← UnJustified
UnJustified
Dubious Privilege (feat. Skye Perryman)
01:01:10
There are now multiple cases challenging the administration’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation; including a hearing by Judge Boasberg for an amended complaint filed on behalf of all the detainees in El Salvador. Judge Xinis has had to pause the discovery in the Abrego Garcia case to contemplate the Trump Administration’s invocation of the state secrets and deliberative process privilege. Justice Department lawyers continue to lose credibility before judges who are upset by their shoddy work. President Trump pulls the nomination of Ed Martin for Us Attorney in the District of Columbia and appoints Fox anchor Jeanine Pirro as interim US Attorney. Plus listener questions…
Loading summary
Transcript165 lines
- [00:01]
Alison Gill
MSW Media.
- [00:08]
Andy McCabe
There are now multiple cases challenging the administration's Alien Enemies act proclamation. And Judge Boasberg held a hearing this week for an amended complaint filed on behalf of all the detainees in El Salvador.
- [00:21]
Alison Gill
Judge Sinis has had to pause the discovery in the Abrego Garcia case again to contemplate the Trump administration's invocation of the state secrets and deliberative process privileges.
- [00:32]
Andy McCabe
Justice Department lawyers continue to lose credibility before the judges, who are upset by their shoddy work.
- [00:39]
Alison Gill
And President Trump pulls the nomination of ed Martin for U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, moving him to the Department of Justice, giving him three jobs, and appointing Fox News anchor Jeanine Pirro as the new interim U.S. attorney. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to Unjustified. I'm Alison Gill.
- [00:59]
Andy McCabe
And I'm Andy McCabe.
- [01:00]
Alison Gill
Hey, Andy. Judge Janine. We're going to talk about that.
- [01:04]
Andy McCabe
Wow.
- [01:05]
Alison Gill
A little bit later in the show.
- [01:06]
Andy McCabe
Just wow. Okay.
- [01:08]
Alison Gill
I'm, I feel maybe we'll talk about this more later, but I feel, I feel like she's less dangerous than Ed Martin. And I, I can't quite put my finger on why, but we'll talk.
- [01:21]
Andy McCabe
Honestly, I'm kind of with you on that one.
- [01:24]
Alison Gill
I think it's probably because of Cecily Strong on Saturday Night Live. I think she's. I don't know.
- [01:31]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, I feel like we, I don't know you. Like, every day is a new horror, so who knows what comes with the future? But, boy, what we saw of Ed Martin in the short time that he was in his bestest job ever was really pretty awful. And I think a terrible sign for the future of that office, that very important prosecutor's office.
- [01:53]
Alison Gill
Yeah, it's probably one of the most, at least top two most important prosecutors offices in the country. All right, so today, this is, you know, first of all, welcome. Thanks for listening to Unjustified. This is the podcast where we cover the Trump Department of Justice. And we have a lot going on this week. In immigration court, another judge has ruled the administration's use of the Alien Enemies act is unlawful. We'll talk about that. There was a hearing in Judge Boasberg's court about constructive custody, class certification, jurisdiction, violations of the Alien Enemies act, all having to do with that original case that has sort of evolved a little bit that was brought, you know, remember when he had, you know, wanted to turn the planes around.
- [02:31]
Andy McCabe
That's right.
- [02:32]
Alison Gill
And also they talked about possible remedies, what, what due process might look like. And of course, Judge Sinis has had to put discovery on hold again to brief on the administration's assertion of certain privileges that they claim alleviate them from having to participate in discovery for Abrego Garcia. So we're going to talk about all of that today along with Ed Martin and Jeanine Pirro. So very, very jam packed show.
- [02:57]
Andy McCabe
Excellent. Excellent. Here we go. All right, let's kick this off with the Boasberg hearing, which did not go well for the government, I'm happy to say. And joining us to discuss this case is the CEO and president of Democracy Forward, Sky Perryman, who alongside the ACLU has filed this case on behalf of the plaintiff. So please welcome Sky Perryman. Sky, thank you so much for coming on with us today. This is such a thrill.
- [03:22]
Sky Perryman
Thanks for having me.
- [03:23]
Andy McCabe
All right, so just to kind of get us started, we've been following the JG case very closely. Our listeners are super interested in every development. Can you tell us basically, like, where do we stand with the case now and what are some of your kind of most immediate concerns?
- [03:40]
Sky Perryman
Well, this was a big week in the case because the Judge Boasberg was questioning the government, of course, about statements that the president himself has made acting, saying that he can pick up the phone and call, call the president of El Salvad, could bring people like Mr. Garcia home, but that he's just not going to that's, of course, contradicts what the lawyers at the Department of Justice have been saying. And so this week, Judge Boasberg has ordered discovery into, into those questions of the court's jurisdiction. And, and so we're, we're going to await and see what happens in the next stages.
- [04:14]
Alison Gill
Excellent. Yeah. And I want to like, dive in a little bit deeper on that in those arguments. I was there, I was on the public line listening to that, to that, those arguments in Boasberg's courtroom. And, you know, it seems like he first of all wants to pull the original five plaintiffs from the case since they're already being handled through habeas petitions in other jurisdictions. But he, he started with the classes and he said that there aren't really subclasses anymore. There's just two classes. And he seems to me willing to certify the seacoat class. But there were a lot of questions about the criminal custody class because I guess there's about 32 people who are being detained criminally around the country and they sort of want to, they were talking about how the D.C. court has jurisdiction because of, you know, future arguments against people held criminally. What do you think of his st, what Judge Boberg had to say about the se coat class and what he had to say about the, the criminal class.
- [05:14]
Sky Perryman
I mean, this is just, he's been a very careful judge in this entire proceeding. And so, you know, we are committed to seeing, you know, seeing this through, seeing how he, he deals with the current case, of course, as you mentioned, and there are a number of people that have had to file habeas petitions. And so we're, we're looking forward to the next stages, but, you know, we're there just, just as you were and wanted to be quite attentive to his questions.
- [05:40]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And he also talked a little bit about jurisdiction, but also constructive, something called constructive custody. And he had a lot of case law that he cited. And I remember him, because you brought this up. I remember him asking the department of Lawyer Kimble, I think his name was Cambly. I, I can't. I can't remember. It's something like that. But he, he was like, are you saying that the other judges who have already ruled the Alien Enemies act to be unlawful are just, they're all just wrong? Are you saying that what Trump said about being able to call Bukele is, is he lying? Is, is Kristi Nome lying when she says that, you know, we have a deal with Bukele, or are you saying that Caroline Levitt is lying about saying we're giving $6 million to house these, these detainees in, in sea code? I thought that was very, very pointed. And it was. I think it gave a lot of positive, at least for, for your side of the case, clues as to how he may rule. But he, he wants to do discovery first.
- [06:37]
Sky Perryman
Well, and he's been, you know, really focused, as judges should be, on getting to the bottom of things and to, on getting to the truth. And what we've seen throughout this administration, whether it's with respect to Doge and the president's statements on interviews with Fox News about role and how those have contradicted things that the Department of lawyer justice of lawyers have said in court or whether it's respect to the Alien Enemies Act. You really, the president and his lawyers sort of get in a pickle here because, you know, someone's not being truthful. Right. And Judge Boasberg has been quick to really want to understand who is making statements on behalf of the government. How do they all square up and where does that leave us? And so, you know, we are just really committed every single day to making sure that people in this country get processed. That is something, of course, that Nine members of the Supreme Court have agreed with. We are comfortable. We are, we are, you know, really focused on continuing in this case and in other cases to, to ensure that people are getting process. And we've seen judges across the spectrum. I mean, the, the judge in Texas in the habeas case is a judge that President Trump himself nominated, was confirmed by the Senate, and has even said, as a matter of substance, that the Alien and his Maze act shouldn't apply here because there hasn't been an invasion or a declared war. So, so, you know, happy to come on and talk about it more, and we've appreciated how much you all have been covering it as well.
- [07:55]
Andy McCabe
So as you, as you kind of look down the road on this particular litigation, what do you think the remedy looks like here? Right, so if, like, is the, is the administration starting to consider, like, what's a plan B? What do we do if we get a direct order that we can't get, you know, our saviors on the Supreme Court won't bail us out from that one. What does this look like? Are we going to try to now cobble together criminal cases so that everybody who gets brought back is immediately arrested and charged and, and, and placed in continued detention? Like, what, what's the, what's the future hold? I know that's an unfair question, but there it is.
- [08:34]
Sky Perryman
Well, I think there's, you know, two things potentially here. I mean, one is, in this case, it's clear. I mean, these people need to be able to come back to the United States. They were removed without process. Many of them remained on planes even after Judge Boasberg was very clear in his ruling to the government about what needed to happen and that the government needed to comply immediately. But just today, and it's interesting that we're, you know, speaking today, just today, you have Stephen Miller coming out and people announcing from the administration that they may just want to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which is a threat to every single American in this country, and really puts on display they, you know, they're really not faithful to any type of rule of law, including, by the way, the laws as the judges that President Trump himself appointed are interpreting. This is not a political issue. It transcends politics, and the American people are getting it. I mean, this is deeply unsettling for every single American in this country to think of a president that believes that he can remove people without process that, you know, that would even potentially consider suspending the writ of habeas corpus and under these circumstances. And so, you know, that's what I see around the corner and what we're, you know, deeply concerned about and very committed to responding to in swift fashion.
- [09:56]
Andy McCabe
But, and I mean, I think that's absolutely right. But put it in the overall context or add to that context the current attacks on the judiciary. You've got statements from people like Tom Holman who says, I don't care what the judges think. You've got Pam Bondi who opines, an oral directive is not a judge's oral directive is not enforceable as an injunction. I mean, like, it's a complete abandonment of the acknowledgment and essentially following the law on the part of the administration. So is it, is it here? Are we at the point of a constitutional crisis?
- [10:32]
Sky Perryman
Look, we've been at the point of a real crisis with this administration. But I will tell you the good news is that we have seen the judges do what judges are supposed to do, regardless of whoever put them on the bench, regardless of what political party they may or may not have ever associated with or been friendly with, regardless of who confirmed them, who was in the majority of the Senate when they got confirmed. We've seen the judges across the board, regardless of any type of politics or ideology, show a fidelity to the Constitution. A real they've been willing to step out and say, you have to comply with our orders. That includes the president and the administration. I think the people that are wondering what power should the courts have to enforce their orders? They're about to find out because in some of these cases, the courts are going to start exercising those powers. And I'll tell you, I'm in the courtroom in a lot of these, in a lot of these arguments in a lot of these cases. And the atmosphere is thick in there. You know, the administration may want to act like that they're above the law or may want to brashly. That is not what's happening. Even with their political appointees that show up in court, they get very uncomfortable when the judges started asking these questions that they cannot answer and that they cannot justify. And so we're about to see that. And that's the good news, is the judges are holding and the lawyers are holding in many ways. I mean, you have lawyers from across the country that are willing to show up, represent their clients despite threats. We're certainly going to continue to do that here. But we are at a real crisis point. And the other good news is that the American people understand the American people. In the ABC News poll that has recently come out shows that you know, a concern around the rule of law, a concern around due process, that is very high on people's lists now. I think there might have been a time when people thought this couldn't happen. Here we're seeing that it can. And the American people are responding as you would expect that, you know, people in a democracy would. And so those are going to have to be the things that get us. And it's going to be really challenging.
- [12:25]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, totally agree.
- [12:26]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And before we let you go, before we ask how people can support your organization, I just wanted to ask you, because we've been, you know, talking more broadly on this show about the reputation of Department of Justice lawyers. You've been in the courts. You've seen this happen. I'm wondering your thoughts. I remember Boasberg making a comment in the JGG case, looking around and saying, look, I tell my staff always that your number one asset is your is the trust that the court has in. What are you seeing more broadly with just kind of the deterioration of the reputation of Department of Justice lawyers?
- [13:03]
Sky Perryman
Well, it's really sad what's happening and the position that this administration is trying to put lawyers in. We're not on video today, we're on audio. But if we were on video, you'd see I have the professional rules of conduct that sits right by, you know, right by our computers here. Everybody has them here at Democracy Forward. They're all. They're really our bible in a lot of ways and how you practice law. And we've been able at Democracy Forward, very pleased that many people who are having to find themselves leaving these posts are coming here. They're committed to the rule of law. They're going to continue to litigate through the courts. But it's really concerning. And I think you see in a number of cases, lawyers are quite uncomfortable about the positions that their clients are putting them in. We want to continue to encourage, as the American Bar association is encouraging, that everyone, you know, fulfill their duty to the, to the Constitution and to the, to the rule of law, especially lawyers that have this oath. And this is fundamentally why the administration is attacking lawyers and attacking judges is because these codes of professional ethics and the things that bind us as a profession, regardless of politics, regardless of the kinds of clients that we have an opportunity to represent or our professional background, these things that bind us, they really are so important to our overall system of checks and balances and integrity. And that's something that's just inconsistent with the way this administration's operating. And I think you see the judges knowing that they want names. They want names, they want bar numbers.
- [14:27]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [14:28]
Sky Perryman
They understand that there are lawyers that are embedded within the administration, including at the White House, that may have had a role in some of this, and they want to get to the bottom of it. And so I think there's just. There's going to be a lot more to see here.
- [14:38]
Andy McCabe
That's excellent, Sky. We know Democracy Forward has played a huge role in all this. You've got, what, over 60 legal actions. You're getting results in terms of stopping the freeze on funding essential services, blocking executive actions that undermine diversity, equity, inclusion. Tell our audience a little bit about how, if they're interested, they can help you and help support the actions of Democracy Forward.
- [15:01]
Sky Perryman
Well, we represent every single client, every single community that we represent. We represent pro bono, free of charge. And that's because people support our work. So they are welcome to go to Democracy Forward. We would love you.org democracyforward.org Sign up for our newsletter. Learn about our work. Follow us on social media. If you have some extra money, please donate to us. That's very helpful to power this work. If you're a lawyer and you're wondering what you can do to support our civil servants, the men and women who are serving us who have been unfairly targeted, in some instances, fired by this administration, we're pleased to partner with the. With a new network called Rise up, the Federal Worker Legal Defense Network. You can learn more about that on our website at Democracy Forward. And we're taking volunteer lawyers to be able to help civil servants. We've had thousands of come forward, which is really exciting, and we're going to need it, and we're going to need it in the days ahead.
- [15:52]
Andy McCabe
Thank you so much for what you are doing, for what Democracy Forward is doing, for standing up for people in the rule of law. It's so important.
- [15:59]
Sky Perryman
Thank you.
- [16:00]
Alison Gill
Yeah, 100%. Thank you so much for the incredible work Democracy Forward is doing. It's just so very vital to, you know, everything from due process to protecting our federal civil workforce. So, again, thank you very much and we appreciate your time today. All right, everybody, stick around. We have a lot more to get to. And we'll be right back after this quick break. Don't go anywhere. All right, everybody, welcome back. It was so great to talk to Sky Perryman to get a little more insight on what's going on in Judge Boasberg's courtroom and writ large in courtrooms around the country. When it comes to the Department of Justice arguing these Cases, for sure.
- [16:46]
Andy McCabe
Great work being done by sky and her team over at Democracy Forward. Yeah. And also, so moving on to new business here, ag as you know, this week there was an interview on NPR with John Yu. He's the conservative former DOJ lawyer from OLC back in the Bush administration. And he thinks that Trump deserved immunity. And, you know, he was, he was also in his, in his Bush administration position. He's known as being the architect of the, of the infamous torture memos. So this very conservative legal scholar is now rebuking the Trump administration on immigration. As Ryan Goodman points out on Blue sky, you says there's no state of war which is required to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. And he states, I quote, I think there are superficial parallels. For example, President Trump is claiming wartime authority, invoking something called the Alien enemies Act of 1798. The Bush administration also claimed wartime authority to be able to hold enemy prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But there are important differences. The primary one, I think, is are we really at war? I think after 9 11, not just President Bush, but Congress and the Supreme Court all agreed that the 911 attacks had started a state of war here. President Trump, well, he's claiming that we're at war with Venezuela, and he's claiming that this gang trend, Aragua, is sort of like a military arm of Venezuela. But he's also has no agreement from any of the other branches. In fact, a federal district court judge just rejected that idea.
- [18:32]
Alison Gill
Right. Actually, two. We actually have two district court judges now. They're Southern District of Texas, Southern District of New York. Yeah. I wonder if the Southern District of Texas is going to try to steal the name Sovereign District of Texas. Take it over then. John Ute, this very conservative guy, said, the second difference between these two situations is that no matter whether there was a state of war or not, the Bush administration's view, in which I participated, developing, was that anyone who was captured in the United States had a right to due process, whether they were an American citizen or an alien, whether they were Al Qaeda or some kind of sympathizer. And we took the view if they were caught in Afghanistan or in Iraq, they were not entitled to due process in U.S. courts because that had been the traditional practice in war. The Trump administration seems to be taking the opposite view. They think that you could deport people under the Alien Enemies act who are in the United States without any due process at all. And that is, I think, a challenge to the settled rules that we in the courts came up with in the years after the September 11th attacks.
- [19:39]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. You know, I think the best evidence of that statement, the truthfulness of that statement, is the fact that that's why the administration, the Bush administration, was so focused on keeping people in black sites or ultimately Guantanamo, because once you bring them here, no matter where they're from or how they got here, they then enjoy certain constitutional rights, and due process is one of them. So that entire policy of keeping people off of Terra Firma US was designed partially for that purpose. So Mr. Yu, finally he says, I have to say, I think the circumstances in the context of what we're talking about after 9, 11 and this are very different, but in a way that cuts against the Trump administration. We are talking about a time period when there was very little definition in American law about what torture was. Plus, we were talking about, unfortunately, the ticking time bomb idea that we had terrorists in our custody who knew about pending attacks on the United States and would not tell us what they were, which is a very different world than where you send immigrants, where do you send aliens, or even how do you hold American citizens in prison? And I think the definitions are much clearer, and the way you described it is, I think, quite accurate. The United States isn't supposed to, under American law, deport people to places where they might be tortured. It is remarkable to hear him say that.
- [21:09]
Alison Gill
Right? I mean, given his past, given his work.
- [21:12]
Andy McCabe
Right, right. He is a very, very conservative guy who was deeply involved in writing the memos, the DOJ memos, while he was writing for OLC that basically gave guidance to the CIA and the Department of Defense on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, and distinguished those techniques, which included things like walling people and keeping them confined in boxes with or without cockroaches. I mean, very serious stuff. And distinguished all that from qualifying as torture under the Geneva Conventions and under the Constitution as cruel and unusual punishment. So, yeah, this is. There's a guy who has pretty strident views about that, and even he is saying, yeah, I think the Trump administration is over the line here, denying due process. Yeah.
- [22:06]
Alison Gill
And I think one of his arguments was, well, individually, these acts of, you know, enhanced interrogation don't rise to the level of torture. And everyone else was like, yeah, but when you stack them up on top of each other. I know the FBI was heavily involved in this, and they were trying to say, we have much better interrogation techniques than this. Yeah, that he is saying, this is pretty. Pretty incredible. And it really is. You know, he talks about something that's very important, and one of the very important differences is that these folks were detained in the United States and then removed under the Alien Enemies act, whereas the other people who he was specifically arguing shouldn't have habeas were already. Were captured abroad. Right. And, and some of those folks were still given habeas in certain extenuating circumstances. But that's one of the three Boomedine standards is not just where you're being held, but where you were apprehended. Of course. And a lot of, you know, especially the Trump administration is trying to just sort of gloss right over that and say that it doesn't matter and we don't have constructive custody, and we'll talk. You know, we talked about constructive custody with Sky Perryman in the, in the Bozberg court.
- [23:21]
Andy McCabe
So, yeah, I mean, so let's remember after 9 11, we actually had a declaration from Congress the authorized use of military force essentially served as illegal, the illegal equivalent of a declaration of war, acknowledging the state of war that we were in with Al Qaeda and its affiliated forces overseas. So when you're picking people up in Afghanistan, where that war is being fought, the argument was that the rules of war apply there, not the United States Constitution. And that's a, you know, obviously disagreement about everything. But that's a, that's a legitimate argument. You know, the, the how you treat people who you pick, you know, combatants that you pick up on the battlefield are treated differently under the law than people who are arrested in the United States who have been accused of crimes. But in any case, yeah.
- [24:08]
Alison Gill
And I think that's ultimately why the Supreme Court probably even is going to find that the invocation of the Alien Enemies act is unlawful in this case. I mean, we could even go back to, to quote Scalia, who, who was like, aliens deserve due process from a case from 1993. Reno. So, you know, I, I, again, I don't want to give too much credit to the Supreme Court. I'm not exactly sure what they'll do, but there is pretty decided law. But, like, I've, I mean, how many times have we said this is pretty decided law and had it completely got, like, upended? So we'll keep an eye on it. Additionally, Andy, we got another intelligence community memo this past week that undercuts the Trump administration's claim that Trende Aragua is here on behalf of the Venezuelan government on an incursion. Right, right. You'll recall five weeks ago, you and I covered a February 26th intelligence community memo assessment saying that there's no connection. The FBI was a little wonky on it, but they Said, you know, with moderate confidence.
- [25:10]
Andy McCabe
Right.
- [25:11]
Alison Gill
So Trump asked them to check again. He was mad. He didn't like that intelligence community report that came out in February. It's like, look at it again. And they did, and they wrote up another memo on April 7th. Now, the Washington Post reported on that memo, which at the time remained classified, which further angered the Trump administration. But a FOIA request shook it loose, which says that TDA's decentralized trend, decentralized makeup would make it logistically challenging for the organization as a whole to act at the behest of the Venezuelan government. And the memo also shed additional light on the FBI's partial dissent. It said that while the FBI analysts agreed with other agencies overall assessment, they also thought that, quote, some Venezuelan government officials facilitate trend Aragua members migration from Venezuela to the United States and use members as proxies in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and the United States to advance what they see as the Maduro regime's goal of destabilizing governments and undermining public safety in those countries. So that's way different than, yeah, the government getting trend together and sending them on some sort of a governmental, governmentally backed incursion or invasion into the United States. So, but my question here is how on earth Trump has gutted all of the FOIA offices. You know, as part of his super transparent government here, he's gutted the FOIA offices. He's moved everything up under the executive office of the president so it's not subject to foia. He's got people using signal chat so that his chat messages can disappear to prevent FOIA requests from going through. He's fired inspectors general. I mean, he's really going after oversight and transparency in this administration. And in fact, like, he's not even letting Hegseth hire his own chief of staff because his former three people were like, frog marched out of the Pentagon.
- [27:09]
Andy McCabe
Can you blame him?
- [27:10]
Alison Gill
I mean, like, dude, so after, after all of this, somehow this, this memo got shook loose through a FOIA office. And I'm very like, first of all, my, my heart is like, good job. Remaining FOIA employees at the intelligence community. Hell yeah. Because. And I guarantee you that there's some sort of, right now, either those guys are fired or put on administrative leave or being yelled at or something. Because this memo, I guarantee you, the Trump administration did not want being no more.
- [27:44]
Andy McCabe
No more free coffee for you. Coffee is for people who deny FOIAs. Okay? Not for people who release FOIAs.
- [27:50]
Alison Gill
Always be denying FOIAs.
- [27:52]
Andy McCabe
ABDF I, who'd have thought that like FOIA would be our inspiration, would be the light at the end of the tunnel that keeps us positive. So, yes, in this case, they absolutely are. I agree with you there. The other thing is I gotta put a little context around this FBI position here. So they're saying they agree with the conclusions, but they wanted to point this out that they believe that some Venezuelan government officials facilitate TDA members migration from Venezuela and use. And use members as proxies in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and the United States. Okay, so my first question, if this were the analysts presenting this to me before it went out the building, which happened several thousand times when I was working.
- [28:40]
Alison Gill
Oh, wait, so put yourself in a high level position at the FBI, Andy. Have you ever done anything like that?
- [28:45]
Andy McCabe
All right, well, let's put my make believe hat on and then we'll just, we'll just imagine it. I mean, the first thing I would have said to them was like, okay, so are you telling me if you, if someone on your, if someone among you believes that this fact actually leans toward the use of the statute, are you saying that Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru are also all being invaded by Venezuela right now?
- [29:16]
Alison Gill
How is this fact contrary or dispositive of your assessment? Where you. Oh, we agree. But, you know, one chief of staff of a second in command somewhere in the Maduro regime sent some trend Aragua guys to Chile and possibly the United States to cause problems or to collect information or whatever.
- [29:42]
Andy McCabe
What this, what they've described in this little caveat is basically what every government does when they send intelligence operatives into every other government to try to find out what's going on. So I'm not trying to minimize it, but like, that still is a far cry from an invasion or an incursion. I mean, come on, guys, let's get real.
- [30:05]
Alison Gill
Yes. All right, well, everybody, we have a lot to talk about still. We got to talk about the Abrego Garcia case, which is back on hold for a threshold issue. You remember, Andy, when we really wanted to. The trial for the January 6th insurrection, direction against Trump to go forward, but there were, there was an interlocutory immunity appeal that had to be decided before the trial happened.
- [30:26]
Andy McCabe
I remember that.
- [30:27]
Alison Gill
Yeah, you remember that. You're like, yeah, I'm still crying about.
- [30:30]
Andy McCabe
It alone at night.
- [30:32]
Alison Gill
We did a whole podcast about that. Yeah, well, this kind of assertion of certain privileges is also, it's considered a threshold issue. And other things have to be paused. And that's one of the reasons that Judge Sinis has paused the Discovery yet again in the Abrego Garcia case. We're going to talk about all of that on the other side of this. Quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back.
- [31:05]
Andy McCabe
Welcome back. All right, let's move on to the Abrego Garcia case before Judge Sinis. As previously discussed, Judge Sinis had ordered expedited discovery to get to the bottom of what the government has done to facilitate the release of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador. In one of the government's filings, they seem to argue that because he was moved from seacot to another prison, that proves he's in Salvadoran custody and not US Custody.
- [31:32]
Alison Gill
What do you want to bet Trump told him to do that, though?
- [31:34]
Andy McCabe
Like it's, it's three, it's. What's the game with the shells? Moving on. Three card mon. Poor Abrego Garcia. Okay. The government then asked for a week long delay in discovery to try to facilitate his release. And at the end of that week, they filed another motion to delay under seal, but the judge rejected it and set a new discovery schedule. So now we've learned that the Trump administration is trying to invoke both the state secrets privilege and deliberative process privilege to avoid producing certain information and discovery.
- [32:09]
Alison Gill
Yeah, and I gotta laugh at the state secrets privilege. I did a whole write up on when this was tried. They tried to invoke this in Judge Bozberg's court. And Bozberg is like, yeah, but you shared photos of the tail numbers of the airplanes.
- [32:23]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [32:23]
Alison Gill
On social media and then bragged about it and then shared videos. Marco Rubio, Bukele, Donald Trump, you all reposted this stuff. How is this top secret stuff that could negatively impact national security, but you're putting it out on your social media platform. So the way that Boasberg was sort of just taken aback by the, the audacity to try to invoke state secrets privilege, I don't think they're going to get very far here. But because it's a threshold issue, she has to go through it.
- [32:53]
Andy McCabe
So yeah, there's a process to get to the bottom of it.
- [32:56]
Alison Gill
Yeah. Oh, due process. Okay. So that privilege kind of, that privilege invocation is a threshold matter. Like I said, has to be resolved. So Judge Niece has ordered briefings on that, on that privilege and the deliberative process privilege. And she said set a hearing on the matter for May 16, 10am Eastern in her courtroom. She also said, and no more automatic filing stuff under seal. Now we're going to have to follow the sealing rules Locally set here for. For this district. From now on, you have to ask for permission to file something under seal, and you also have to attach a similarly redacted document that you wouldn't mind being posted publicly. You know, just. These are the rul for generally for having to file something under seal. But because the discovery was so expedited, she's like, just go ahead and file stuff under seal that you need to file under seal. But that's done. Now she says you have to ask for permission, including, you have to retroactively ask for permission for the last sealed filing that you made. So the plaintiffs asked if they could file their motion for additional depositions under seal, but they also turned in a redacted version, and we. And she actually published the redacted version. So she doesn't seem too keen on sealing stuff. Stuff.
- [34:07]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [34:08]
Alison Gill
You'll recall that the judge said she'd allow two additional depositions, right? Yes. In addition to the four that are affiance, that signed declarations in this case. And the plaintiffs now have come back in their document that's redacted, asking for three, possibly four additional depositions, one from someone with knowledge at dhs, one from Department of State, one from Department of Justice, and possibly we might need a fourth from somebody from the White House, depending on what they learn from the others. And what's interesting, you know, Andy, you and I are like, get Kristi Noem in there, get Marco Ruby in there. The plaintiffs here actually aren't asking for the cabinet level folks. They say in order to alleviate cabinet level members from having to come in. We're happy if you just send one person from doj, for example, who gets briefed on everything that everyone up and down the ranks of the DOJ knows and send them to us. We don't even require, you know, Pam Bondi to come in, for example. Same with dhs, same with State. And then they said, and, you know, if we don't get what we need from them, we might have to have somebody from the White House. So she said, you can have two additional. They're asking for four. We don't have a decision on that. But first, the judge says we have to resolve these privilege issues. This privilege question.
- [35:27]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. And I tell. I have to tell you for the. Even regarding the filing now under seal only after permission, having been thoroughly burned during the Jack Smith cases. Man, my first concern is like, I can see, I understand why she's focused on that. And she doesn't want to have the sealing process kind of abused to hide this, but it also opens up another front to a whole lot of litigation over just the ceiling issues, as you remember how much time we spent on that in Judge Cannon's court. So she's going to have to really ride roughhouse over these both sides to make sure that that stuff doesn't get out of hand. But anyway, meanwhile, multiple news organizations have filed a motion to unseal all these sealed filings. And they say in that motion, proposed interveners. 14 news organizations that have reported on this case respectfully moved to intervene in this matter for the limited purpose of seeking to unseal certain court records. The eyes of the public and all three branches of government are on this lawsuit. In the weeks since it was filed, the case has already been before the U.S. supreme Court and the 4th Circuit twice. The President has discussed it during a nationally televised interview and on social media. And members of Congress have traveled internationally to meet plaintiff Armando Abrego Garcia and investigate the conditions of his detention. The case raises profound questions of separation of powers, civil liberties, and foreign relations. Such a case requires maximum transparency so that the public can participate in and serve as a check upon their government.
- [37:09]
Alison Gill
Ah, interesting.
- [37:10]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. So coming in with a strong filing there. Hard to argue with that logic, to be honest.
- [37:16]
Alison Gill
It is. And I do hope that they unseal this stuff now, this motion, and I gotta say, given her, you know, no more filing under seal. You have to follow the rules. You have to ask for permission and submit a redacted document in case I say no, that I can just release, et cetera. I tend to think 5149 shall grant this. We'll see. Yeah. Yeah. Now, here's some of the news organizations that are participating in this. Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, abc, cbs, NBC, Bloomberg, Fox News, npr, cnn, New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, and the New York Post of all magazines.
- [38:02]
Andy McCabe
It's interesting trying to sit at the cool kids table. What's up? What's up with that? You don't belong here. Get on the other side of the cafeteria.
- [38:10]
Alison Gill
Yeah, but they actually probably have more prominent seats in the White House press room than any of the other news organizations.
- [38:14]
Andy McCabe
Absolutely. But that White House is not the cool kids place anymore. I'm sorry.
- [38:18]
Alison Gill
No, it's, it's not. That's definitely not the back of the bus. So I, I, I kind of am curious as to the, the process here because, you know, the media files for unsealing court documents all the time. Is there like a, a list serve that somebody hops on and says, hey, you guys want to. You want to get this unsealed and like. Yes. No. Yes. Yes, yes. And then you just all sign up. Like, it seems there's got to be. Right? Like there's.
- [38:46]
Andy McCabe
I bet there is. Or I don't know, maybe.
- [38:49]
Alison Gill
Maybe Pete beat Hegseth, put them all in a signal chat somewhere.
- [38:53]
Andy McCabe
That's. That's likely. Although they lost. They lost Mike Waltz, so they're getting way less signal traffic these days.
- [39:01]
Alison Gill
And the Atlantic's not on this list. They're not part of this.
- [39:04]
Andy McCabe
I would bet that the. I don't know. I'm totally guessing here, the White House Correspondents association maybe coordinate some of that stuff, at least with respect to White House coverage, because, you know, how they administer, like, the pools and who's in the pool and who's outside and all that kind of stuff. It seems like kind of comes in that lane. But I don't know. It is interesting. It's always fascinating to me to see which outlets are moving forward. Sometimes they go solo, sometimes just a few of them. But this is a. This is a pretty big. Pretty big group. And I bet you they probably share legal expenses on it as well.
- [39:34]
Alison Gill
Right? Yeah. Like. Or that maybe they just have a big old templated thing so it doesn't really cost that much to file.
- [39:42]
Andy McCabe
Or they go like, rock, paper, scissors. You guys have to write it. Know you.
- [39:45]
Alison Gill
Right. I want to join. I want to. How do I. How do we get MSW media on here?
- [39:50]
Andy McCabe
You got to get in there, man.
- [39:52]
Alison Gill
You post.
- [39:52]
Andy McCabe
I mean, come on.
- [39:53]
Alison Gill
Yeah.
- [39:54]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. For real? For real.
- [39:55]
Alison Gill
Totally. So, you know, we'll see how this goes the next hearing. So everything's kind of on hold until May 16, which is what, this Friday?
- [40:05]
Andy McCabe
Yep.
- [40:06]
Alison Gill
And so we may not have. Well, it's. It's in the morning, so we should be able to report on that hearing on the next episode of Unjustified next Sunday. But I doubt she'll rule from the bench. But we'll see. So we'll have a little more information, but there's not going to be too much activity this week, I think, on the docket as we wait for those filings. May 12th, I know one side's due, and then May 15th, and then they have the hearing. So we'll. We might have redacted versions of those unless they get permission to fully file them under seal. So we'll, you know, we're going to keep you updated on what's going on on this case. Something else pretty amazing happened today, Andy, and this isn't a case that we're necessarily covering here on Unjustified, but there was a hearing where the judge has granted bail for the Tufts University Fulbright scholar student that wrote the op ed.
- [41:05]
Andy McCabe
No kidding.
- [41:06]
Alison Gill
It was a really not a good hearing. And we're going to talk a little bit about the DOJ losing credibility as it, it, it like Trump's poll numbers, it keeps going down week after week. And there are new stories week after week and new judges who are calling the work of the Department of Justice shoddy. But this judge was like, I'm sorry, what? No, she first of all, shouldn't have been sent to Louisiana. Second of all, she's not a flight risk. She's been held for six weeks. So yeah, no, she gets bail and doesn't have to check in every day with ice. Like she can check in once a month if she's still under deportation proceedings, etc. But he was not pleased with the Department of Justice with ICE on this and, and ordered her release immediately on bail. So that was a, a very positive outcome. And during that hearing, the Second Circuit refused to put, put that other guy back in jail that had been released in, I think it was Virginia. And so like just double one, two punch to the Department of Justice during that hearing. And so again, we aren't really covering these, these cases very closely. But I'm, I'm so glad that there seems to be a consensus with everyone from, you know, Biden appointed justices down to John Yoo, that, that, that these detentions, whether it be for Alien Enemies act and unlawful removal or whether it be for speech, because the judge was like, this is a speech issue. You are violating this First Amendment rights here. I don't have to touch that. I don't have to decide that here. But you know, because of the, you know, the, the rules of the court, you know, I only have to really look at whether there's, you know, harm to, to having her detained. And there is. Right. So I don't have to look at that. But he was, he, he, that didn't stop him from saying, you are completely basing this on speech and the first and violating First Amendment rights. So it's not going well for the doj.
- [43:14]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, that's a theme. And we're gonna hit that, we're gonna hit that in the next section here.
- [43:20]
Alison Gill
Yes, yes, we are. But first we have to take a quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back.
- [43:28]
Andy McCabe
FOREIGN welcome back. All right, a couple quick stories. This first one really follows on the theme that we were just talking about because it's about judges calling out the Justice Department for their shoddy that's s H o D D y work. This one comes from the Washington Post. They say. In recent hearings and rulings, judges appointed by presidents of both parties have criticized the statements and behavior of administration officials, accusing them of defying court orders, submitting flimsy evidence, providing inadequate answers to questions, and even acting like toddlers. The cases involve lawsuits challenging everything from President Donald Trump's push to increase deportations to his efforts to punish law firms. Most are in the early stages of litigation, but the judicial pushback suggests a break from the goodwill courts have traditionally shown towards assertions by government lawyers. At AG We've been talking about this for the last two weeks. This is a big problem for doj, long term. Big, big problem.
- [44:37]
Alison Gill
It is, as Boberg said, your greatest treasure is your trust that the court has in you.
- [44:42]
Andy McCabe
That's right.
- [44:43]
Alison Gill
At a hearing in D.C. last week. This is again from the article. That hearing was about the law firms. U.S. district Judge John Bates seemed unimpressed by some of the Justice Department's lawyers answers, responding at one point, oh, give me a break. U.S. district Judge barrel Howell was similarly skeptical Friday as she ruled against Trump's actions against a different law firm. And she said those actions were unconstitutional. That's the Perkins Coey case. Writing the Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson, quote, when asked, was unable to fill in basic details about the sanctions.
- [45:14]
Andy McCabe
That's rough. Yeah, I don't usually go that direct, but that's pretty direct.
- [45:18]
Alison Gill
She was, she started off quoting Shakespeare and it just went downhill for DOJ from there. In Virginia, a judge scoffed at evidence the government offered in an immigration case in March to claim one couple were members of a violent gang, saying, I expect more from the government than this kind of very shoddy work. And that was District Judge Leonie M. Brinkhima. I think I'm, hopefully I'm pronouncing that correctly. Let me know or not. Brinkama. That's what Judge Brinkema told the Justice Department lawyer, adding that if this were a criminal case, quote, I'd throw you out of my chambers.
- [45:51]
Andy McCabe
Nice. Yeah, that, yeah. The government then detained the couple in Texas and sought to deport them based on the same set of allegations. U.S. district Judge David Briones in El Paso ordered their immediate release. Writing of the government, quote, this court takes clear offense to respondents wasting judicial resources. When U. S. District Judge Colleen Kolar Catelli in D.C. issued an order in April pausing part of the Trump executive order overhauling voting and election systems, she chided government lawyers for claims in court that she said did not match the facts. Quote, this exchange does not reflect the diligence the court expects from any litigant, Kolar Catelli wrote in her opinion, quote, let alone the United States Department of Justice. That shows that's, like, an implicit acknowledgment that they always give more deference to the statements of DOJ in court that might be ending. Okay. So they go on to say, since Trump took office, more than 200 lawsuits have been filed challenging his initiatives, and judges have entered more than 100 orders temporarily, temporarily blocking or pausing those actions.
- [47:07]
Alison Gill
Yeah, man, that's a lot. And it's going to continue to get worse. And I imagine we will continue to see more pieces on. On the confidence level that the court has for the Department of Justice going down, as RFK Jr would say, directly, inversely.
- [47:29]
Andy McCabe
And, you know, honestly, internally, DOJ is sending the opposite message.
- [47:34]
Alison Gill
Right.
- [47:34]
Andy McCabe
As they fire attorneys who go into court and tell the truth, but do so in a way that exposes government problems and malfeasance. Like, was it Renuvi, the attorney who went in and.
- [47:50]
Alison Gill
Yeah, I think Raveni. That's it.
- [47:53]
Andy McCabe
Raveni, who admitted that Garcia Brego had been deported. Erroneously. You know, you keep firing people who go in and actually provide the truth. The message you're sending to the rest of the crew is, you know, hold the, hold the line, sell the talking point, regardless of whether it's true or accurate or anything else.
- [48:11]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And that's why they keep sending the same guy over and over. He's the only one. Drew Ensign and this Kimbley guy.
- [48:18]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [48:18]
Alison Gill
And Lawson, like, they've. They've only got a handful of people willing to do this to themselves and their own reputations in front of the court.
- [48:25]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [48:26]
Alison Gill
And so that's why these. You know, we had that story last week of about the DOJ lords running back and forth between courtrooms, and the guy's like, I'm supposed to be in Florida, but here I am. Like, they. They only have this handful of guys willing to do that. So I think we'll continue to see that kind of thing. And, you know, now we've got. We've got somebody doing three jobs at the Department of Justice. Let's talk about that. Because Thom Tillis has effectively ended Ed Martin's bid to become the U.S. attorney for District of Columbia as a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary. Just one vote, vote against someone would basically kill the nomination. Untilis penned a letter to the White House saying he would not Support Ed Martin. Surprisingly, no other Republican senators spoke up against Thom Tillis on this. Like John Thune, the Republican leader. Nobody was like, shame on you for stopping this. Everyone's kind of like, cool, glad you did it, bro.
- [49:18]
Andy McCabe
You know, shame on them for not saying the same thing. But okay, at least they didn't throw a rock at him. Which that's all the admission you need. Need.
- [49:26]
Alison Gill
It isn't with. With this administration. But instead, Trump gave Ed Martin three jobs at the Department of Justice. So he's going to be head of the Weaponization Task Force, which we talked about. He's also going to be an associate deputy Attorney general. And he's going to take the place of the pardon attorney that the Trump administration fired because she refused to reinstate Mel Gibson's gun rights, his right to own a firearm. And then if I bet you Martin.
- [49:55]
Andy McCabe
Just throws a gun in the mail to him. Here you go.
- [49:58]
Alison Gill
Right, right. Yeah, yeah, he'll have a hand delivered.
- [50:02]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [50:03]
Alison Gill
Then Trump nominated Fox News host Jeanine Pirro to become the interim U.S. attorney in D.C. who, like I said, I think is less dangerous than Ed Martin, but still a clown. I think he's just gonna have to. This is the part where you remember when back in the first administration, he's like, I like acting. I like acting. I don't think he's ever cares if he ever gets anybody actually nominated to this post. He's just gonna, for, you know, 110 days at a time or whatever it is, just keep Putting interim acting U.S. attorneys General or U.S. attorneys. Excuse me, not U.S. attorneys General, U.S. attorneys into the D.C. or, you know, places where you have a harder time getting people like Tom Tillis on board to vote for these people.
- [50:51]
Andy McCabe
You know, the irony of all this is that Trump came in on this campaign. Part of his campaign was like, get rid of the deep state and put the, you know, with this president, this unitary executive, I'm going to put the control of all these different branches and agencies back and under the control of the White House. And then he puts in people like Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Tulsi Gabbard, now Jeannie Pirro. Like, these are not serious people. They don't know what they're doing. They're not prepared for these jobs. And the result is that the people who are there, the professionals, will basically continue running the show. So the end result for him is like, like, less control over the agencies because is Pete Hegseth really running the Defense Department right now? Like, anyone with knowledge of DoD would have told you they're going to eat him alive. To. To put your hands around that bureaucracy and wrangle in these multiple sources of power and disparate forces within DoD is like something that requires a master manager and leader, and he's not up to that fight. Gini Pirro hasn't been in a courtroom as a prosecutor since, like, the early 90s, I think.
- [52:15]
Alison Gill
Okay.
- [52:15]
Andy McCabe
Like, I mean, good luck. I don't. I don't know what she's gonna do in there.
- [52:20]
Alison Gill
Well, I think you're right on the less control thing. I mean, otherwise, Tulsi Gabbard would have stopped the foia.
- [52:26]
Andy McCabe
Exactly.
- [52:27]
Alison Gill
Intelligence Community Memo.
- [52:29]
Andy McCabe
How did that get out?
- [52:30]
Alison Gill
How did it get out? Right, so now they're just plugging leaks here.
- [52:34]
Andy McCabe
She doesn't know. She doesn't. And she's not worried about the. Nick. The National Intelligence Council. I'm like, whatever. Well, that's what happens. How about Cash Patel shows up at the budget hearing with no budget request.
- [52:48]
Alison Gill
I mean, no budget and no understanding of the constitution and due process.
- [52:53]
Andy McCabe
Right, right.
- [52:54]
Alison Gill
That was embarrassing. And then I think the senator was like, would you please commit to due process? And he's like, like, sure. Like, you don't even know what that means, do you, twerp?
- [53:10]
Andy McCabe
You know, you are, what you say.
- [53:13]
Alison Gill
I'm rubber, you're glue, Senator.
- [53:15]
Andy McCabe
And whatever you say, you put this on the. In the context of him. Like, there's all these pictures of him, like, wearing camouflage and raid jackets and an FBI agent's badge on his belt, hopping in and out of armored bearcats and stuff. Like, dude, there's plenty of agents that do that. You're not an agent. You're never going to be an agent. But there's no one else that approves the budget. You have to do that part.
- [53:40]
Alison Gill
Okay, that's not nearly as cool. That's not nearly as cool. Budgets aren't really cool.
- [53:45]
Andy McCabe
I've done them both. I was the SWAT guy, and then I was the acting director. I'm telling you, the director part is not nearly as cool or fun. But that's what he got picked for. So, like, show up, lead, do the job. Part of it is funding.
- [53:59]
Alison Gill
He doesn't know the job, just like he said. Anyway. All right, what do we have for listener questions this week? By the way, if you have a question you want to submit to. To the show, you can do that by clicking on the link in the show notes and filling out that form. So what sort of amazing, wonderful, thoughtful questions do we have from Listeners this week, Andy.
- [54:16]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, so this one's really interesting. It comes to us from Pamela, and it's actually similar to a. I got a bunch right along these lines where people were like, like, asking questions about, like, what can the courts do to kind of penalize what's happening with sending all of these immigrants to El Salvador? So Pamela says, could a judge rule that no payments can be made to El Salvador until such time that all inmates transported there have been returned to US Soil for the due process to which they are entitled, and that only those convicted of crimes by a jury and sentenced by a judge may be imprisoned prison, and that the government of El Salvador be informed of these conditions immediately. So it's an interesting question. I'm afraid the answer is no. No, because that's not actually a remedy available to the courts. Like, they can only rule on the litigants who were before them. So they can't kind of like, reach out to the side and say, none of those congressionally appropriated funds can now go to, you know, El Salvador. If there were any. So that's.
- [55:21]
Alison Gill
Congress can, but Congress can.
- [55:23]
Andy McCabe
That was where I was going with this. Like, the judge can't do it. But you know what? Congress could get themselves together and pass a law just like they did when they were mad about the fact that the Obama administration wanted to bring some of the Gitmo detainees to the United States to face charges for the crimes they committed against Americans. They passed a law that said it's now illegal for the administration to use any federal money for the purpose of bringing those detainees here. That essentially eliminated the prospect of that.
- [55:52]
Alison Gill
That.
- [55:52]
Andy McCabe
So they could do that here. They could bar the. The administration from spending any money to send immigrants to El Salvador if they want, if they wish to do so. But the chances that are about zero. Exactly. Zero, in fact.
- [56:06]
Alison Gill
Yeah, it's a. It's a nice thought, but just like the executive branch can't claw back 20 billion in climate spending because that's appropriated by Congress, or just like. Like OPM is not supposed to stop funds from being sent to Ukraine because that's appropriated. The. The courts also don't have that power, so. Yes, but I wish they did.
- [56:30]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, it would be good. All right, so I got one more for you. And I picked this one because I thought it was really interesting. It's kind of funny. But also, there's, like, an undeniable, like, common sense to it. So this one comes to us from Garrett and Gary says, so if Venezuela is behind the, quote, invasion by Trende Aragua Why isn't Donald Trump threatening them? He's such a tough guy with the might of the US Military behind him. And instead of forcing Venezuela to withdraw their people, he's making us pay for their incarceration in El Salvador. So it's obviously it's all bs. Has he even made a phone call to the Venezuelan President? Well, I doubt that he has, but I don't know.
- [57:12]
Alison Gill
You know what I think, Gary? He has made one phone call to Bukele to tell him, hey, I'm going to ask you to release a Prego Garcia and you're going to tell me no. And then.
- [57:20]
Andy McCabe
But he's asking, did he make a call to Maduro?
- [57:24]
Alison Gill
Oh, to Venezuela.
- [57:25]
Andy McCabe
And I think it's such a great idea because seriously, if we were actually being invaded by a group of people sponsored by the government of Venezuela, don't you think we'd be lobbing a billion dollars worth of ordinance into Caracas right now? I mean, are you kidding me? If we were under an invasion from, from Venezuela, not known to have the strongest military in the world, I'll add, that would last for five minutes before the military would put that down. So ask yourself, does this look like an invasion to you?
- [58:00]
Alison Gill
It's a really good point. He's basically saying we are being invaded by Venezuela.
- [58:04]
Andy McCabe
Yes, that's exactly what they're saying in court to justify this use of the Alien Enemies Act. Well, if that's the case, why is the only response to the invasion flights to El Salvador?
- [58:16]
Alison Gill
Oh, we certainly don't have to amp up our war fighting stuff. We certainly don't need a trillion dollar budget for the Department of Defense. If, if, if we're going to handle incursions onto U.S. soil by foreign governments in an act of war by just sending them to a prison in a different country.
- [58:35]
Andy McCabe
Their complete lack of action and I would even say interaction with Venezuela is evidence of the fact that we're not actually being invaded or threatened by them in any way.
- [58:45]
Alison Gill
Way. What a great question, Gary. Yeah, it's kind of rhetorical. We're just with you.
- [58:50]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, I'd never thought of it that way before, but it's very appealing. So I appreciate that, Gary.
- [58:54]
Alison Gill
All right, thank you so much for your questions. If you have a question, please send it to us by clicking on that link in the show notes and filling out the forum. We'll see if we can answer them on the air. And again, thank you so much to Sky Perryman and Democracy Forward for their very incredible work, you know, on due process rights. Stephen Miller was on the, at front of the White House today discussing the fact that the White House is weighing suspending habeas corpus. And that was my big fear. Like right after the election. I was like, oh, he's going to come after everybody. He's going to call us all alien combatants or terrorists. He'll designate us as a, as a domestic terror group. And then, but at least I get due process. Oh, but then what if he suspends habeas corpus? And, and I've been positing that, thinking myself a little bit tinfoil Hattie for doing so. And then here is Nosferatu on the White House lawn saying that they are actually pondering suspending habeas corpus.
- [59:58]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, it's truly, it's truly crazy days, really concerning. And you know, the right way to think about it is to stay engaged. Stay engaged, keep listening, go to the sources of information that you trust and you know, stay on top of this because, you know, we, we ignore it to our, all of our peril. Not just right now, the immigrants who are bearing the brunt of it, but like, if them, then there's no reason it won't be all of us next.
- [60:30]
Alison Gill
Mm, no. Due process for one is no due process for all.
- [60:33]
Andy McCabe
That's right.
- [60:34]
Alison Gill
All right, everybody, thanks so much again, thanks to Sky Perryman and Democracy Forward. We will see you next week on Unjustified. I've been Allison Gilbert and I'm Andy McCabe. 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.