Dubious Distinction

Summary

UnJustified – Episode 63: "Dubious Distinction"

Date: April 5th, 2026
Hosts: Allison Gill & Andy McCabe
Theme: Chronicling the collapse of the rule of law and civil liberties under a second Trump Department of Justice, with detailed reporting on major cases, leadership upheaval, and emerging legal doctrine.

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the stunning firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi, the toxic culture and mass exodus within the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the major legal and civil liberties crises unfolding in the Trump administration’s second term. Through a candid, insightful, and at-times sardonic conversation, Allison Gill and Andy McCabe analyze the implications, unpack the history, and speculate on what comes next—including lawsuits targeting Trump for January 6th, an Office of Legal Counsel memo shattering expectations, and the DOJ’s alarming pivot away from pursuing serious crime.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Pam Bondi Fired as Attorney General

[01:40–13:18]

• Immediate Fallout: Photos of Bondi’s portrait thrown in the trash circulate, symbolizing her deep unpopularity among DOJ staff.
  • “Current and former DOJ officials say this is a reflection of how deeply unpopular Bondi was with career officials and agents, thousands of whom left the department rather than follow her orders.” – Allison [02:23]
• Controversies in Office: Bondi demoted a respected DOJ veteran for not promptly removing Biden-era portraits, an incident seen as indicative of her hostility toward career officials.
  • “She demoted a respected career veteran over the pictures still hanging in the offices after Trump's inauguration.” – Allison [02:55]
• Trump’s Loyalty Demands: Bondi’s firing traces to failing Trump’s demands for retribution against political opponents, not policy or competence.
  • “She got fired for not being more awful. She got fired for failing to put former government servants in jail, people the President doesn’t like for whatever reason dreamed up or actual…” – Andy [15:27]
• Epstein Files & Political Retribution: Mishandling of Jeffrey Epstein files, failure to shield Trump from damaging disclosures, and unsuccessful attempts to indict political enemies (Comey, Letitia James, Brennan, Hutchinson) tipped the scales.
• Succession Drama: Todd Blanche replaces Bondi as acting AG; Lee Zeldin floated as long-term option.
  • “He’s [Trump] also floated the idea of putting Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in the job.” – Andy [11:29]

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “Pam Bondi had a pretty good idea her days were numbered... She was falling short of Trump’s unyielding, unrealistic demands for retribution.” – Allison [06:15]
• “Her 14 months were characterized by series of missteps and messaging misfires that alienated Republicans on Capitol Hill.” – Allison [07:40]

---

2. DOJ’s Mass Exodus and Policy Shift

[13:18–16:31; 38:19–44:15]

• Staff Mass Exodus: Bondi’s tenure saw unprecedented departures, gutting DOJ expertise and capacity.
• Abandonment of Cases: Over 23,000 criminal cases dropped in the first six months of Trump’s new term, as focus shifted to immigration enforcement over all other crimes.
  • “In February 2025 alone... nearly 11,000 cases were declined, the most in a month since at least 2004.” – Allison [41:18]
• Morale Collapse: Prosecutors report being forced to abandon complex, years-long investigations.
  • “All of the building blocks of what would become successful prosecutions were pulled out.” – Joseph Gerbasi, former DOJ narcotics chief [42:33]
• Compromised Justice and Regularity: The “presumption of regularity”—courts trusting DOJ representations—has collapsed due to repeated misrepresentation and incompetence.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “She presided over this massive exodus of expertise and capacity. Now [the DOJ] had to dump thousands of cases because they couldn’t handle the volume.” – Andy [13:18]
• “Judges no longer believe what U.S. attorneys tell them.” – Andy [13:18, 38:27]

---

3. Legal Actions against Trump & January 6th Developments

[19:25–29:06]

• Civil Suits Move Forward: Judge Amit Mehta rules that Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally speech could plausibly be considered incitement, removing 1st Amendment and official-acts immunity defenses for Trump for much of his January 6th conduct.*
  • “The content of the Ellipse speech confirms that it is not covered by official Acts immunity.” – Judge Mehta [20:30]
• Westfall Act Maneuvers: Trump DOJ attempts to substitute the government as defendant to immunize Trump are rejected. Judge Mehta says campaigning is a purely private act, not protected official conduct.
  • “Winning reelection is not a function or outgrowth of the job of an incumbent officeholder... acts in furtherance of that end will fall outside the scope... under D.C. law.” – Judge Mehta, read by Allison [25:57]
• Long Legal Journey: Plaintiffs, mostly lawmakers and police officers, are finally allowed to proceed after years of Trump legal maneuvers and DOJ reversals.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “I remember way back... [DOJ] said overthrowing the government can’t be part of your job in the government.” – Allison [23:09]

---

4. Presidential Records Act (PRA) Declared “Unconstitutional”

[29:06–37:35]

• OLC Memo Assault on Oversight: Trump’s hand-picked OLC chief issues a memo declaring the PRA unconstitutional, arguing it infringes on executive independence. This undermines decades of legal precedent and could mean presidents set their own record-keeping rules.
  • “The PRA is not a valid exercise of Congress’s Article 1 authority and unconstitutionally intrudes on the independence... of the President.” – OLC Memo [31:36]
• Hypocrisy & Judicial Response: The memo’s logic is ridiculed; hosts note that if the PRA were actually unconstitutional, it would have been struck down long ago.
  • “If this OLC opinion holds water, that obviates the requirement to preserve records across the entirety of the Executive branch.” – Andy [35:39]
• Historical Context: The PRA was created after Nixon tried to claim ownership of official records and tapes. Violating it is a civil—not criminal—offense, and the classified documents indictment of Trump never charged PRA violations.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “You can just decide from your office in DOJ... You don’t have to obey this law, Mr. President.” – Andy [32:14]
• “If we elect a much better person in 2028... this will be put into the dustbin of history, the literal dustbin with Pam Bondi’s picture.” – Allison [37:01]

---

5. “Hit Me in the Head With a Bat” – DOJ Regularity and Listener Rhymes

[38:19–48:42]

• Segment Theme: Explores the “destruction of the presumption of regularity”—the courts no longer automatically trusting DOJ honesty or competence.
• Listener Engagement: Spirited back-and-forth with audience members suggesting rhymes for “presumption of regularity” for the segment’s jingle, including input from Spin Doctors’ Chris Barron, who offers “the gumption of said hilarity.”
• Tone: Playful, self-aware camaraderie.

---

6. Listener Q&A – Grand Jury Secrecy

[49:07–52:23]

• Legal Technicalities: Andy explains that, while prosecutors and grand jurors are bound by secrecy (Rule 6e), witnesses are not—so witnesses like Kash Patel can reveal they were subpoenaed and discuss their testimony.
  • “If you get subpoenaed to the grand jury... You, the witness, could walk out and tell the world exactly what questions you were asked.” – Andy [50:07]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “She got fired for failing to do more terrible things.” – Andy [15:27]
• “You destroyed the unit that was working the fentanyl stuff. It’s crazy. Absolutely nuts.” – Allison [43:58]
• “This slip opinion from the OLC... could allow the White House to set its own guidance on presidential record collection outside the parameters of the PRA.” – Allison [33:04]
• “The PRA was passed in 1978 amid a struggle between Congress and former President Nixon...” – Andy [33:47]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

| Segment/Topic | Timestamp | |------------------------------------------------|----------------| | Pam Bondi fired, legacy of dysfunction | 01:40–16:31 | | Lawsuits over Jan. 6 against Trump—civil suits | 19:25–29:06 | | OLC memo re: Presidential Records Act | 29:06–37:35 | | DOJ mass resignation & case abandonment | 38:19–44:15 | | “Hit Me In the Head With a Bat” (DOJ mess) | 38:19–48:42 | | Listener Q&A (Grand Jury secrecy) | 49:07–52:23 |

---

Episode Conclusion

[52:23–end]

The hosts close with speculation on who might be the Trump administration’s next high-level firing, a whimsical fact about Jonathan the St. Helena tortoise (who’s outlived 76 U.S. Attorneys General), and somber reflection: the DOJ is unrecognizable, the rule of law is in crisis, but the preservation of truth and accountability is ongoing.

Final Thoughts

“She presided over the gutting of the department... And yet, she wasn’t fired for any of that. She was fired for not being awful enough.” – Andy McCabe [15:27]
“We’ll keep fighting to bring the reality to you.” – Allison Gill

---

TL;DR Summary

• Pam Bondi fired as AG for insufficient fealty to Trump’s vengeful priorities, despite catastrophic mismanagement and gutting of the DOJ.
• DOJ drops 23,000 criminal investigations to focus on immigration, destroying morale and expertise.
• Trump hit by major civil suit ruling over January 6th: courts say he can be sued for incitement, and DOJ maneuvers to protect him have failed.
• Trump’s OLC declares the Presidential Records Act unconstitutional in a move to erode congressional oversight and historical transparency.
• Courts and public no longer trust DOJ honesty (“presumption of regularity” destroyed).
• Community & humor: Listeners and celebrities engage with show segments about DOJ chaos.

---

For anyone not listening: this episode deep-dives into the dysfunction, legal peril, and procedural shakeups within American justice under Trump. With expert commentary and gallows humor, Gill and McCabe make starkly clear stakes for civil liberties and the rule of law.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, I'm Frances Collier. And I'm Angela V. Shelton. And we're Frangela. You know what you mean in your life. The Final Word podcast. Yes, you do. That's right. It is the final word on all things political and pop cultural, where we make real news, real funny, where we inspire you so you can resist. Subscribe and get a new episode of the Final Word podcast each week. It's the news we think you need to hear. That's right. We think you need to hear it. Okay. Yeah. It's what we say. So. That's right. And because all we do is give. Every Thursday, you can listen to our hysterical podcast, Idiot of the Week. We round up the stupid. Because you know what? Somebody has to. Okay? All we do is give. MSW Media

[B]

Pam Bondi has been fired and Todd Blanche becomes the acting Attorney general as the president weighs replacement Federal

[A]

District Judge Amit Mehta has allowed a consolidated civil suit against Donald Trump for his role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

[B]

To advance, Trump's justice department quietly dropped 23,000 criminal investigations in its shift to immigration cases.

[A]

And the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has penned a memo declaring that the Presidential Records act is unconstitutional. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 63 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, April 5th, 2026. Easter Sunday. I'm Allison Gill.

[B]

And I'm Andy McCabe. And Pam Bondi is out. Out, I say. Out, damn spot. She's out as Attorney General and wow, let's just dive right in. Carol Lennig at Ms. Now had this report. She says it did not take long for the pictures to come off the wall. Within hours of the news that President Donald Trump had fired Pam Bondi as Attorney general, images began circulating of her framed portrait, unceremoniously removed from its place of honor near the president and the vice president on the walls of the Justice Department offices. One photo obtained by Ms. Now showed Bondi's portrait in a trash bin.

[A]

Oh, yeah, I posted that photo and. And half of the comments are, they should have saved the frame anyway. Current and former DOJ officials say that this is a reflection of how deeply unpopular Bondi was with career officials and agents, thousands of whom left the department rather than follow her orders. Dozens more were were forced out, as we know, but apparently some people are still left and decided to hurl her photo in the trash. Many of those officials remain angry about an episode at the beginning of her term when Bondi entered a secure area of the DOJ offices of the National Security Division, and saw that President Joe Biden's portrait was still on the wall, along with former Attorney General Merrick Garland. Bondi demoted a respected career veteran over the pictures still hanging in the offices after Trump's inauguration. She demoted him?

[B]

She did. And in interviews, Bondi recounted how she took the photos down herself. She cited the episode as evidence that career DOJ employees were more loyal to Democrats than Republicans. That sounds like a typical Pam Bondi leap in logic. I went up on the seventh floor, which is the National Security Division. The entire floor is a skiff, so no one can get in there. Actually, hold here for a second. Yeah, all the people that work there can get in there and also can. So can the Attorney General, but clearly that was not known to you.

[A]

No, nobody can get in there, Andy.

[B]

It's just like a black box that no one can go in. I mean, very secure, I guess, but nothing would happen anyway. Bondi said that on Fox News. She continued, so I was able to get the code. Amazing. Open the door and look on the wall and see President Biden, Kamala Harris, and Merrick Garland's painting still hanging. I personally took all three photos down. She added, I put them in front of someone who said to me, oh, well, maintenance is really slow here. I said, well, it took me about 30 seconds to get them off the wall. Great. Wow. Maybe you should have been doing maintenance.

[A]

We'll continue to pay you $280,000 a year to do the maintenance stuff. So were they paintings? I took the paintings down.

[B]

I. I mean, no, definitely not there. I've seen those things a million times. Same in my own offices and DOJ offices. Yeah.

[A]

No, and they do take forever to change. I remember when, after Biden won At the VA, Trump's photo was still up for about eight months. And then again after 2024, Biden's photos were up at the VA for, like, another eight to 12 months. It just. It's the government. It takes a minute.

[B]

Like, it's the government. And also, like, I don't know, the National Security Division. They do have other things to do that worry about the decor. Yeah, for real.

[A]

No one can get into the. No one can get into the offices. So they have plenty of time to

[B]

take this person who she refers to only as. Someone said to me, like, far be it from her to, like, get someone's name. Someone said, maintenance is slow.

[A]

Well, we just, you know, maintenance doesn't have the code because it's a skiff.

[B]

That's a really good point.

[A]

That's a Good point. What Bondi did not discuss publicly was the respected veteran she demoted over the incident. Devin DeBacker had been the acting chief of the National Security Division. Quote, they better take her picture down, one former National Security Division official, who's among several still disturbed by Bondi's removal of DeBacker, told Ms. Now, nearly all

[B]

of the senior career officials in the Biden DOJ served loyally and ably during Trump's first term without incident. Now it's Bondi who's been shown the door, and many DOJ veterans are quietly celebrating. Bondi could not be reached for comment. No kidding.

[A]

Now check this out. This is from the Times. Pam Bondi had a pretty good idea her days were numbered. Trump had complained too freely, too frequently, and too many to too many people about her inability to prosecute the people he hates. She was falling short of Trump's unyielding, unrealistic demands for retribution against his enemies. She had made mistake upon mistake in her handling of the Epstein files. Her critics were in the president's ear. Last month, Ms. Bondi told a friend that Trump's willingness to fire Kristi Noem from her post as Homeland Security secretary meant she might be in jeopardy, too.

[B]

But Ms. Bondi had not expected Mr. Trump, the man responsible for elevating her to one of the most powerful positions in the country, to drop the curtain quite so soon, according to four people familiar with the situation. On Wednesday, the 60 year old Ms. Bondi, downcast but determined, joined Mr. Trump for a glum crosstown drive to the Supreme Court, where they watched arguments in the birthright citizenship case. In the car, Mr. Trump told her it was time for a change. At the top of the Justice Department, Ms. Bondi hoped to save her job, or at the very least buy a little more time until the summer to give herself a graceful exit. She ended up with neither, and grew emotional Wednesday in conversations with friends and colleagues after she realized she was out. The next morning, Mr. Trump made it official and fired her via social media

[A]

post I like did she watch anything in the first Trump administration? Does she think I don't. I don't understand why she's surprised here. Ms. Bondi's precipitous fall laid bare a cornerstone truth of Trump's second term. Loyalty, flattery and obeisance are prerequisites for power, but they don't provide any durable protection from a president intent on carrying out his maximalist personal and political goals. Ms. Bondi, even her allies acknowledged, was largely responsible for putting herself in the vulnerable position her turbulent 14 months were characterized by a series of missteps and messaging misfires that had increasingly alienated Republicans on Capitol Hill.

[B]

Mr. Trump has been particularly angry about the Justice Department's failure to win cases involving his political opponents, including against former FBI Director James B. Comey and the New York Attorney general, Letitia James. One of Ms. Bondi's major critics, in the view of her allies and White House officials, was the federal housing official Bill Pulte. They believed he had long pushed for her firing, blaming department leadership for slow walking and bungling the James and Comey cases, among other things, according to people familiar with the situation.

[A]

Those cases, it wouldn't have mattered who, what they were legally fr. They, they messed them up. Like, I don't. I, I can't with this. But, you know, you have a feeling that Pam Bondi's out here doing her best with Janine Pirro, trying to bring all these indictments against his political enemies and continuing to fail, and therefore, it's Bondi's fault, not the fact that the cases are dogs to begin with.

[B]

Yeah, for sure. For sure.

[A]

Now, people close to Bondi and some administration officials also said Boris Epstein, the longtime Trump legal advisor and personal attorney, was a key detractor of Ms. Bondi and a significant factor in Trump's decision to make the move. In recent weeks, Ms. Bondi tried to shore up her position by moving more aggressively against investigative targets singled out by Mr. Trump, including the former Obama official, John O. Brennan, he's the ex CIA chief, and former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, whom the president has accused of lying about his actions on January 6, according to officials briefed on the effort. So they're trying to go after her, too? I don't know. For giving secondhand testimony. She told the truth.

[B]

That's just, I mean, since when does telling the truth get you out of trouble with Donald Trump? I mean, he wants all. Everyone. He wants everyone in the grease. There's, there's no, there's no, you know. Oh, not that person. No, everyone.

[A]

Right. And the Times says it's not entirely clear if any specific action or event finally tipped the scales for Trump, who'd been reluctant to fire senior officials to avoid reprising the chaotic turnstile personnel turnover of his first administration.

[B]

Yeah. After Mr. Trump announced Ms. Bondi's firing on Truth Social on Thursday, saying, quote, she will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector. Yeah, needed by her because she just lost the job.

[A]

She had maintenance. Maybe she's going to go for Maybe

[B]

picture hanging or unhanging. Painting. Unhanging. Much needed. I mean, who needs her to have a private sector job? He's so crazy. All right, she's. Sorry. I'm getting totally lost here. Much needed. An important new job in the private sector. She said serving the President had been, quote, the honor of a lifetime.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

The president said Ms. Bondi's deputy, Todd Blanche, will replace her on an acting basis. But he has also floated the idea of putting Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in the job. Well, that thing's great.

[A]

Oh, for sure. I thought maybe it was going to be like, Eastman or Jeffrey Clark or something, but nope. Nope. It's gonna be.

[B]

You know, both of those guys were hoping it was them.

[A]

I know, right?

[B]

They were like, what? It's not me. I can't believe it. You mean he's not loyal?

[A]

No. Yeah. A lot of Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are reiterating that this firing does not get Pam Bondi out of her subpoena to appear before that committee for a deposition. Not a. Not a regular hearing where they do the five minutes each, but a deposition where the staff lawyers ask her questions. And that's supposed to take place April 14. Although she did appear for a briefing with Todd Blanch a couple of weeks ago to Congress. That was the chaotic thing where the Democrats left the room, walked out on it because Jim Comer called Summer le bitchy, and they walked out of that hearing. And. And Pam Bondi has been asserting that her appearance in that briefing satisfies the subpoena. It doesn't. But also, some sever. Some hardline Republicans who signed that subpoena are thinking of taking their name off of it. So, basically, I think the long and short of it is the only way to quash this subpoena is for it to be withdrawn.

[B]

Yeah. I'd heard some comments this week that they weren't even sure it was possible to do that. They weren't sure about the legality of trying to now get rid of the thing, but I guess they would have to take another vote to withdraw it. Right? It seems like. Which they could do. And then. And then they. And that would give those Republicans an opportunity to go on record no longer supporting it. There are still some who will. Like Nancy Mace has been saying she's still behind it, although, you know, it's early. That could fade, so we'll have to see against it. Yeah, I don't know how that's going to go. It's just an amazing development. The thing that I cannot get over is look terrible, terrible Attorney General for this country. I don't care what political affiliation you have. She presided. She gutted the department, fired tons of lawyers and created conditions under which hundreds more could not continue to serve because they thought it was unethical and likely illegal. And so they quit. So she presided over this massive exodus of expertise and capacity, capability. And now, as we'll get to later in the show, had to dump thousands of cases because they just couldn't handle the volume there. Having trouble recruiting people. She presided over the department during a period in which it basically is losing or has lost the presumption of regularity. Judges no LONGER Believe what U.S. attorneys tell them because there's been such a rash of attorneys for the government misrepresenting facts in court. I mean, these are all distinctions that any other, you know, could have, would likely have caused any other Attorney General to resign over. They're so awful. But yet, despite all this failure, her terrible appearances in front of the Senate, which were not just defensive and disrespectful, but attacking. She had that three ring binder full of pre drafted, you know, burn lines and insults. I mean, just preposterous things that we've never seen from any other Attorney General. And despite all that, she wasn't fired for any of that. It was none of that. Failure was how we got here to her leaving that office. She got fired for not being more awful. She got fired for failing to put former government servants in jail, people who the President doesn't like for whatever reason dreamed up or actual, who the hell knows. And that's why she got fired. She got fired because she didn't adequately protect and shield the President's involvement in the Epstein files. I mean, she couldn't. Right. There was a law passed that they had to be put out. I'm sure what he's mad about, he's still mad about the Epstein files. And I'm sure what he's mad about is he didn't, she didn't effectively remove him from everything that was revealed to the public. So, yeah, it's like she did all these terrible things and got fired for failing to do more terrible things.

[A]

Well, the problem that Pam Bondi faced is that Ghislaine Maxwell has a lot of these files.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

In fact, Most of the FBI 302s that have recently come out were in discovery in Ghislaine Maxwell's case. And, you know, now that we have Todd Blanche as our interim Attorney General, the person who probably went down to have an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell to make sure she wasn't going to release any of those things. I feel like maybe their hands were forced on that because she had them and she's angling for a pardon. And she did get moved to a very low security facility and, and had her sex offender status waived and got her out custody status. And, you know, meanwhile, these things are coming out little by little and it's negatively impacting the President. And he's going to blame Pam Bondi, even though I don't know if he knows that these might have been forced by Ghislaine Maxwell. I have no idea. But, you know, there's also something else to happen. Last week kind of flew under the radar, but we talked about it. She accidentally released that Jack Smith progress memo.

[B]

Yeah, that couldn't have helped.

[A]

That revealed that revealed his motives for hoarding classified documents. And now that Bondi's out, all of a sudden he's got a new Office of Legal Counsel memo saying that everything he did in the documents case was legal. I mean, the timing is very auspicious. But she does have the dubious distinction of being the first Attorney General fired by a convicted felon.

[B]

Well, there you go. That's fame.

[A]

So there's that.

[B]

There's that.

[A]

Yeah. So I want to talk more about this Office Legal Counsel Memo and we're going to do that, but first I want to talk about these lawsuits advancing for his behavior leading up to and his role in January 6, the attack on the Capitol that also happened this week. And it's, it's a pretty big deal because there's kind of a buried lead and we'll talk about it right after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back.

[B]

I'm Brian Caram and I've spent decades covering politics. Now I'm taking you behind the scenes, one interview at a time. Join us as each week Brian confronts the issues that matter, posing the questions

[A]

you wish you could ask. No filter, no agenda, just the truth.

[B]

We're not here for sound bites. We're here for substance. Join me, Brian Caram. Every week as we cut through the noise and get straight to it. This is just Ask the Question for curiosity will lead us to the facts. Subscribe now on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, when you want answers, all you have to do is just ask the question.

[A]

Foreign. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. So Donald Trump could still be on the hook for his actions on January 6, although we know the criminal case brought by Jack Smith is dormant, the consolidated civil cases against him brought by lawmakers and and police officers that were there that day have been given new life again this week. The Post reports that U.S. district Judge Amit Mehta ruled on Tuesday that Trump's remarks at his Stop the Steal rally held on the Ellipse near the White House shortly before the siege began, plausibly were inciting words that are not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. The Republican president is not shielded from liability for much of his January 6 conduct, including that speech and many of his social media posts that day, according to the judge. But Mehta said Trump cannot be held liable for his official acts that day, including his Rose Garden remarks during the riot and his interactions with Justice Department officials.

[B]

Quote, president Trump has not shown that the speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his presidential duties, maida wrote. The content of the Ellipse speech confirms that it is not covered by official Act's immunity. The decision is not the court's first ruling that Trump can be held liable for the violence at the Capitol, and it is unlikely to be the last given the near certainty of an appeal. But the 79 page ruling sets the stage for a possible civil trial in the same courthouse where Trump was charged with crimes for his Jan. 6 conduct before his 2024 election ended the prosecution now.

[A]

Judge Mehta previously refused to dismiss the claims against Trump in a February 2022 ruling. That's how long this has been going on, My God. Yeah, that A ruling that Trump was not entitled to presidential immunity from the claims brought by Democratic members of Congress and law enforcement officers who guarded the Capitol on January 6th. In that decision, Meta also concluded that Trump's words during his rally speech plausibly amounted to incitement and were not protected by the First Amendment. Same as here. The case returned to Meta after an appeals court ruling upheld that 2022 decision. He said Tuesday's ruling on immunity falls under a more rigorous legal standard at this later stage in the litigation.

[B]

But there's a buried lead here. Trump had asked the Department of Justice to step in under the Westfall act, and the DOJ backed his argument. Now, Judge Maida writes, and the Department of Justice has joined the fray. More than four years after the first of these suits was brought, the department filed a Westfall act certification signed by the Attorney General's designee. The certification asserts that the acts by President Trump alleged in the various complaints fell within the scope of his employment as president of the United States. Under the Westfall act, the attorney general's act of Certification requires that the United States be substituted as the defendant for tort claims brought against a federal employee. The consequence of substitution in this case would be twofold. It would immunize President Trump from tort liability because he could no longer be held personally responsible. And it would require dismissal of the tort claims altogether as no plaintiff filed pre suit notice as required under the Federal Tort Claims act, plaintiffs have moved to strike the certification. If granted, the United States would not be substituted as the defendant and the tort claims against President Trump would remain intact.

[A]

Yeah, and this is interesting because I remember way back in 2021, Roy Moore, who spoke at the Ellipse, had filed under the Westfall act and he was denied in a pretty scathing ruling from the Department of Justice at the time, saying basically, and I'm paraphrasing here, overthrowing the government can't be part of your job in the government. Yeah. These aren't official acts. And further, the DOJ said if this court decides that these are somehow, you know, they fall within his job, it still can't be part of his job because this was a campaign event and campaigning doesn't fall under it. And so they said, sorry, Charlie, you can't be this, these kinds of acts cannot be certified by the Department of Justice under the Westfall Act. You can't be represented by the Department of Justice. We can't sub out, nor can any other federal employee. And I thought that was a big blinking red flag to Donald Trump at the time. And gosh, it only took five years, but it's come back around full circle.

[B]

Yeah. It also seems, I don't know, I would like to say unlikely, maybe just totally unfair to let the certification move forward and let them invoke the Westfall act now when it was denied by doj. Okay. Under a different administration, but that doesn't make any difference. And that denial many years ago likely influenced the plaintiff's failure to file a Federal Tort Claims act notice. So you can't hold it against the plaintiffs now for something they didn't do years ago because the government then refused, you know, never invoked it. You know what I mean? It seems kind of like after the fact. But anyway.

[A]

Yeah. But yeah. And all things being equal, it simply doesn't fall under the Westfall Act. These, these are, yeah, non official acts. And here's. So he said, if we grant, because the plaintiffs filed to strike the certification, and the judge said if granted, the US would not be substituted and this case would remain intact. And he concludes, quote, Campaigning to attain that office thus is not an official function of the office. And importantly, an incumbent president's interest in winning reelection have the same purely private character as those of his 74 challengers. If conduct in pursuit of retaining office is not an official function and is of a purely private character, then such conduct likewise is neither the kind of act an incumbent president is employed to perform, nor one that bears any relationship or nexus with his responsibilities. Put more simply, winning reelection is not a function or outgrowth of the job of an incumbent officeholder. Therefore, acts in furtherance of that of that end will fall outside the scope of employment under District of Columbia law. So he's not going with the, you know, you can't. Overthrowing the government can't be part of your job in the government. He's not going with that. The old DOJ Roy Moore decision. He's going with the, this is a, this is a campaign speech and, sorry, that's not official. Acts. Yeah, he says, therefore, Trump's motion for summary judgment is denied. He also denied Trump's motion to reconsider on First Amendment grounds. The plaintiff's motion to strike the government's Westfall act certification is granted. So Trump can't be subbed out by the doj. And Trump had asked to prevent the admission of the Select Committee's final report, and he and Judge Mehta denied that as well. So very big ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in this case.

[B]

Very much so. And that language about the being outside the scope of your responsibilities, campaigning really echoes in my mind with the Jack Smith indictment. Right. The, the superseding indictment, which addressed that head on about the First Amendment question, saying that the indictment was not based on First Amendment speech for the same reason it was based on, you know,

[A]

it's not the fraud aspect.

[B]

Right? The fraud aspect, for sure.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. But you're right. He said multiple times in multiple filings that we covered on the Jack podcast. He was like, look, it's, you know, you're, you're a candidate for president in this situation.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And the way that he went about proving that was that in that lawsuit where Texas and other Republican attorneys generals sued to overturn the election in blue states, Trump intervened and he intervened as a private citizen, as a candidate for office.

[B]

Yeah, that's right. That's right.

[A]

And Jack Smith was like, you can't have it both ways, bro.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Again, I'm paraphrasing. Anyway, we're going to keep an eye on these lawsuits because, boy, it's been five and a half years since they were filed, it's gone up and down because Trump filed an interlocutory appeal on immunity grounds, as he has the right to do. And that ate like a year off the case, but now it's back in full swing and it's able to go forward. It will get appealed again. Right, but this is the post interlocutory

[B]

appeal and there's many huge hurdles. Even if we get past the appeals of this, there's still a huge hurdle. So the whole idea of a president having to sit for deposition and having to defend himself in a civil suit while he's present, something the courts kind of don't look favorably upon, but gosh, at this pace, he could be gone by the time that stuff happens, if it ever happens. So who knows? There's a lot more to come with this.

[A]

Yeah, man, these cases take years. They really, really take years and years. So we'll keep an eye on it. All right, remember when I talked about the Presidential Records act and how Trump's hand picked 37 year old office of Legal Counsel has written a memo saying that it's totally unconstitutional? That's up next. Stick around. We'll be right back. It's no surprise that newsmakers try to manipulate the audience. They want you to believe that they are the one holding the line and they'll use any trick they can to get you there. But don't let them fool you. Get Unspun. I'm Amanda Sturgill. I've been a reporter and today I teach future reporters to cut the spin and think critically about what newsmakers say. My podcast, Unspun, shows you how to know when you're being manipulated by the news. Learn to spot the tricks and how to make up your own mind about what's true. So if you're tired of being fooled by the news, subscribe to UNSPUN today. Unspun because you deserve the truth.

[B]

Welcome back. Okay, this next story is wild. Anna Bauer of Lawfare. She captions it by saying Trump used the Presidential Records act to defend himself against charges alleging that he stole classified documents. Now his Justice Department, which is currently being run by his former criminal defense lawyer, says the PRA is unconstitutional.

[A]

Yeah. From the Post. The Justice Department has concluded that a federal law requiring the preservation of presidential records is unconstitutional, which could effectively permit White House lawyers to try to set their own voluntary presidential record keeping policy and potentially upend decades old legal precedent established in response to Richard Nixon's effort to keep control of records. Upon his resignation from the Oval Office, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which is tasked with serving as a legal advisor to the US Attorney General and the Executive branch. The same Office of Legal Counsel that penned the memo that says you can't indict a sitting president, issued an opinion this week that the law, known as the PRA, Presidential Records act of 1978, exceeds, quote, Congress's enumerated and implied powers and it aggrandizes the legislative branch at the expense of the constitutional independence and autonomy of the executive, unquote, quote.

[B]

The PRA is not a valid exercise of Congress's Article 1 authority and unconstitutionally intrudes on the independence and autonomy of the President guaranteed by Article 2 states the memorandum opinion, which was signed by T. Elliot Geyser, a Trump appointee. The act establishes a permanent and burdensome regime of congressional regulation of the presidency untethered from any valid and identifiable legislative purpose. The opinion continues, for these reasons, the PRA is unconstitutional and the President need not further comply with its dictates.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

You can just decide from your office and DOJ. You don't have to obey this law, Mr. President. You don't have to. Ye, who is charged in the Constitution with making sure all of the laws are faithfully executed. This one is no longer a law. We've decided it's not law anymore. Wow.

[A]

Yeah. And let's be real. If this, if the PRA was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have said so in one of the many interlocutory appeals in the documents case that Donald Trump sent up or the special master case, which was completely shot down. I mean, this is just absolutely ridiculous. This slip opinion from the olc, which is overseen by Geyser, could allow the White House to set its own guidance on presidential record collection outside the parameters of the pra. However, the opinion does not necessarily carry legal weight. Really? Change the.

[B]

No.

[A]

To change the law, the Justice Department would either have to file a lawsuit or compel Congress to change it. Oh, so he's depriving Congress of its constitutional authority.

[B]

So he's aggrandizing the presidential. The. The Pres. The executive branch at the detriment of the Article one Constitution. Congressional branch.

[A]

Yeah, basically. It's unclear so far whether the Trump administration plans to pursue either option, but Trump is no stranger to the Nixon era law. When he faced an indictment over allegedly mishandling classified materials, Trump tried citing the as part of his defense.

[B]

The PRA was passed in 1978amid a struggle between Congress and former President Nixon over his effort to keep control over millions of documents. And White House tapes that expose the Watergate scandal. The law requires presidents to preserve official records during their time in office. It says that records from a presidency are public property and do not belong to the president or the White House team. Violating the Records act would be a civil, not a criminal offense.

[A]

Yeah. And the judge overseeing the classified documents case, as we know, Eileen Cannon, initially rejected Trump's request to dismiss the charges based on the claim of personal privilege. She noted the case did not charge Trump with violating the pra. Remember, it was never in there. But with illegally retaining national defense information under provisions of the Espionage act, which governs access to classified material, there's a reason for Jack Smith didn't charge him under the Presidential Records act because it's civil and not criminal. Still, Cannon later requested that attorneys on both sides of the case. Do you remember this when she asked for this insane briefing, saying, let's just say the PRA is real here in this case, we file me a couple of briefs in that argument sphere. I remember covering this on the Jack podcast.

[B]

I mean, that's like asking me if I remember root canal. Yeah, I remember it, but not a good one.

[A]

So she requested attorneys on both sides submit jury instructions that referenced the rights of the president under the Records act, drawing a sharp rebuke from then Special Counsel Jack Smith, who argued that her order assumed there was some merit to Trump's claims. Like, it's just so bizarre. Like, write me a brief if murder were legal. Write me a brief if murder were legal. It's just bizarre. I remember that so well.

[B]

Yeah, she's bizarre. And this thing is crazy. But again, you know, they'll create. This will be a whole fight when he leaves 28. And, you know, it's just paving the way for him to play all kinds of mischief with everything he wants from the White House and then fight it, fight about it in court for a decade before the country gets what's rightfully theirs back. I would assume, too, if. If this. If this OLC opinion holds water, I guess that obviates the requirement to preserve records across the entirety of the Executive branch. Like, it's not just the President that has to comply with these restrictions. As you know, every senior officer and you're. When you're in a particular level in your agency and above, you all have all these same requirements where everything has to be preserved for the archives. Your notes from telephone calls and meetings. And it's. It's the nation's way of preserving the actual records of its own history, how decisions.

[A]

And they belong to the people. Of course the records belong to the people, because the office of the President belongs to the people, not the person who occupies it.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So this is going to be fun and interesting. I'm assuming if we elect a much better person in 2028, that the new Attorney General, who, again, I'm hoping it's Jack Smith, throws this in the trash with Pam Bondi's picture. Because it's attorneys general can do that. They can have their new Office of Legal Counsel withdraw a previous or update or supplement a previous Office of Legal Counsel opinion. The one that doesn't allow you to indict a sitting president was updated, I think twice or three times over.

[B]

The infamous torture memos from the Bush administration were all ultimately revoked and replaced with memos that argued the opposite. So, yeah, it can happen.

[A]

Yeah. So we'll keep an eye on this as well. I think this is, hopefully, if we, if we vote right and are allowed to vote right, this will be. This will be put into the dustbin of history. The literal dustbin of history. Yep. All right, up next, Hit me in the head with a bat. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. Time for Hit me in the head with a bat.

[B]

Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat.

[A]

I mean, this segment is a work in progress. This segment is where we cover the destruction of the presumption of regularity in the Department of Justice, which is the courts no longer taking at face value what the Department of Justice is, is putting down. And today's entry has a bit of a twist. While all these cases that we discuss, where federal judges take Department of Justice lawyers to the woodshed, take them to the cleaners, rake them over the coals for making false claims to the court, lying to the court, failing to follow court orders. Like dozens and dozens of court orders have been ignored, for using artificial intelligence to write briefs. All of this stuff. A lot of the loss of presumption of regularity comes from the courts being overwhelmed by immigration cases. You'll remember the instance where the lawyer was like, just hold me in contempt so I can get some sleep. They had been assigned 180 habeas cases that month. You know, those kinds of things. And this massive increase in deportation cases coupled with the massive loss of employees at the Department of Justice is causing another sinister side effect. And, Andy, you and I have brought this up on several occasions, wondering how many Crimes are slipping through the cracks as the DOJ focuses all of its energy on immigration cases while getting rid of 5,000 frontline attorneys.

[B]

That's absolutely right, because these are finite resources. Right. The Department of Justice, FBI agents, time and attention, whatever. And I can tell you, as somebody who used to be responsible for allocating those resources, when a big new thing comes on, your first question is, like, how am I going to cover this? What am I going to start doing less of? You know, and so what we've been talking about, like, there is this assumption that there must be a lot of work that they're not doing that they used to do and they're not doing anymore, or, or getting, like when after,

[A]

like post 9 11, a lot of white collar criminal investigation had to kind of go by the wayside because we were taken over by counterterrorism cases.

[B]

Yeah, we saw in the office. I was working in the New York office. I mean, drug squad, entire drug squads, massive teams of agents who work drug cases just got redesignated. You're terrorism now. Forget about those other cases. So that kind of stuff does happen as priorities have to change. So we're getting some insight on that now from ProPublica. They say in the first days after Pam Bondi was appointed Attorney General last year, the Department of Justice began shutting down pending criminal cases at a record pace. In total, the DOJ quietly closed more than 23,000 criminal cases in the first six months of President Donald Trump's administration, abandoning hundreds of investigations into terrorism, white collar crime, drugs, and other offenses as it shifted resources to pursue immigration cases, according to an analysis by ProPublica.

[A]

Yeah, they abandoned all sorts of putting $50,000 into kava bag cases. And, yeah, now In February of 2025 alone, a year ago, February, which included the first weeks of Bondi's tenure, nearly 11,000 cases were declined, the most in a month since at least 2004. The previous high was just over 6,500 cases in September 2019, during Trump's first administration. The shift comes as the Department of Justice has undergone an extraordinary overhaul. That's one nice way of putting it. Under the Trump administration, with entire units shuttered, directives to abandon pursuit of certain crimes, and thousands of lawyers quitting or in some cases, being forced out of the agency.

[B]

The department prosecuted 32,000 new immigration cases in the first six months of the administration, which was nearly triple the number under the Biden administration and a 15% increase from the first Trump term. It has pursued fewer prosecutions of nearly every other type of crime from drug offenses to corruption than new administrations in their first six months dating back to 2009. Federal prosecutor Joseph Gurbasi had spent years in the department's Narcotics and Dangerous drugs section, helping build cases against major suppliers of fentanyl ingredients in India and China. After Bondi came in, he was left bewildered when his team was ordered to abandon its work. Quote, all of the building blocks of what would become successful prosecutions were pulled out, said Gerbese, who retired as the section's acting deputy chief for policy in March 2025, 28 years with the department. The move had a, quote, overwhelming, deflating effect on morale, he said.

[A]

Yeah, so all these people, all these line prosecutors working on 23,000 criminal cases, just let it go, drop it.

[B]

Yeah. And think about how many times this administration trots out the fentanyl crisis as an excuse for taking some other action.

[A]

Tariff Canada, right?

[B]

Yeah. Tariffs on Canada and Mexico, nuking speedboats in the Caribbean. They've actually. They actually have, like, a calculation like, well, that boat was. Would have been responsible for X number of deaths by fentanyl, which is just nonsense because it has all these variables that you can't possibly know built into it, but whatever.

[A]

Meanwhile, you're shutting down actual fentanyl cases.

[B]

You destroyed the unit that was working. The fentanyl stuff, I mean, it's crazy. Absolutely nuts.

[A]

Yeah. One of a million things that just makes absolutely zero sense and is detrimental to the safety of the United States.

[B]

Yeah, for sure, for sure.

[A]

All right, that was Hit me in the head with a bat. Now it's time for listener questions. If you have a question, you can send it in to us by clicking on the link in the show notes and submitting your question. Andy, what do we have today? I think we have time for a couple.

[B]

We have. I have one question for you, but before I get to that, I want to give you a little update on all the excitement over Hit me in the head with a bat. Because you will recall last week, as we were discussing hit me in the head with a bat, you mentioned the challenges of writing a jingle for the segment because. And I'm not quoting you exactly here, but you said something along the lines of, like, I can't find anything that rhymes with presumption of regularity. Okay, well, that sent a very clear message to our listeners, and many of whom sent in their suggestions about what rhymes with presumption of regularity.

[A]

Okay, amazing.

[B]

So this is next level. So several of them hit on almost the exact same line. Okay, so Robert wrote in. His suggestion was transforms into hilarity. So it would be presumption of regularity transforms into hilarity, which is pretty good. I mean, I like that. Robert, you get. You're there. Kate wrote in with gumption with some hilarity. So again, presumption of regularity. Gumption with some hilarity. Not sure what the connection totally is there, but I say she's really kind of zoning it in there. She's getting into the right area code or something. But along comes the big gun, the master. Okay. Chris Barron said it was okay I could use his name on podcast Chris.

[A]

I got to play some live music with him on an Instagram feed thing during COVID He's such a cool dude.

[B]

He is. And for those not in the know, Chris is the lead singer for Spin Doctors. He wrote in a great note which said as follows, hello, my uber attractive super genius muchachos. It's your old pal Chris Barron, lead singer of Spin Doctors here. I'm a regular listener, and thank you so much for doing what you do. I'm a big fan of both of you. I don't have a question, but I just wanted to suggest something. I was just listening to today's episode, and Allison was saying that she wanted to write a jingle for Hit Me on the Head with a Bat, but nothing rhymes with presumption of regularity. And it occurred to me that quote, the gumption of said hilarity does. So he's right in there with Kate on the very same words. He says, I'd love to hear a jingle for that segment. Definitely. Let me know if I can help out. Love you guys. Thanks for what you do. Your furry pal, C.B.

[A]

thank you, Chris. If we can get the Spin Doctors, Chris Barron to write our Presumption of Regularity, Hit Me on the Head with a Bat segment.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

I think that's legend status for this podcast.

[B]

I totally think so. And, you know, that's a valuable commodity. Of course, we have no, you know, budget for anything like that, but we. We could, like. I would be willing to pay in some article of interest off the bookshelf behind me, which heretofore only appears on television. So, you know, I don't know, I think we could come up with some sort of, like, exchange of artifact for song for jingle lyrics sort of thing. But we. I'm happy to engage in that. In that conversation with him if he's interested.

[A]

That's amazing. So we've got they Might Be Giants doing the theme for the Daily Beans. We've got Ben Folds doing Our intro here.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

And now Chris Barron possibly writing our. Hit me on the head with a Bat.

[B]

We're killing it. Absolutely killing it. With all these great friends that we have and all the wonderful, less known listeners, but loyal, creative people sending in names and potential rhymes. It's like, awesome. Reading that thing every week is terrific.

[A]

All right. I was. I was pretty. I was pretty impressed with our. Our producers. I'm coming to the cottage remix, But real anyway. That's so cool. Thank you. And all of our listeners coming up with the hilarity and really spent some

[B]

time on it, I should say. Kate actually, like, sent it in and then sent one saying that she had woken up in the middle of the night and realized that she didn't have enough syllables in the lines.

[A]

She edited a little bit syllabically. It's right on point.

[B]

Yeah, she's. She really spent some time on that. So awesome. Big, big up to Kate and Robert as well. All right, so should we move on to our question for the week?

[A]

Yeah, let's see. What do we got?

[B]

All right, so this comes to us from someone known as avid listener. Hello, A.G. and Andy, longtime listener. First time query here. My question concerns the records DOJ provided to Congress on the classified documents case I believe you mentioned. While it may have been a violation of Judge Cannon's order, more examples would probably be needed to make the argument that volume two no longer needs to be blocked. Would DOJ employee Cash Patel's reveal of the existence of his and Susie Wiles subpoena to Reuters in late February be considered another example? Additionally, why I don't believe he posted the actual records by generally describing their contents. Did he violate 6e? Sincerely, avid listener. That's a really interesting question. You would think he probably did because it's certainly the kind of thing he would do. And he might have done it many times with respect to the cases that he oversees. That's all possible. I don't have any evidence of that. But in this case, since he was the recipient of the subpoena, he is the only person who is not bound by confidentiality of 6e. It's a weird thing. So, like, if you get subpoenaed to the grand jury, the grand jurors can't talk about what you said in your testimony. The prosecutor can't speak publicly about it. They're all bound by 6e. Of course, your attorney can't speak about it because they are bound by attorney client privilege. But you, the witness could walk out of the room, stand in front of TV cameras and tell the world exactly what questions you were asked because the witness is not bound by 6e, which I'm just going to say, without any further clarification here, that's a really interesting strategy for someone who gets reluctantly subpoenaed in front of a grand jury in an illegitimate investigation and would have to go in and testify or take the Fifth Amendment or whatever. Maybe that person would then just come out of the testimony and tell the world exactly what happened in there. I don't know. Stay tuned.

[A]

Let's say, hypothetically, a former deputy director of the FBI were subpoenaed in a criminal investigation. So that person is allowed to tell, let's just say, for hypothetical sake, a podcast network owner, that they were subpoenaed because it's their story to tell. Is that what you're saying?

[B]

That's a pretty crazy hypothetical that you come up with there. But I mean, I mean, hypothetically, not in the real world, but strictly hypothetically. Basically, yeah. That's what I'm suggesting, that that could happen. You never know. It's a crazy world. Who would have thought all these crazy things would have happened? That one might be next or somewhere in the future? You never know.

[A]

It's. Yeah, it's. Yeah. Well, you know, if you hear anything like that, let me know.

[B]

I'll keep my ears open. I will.

[A]

I mean, it's such a. It's such a weird scenario that it's just so far out in left field.

[B]

I can't imagine it. Right.

[A]

I don't see it ever happening.

[B]

Would do such a thing. Well, you never know.

[A]

And scene. That's our episode of Masterpiece Theater here at the. At the end of Hit Me in the Head With a Bat. Thank you so much. And thank you for your questions. So very thoughtful. Always, always thoughtful and, and meaningful. We always get. I get a. I get a. Like a. A jolt. Like a lift. I'm heartened when I read these questions that are sent into us again. That link is in the show. Notes for you to click and submit. And as we're building up more and more questions, we might be moving closer and closer to an entire Questions episode coming soon. So we'll keep you posted on that. And that's the show. Do you have any final thoughts as we get out of here on the. On the last, last day. Pam Bondi's actually. She's going to be there for another month, but they're already thrown in, which is crazy.

[B]

Why you stay, girl. You got fired. Go on back to Florida. Have the spring down at home. I mean, like really. Oh my God. But. But it does raise the question of like not who replaces her because I'm less interested in that, but who gets fired next because he broke the seal with Kristi Noem and now it's like game on.

[A]

He feels, you know, some rumors out there and some reporting that Darimur could be next or Lutnik and Gabbard.

[B]

Interesting. No Patel yet, huh? Patel's not. The constant embarrassments with the travel and the expenses and the whatever else he's got.

[A]

I thought Patel was going to be next. I thought Patel was going to be next. But then I saw a story from the Guardian saying Tulsi Gabbard. And I saw other stories talking about Darima and Lutnick.

[B]

Remind me who Daremer is. I'm missing that one.

[A]

Commerce or is that.

[B]

Oh, that's the one where her husband has been barred from the President. From the. Barred from being present in the building.

[A]

Yeah, something like that. And some other sort of cocaine fueled something or other. I, it's. There's so many. I just, I can't, I can't keep them all in my head. But Andy, I wanted to leave everybody with this fact. Jonathan, who is a 100, something year old tortoise in St. Helena, has posted. St. Helena has posted saying not only is Jonathan alive and well on St. Helena, but during this time on his planet, he's now seen, seen off 76 US Attorneys General.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

From the 11th Attorney General Roger Brooke Taney in 1832 to outgoing 87th Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2026, Jonathan is the great survivor. And despite online rumors, he is alive and well and eating bananas on St. Helena today.

[B]

Mad props to Jonathan. I can't believe I, I worked for six of them and I didn't count the actings, just six actually, you know, fully confirmed ones. And I'm telling you, it took a lot out of me. So Jonathan, being there for all those 87, that's pretty good.

[A]

Yeah, that's pretty incredible.

[B]

Pretty good.

[A]

All right, everybody, we will see you next week. Thank you for listening to Unjustified. I'm Alison Gill.

[B]

And I'm Andy McCabe.

[A]

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