said. I am deeply concerned that if there's no restraint on you, Mr. Abrego will be on another plane to another country, because that's what you've done in other cases.

[Andy McCabe]

Her vexation reflected a widespread disillusionment with the government that has been expressed by federal judges handling other deportation cases. At least three judges in recent months have accused Justice Department lawyers of flouting their orders or acting in bad faith and have considered opening contempt proceedings to punish them and other Trump officials. Now, Judge Sinise's frustration on Friday was prompted by the failure of the Justice Department to give her a clear picture of what the administration plans to do with Mr. Abrego if he's released on his criminal charges and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On Thursday, the judge had a top ICE official, Mr. Thomas Giles, testify in court for nearly four hours about the administration's plans. But in court on Friday, she described the information he provided as insufficient and incredible. That is not good, not enough information. And what you did say, I don't believe it. You have no credibility that's in the.

[Alison Gill]

Court and regular orders. You've destroyed it like these are harsh words. Mr. Giles told her, had told her that there was no way to know what ICE would do with Mr. Abrego until he was taken into custody. And at that point, Mr. Giles said the administration would either seek to send Mr. Abrego to a third country, like South Sudan, or try to return him to El Salvador, his homeland, after seeking to undo the initial order from 2019 that expressly prohibits him from being sent there. Moreover, Mr. Giles said the final decision would be made by an ICE field officer.

[Andy McCabe]

Not a chance in hell there.

[Alison Gill]

None of that sat well with judge CDs.

[Andy McCabe]

There's no way that's accurate.

[Alison Gill]

And. And in court on Friday, she took out her annoyance on Sarmad. I think it's Kasta. He's a lawyer for the Justice Department. And she told Mr. Kasta that. That it defies reality that such a high profile matter would be handled by a low level official in an ICE field office.

[Andy McCabe]

Thank you.

[Alison Gill]

She also pressed him repeatedly about which course of action the government intended to take, raising her voice at one point asking, what are you going to do?

[Andy McCabe]

Judge Sinise had little patience for Mr. Kojaste's protestations that the administration had made a mistake with Mr. Abrego the first time, but this time intended to scrupulously follow procedures. What? What this group quote. You violated the law undisputedly, she told him, but now you promise that you won't do it again without showing how you aren't going to do it again. These strong words seem driven by her cumulative irritation. That's a good one. I'm going to use that around the house. I mean, her cumulative irritation is high. Her cumulative irritation at the Justice Department's efforts reaching back over many months to sidestep her orders and obfuscate even her best attempts to get straight answers.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, cumulative irritation is the legal term for I've had it up to here.

[Andy McCabe]

That's the legal for I've got a chapped. You know what?

[Alison Gill]

Yep. Yep. Now, Judge Sinise expressed skepticism about Mr. Abrego's indictment at the July 7 hearing, asking the Justice Department lawyer whether it had merely been a pretext to comply with her orders. The lawyer, Bridget o', Hickey, maintained that the indictment has been obtained in good faith and had emerged from a legitimate criminal investigation. Wow. At the same time, at the same hearing, though, a different Justice Department lawyer cast serious doubt on whether Mr. Abrego could ever actually stand trial. That lawyer, Jonathan Gwyn, admitted that if the defendant was released from custody next week, the Justice Department would effectively set the charges aside and hand them over to Homeland Security for immediate removal.

[Andy McCabe]

Of course they will, because they've done that with a lot of people lately. But I digress. That plan contradicted both top Justice Department and White House officials and prompted Judge Sinise to exclaim that getting answers out of the administration was, quote, like trying to nail Jello to the wall. Judge Sinise did not specify when she would issue the order protecting Mr. Abrego, but she said she wanted to address the question before the judge in the criminal case. Waverly Crenshaw Jr. Holds a hearing on Wednesday to consider whether to release Mr. Abrego. So stand by, because we could be getting that any moment. Any moment, really, between now and next Wednesday.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, this. Yeah, this Wednesday.

[Andy McCabe]

Just this Wednesday.

[Alison Gill]

A few days from now.

[Andy McCabe]

Yep.

[Alison Gill]

So I followed this along, by the way, by following Anna Bauer and Roger Parloff at lawfare. Really great accounts to follow on Blue sky if you want to get the play by play from inside the courtroom. Also, Adam Klassfeld at All Rise News does a really good job at this, too. So I would definitely make sure you're following all of them. Lawfair, All Rise News. Abrego. Excuse me, not Abrego. Adam Classfeld. And of course, Roger Parloff and. And Anna Bow. Just really great reporting from. From the court. All right, we've got just a couple more quick stories and the listener questions, and we're going to do that right after this last break. Stick around. We'll be right back.

[Andy McCabe]

Foreign.

[Alison Gill]

Everybody, welcome back. Before we get to a listener question, we do have some stories on the weaponization of the Department of Justice. Not the weaponization Task force that is looking. Looking back at weaponization. Right. The current weaponization. First, from the Times The Trump administration appears to be targeting officials who oversaw the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign's connections to Russia, examining the actions of the former FBI Director, J. Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan. That's according to people familiar. John Ratcliffe, the CIA director and harsh critic of his Democratic appointed predecessors, has made a criminal referral of Mr. Brennan to the FBI. Of something he did seven years ago, by the way.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Accusing him of lying to Congress. What you, I mean, he, he did. He. The testimony was seven years ago. He didn't lie to Congress. Now the bureau is also scrutinizing Jim Comey for his role in the Russia investigation, according to other officials, although the exact basis for an inquir unclear because that's also way outside the statute of limitations. And he did nothing wrong.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay. So that goes on to say the Brennan referral stems from the CIA's recent review of its 2016 intelligence assessment on Russian interference in that year's presidential election. Aside, that document is referred to as the ica. Okay. While the new review did not undercut the findings of the earlier assessment, it was deeply critical of Mr. Brennan and his oversight of the analytic work. The recent review criticized the agency's top leadership, including Mr. Brennan, for rushing the Trump Russia inquiry, but did not dispute the core conclusion that Russia favored Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 election. The review reflected Mr. Ratcliffe's longtime criticism of his predecessor, but also the discomfort some longtime analysts felt about Mr. Brennan's unusual hands on role in producing the assessment.

[Alison Gill]

Okay, sure. I think they just had to whip up something, a redo of a really damning report so that they could make this criminal referral to Pam Bondi.

[Andy McCabe]

The report is really, it's a big nothing unless you're an analyst. They make criticisms. They basically took the report and compared it up against, like, the standard rules of analysis and the tradecraft that that all source analysts use to create finished intelligence products. And they found some ways that the report could have been better. They said it was produced too quickly. Of course, the answer to that criticism is we were given a time deadline by the President of the United States. We would have loved to have had six more months to do it, which is what the, the review suggested. But the President of the United States didn't give us six more months to do it. They, he said, get it done by the end of December. They also said, you know, there was too much senior management involvement in the piece and that could have caused the analysts to become, you know, nervous about their work and Subjected to influence. Okay, so these are all like. Like, I guess, good to know things, but, yeah, there's nothing in it that says this was a political hit job produced to attack Republicans, which is, I'm sure, what Mr. Ratcliffe was hoping for.

[Alison Gill]

Right? Or that the Crossfire hurricane was opened because of the FISA warrant into Carter Page and the dossier, which it wasn't. So, anyway, back at it again. I knew if I kept the name Mueller, she wrote at some point it would come back in fashion. I knew it. I'm just vintage now. That's what I'm saying. All right, what do we have next?

[Andy McCabe]

Our final story today is from the Washington Post. The special team created by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, still hard to say even all these months in. Has expressed a desire to gain access to emails and chat logs of the largest US Spy agencies with the aim of using artificial intelligence tools to ferret out what the administration deems as efforts to undermine its agenda. According to several people familiar with the matter. The mission of the Directors Initiative Group, or dig. Isn't that cute. Is to enforce President Donald Trump's executive orders and to, end quote, weaponization of the federal government, declassify documents, halt diversity, equity and inclusion programs. According to Gabbard's office. So far, far, none of the US spy agencies approached has transferred the data. Several people said, let's, let's be real.

[Alison Gill]

This is Donald Trump wanting to Google himself within the spy agency documents he wants.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, it's the loyalty purges, round two. Beyond DOJ and the FBI. Now we're going IC wide, intelligence community wide.

[Alison Gill]

Let's start searching for negative nicknames of himself, like.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly.

[Alison Gill]

All right, who in the NSA has used the term yam tits? Like, he's just. That's, like, that's what he's doing.

[Andy McCabe]

Who makes fun of my makeup?

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, totally.

[Andy McCabe]

Who doesn't?

[Alison Gill]

But, yeah. This goes on to say that the unprecedented interest in data by officials at the DNI startled some senior agency officials who have expressed concerns about the counterintelligence and privacy risks of aggregating what could be a large amount of sensitive information that may include references to intercepts of electronic communications on overseas targets. Maybe this is Lindsey Graham finally going to find out. Out whether or not he's. He's been on phone calls with Russia. Remember when he had a fit during a committee hearing? He's like, you just need to tell me if you've been listening to my phone calls.

[Andy McCabe]

Take it easy, Francis. One of these men might save your Life someday.

[Alison Gill]

Now, like most people interviewed for this article, these people who are saying this spoke on the condition of anonymity. But I have to say, it feels like there's more adults in the room at these spy agencies than, than maybe some other agencies out there, even though we've got Tulsi Gabbard at the top of it.

[Andy McCabe]

But, yeah, this is ridiculous. And her efforts aren't like shrouded in successful glory at this point. Her big effort to move the production of the President's daily brief out of CIA headquarters and down the road to her headquarters apparently got completely shut down by the administration. They said, knock it off. Her great, no more nukes video that she put up on her social media or something provoked, not happiness, let's just.

[Alison Gill]

Say part of the President.

[Andy McCabe]

So she's kind of, I feel like she's maybe one more mistake away from being asked to leave, but we'll see. She's, she's, she's pretty aggressive out there.

[Alison Gill]

Well, I mean, Trump likes rotating people in and out of these positions, so I'm not surprised. I think we'll see some pretty major firings within the next three months.

[Andy McCabe]

It's about time. I mean, like, yeah, the clock has been ticking and I think whoever's going.

[Alison Gill]

To replace him is going to be any good.

[Andy McCabe]

But early on, I think there's significant reluctance. As you saw it with Signal Gate, he doesn't want to fire anyone, especially who the media is saying you should fire this person for being incompetent. He sees it as some sort of capitulation that's going to wear off and he will start firing people who anger him personally. Right. So, you know, let's count up all the long term relationships that Trump is known to have with friends and close associates. I'm waiting. Okay. It's none. I got none.

[Alison Gill]

I got, I got like, I got like one. That, that. Who, Weisselberg.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. I mean, he might have even made him angry.

[Alison Gill]

He might have even made him angry. I don't.

[Andy McCabe]

Who knows, you know, he's just not a guy who keeps people around.

[Alison Gill]

No, he, he certainly doesn't, but I think he'll, I think, yeah, Bovey will be around for a while.

[Andy McCabe]

See.

[Alison Gill]

All right, that is the news. Let's get to our listener. We have, I think we have time for one listener question today. If you have a question, there's a link in the show notes. You can click on and submit a question and Andy and me will try to an it. Andy and I.

[Andy McCabe]

All right, so here's the here's the first one. This is the, or I should say the one we're going to do today comes to us from Gail. And I put this one in there because there's a lot of questions along this, along these lines. And I think there's some confusion over some of these basic kind of immigration issues. And since it's such a common topic for us, is a good one to hit on. So Gail says, please explain the legal classifications of those who are undocumented. And then in parens, she says, I thought that's a misdemeanor being deported. I thought deportation meant you were sent to your home country, leading to incarceration. How can you be incarcerated without trial? And how can you be incarcerated for a misdemeanor offense? And what process sets that sentencing? And who is paying for all this? Okay, so there's a lot packed in there, but there's a couple basics. So technically, when people are detained on immigration grounds, they're not being incarcerated, they're not serving a sentence, they have not been convicted of a crime. It simply reflects the fact that if you are here in the country without authorization, meaning you don't have any official immigration status, then you don't have the right to be here. And you can be taken into custody and held until the government goes through the process, gives you due process, us and deports you. Like that's the way the law is supposed to work. As a practical matter, in our recent past, in the last couple of decades, we've never really enforced that. We didn't habitually go around looking for people who did nothing other than, didn't do anything wrong other than being here without legal status and then throw them in jail. It's not the kind of thing that we, that we detained people for. It's more common that we focused on people who, who were here illegally and then committed some sort of crime, ended up in the criminal justice system. And then we typically waited until they served a sentence there. If they were convicted, and even if they weren't convicted, they could then get deported. And ICE focused their deportation efforts on those people. That's not the case anymore. They're showing up at parks, they're showing up at Home Depot parking lots and at workplaces, schools, and churches. Yeah. Rounding people up up simply for being out of status. So you can, under the law, take people who are out of status and detain them until they're deported. But again, it's is not how things were done here for a very long time.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And as far as the third country goes. Yes. Normally you would deport someone back to their country of origin. Yes. Sometimes through, through the due process process, you find out that maybe somebody is, has fear of going back to their country of origin, and then they might be deported to a third country. And generally third country deportations happen about, from my understanding, about 1.6% of the time. So very rarely. But now with this.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

Administration, that's all kind of all they want to do is to send folks to third countries as kind of, and it seems like allegedly as punitive as a, as a, as a punishment. Right, right. Like, oh, like in that courtroom where, you know, where the judge was talking about, oh, are you going to send somebody who, who is from a tropical climate to somewhere in the Arctic Circle? Right, right. Just to make their life miserable? So that's, again, something that is not normally the way we do things, but they, that is something they want to make a normal occurrence here.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. Their immigration law gives the government the ability to deport you to your country of origin, the place you were born and are a citizen of, or to the country you entered the United States from.

[Alison Gill]

Oh, that too. Right.

[Andy McCabe]

If you farm somewhere else and you went to Canada and then you came in here through Canada, we could send you back to Canada. And the Canadians couldn't really object to that. A trick that countries have played in the past. And I saw this doing my organized crime work in New York, we would maybe investigate someone and arrest them, and they would get sentenced, and during, they would serve a sentence. And at the end of that, we would want to make sure that they got deported. And if they were, let's say they came to the United States from Russia during the Soviet era, you have to go back to Russia and say, we are going to send you your person back. And they have to accept that person. They have to acknowledge that that person is their citizen. And oftentimes the Russians would say, say, no, sorry, we have no record of that person. Or they would say, no, that person left here when it was the Soviet Union. They never perfected their Russian citizenship, and therefore we won't take them. So in those cases, we would kind of get stuck with people. There's only a certain amount of time that they could be held in immigration detention. And then we had to basically let them go in the United States without any status. So there's all kinds of complexity.

[Alison Gill]

And then they all ended up working for the Trump campaign. Campaign.

[Andy McCabe]

Well, that kind of happened. So anyway, it's not quite as simple as it seems. You can't Always compare what you're seeing in these immigration issues to like how, how the legality of detention and incarceration works in the criminal system because it's kind of fundamentally different.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And sending people to El Salvador to see code under the Alien Enemies act that the, the, the utilization of the Alien Enemies act is still being litigated, but the due process part has been litigated. And, and the suprem have to give due process. Yeah, but they said the opposite. Without saying anything at all. In the third country's case.

[Andy McCabe]

In the third country case. Exactly.

[Alison Gill]

So anyway, it's. Everything seems very up in the air. A lot of these cases are winding their way through the courts and we, even when they hit the Supreme Court, sometimes we still don't get a final answer and. Which allows this administration to basically interpret the laws however they want. Want until someone tells them not to.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. That's right. Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Anyway, good question. And I don't even think it's a misdemeanor. I think it's just a civil problem. To be here without status.

[Andy McCabe]

To be here without status. I think that's right. I'm not an expert on immigration stuff, so I don't want to. I'm not 100% sure. But it's not a, it's not the sort of criminal offense that you hear the administration talking about. Oh, we're going after the murderers and the rapists. Like, no, it's not what's happening.

[Alison Gill]

Well, thank you so much for that question, Gail. Please send your questions to us again. There's a link in the show notes for you to do that. And thanks for hanging in with us. I know this was a little bit of a long show. We did have a lot to get to. We warned you, we warned you up front that we had a lot of needs to get to. But we really, really appreciate you listening. We appreciate your thoughtful questions. We look forward to reading them every week. So thank you very much for that and we will see you next week. Do you have a. Any final thoughts today, my friend?

[Andy McCabe]

I'm going to give one final little self promotion here because I've been asked to by my friends who put together a documentary called String Theory Guitar Obsessed. This was like a year ago and they asked me to be interviewed for it, which I did because I am a guitar obsessed. And lo and behold, the little team that could has gotten this thing accepted in the music documentary film festival, which is held on Long Island, New York on August 8th through 10th. So if you're in Long Island. Go check it out. I've seen the doc and it's really fun. It's well put together. There's a lot of interesting people in there. Harry Littman, who I know is a friend of yours, Ag. I think Harry's also in the doc and some other folks that you might recognize.

[Alison Gill]

So is this like former DOJ officials that play guitar?

[Andy McCabe]

I think they were just thinking about like weird people who you wouldn't expect are into guitar. And let's find out why this actor.

[Alison Gill]

You quit the being for the drummer for Ben Folds Live. You, you know, you picked up.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly. I picked up the guitar. Yeah. I switched instruments. So, yeah, check it out. I think it's also on, on Amazon, but I can't, I can't confirm that. I'll give you an update on that next week.

[Alison Gill]

All right, cool. Yeah, I hope it's somewhere besides Amazon, but very, very awesome string theory. I'm going to check it out for sure. And that's long island, the 8th through the 10th.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes, yes, yes.

[Alison Gill]

Good time, August. All right, everybody, we will be back next week. And I don't really have anything to shamelessly promote. I haven't been asked to be in any documentaries about the guitar, so. But one once I am, I will tell you about it here on Unjustified. We'll see. We'll see you next week. I'm Allison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

I'm Andy McCabe.

[Alison Gill]

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