Defy. Deny. Disparage

Summary

Podcast Summary: UnJustified – Episode 21: Defy. Deny. Disparage

Release Date: June 15, 2025

Hosts: Allison Gill & Andy McCabe

---

Introduction

In Episode 21 of UnJustified, hosts Allison Gill and former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe delve deep into the troubling actions of the Department of Justice (DoJ) under the Trump administration. The episode, titled "Defy. Deny. Disparage," explores the erosion of civil liberties and the rule of law, focusing primarily on the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Additionally, the hosts examine broader issues affecting the DoJ, including legislative changes, court rulings on the Alien Enemies Act, and internal dysfunctions within the department.

---

Kilmar Abrego Garcia: Criminal and Civil Cases

The episode begins with a detailed discussion of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's legal battles. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to two charges of smuggling migrants and is seeking bail pending his trial.

• Criminal Case Overview

  Andy McCabe outlines the indictment:

  "[Abrego Garcia] and others conspired to bring undocumented aliens to the United States from countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador, and elsewhere, ultimately passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas" ([00:08]).

  Giles highlights inconsistencies in the prosecution's case:

  "The DHS Referral report in 2022 states that Abrego Garcia told officers he was coming from Texas, but the indictment claims he lied about being from St. Louis, which contradicts the initial report" ([19:05]).

  The hosts express skepticism about the strength of the case, noting potential procedural issues and the reliance on co-conspirator testimony.

• Civil Case and Sanctions Motion

  Abrego Garcia's legal team filed a civil case against the government for failing to facilitate his return, as mandated by the Supreme Court. When the DoJ attempted to dismiss the discovery proceedings as moot after Abrego Garcia was returned, the lawyers countered by filing a sanctions motion for the government's non-compliance.

  Allison Gill emphasizes the government's blatant disregard:

  "The government flouted rather than followed the orders of this court and the United States Supreme Court" ([30:44]).

  McCabe adds:

  "The indictment doesn't provide strong, corroborative evidence, making it difficult for jurors to trust the prosecution's narrative" ([25:09]).

---

Legislative Changes and Contempt Provisions

Allison Gill and Andy McCabe discuss recent modifications by Senate Republicans to the contempt provisions in the budget reconciliation bill. These changes make it nearly impossible for movements to file civil motions for preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders without substantial financial bonds.

• Impact of $1 Contempt Provision

  Gill explains the original intent to allow $1 bonds:

  "Nothing stopping judges from charging a $1 bond... They modified the language to say it has to cover the actual value of the proceedings" ([06:22]).

  McCabe critiques the implications:

  "This only reserves temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions for people who have money and means" ([07:31]).

---

Alien Enemies Act Proclamation Rulings

The hosts highlight a significant judicial development where the Western District of Texas became the fourth court to deem Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act unlawful.

• Judge Brion Briona's Ruling

  On June 9th, Judge Brion Briona issued a 56-page ruling rejecting the proclamation on three main grounds:

  1. Definition of Invasion and Predatory Incursion: The court held that these terms require a militarized effort aimed at conquest, which the proclamation does not meet.

  2. Sovereignty of Venezuela: The proclamation does not recognize Trende Aragua as a legitimate foreign nation or government.

  3. Voluntary Departure: The proclamation fails to provide for voluntary departure as required by the Alien Enemies Act.

  Gill summarizes:

  "The proclamation doesn't allow for voluntary departure as required by the Alien Enemies Act" ([43:42]).

• Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court Involvement

  The episode touches on the ongoing appeals, mentioning Judge Ho's reluctance to define due process requirements and the Supreme Court's pending decision on the Act's legality and necessary procedural safeguards.

---

DOJ's "Rubber Room" and Internal Dysfunction

One of the most alarming segments of the episode covers the DoJ's internal restructuring, leading to the creation of the "Rubber Room," where seasoned lawyers are sidelined.

• Inside the Rubber Room

  Reported by CBS, the Rubber Room is depicted as a sham task force where elite civil rights, environmental, and national security lawyers are relegated to menial tasks, effectively sidelining them from meaningful work.

  Tom Mariani, an environmental litigator, describes his resignation:

  "I can't tell you how much personal distress I feel over how these folks were treated" ([49:49]).

  The hosts discuss how this tactic mirrors previous administrations' efforts to stifle experienced legal professionals, undermining the department's effectiveness and integrity.

---

FOIA Lawsuit on Jack Smith's Report

Allison Gill and Andy McCabe also address the Justice Department’s attempt to dismiss a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking access to Volume 2 of former Special Counsel Jack Smith's final report on the Mar-a-Lago investigation.

• DOJ's Motion to Dismiss

  The DoJ filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by The New York Times for failing to expedite the processing of their FOIA request. Gill echoes skepticism about the administration's transparency:

  "I sure would like to see volume two of the Jack Smith Report if it hasn't been shredded and burned" ([51:18]).

  McCabe criticizes the DOJ's evasive tactics:

  "Failing to answer and missing deadlines are not the most effective ways to defend against FOIA requests" ([51:39]).

---

Listener Questions: Authority of ICE Agents

The episode concludes with a listener question addressing the authority and conduct of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

• Response to Listener Inquiry

  Gill and McCabe elaborate on the training and operational protocols of ICE agents, countering misconceptions:

  • Training and Identification: ICE agents undergo federal law enforcement training but are not required by law to visibly display their badges or wear identifiable uniforms, leading to concerns about their intimidating presence.

  • Armed Status: The hosts discuss the implications of ICE agents being heavily armed, comparing their tactics to militarization seen in broader law enforcement contexts.

  Gill expresses concern over the psychological impact:

  "These people are decked out more than... veterans who've served tours in Afghanistan... that's what frightens" ([55:21]).

  McCabe adds:

  "This climate of fear is detrimental to community trust and cooperation with law enforcement" ([56:58]).

---

Conclusion

In this comprehensive episode, Allison Gill and Andy McCabe shed light on the systematic undermining of legal protections and civil liberties by the Department of Justice under Trump's administration. Through meticulous analysis of high-profile cases, legislative changes, and internal departmental issues, the hosts provide a sobering look at the challenges facing the rule of law and democratic institutions.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Allison Gill ([00:45]): "This is unjustified."
• Andy McCabe ([13:59]): "It's hard to come up with that sort of minuscule level of evidence when there's essentially no crime."
• Allison Gill ([25:44]): "This could be..."
• Andy McCabe ([30:44]): "She [the government] put the lie to its previously feigned powerlessness to comply with this court's injunction."
• Allison Gill ([49:49]): "This is a hard thing to talk about..."
• Listener Question ([52:30]): "What laws govern their conduct? Can they be so heavily armed?"

---

Credits

UnJustified is written and executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andy McCabe. Sound design and editing are by Molly Hockey, and art and web design are by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. The theme music for UnJustified is written and performed by Ben Folds. The show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator-owned independent podcasts dedicated to news, politics, and justice.

Transcript

[Alison Gill]

MSW Media.

[Andy McCabe]

Kilmar Abrego Garcia has pled not guilty to the two charges of smuggling migrants and has asked the court to release him on bail pending his trial.

[Alison Gill]

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is trying to dismiss the discovery proceedings as moot. But Abrego Garcia's lawyers have filed a sanctions motion and have asked Judge Sinis to proceed with determining whether the government defied her court orders.

[Andy McCabe]

The Western District of Texas became the fourth court to find that Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies act is unlawful, and they blocked the government from removing anyone under the proclamation in their district.

[Alison Gill]

And Attorney General Pam Bondi fails to respond to Judge Boasberg's order to report how the government is facilitating the due process for those still trapped in the Salvadoran prison and instead filed a motion to stay the order. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to Episode Episode 21 of Unjustified. It is Sunday, June 15, 2025. I'm Alison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe. All right, those headlines aren't all we're going to cover today. In addition to all that, Republicans in the Senate have modified the contempt provision in the budget reconciliation bill, making it nearly impossible for movements to file civil motions for preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Plus we have reporting from CBS that the sidelined lawyers at the Department of Justice have been relegated a room where they watch Netflix and do jigsaw puzzles all day. They're calling it the rubber room. Your tax dollars at work. But before we get into Abrego, Garcia, and Boseberg and all that, let's cover a few hot topics in the news. First, Alina Haba, former parking lot lawyer, current U.S. attorney for, you know, in. In New Jersey, finally secured an indictment from a federal grand jury against Representative Lamonica McIver. She was the representative, one of two. She was with Mayor Raz Baraka at the ICE detention facility in Newark that day, by the way. There's been a. An uprising there, and four people have escaped.

[Andy McCabe]

Yep.

[Alison Gill]

And so it seems like he should have been there, that they should have been there to inspect that particular privately owned detention facility. But as we know, Hobbit dropped the charges against the mayor, Ros Baraka, and he's suing her for false arrest, defamation, and malicious prosecution. But they returned a grand jury indictment against him in a few days. In fact, by May 21, they had dropped the charges completely. The One for Lamonica McIver. That grand jury indictment took three weeks. And it makes me wonder, Andy, if they're up to their Old tricks. Like, did they go to more than one grand jury trying to get the indictment? I don't have any proof of this, but they do have a history of doing this. And guess how I know?

[Andy McCabe]

How is that? Are you saying that they shop it around, that they take a bite at the apple, it doesn't turn out to be as tasty as they'd like, and so then they wait six months and take another bite at the apple. And that one also sucks for them.

[Alison Gill]

There was someone near me or close to me that got a no true bill returned, and then they went back for a second bite with a different grand jury, and that person was none other than Andrew McCabe. But I don't see anybody talking about the fact that it took them three weeks to get this grand jury and it only took them a couple of days to get Ras Barakas, which says to me that perhaps they got no true bill from at least one grand jury. But again, that's just speculation. I want to make sure everybody's on that.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I mean, it's possible. It's in the realm. But also possible is that it took them a lot of time to scrape up even the very small amount of evidence that it takes to get a jury, a grand jury to vote for an indictment. It's hard to come up with that sort of minuscule level of evidence when there's essentially no crime. So you know what? I don't know what they said to them. We'll never know that those proceedings are secret. But, you know, this, this, this is ridiculous. There's. She's on video pretty clearly doing nothing and interacting with those officers in a very benign way. It looks like she may have like, bumped up against one of them with her shoulder or something. It looks like accident.

[Alison Gill]

Right.

[Andy McCabe]

Accidental contact there. But, yeah, we'll see. It's, that's another not particularly strong case that it seems this DOJ is willing to push forward.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, we have a few particularly not strong cases and we'll, we'll get to a lot of those soon. I also wanted to discuss this $1 contempt provision. You'll recall that earlier in the budget reconciliation bill, what I'm what I have dubbed the billionaire bailout bill and what constituents of Senator Joni Ernst have dubbed the we're all gonna die anyway bill. She, they had a provision in there that said, hey, you can no longer do contempt for, you know, temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions with zero dollar bond, the court's discretion, they have to issue a bond. And so I, I had written Up a thing [e-mail] saying nothing stopping judges from charging a $1 bond. And then we saw a judge come back, I think it was a $1 bond, and issue a $1 bond just in case this law passed. Well, the Republicans have caught wind probably because Judge Boasberg and a lot of other judges have been issuing $1 bonds. And they've modified the language to say that it actually has to cover the actual value of the proceedings for the government, which could be millions of dollars. I mean, in a lot of these cases, especially what the government determines to be. I mean, I think they have probably calculators and things like that, but it's a lot of money. And it's, it's for TROs and preliminary injunctions, which is the step on the way to, you know, a more permanent injunction. But they have modified that language, and this concerns me, frankly.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. So basically the way it works is the bond is laid on at the beginning, and if the movement, let's say the plaintiff loses their effort to have the injunction imposed, then they have to pay the bond.

[Alison Gill]

Right. Like so Fabrego Garcia wanted to file a temporary, for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, like he did.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Civilly, he would have to put up enough money to cover the government's expenses. Legal expenses.

[Andy McCabe]

Legal expenses, which is such. Which is so absurd because in all in all, in almost no circumstances, under almost no circumstances does the government ever get paid back for their legal work. They have the Department of Justice. Those people are all getting paid by.

[Alison Gill]

We pay them.

[Andy McCabe]

We pay them. Yeah, we pay them already. They get salaries. It's not a by the hour sort of endeavor. So, yeah, this.

[Alison Gill]

We can have all of our money back, all of our tax dollars back to fund the Department of Justice. Okay, but. But still not okay. Because now this only reserves temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions for people who have money and means.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, pretty much. It's disturbing for sure.

[Alison Gill]

We'll keep an eye on that. But also, something else cool is going on that we talked a lot about Rule 53 way back, going all the way back to the Jack Smith days, because as we know, Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta in California filed a lawsuit against Trump so he could get back control of the California National Guard like he's supposed to have. There was a hearing in Judge Breyer's courtroom. Judge Breyer, brother of justice, former Supreme Court Justice Breyer, and Bill Clinton appointee, held a hearing and had determined that the government actually did run afoul of the authority it cited in order to send troops to the. To California and said by noon on Friday, control of the guard has to go back to the governor. Of course, that's been stayed now by a panel on the Ninth Circuit. And so we're waiting till Tuesday the 17th to get a hearing on that particular stay.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

And the rest of this order, we'll see about. We'll see what happens with that. But the thing I wanted to talk about, the thing we've been talking about for a long time, Rule 53, is that Judge Breyer allowed cameras in his courtroom, sort of zoom. Right. He held this hearing via zoom with cameras and released it to the public. And this is a trial that they're doing about allowing cameras in the courtroom. I mean, would have been great to do this in 2022, you know, when we had, oh, the trials of the century coming and coming up, and when we had a lot of the pre. Pretrial hearings for what Jack Smith was doing. But I think this is a step in the right direction. I love that they're doing a trial run of cameras in courtrooms, in federal courtrooms, because, you know, some state courtrooms have. Are already on camera. But I. I think this is great that they're doing this trial run.

[Andy McCabe]

I totally agree with you. Way overdue and classic that it's California that's dragging us into the future. Maybe. Yeah. I mean, this is. We're in a different time than when this all started 250 years ago. We're in a battle for the preservation and the communication of truth versus spin and lies and misinformation and, you know, whatever deepfakes AI all the rest of it, like into the gap that we currently have with people understanding actually what happens in a federal court. That gap is filled by commentary and nonsense that can, you know, recharacterize the truth and that. So this is a very pretty easy, you know, technological fix to that and why we're not doing it. There's no good reason why we're not doing it. It just simply hasn't been done. And its tradition and the federal courts are a hard place to modernize. But maybe. Maybe we're on the cusp of that.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, agreed. All right, everybody, we're going to get into the weeds on Abrego Garcia, but we need to take a quick break, so everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody, welcome back. All right, let's talk about where we are in the Abrego Garcia cases, plural, because there are now two cases we have the criminal case against him brought by the Department of Justice and Abrego Garcia's civil case against the government. So let's start with the criminal case. As you know, the Department of Justice returned Abrego Garcia to the United States to face two felony counts of smuggling migrants. We announced his return and his indictment last week on the show, but didn't quite yet have the indictment, and we have that now, so we're going to go over that. And Friday, Garcia had his detention hearing because the government wants him to be locked up while he awaits trial, and Abrego Garcia's lawyers want him released on bond. Right. So, I mean, let's talk about the criminal case.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. So. Well, let's go over the indictment, at least. The. The. The kind of first summary part of reads from in or around 2016 through in or around 2025. That's typical lawyer language to make sure you're not pinned down to a specific date. That's hence the in or around. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia and others known and unknown to the grand jury conspired to bring undocumented aliens to the United States from countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador, and elsewhere, ultimately passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas. The co conspirators knew the undocumented aliens did not possess authorization to enter the United States. Abrego Garcia and co conspirators from El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, the United States and elsewhere communicated with each other using cellular telephones and social media applications to facilitate the unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens without authorization and through the United States.

[Alison Gill]

Hmm. It goes on to say that Abrego Garcia and the co conspirators collected financial payments from undocumented aliens for illegal transportation into and throughout the United States. Into and throughout the United States. And we're going to talk about this in a second because you got to remember, when there's a conspiracy, as long as you have agreed to join the conspiracy or they can prove that you're part of it, you are on the hook for everyone else's crimes in that conspiracy. So if one guy in your conspiracy was the one who brought these people into the United States and you just moved them from Texas to somewhere else, you're on the hook for bringing them into the unit, for the conspiracy to bring them into the United States, I mean, pending a bunch of evidence and circumstances. But we got to kind of remember what a conspiracy entails, and we talked about this a lot because Trump was charged with conspiracy.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. That's right. You Basically, the government has to prove that you agreed to the criminal conspiracy. So you knew it and you agreed to it, and then that you committed 1. An act in furtherance doesn't have not all the acts, but some. You did something to facilitate the overall completion of the conspiracy.

[Alison Gill]

Right. So it goes on to say the co conspirators then knowingly transferred money between one another in an effort to conceal the origin of the payments. Co conspirators 1 through 5, all persons known to the grand jury were co conspirators with Abrego Garcia. All were citizens of El Salvador, and all were not United States citizens. Co Conspirator 6 is also a person known to the grand jury and was a citizen of Guatemala and not a United States citizen.

[Andy McCabe]

Abrego Garcia was a citizen of El Salvador, was not a United States citizen, and was living in the United States. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was also a member and associate of the Transnational Criminal Organization Ms. 13. I think that's interesting here. As an aside, they went back to tradition. They referred to MS.13 as what it really is, which is a transnational criminal organization and not as a terrorist organization, which is what they've declared it to be very recently.

[Alison Gill]

Right.

[Andy McCabe]

And I think that was intentional.

[Alison Gill]

But it's also the entire government of Venezuela invading us. Yeah, that's trende Aragua.

[Andy McCabe]

Excuse me. That's right. That's right. Okay. Mississippi. Thirteen was a criminal enterprise engaged in, among other activities, acts and threats involving murder, extortion, narcotics trafficking, firearms trafficking, alien smuggling and money laundering. MS.13 operated throughout north and Central America, including El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, the United States, Texas, Maryland, New York, Tennessee and elsewhere.

[Alison Gill]

You'll notice that there are no charges for money laundering, narcotics trafficking, extortion. I mean, if he's really a member of Ms. 13 and part of a conspiracy to do all those crimes, he could be charged with those crimes. Presumably.

[Andy McCabe]

But he is not.

[Alison Gill]

No, he is not. Nor are any of his co conspirators. It goes on to say Abrego Garcia, as detailed further below, used his status in MS.13 to further his criminal activity. Over the course of the conspiracy, the co conspirators know knowingly and unlawfully transported thousands of undocumented aliens who had no authorization to be present in the United States and many of whom were Ms. 13 members and associates. The co conspirators also worked with transnational criminal organizations in Mexico to transport undocumented aliens through Mexico and into the United States. So he's charged with two counts in the Middle District of Tennessee, conspiracy to transport aliens and unlawful transportation of aliens, Both under Title 8, U.S. code, Section 1324, with a bunch of Roman numerals after it. And, you know, I want to make clear here that the. The term aliens is what is in the law and what is in the language of this indictment. That is not a word that I would use personally.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right.

[Alison Gill]

Also, these charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. And during that stop, the local FBI and DHS referral, they refused to arrest him. At the time, they said, let him go. We don't. We don't have anything. Don't. We weren't going to detain him.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, that's right. They. They stopped him. I think it was late at night. There were, I think, eight passengers in a van.

[Alison Gill]

It was Tennessee Highway Patrol, I think. Right, right.

[Andy McCabe]

And they ultimately were allowed to go on their way and were not arrested. So, Ryan Goodman, who's the co editor in chief at Just Security and an NYU law professor, he pointed out a big inconsistency between the indictment and the DHS Referral report from 2022. The indictment says when asked where they were traveling from Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia knowingly and falsely told the state trooper he and the passengers were coming from St. Louis. Cell phone location information for the cell phone used by the defendant, as well as license plate reader data for the SUV showed that the defendant lied to the Tennessee Highway Patrol when he told them that he had been working a construction job in St. Louis for the past two weeks. Specifically, the defendant had been in Texas earlier that same morning and had not been close to St. Louis within the prior two weeks. But.

[Alison Gill]

This is bad. Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

As Professor Goodman points out, the DHS Referral report in 2022. So this is a report that was filed not long after the actual traffic stop. It says upon approach to the vehicle encountering officer noted there were eight other individuals in the vehicle with the subject, who was identified as the driver. That's Garcia. Subject stated he was driving, quote, three days ago. That would have been from November 27, 2022, from Houston, Texas, to Temple Hills, Maryland, via St. Louis, Missouri, to bring in people to perform construction work.

[Alison Gill]

So the report of the traffic stop says Abrego Garcia told the officers he was coming from Texas, from Houston.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

But in the indictment, it says Abrego Garcia lied to the officers and said he was coming from St. Louis.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, the. The DHS report says he left Houston and he was driving to Maryland via St. Louis, not that he left St. Louis that morning. So this is going to be a very, very problematic piece of evidence for the prosecution to. They're going to go deep. You're going to hear about this report a hundred times.

[Alison Gill]

I mean, I'm hammering on that. If I'm Abrego Garcia's defense attorney, then.

[Andy McCabe]

You, you, you open the door to all these other things. Like, okay, who from the government side at the traffic stop, was there anyone on that team that spoke Spanish? Like, what language did the. Did the. Were the questions asked? In what language were they answered in? Is it possible that they just got it all wrong, that he said St. Louis was a place they were going to and through on their way to Maryland, not the place that they came from that day?

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And is this smuggling aliens, quote, unquote, or is this giving people rides to jobs?

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly. That comes down to intent, right?

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. So which is an important piece.

[Andy McCabe]

Did he know. Do they have any evidence to indicate that he knew that these people were in the country illegally? I mean, technically, 8 USC 1324 prohibits the movement of, again, in the language of the statute, illegal aliens if you know they're illegal, or if you recklessly, you know, if you, if you know or should have known under the circumstances, there's like a, there's an intentional standard in the statute.

[Alison Gill]

So wait, if I give a ride to somebody that I happen to know is undocumented, am I in trouble with the law? Well, do I have to be transporting them for some, for anything, for any reason, or is it across state lines? I mean, like.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay, so here's the statute in the, in the second part, which is, I think, the one that they're probably charging under here. Any person who knowing, or in reckless disregard of the fact that. That an alien has come to, entered or remains in the United States in violation of the law. Okay. You have to either know that or you're recklessly disregarding facts of that. And then you transport, move, or attempt to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise in furtherance of such a violation of law. So it's not just like your neighbor says, can you give me a lift to Whole Foods? And you do, and it turns out they're. They don't have status. This is meant to get people who.

[Alison Gill]

Hiding people, right?

[Andy McCabe]

Like, yeah. And you're moving them for the purpose of an illegal act, remaining illegally in the United States.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Okay. Good luck. Pam Bondi.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, she's still gonna need evidence that he knew what was going on here. And it has to it's gonna have to be more than. He got a phone call from CC1 who said, hey, I'll give you a thousand bucks to drive these eight people to mar. That's not going to be enough.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Unless CC1 has a real huge incentive to say that. That's what Abreco Garcia said.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

Another huge, huge problem, and this was a big story this week, is the resignation of Ben Schrader. He spent 15 years in the U.S. attorney's office in Nashville. He was most recently the chief of the Criminal Division and he resigned. He walked away from a 15 year career in law enforcement or in prosecution in, you know, in the office there in the Criminal Division because he felt the case was being pursued for political reasons. He up and left.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, that's not a good sign. And not, not a good sign at all. Again, I have some personal experience with that. Several of the prosecutors and the who were assigned to investigate me in D.C. left the case. One of them left the office for what we heard were the same reasons. It. This is just. I'm just saying this case against Abrego Garcia, it does not look very strong.

[Alison Gill]

No, it really doesn't. And I gotta tell you, we're about to hear, as we're recording this, they're in a hearing right now. The other part of this case. Well, no, no, no, excuse me. They're. This is. We're still on the criminal case. They, they have a criminal case hearing today for Abrego Garcia.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

As we sit here and record this to determine whether or not he'd be held without. With, without bail or whether he's out on bail pending this trial. And Adam Classfeld, our friend from All Rise News, you should subscribe if you haven't yet. We're going to be live on substack later today on Friday. That will. By the time you hear this, it'll be up on my substack because I'll post that in, you know, that interview there too. He's physically at the hearing. He flew down to Tennessee to go to this hearing. Called me real quick in between, you know, on a court break and, and sort of emphasized the fact that these two co conspirators are. Well, the two main ones, the first two, the CC1 and CC2, the star witnesses against Abrego Garcia are related. They're in prison. One's doing 30 months. They were offered leniency on their prison sentences and on immigration in order for, you know, to obtain their cooperation. And one of them's been deported five times from the United States. And we're going to get all that in detail in All Rise News and when I talk to Adam Klassfeld, but I'm watching right now, I'm watching his feed very closely and there is still no ruling on whether or not he can be out on bail or whether he's got to stay in custody pending the trial. It's going to be interesting. I can't wait to hear the arguments about him, about the government saying that he's a flight risk.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. When I read the indictment, I thought, man, this is a case built entirely on cooperator testimony. That is not good. You need actual facts, undeniable facts to corroborate the cooperators for the jurors, usually to, you know, to accept the corrupt, the cooperators downsides and believe them anyway.

[Alison Gill]

So it seems like they have the opposite with the Tennessee Highway Patrol and the DHS referral form saying that first of all, they let him go. They said we don't have anything to detain them. And, and second of all, contradicting a very important fact that's in the indictment.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, the only, the only other evidence they referred to in the indictment is the phone. The phone, cell phone tracking that they, that is now contradicted by the DHS report. Right. They said their, their big thing is he said he was in St. Louis, but his cell phone wasn't there. In fact, his phone shows it was in Houston, Texas. Well, the night of. He told the responding officers he was in Texas that morning. So like that's washed out. So it's. Yeah, this could be may. Look, maybe they have more evidence that they did not share with the grand jury. But what's in the indictment right now doesn't. Is not very confidence inspiring.

[Alison Gill]

Pretty flimsy. But I want to talk about the other Abrego Garcia case. That's the discovery part. The contempt. Getting to contempt. Right. The judge Sini's part of this civil case. But we're going to take a quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. So like I said before the break, the other thing we wanted to cover today with Abrego Garcia is the second case, the civil case filed by his lawyers against the government many moons ago. As you know, yes, Abrego Garcia filed suit because he didn't get any due process. All of the courts, including the Supreme Court said that the government needed to facilitate his return and to be prepared to tell the courts what they were doing to facilitate his return. That's straight from a Supreme Court order so the lower court, Judge Sinis, ordered the government to tell her what it was doing to facilitate his return. Not facilitate his return. Just tell me what you're doing to facilitate his return.

[Andy McCabe]

Right. What steps are you taking?

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. And the DOJ completely ignored or failed that. Failed to do so. They ignored that order. So Judge Sini started a discovery process, a two week discovery proceedings to discover whether or not the government was in contempt for violating her court order. We were six weeks into that two week discovery process.

[Andy McCabe]

That's a long two weeks, six weeks.

[Alison Gill]

When the government returned to Brago Garcia to the United States and indicted him. And then they filed a very cheeky motion to dismiss all the discovery proceedings in the civil case as moot because they had returned. We will. We returned him. So bye.

[Andy McCabe]

No harm, no foul.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, right. Sorry. Yeah. I said this isn't over. You can't violate a court order. I've learned this from Judge Boasberg. Even though his tiaras were vacated by the Supreme Court, you still couldn't violate them until that happened. And so even if they're moot now and Abrego Garcia's lawyer said it's not over, they came back and filed the next day and said the same thing. I said, this isn't over by a mile. And they filed an opposition to the government's motion to stay the discovery proceedings and or dismiss them outright as moot. And this week, after Judge Sinis granted Abrego Garcia's motion to file for sanctions against the government in this case, they did just that.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. So on June 6th, the government filed. Now this again, this is the government, not Abrego Garcia, they said. As the Attorney General recently announced, Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States today to stand trial on criminal charges in the middle district of Tennessee. Considering this development, the court's preliminary injunction should be dissolved and the underlying case, that's the civil case, should be dismissed as moot. So Abrego Garcia's lawyers responded on June 8. And buckle in, folks, because this one's, this one's a doozy, they said. Though Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is at long last back in the United States following his illegal removal. To characterize the government as having complied with the court's order is pure farce. The government flouted rather than followed the orders of this court and the United States Supreme Court. Instead of facilitating Abrego Garcia's return, for the past two months, defendants have engaged in an elaborate all of government effort to defy court Orders deny due process and disparage Abrego Garcia. In its latest act of contempt, the government arranged for Abrego Garcia's return not to Maryland, in compliance with the Supreme Court's directive to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador, but rather to Tennessee so that he could be charged with a crime in a case that the government only developed while it was under the threat of sanctions. The Tennessee indictment was filed under seal on May 21. Yet six days later, the government continued to insist to this court that it does not have the power to produce him. The government's convenient ability to return Abrego Garcia in time for a press conference unveiling his indictment puts the lie to its previously feigned powerlessness to comply with this court's injunction.

[Alison Gill]

Who.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, that's really well, well written, and it is. Just calls him out for lying, flat out.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Six days after they filed the indictment under seal, they were still telling the court, we can't get him back.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

So no ruling on that motion to dismiss yet. But Abrego Garcia's lawyers filed their sanctions motion against the government because Judge Sinis granted their motion to file a sanctions motion. They say for nine weeks, the government defied this court's order, affirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court, to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States following his illegal removal to El Salvador. For nearly eight of those nine weeks, the government likewise flouted this court's order to produce expedited discovery concerning what, if anything, it was doing to comply. This motion addresses the latter, seeking sanctions under Federal Rule of civil procedure 37 for the government's repeated violations of its discovery obligations. The government's defiance has not been subtle. It has been vocal and sustained and flagrant. The defendant's defiance of judicial orders has been accompanied by misrepresentations, stonewalling, and even questioning of this court's authority. The defendant's defiance of this court's discovery orders, in particular, has been egregious, defined by open refusal to produce any evidence of its professed compliance and the meritless assertion of an array of purported privileges to shield its actions from scrutiny. So to be clear, this isn't a sanctions motion because the government failed to facilitate his return. This is a sanctions. It's not even a sanctions motion because they failed to tell the judge what they were doing to facilitate his return.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

This is a sanctions motion based on their stonewalling of discovery.

[Andy McCabe]

Discovery. That's right. It goes on. The relevance of the information sought is beyond question. It's responsive at its core to the basic questions posed by the court at the outset regarding Abrego Garcia's custodial status and what efforts the government had taken or would take to facilitate his return to the United States. The lengths the government has gone to to resist discovery relating to these core questions raises a strong inference that the government is trying to hide its conduct from the scrutiny of this court, the plaintiffs, and the public. What the government improperly seeks to hide must be exposed for all to see. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 105.8, plaintiffs respectfully request that the court impose the following sanctions. One, find established for the purposes of this action certain facts set forth below. Two, compel the production of information and documents the government has improperly withheld, or in the alternative, appoint a special master to investigate the extent of the government's willful non compliance with the orders of this court. And three, impose fines based on a finding of civil contempt.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, Special master. Special master.

[Andy McCabe]

Let's go.

[Alison Gill]

I love a good special master. Let's get Barbara Jones in here. Come on.

[Andy McCabe]

Let's find out of extra special master.

[Alison Gill]

Oh, man, that is a heck of a sanctions motion. And we'll be keeping an eye on this particular part of the Abrego Garcia docket. Tell you what, Annie. I'm going to check one more time to see if we have any updates on the criminal aspect of the detention. Hearing of a survey says nothing yet, but I will keep you posted. We will keep you posted. And we have actually still more news to get to. We want to talk about Judge Boberg's docket, so let's shift to that. That real quick. Roger. The origins of this case go back to march, right? March 15th. The ides of us when judge. Judge Boberg ordered the two planes headed to El Salvador be turned around and the people aboard them be returned to the United States. They were sent there under Trump's Alien Enemies act proclamation. The Supreme Court vacated Judge Boberg's orders to turn the planes around and. And grant a class, a nationwide class. But they agreed n nothing. That due process is required. And they said that Judge Boasberg can't issue a nationwide injunction stopping removal under the Alien Enemies act because those cases have to be handled through habeas petitions filed individually by those being detained in the US under relevant jurisdiction. And that, you know, you can have a. A class within a district within a district.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

But not nationwide.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

So everybody in the Northern District of Texas, you know, for example, Western District of Pennsylvania.

[Andy McCabe]

Now.

[Alison Gill]

Mm. Now, it says the lawyers for those who remained at Seacoat filed with Judge Boasberg to certify that all of those removed under the Alien Enemies act still being held in El Salvador, because they're not in a district in the United States, certify them as a class, which Judge Boasberg did. And he also gave the government a week to facilitate due process or to tell. Well, he told the government, you need to facilitate due process. And I give you a week to tell me how you're going to do it.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

Not to do it, just how you're going to do it. And that week was up on June 11th.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. Yeah. He wanted to be careful about not being too. Not to dictate to them the process, because there is an element of. Now we're in the realm of kind of foreign relations, and the courts are sensitive to stray into those areas. That's pretty much exclusively within that the president's Article 2 authority. So he said, you have to do it, but you can come back to me in a week and tell me how you're going to propose to give them the sort of due process that they would get here.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. So when the Supreme Court said we have to give deference to the. You know, to the executive branch on how they want to deal with foreign affairs, great, you deal with it. But you got to tell me what you're doing to deal with it.

[Andy McCabe]

And qualitatively, it has to be equivalent to the due process that they would get here. Meaning, like, if due process here means you get notice and then you get 30 days to find an attorney and have a hearing and all the rest, then that's what they would have to get there. If you're going to propose that. Doing it there.

[Alison Gill]

Right. So tell me how you're going to do it. Now, naturally, the Trump administration filed a motion with Boasberg and the D.C. circuit to stay his order. They haven't responded to this. You know, you have a week to tell me how you're gonna facilitate due process. So they. They filed a motion to stay this.

[Andy McCabe]

And Boseberg's ruling.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, Bozberg's ruling for everybody who remains in C Code. And apparently the government went to the appeals court before they asked the district court, which is a big no, no. But regardless, the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay, temporarily pausing Boseberg's order while they consider the matter further. The three judge panel on almost all the motions in this circuit, by the way, is somehow composed of at least two Trump appointed judges. So they paused this and I've been keeping my eye on that. Like every single emergency motion for a stay that's gone up to the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals has had two or three Trump appointees on it. I don't know how the math is mathing because there are 11 justice judges in that circuit and only four of them are Trump appointees. Maybe five. So anyway, I thought that that was just a little bit odd.

[Andy McCabe]

It is a little bit odd. Well, Judge Boasberg addressed the government's motion to stay his order on June 12, and in his order, he addresses the government's having gone over his head to the circuit court. He says on June 4, 2025, this court granted in part and denied in part the motion for a preliminary injunction brought by Frankel Reyes Mota, Andre Jose Hernandez Romero, and four other non citizens presently confined at the Terrorism Confinement center in El Salvador. Relevant here, the court held that the government violated the due process rights of these plaintiffs when it deported them to Seacoat pursuant to the Alien Enemies act before affording them a meaningful opportunity to challenge their deportation through a habeas corpus proceeding. The court, moreover, held that these C Code plaintiffs could vindicate their due process rights outside of a habeas proceeding and that they could do so on behalf of a class comprising all non citizens removed from U.S. custody and transferred to Secote on March 15 and 16, 2025. The court concluded that because the proper remedy for a violation of due process is providing the process that was due. I love that. So, so obvious, but also funny. The government must, quote, facilitate the C coat class's ability to challenge their removal through habeas and, quote, ensure that their cases are handled as they would have been if the government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process. Mindful however, of the sensitive national security and foreign policy concerns at play, the court did not order defendants to take any concrete steps. It instead gave them a week to propose what actions they thought would be appropriate.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, and now that was the point where you were bringing up where the judge was even like, hey, we're showing you deference to the foreign affairs stuff, right? Right now the judge goes on. This is good, he says. Six days later, the government appealed and sought to stay the preliminary injunction. On the afternoon of June 10, they filed an emergency motion with the Court of Appeals asking for an administrative stay and a stay pending appeal. They also, and it appears subsequently, asked this court to stay the injunction pending appeal. So that's him saying, you went to the appeals court first. Several hours later, the Court of Appeals entered an administrative stay, quote, to give it sufficient opportunity. Consider the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. In light of that development, this court will deny Trump's, you know, the government's motion as moot. The defendants have received the relief that they seek. The injunction is stayed. The fact that such relief has been provided through an administrative stay rather than through a stay pending appeal does not alter the fact that for as long as the former remains in place, it would be pointless for this court to weigh in the propriety of the latter. So he's like, you're supposed to come to me first you went to them, then you came to me. They stated administratively, so I'm dismissing your thing as moot. And he says, come back and tell me if you want me to do it different, like later in the thing. But now both of Boseberg's orders are stayed here. His order on criminal contempt and his order to get the info on facilitating due process for those at Seacoat. They're both paused by administrative stay by three judge panels of mostly Trump appointees at the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals.

[Andy McCabe]

You know, this thing is really weird because, like, they went to the circuit first. If the circuit turned them down, did they expect that Boasberg was then going to go in a different direction? Like, why did they file with Boasberg? They already, they already made the error. They already offended him by going to the circuit first.

[Alison Gill]

This is probably just a mistake. They probably meant to probably go to Bozberg first. I don't know. What do you think?

[Andy McCabe]

I don't know. It's so stupid. Once they realized that they had skipped him, which is like, anyone should have known that and not done it, then they were like, what do we do now? Well, let's just file with him to make him feel better. I mean, it's, it's so obviously a waste of his time. It's just a, it's a head scratching move by the lawyers at doj, but we get a lot of those now, so I shouldn't be so surprised.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, it is a little bit bonkers. And Andy, before we go to break, we have some additional updates on other Alien Enemies Act Proclamation cases. A fourth court now, the Western District of Texas, has found Donald Trump's Alien Enemies act proclamation is unlawful. And, and it's much of on the same root for the same reasons that the other three courts have found it unlawful. This is Judge Brion Briona's. It's a 56 page ruling he issued on June 9th. And he, he basically says that, you know, when assessing whether the proclamation, they're calling it the Alien Enemies act proclamation is lawful. It. The court addresses three key ways in which it falls on its short on its face. Right. So these are the three things. First, the court, the plain ordinary meaning of invasion and predatory incursion as the terms were understood in 1798, actually require a militarized effort against and militarized intrusion into the territory of the United States with the specific purpose of conquering or obtaining control over territory. So the court rejects the respondents invitation to broaden the meaning of invasion and predatory incursion.

[Andy McCabe]

Nice.

[Alison Gill]

They also, he also says the proclamation doesn't establish Trende Aragua as a foreign nation or government.

[Andy McCabe]

That's because they're not.

[Alison Gill]

And finally, the proclamation doesn't allow for voluntary departure as required by the Alien Enemies Act. So he's in, in violation of the Alien Enemies act in several ways.

[Andy McCabe]

Meanwhile, in the fifth Circuit for the AARP case, of course, that's the one from the Northern District of Texas, the Blue Bonnet facility. The one where the Supreme Court in the middle of the night blocked the removal of migrants under the Alien Enemies act and remanded it back down to the fifth Circuit. It you remember the one where Judge Ho was really mad about having to come up with a due process plan like such a, such a unreasonable.

[Alison Gill]

You can make me, but I don't have to like it, he said.

[Andy McCabe]

I'm like, yeah, you know, none of those, none of those detainees like it either. So we're all on the same plane. So anyway, in that case, maybe to try to head off their obligations at the past, the government filed notice with the fifth Circuit that they were going to cave and grant seven whole days of notice to the people they intended to remove under the Alien Entities Act. As a reminder, the government's original policy was no notice, zero days, zero hours. Then it was 12 hours, after which the person would have 24 hours to file a habeas petition. Now they're saying seven days. Of course, other judges have said 30 days, one said 21 days. And now four courts have found the proclamation to be unlawful. So you know, I imagine all these cases are going to get back up to the Supreme Court where they will ultimately have to decide whether the AEA is lawful and if so, what the proper notice to file habeas petitions should be. Let's remember there's a language problem. These people are on mass detention facilities, access to lawyers and the places where these facilities are located is incredibly troubling. Like, a lot of these lawyers, they have to drive, like, three, four hours just to meet with one detainee and see them. So seven days is better than none. But, man, I. I still feel like it's. They should be giving these people, like, 30, I think.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, Well, I don't think they. They should be able to do anything under the Alien Enemies Act. I think it's Right, right, right. But if they were. Yeah, because that's going to be up to the Supreme Court. That's what the Supreme Court told the Fifth Circuit to do. They were like, tell me what you think of the Alien Enemies act, and if you think it's cool, tell me what the due process should be.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Alison Gill]

And so that's what James Ho doesn't want to have to bother figuring out, because it's very. It puts him out. It's very, very hard. It makes it very. His life. Very, very hard.

[Andy McCabe]

What is he supposed to do? Answer the phone in the middle of the night? Come on, really?

[Alison Gill]

This isn't a Denny's. So that. I can't believe he said it.

[Andy McCabe]

I gotta steal that line. I'm taking that one anytime anybody asks me. Anybody. What am I? Denny's. Come on.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah. Anything. Yeah. After 9pm what is. What is this? A Denny's. So we're going to keep an eye on that because it will make its way back up to the Supreme Court. And I honestly don't know whether the Supreme Court will find that Trump can have this proclamation, whether it's lawful or not. But they will certainly address the due process because they've agreed to that. Nine, nothing. Even Thomas and Alito are on board with some due process. Has to be available. Yeah. And if they're on board, man, you know, you. You're really on the wrong side if you're arguing. If you're arguing there.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Alison Gill]

All right, we just have a couple more stories and listener questions. This was very, very busy Newsweek, so thanks for hanging in with us. We're going to take one last quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. Just a couple more stories, then we can get to your questions. So if you have a question, click on the link in the show notes to submit it, and we'll be happy to oblige. But let's talk about this. Reporting from abc, I thought you would find this interesting. And since we here at Unjustified focus on what's going on in Trump's Department of Justice, this was a A pretty relevant story. When the Trump administration swept into the DOJ and purged, demoted, transferred, or otherwise sidelined career lawyers not perceived to be team players, that's what they did on January 20th. And amid that upheaval and exodus of longtime federal prosecutors, one quiet 10th floor office and remote outpost of the Justice Department has come to symbolize the withering impact of changes at the agency. Those who work there call it the Rubber Room. Inside that room, nearly a dozen of the government's most seasoned civil rights, environmental, and national security lawyers have been reconstituted as members of the newly created Sanctuary Cities Task Force. At first glance, the job seemed promising. But the more these attorneys looked into it, the more they concluded that the task force was a sham, a Potemkin operation that seemed more aimed at stashing away career lawyers than putting them to work on legitimate stuff. That's according to interviews with six people with knowledge.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. So lawyers there have been assigned menial research tasks and left with hours of idle time, an effort they view as intended to coerce them into resigning. Those with knowledge of the task force said, quote, this is a hard thing to talk about, said Tom Mariani, an environmental litigator who resigned rather than accept reassignment to the Rubber Room. I can't tell you how much personal distress I feel over how these folks were treated. The term Rubber Room is an allusion to a now infamous reassignment center where New York City officials transferred public school teachers and administrators who, some considered burned out or incompetent, but who could not be fired because of union rules. But in this case, those being transferred have been elite veteran attorneys from the Civil Rights Division, the National Security Division, and the Environment and Natural Resources Division whose performance had not previously been questioned. For months, they did little or no work, were cut off from other Justice Department litigators who are actually working on sanctuary city cases and had no supervisors they could turn to for support. At least four of those assigned to the task force have filed formal complaints with the Justice Department's inspector general, alleging waste, fraud, and abuse. CBS News has learned.

[Alison Gill]

Man, that's fascinating to just give, you know, relegate somebody and give them busy work. I remember there was somebody, one of the people that Comey shared his contemporaneous notes with that was like, moved behind a plant to HR or something like that. I remember covering that under the old Mueller, she wrote. Yeah, thing that's interesting. Seems like an MO Comment in the Trump administration. Another quick story from Law and crime. The U.S. department of justice on Friday filed a motion to dismiss a FOIA lawsuit aimed at Unearthing Volume 2 of former Special counsel Jack Smith's final report.

[Andy McCabe]

Nice.

[Alison Gill]

On the Mar A Lago investigation. The underlying litigation is a relatively terse five page lawsuit filed in January by the New York Times in the Southern District of New York, by the way, not in Judge Cannon's district. On behalf of the. One of their reporters there at the Times. Savage. The plaintiffs accused the DOJ of failing to make a determination for expedited processing of their FOIA request for the second volume of the Smith report. And they failed to do that within the timeline mandated by federal law. So now the Trump administration, in no uncertain terms, wants to wash its hands of the whole thing and have lawsuit dismissed because of course they do. Of course, the filing also offers itself, as in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. Of course it does. So we'll keep you posted and keep an eye on that for you. Again, as I said, this case is in the Southern District of New York, so we'll see where that goes. But I wish, I sure would like to see volume two of the Jack Smith Report if it hasn't been shredded and burned.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, for real. I mean, it's, I don't know. I shouldn't be surprised by this. There are, there are, the government has lots of ways to push back on FOIA requests, but like failing to answer and, and missing deadlines, those are not the most effective ways to do that because then you end up in court with things like the New York Times. They have great lawyers. They do this all the time. That's how they get a lot of their best information. So.

[Alison Gill]

Well, that's how they push these laws. Right. Like when they wanted to dismiss the Eric Adams case, all they had to do was say, we, we have made a determination that there's insufficient evidence to continue with this case and want it dismissed. You didn't have to be like, because we want him to do our stuff and we want, we want to be able to indict him later. You didn't have to be all weird about it.

[Andy McCabe]

It.

[Alison Gill]

They, they, they seem to do the, the just the not take the easy way. They could have put Brago Garcia through the INA hearings. They could have removed him to a third country.

[Andy McCabe]

They could have gone in and fought the judge's order that, that prohibited deportation to El Salvador. There's all kinds of things they could have done that would have been more legal than what they did, but still awful.

[Alison Gill]

But lawful.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah. This is where they are.

[Alison Gill]

All right. So listener questions. If you have a question, there's a link in the show notes where you can submit one. What do we have today?

[Andy McCabe]

All right, so this one kind of hits with the theme that we've hit on at the beginning of the show, and it comes to us from Allison, of all people. Not you, Allison, but another Allison.

[Alison Gill]

Oh, fine.

[Andy McCabe]

There you go. And it starts. Hi, AG and Andy. Thank you so much for your smart and incisive analysis of these crazy and depressing abuses. Your practical and thorough approach keeps me sane. My question goes to the authority of ICE agents in these roundups. They are often driving unmarked cars, wearing masks and no id, and are armed with military weapons like they're an invading force. They are administrative agents, not law enforcement, and can't arrest anyone, people for general crimes. What laws govern their conduct? Can they be so heavily armed? And are they trained to use those weapons? Are they trained like police to know the limits of their authority and what is their personal liability for violations of civil rights and other laws? So there's a lot packed in there. I'll hit the kind of top line themes here. So they actually are law enforcement officers. They go through a law enforcement academy in Glencoe, Georgia, where many federal agents, not FBI agents or DEA agents, but many other federal law enforcement officers go through. So they have this, that kind of basic federal agent training in all kinds of things from the law to arrest procedures, you know, probable cause, Fourth Amendment, all those topics. Also firearms and, you know, tactical vehicle operations and things like that. They are not required to wear to show their faces. There is no law or policy that says that you have to be personally identifiable when you are out operating under color of law and executing arrests. If you ask the agents, what I think most of them will say is that the masks are an effort to avoid becoming captured on video that goes viral and then provokes what they think is harassment of them and their families. How likely that is, I'm not going to opine on that. But that's, I think, what's driving most of them to try to conceal their identity. It's typically a policy, not a law, that you have to be identifiable when you're doing these things in terms of who you work for. In other words, what your authority is. If you don't have your. Your agency name and your badge just clearly displayed, you run the risk that the person you're going after doesn't know that you're law enforcement. Maybe they just think they're being kidnapped and they'll try to.

[Alison Gill]

That's what I, that's what I'm thinking, right? Like if I'm, if I'm a cop, I want to be easily identifiable. I want to say real big, what where I'm at. I want my badge right there. I want you to my face, probably, I don't know, but whatever. But I, I, I want to be identifiable so people don't think I'm a bad guy and shoot me, especially if I'm in an open carry, carry state.

[Andy McCabe]

And also so other cops don't think you're a bad guy. If you, yeah, you're unmarked and you're picking somebody up, they might call the police, who respond and think you're a kidnapper. So in the pre social media era, which I'm old enough to know very well, that was what everybody thought I was when I was working on the streets of New York. It was, that's what the, the era of ray jackets, right. You always wore the big, big yellow letters on your back. Now it's become very different. As for the military weapons, I mean, there's a good, good discussion to be had about, like, the impact of all these much heavier weapons and vehicles and things like that that law enforcement across the board are using. Not just ICE agents, but also local police, FBI, all kinds of, you know, it, it happened particularly during the time of the wars in the Middle east when the government could get things like this, that from the military that the military is no longer using in terms of, like, especially in terms of these heavily armored vehicles. And, you know, law enforcement are like, hey, they're bigger, better, safer. We need them for our safety. Of course, communities are like, yeah, but it's totally militarizing, like, this relationship between the police and the communities that they, that they've placed. My dog is jumping on my lap.

[Alison Gill]

Doggo wants to answer questions.

[Andy McCabe]

So I think you have really good questions, Allison, but there's not really an obvious violation of law here that's going on. It's maybe a confluence of some kind of bad ideas. And I think the overall effect on the community has been really not great. It's been negative.

[Alison Gill]

Right.

[Andy McCabe]

So I don't know, what are your.

[Alison Gill]

Thoughts again, policy or not? I think it's wrong and scary and it incites fear in communities, the fear that they claim trying to protect us from. My personal belief is that the guy who's been washing dishes for 25 years at my local restaurant, Bona Forta, doesn't scare me. But these unmarked cars with people that are decked out more than, you know, veterans who've been served tours in Afghanistan. When they were there, they were like that. That's more gear than I had in a war zone. That's what fright. That's what's scary. And I think it's wrong. And it also, like you said, alienates the community. Nobody's going to want to come forward and report crimes. Nobody's going to want to cooperate with you to help you solve crimes.

[Andy McCabe]

That's very true, very true. And especially now this. This thing that you've heard the administration say a thousand times, oh, we're only going after the murderers and rapists and the hardened criminals. No. And at least now they're coming out and admitting it. Like, well, we go after a criminal, but whoever's there when we get there, even if the criminal's not there, we demand paperwork from everyone. And whoever doesn't have authorization gets thrown in detention and deported. Like, we did that after 9 11, when we had 3,000 people dead because we didn't really know what else to do.

[Alison Gill]

And the Wall Street Journal exposed the fact that it wasn't Stephen Miller who ordered them to arrest more people and go to Home Depot and go to 7,3000 a day.

[Andy McCabe]

He wants them to hook up 3,000 people a day, which is insane. You don't have enough law enforcement to do that. But, yeah, you start. You start. They're desperate to just pump the numbers up, and they're doing the same kind of things that we did in the wake of 9 11, which we realized after the fact were wrong. They didn't get us anywhere. And we put a lot of people who are guilty of nothing other than overstaying their visas into really horrible situations, incarcerated and stable state prisons and places all over New Jersey, because we then had to figure out if they were terrorists or not. And how do you prove a negative? So a lot of them sustained really bad conditions for a long time before they were finally deported. So we're like, back at that. That level of enforcement for no reason. These people are. They haven't done anything. So I don't know. But, yeah, I get it. I think that how we're doing it is crazy. And what the agents look like and how they're conducting themselves kind of adds to that climate of fear, which I don't know how you come back from that.

[Alison Gill]

Yeah, well, thank you so much, Allison, for that question. It's very thought provoking. And I know we're all thinking about these things as we're seeing what's happening with ice, with these raids in our neighborhoods and at workplaces. And so I really appreciate that question. And if you have a question you want to ask us, you can send that to us by clicking on the link in the show notes and submitting your question on that form. All right, everybody, have a great rest of your week. We will see you next Sunday on Unjustified. I'm Allison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe.

[Alison Gill]

Unjustified is written and executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCann. 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.