Episode 106 | Check Kiting

Summary

Podcast Summary: Episode 106 | Check Kiting

Title: Jack
Host/Author: MSW Media
Episode: 106 | Check Kiting
Release Date: December 8, 2024

---

Introduction

In Episode 106 of "Jack," hosted by Allison Gill and Andy McCabe of MSW Media, listeners are immersed in a comprehensive analysis of the ongoing federal trials against Donald J. Trump. The episode delves into the intricacies of the Special Counsel process, particularly focusing on recent motions filed by Jack Smith, the appointed Special Counsel. The hosts provide expert insights into court filings, legal strategies, and the broader implications for American politics.

---

1. Jack Smith's Legal Maneuvers

The episode opens with Gill and McCabe discussing Jack Smith's latest legal actions concerning the Trump cases. Smith has submitted a second motion to dismiss the 2020 election subversion case, adding to a previous motion aimed at dismissing charges related to the January 6th events.

Andy McCabe [00:26]: "While we wait for Jack Smith's report on both federal cases against Donald Trump, we have a few reports to cover this week, including a second motion for dismissal from Jack Smith in the 2020 election subversion case."

The hosts break down the government's supplemental motion to dismiss, referencing the 1993 States v. Vavlaitis case to argue that a superseding indictment does not void the original charges. They discuss the legal precedent and its potential impact on Trump's cases.

Notable Quote:

Andy McCabe [11:10]: "It's the First Circuit Court. Breyer was on this."

---

2. Fani Willis and Judicial Watch's Default Judgment

Gill and McCabe shift focus to a significant ruling involving Fani Willis, the Fulton County District Attorney. A court in Georgia has found Willis in violation of the state's open records law after failing to respond adequately to Judicial Watch's requests for communications related to Special Counsel Jack Smith and the January 6th Committee.

Andy McCabe [15:06]: "A hearing on the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs will be set for December 20, 2024."

The judges' decision emphasizes Willis's lack of response, leading to a default judgment that compels her to produce requested documents. The hosts critique the legal handling and speculate on potential repercussions.

Notable Quote:

Allison Gill [20:20]: "I just want to be clear that the judge said I have to take because you didn't do anything funny, Willis."

---

3. FBI's Warning on Chinese Cyber Espionage and Encryption

A pivotal segment covers a report from Kevin Collier at NBC News, highlighting warnings from federal officials about a significant Chinese hacking operation targeting American telecommunications firms, codenamed "Salt Typhoon." To counteract espionage, the FBI advises the use of encrypted communication apps like Signal and WhatsApp.

Allison Gill [24:09]: "The best way to hide communications from Kash Patel and Pam Bondi is to use encryption."

McCabe expands on the FBI's stance, explaining the challenges encryption poses for law enforcement investigations, referencing historical concerns like the "going dark" problem.

Notable Quote:

Andy McCabe [25:27]: "When I was in the FBI, we referred to it as the going dark problem."

---

4. Trump's Nomination of Kash Patel as FBI Director

One of the episode's most critical discussions revolves around President-elect Trump's nomination of Kash Patel to lead the FBI. Gill and McCabe provide an in-depth critique of Patel's qualifications and the potential ramifications for the bureau.

Allison Gill [34:03]: "Trump's interest in Patel speaks to his urge to fill top law enforcement and intelligence positions with supporters and wholly unqualified, ridiculous supporters."

McCabe passionately argues that Patel lacks the necessary experience to helm the FBI, drawing parallels to past abuses under J. Edgar Hoover. He emphasizes the danger of politicizing the FBI leadership and the potential threats to the institution's integrity.

Notable Quotes:

Andy McCabe [42:26]: "Kash Patel is not a serious person. Forget about the fact that he's targeting me and people in the media. Put that aside for a minute. This guy is a clown."

Allison Gill [38:46]: "Not American and patriotic in any way, right?"

---

5. Listener Questions and Discussions

Towards the episode's conclusion, Gill and McCabe address listener-submitted questions. Topics range from the timing of Jack Smith's report to pathways for electing qualified officials in the face of rising Trumpism.

Notable Interaction:

Listener Curtis [54:13]: "How will the timing of the Jack Smith report affect its fate with the new Congress?"

Allison Gill [55:21]: "I think Merrick Garland will release this thing mostly unredacted except for specific legal redactions."

---

6. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The episode wraps up with Gill and McCabe expressing their concerns over the current political climate and the future of American governance. They stress the importance of combating misinformation and fostering leadership integrity to counteract the regressive elements of Trumpism.

Allison Gill [67:19]: "We really got to beat back this disinformation stuff. There are countries around the world looking at us like, how are you falling for this?"

McCabe offers a heartfelt critique of Patel's potential appointment, underscoring the risks it poses to national security and the FBI's longstanding reputation.

Andy McCabe [71:24]: "These people deserve better. The American people deserve better."

---

Key Takeaways:

• Legal Strategies: Jack Smith's motions to dismiss could significantly influence the federal cases against Donald Trump, with Gill and McCabe dissecting the legal nuances.

• Fani Willis's Case: The default judgment against Willis underscores challenges in enforcing open records laws and the broader implications for legal transparency.

• Cybersecurity Concerns: The FBI's warning about "Salt Typhoon" highlights the evolving threats in cyber espionage and the critical role of encryption in protecting communications.

• Critique of Kash Patel Nomination: The nomination of Kash Patel as FBI Director is met with strong opposition from Gill and McCabe, who argue it threatens the bureau's independence and effectiveness.

• Political Climate: The hosts emphasize the need for resilient leadership and strategies to combat the pervasive influence of Trumpism and misinformation in American politics.

---

Closing Remarks

As "Jack" Episode 106 concludes, Gill and McCabe reiterate their commitment to providing in-depth analysis of the Special Counsel's proceedings and the broader legal landscape surrounding Donald Trump. They encourage listeners to engage through questions and remain vigilant in understanding the complexities of federal trials and their implications for democracy.

Notable Closing Quote:

Allison Gill [71:58]: "And whoever spent your life, dedicated your life and your work to protecting the American people. I can't like, my heart sinks for you in these moments."

---

For more insights and detailed analyses, subscribe to MSW Media's "Jack" podcast and visit their website to submit your questions and engage with the hosts.

Transcript

[Allison Gill]

MSW Media.

[Andy McCabe]

I signed an order appointing Jack Smith.

[Allison Gill]

Nobody knows you.

[Andy McCabe]

And those who say Jack is a fanatic. Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor. Wait, what law have I broken? The events leading up to and on January 6, classified documents and other presidential records.

[Allison Gill]

You understand what prison is?

[Andy McCabe]

Send me to jail.

[Allison Gill]

Foreign welcome to episode 106 of Jack the podcast about all things special Counsel. It's Sunday, December 8th. Oh, my gosh. December 8th, 2024. I'm Allison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe. Okay. While we wait for Jack Smith report on both federal cases against Donald Trump, we have a few reports to cover this week, including a second motion for dismissal from Jack Smith in the 2020 election subversion case. Because if one motion to dismiss didn't satisfy you, now we have another one, as well as a Georgia judge ordering Fawney Willis to release all her communications with Jack Smith. And I should apologize right off the top because for some reason my voice is ragged right now. I can't even hear it. But we'll just have to soldier on.

[Allison Gill]

We'll, we'll, we'll muddle through. And I just want to also say, and we'll talk about this when we talk about Fannie Willis. Release all our communications with Jack Smith. If they exist. Right. They, it hasn't been proven that they exist.

[Andy McCabe]

Or there is that quite substantial. If.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, exactly. It was kind of like when Donald Trump said, you must hand over all the deleted January Six files. And all the judges are like, that doesn't exist.

[Andy McCabe]

That's none. You've asked for nothing. Okay.

[Allison Gill]

Yes, you're welcome. Here it is. And they, you know, hand him air. All right. And Andy, we have a warning from the FBI to start encrypting our calls and text messages, which is interesting given the fact that encrypted communications really slowed down some of the investigations into Trump allies. And speaking of the FBI, we want to talk about Kash Patel being named to potentially replace Christopher Ray atop the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Plus, we have a lot of listener questions we're going to get to answer. And if you have a question for us, there is a link in the show notes. You can click on that link and use it to submit your questions to Andy and I. Andy and me. Andy and me. I always get that wrong.

[Andy McCabe]

Same.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. But first, it's time for another installment of Good Week, Bad Week, or should we retire this segment, Andy, because it's kind of bad weeks from here on out.

[Andy McCabe]

I really feel like we should. It never even occurred to me until you know, I was thinking about this earlier today and thought, maybe it's time to let the good week, bad week go. But let's say as the last one. Yeah, I'll throw you out. A bad week. It's a bad week for the future of the American presidency. If we're. If we're judging that by the quality of intended Cabinet members.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. We've been calling it the junk drawer over on the. Instead of the Cabinet. And, you know, we're going to talk about Kash Patel. Hegseth is still in the running. What a nightmare that is. He's lost his DEA pick after three days. But, Andy, that was because he enforced lockdowns during COVID So he was, I guess, somehow not bad.

[Andy McCabe]

Ineligible to hold federal office because he felt that people should probably follow what was the law at the time, which is insane. Or we have Tulsi Gabbard. Right. What does it say about the Cabinet that, like, one of the most kind of respected picks so far has been John Ratcliffe, who couldn't get confirmed as DNI in Trump's first term, but now he's like, oh, thank God. He's, you know, he's not Pete Hegseth or Matt Gaetz or Cash Patel. It's just really remarkable.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. When I'm wiping the sweat off my brow over Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, we have an issue. Have an issue.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly.

[Allison Gill]

I mean, Rubio was the guy who came in a lot of people forget. But alongside the Mueller investigation, the Senate, which was. I think that committee was headed up by Burr at the time, actually did a really. Yeah. In depth five, part five volume report on. On Russian interference in the 2016 election. And just as Burr was about to put out his final findings, like a summary, executive summary of the findings, Trump's DOJ started targeting him for insider trading. You know, because he's the only one in Congress that does that. Not. Not insider trading, but, you know, using.

[Andy McCabe]

Trading on privileged information that he got through his role in. In the Senate.

[Allison Gill]

And so he stepped down from the committee right before that report was released. So guess who got to write the report.

[Andy McCabe]

Yep.

[Allison Gill]

Your future Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who whitewashed the entire thing. So there you go. Yeah. Well, anyway, yeah. Bad, bad week for. For. For the executive branch in general.

[Andy McCabe]

For sure. For sure. We'll see how it goes. This has become kind of the selection of intended cabinet members in which expertise is a disqualifying factor. So, like, yeah, we're gonna find out how that goes.

[Allison Gill]

Felony indictments, I think are a requirement. Now you think, you know, with Pete Navarro going over to trade or whatever.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Crazy.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And, you know, we'll continue to keep an eye on it, especially over at Main Justice. As you know, like we said, when the, when the report comes out and fingies crossed, Merrick Garland releases it. I can't see why he wouldn't. But we're going to go over that report and then we're going to be pivoting to follow and report on what's happening at the Department of Justice so that we can make sure everybody knows the facts and can understand the gravity of what's about to go on in the Department.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I think DOJ is really going to be ground zero for a lot of things in this administration. It will be kind of the brain. That's probably bad, bad analogy. It'll be the op center for the revenge tour. Right. And a lot of what goes on over there under Pam Bondi's leadership, if she's confirmed, will be really interesting and important to follow closely. So that's what we're going to try to do.

[Allison Gill]

Yep. Knowledge is power. All right. First up in today's show, Jack Smith has submitted a second motion to dismiss to Judge Chutkan in D.C. as we know, last week we talked about he had submitted a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment for, you know, in D.C. for the election subversion case, the, the coup. And he had also submitted a motion to dismiss as to Donald Trump, not his, you know, co defendants or co conspirators to the 11th Circuit on appeal, the case that Judge Cannon had dismissed, which is the espionage and obstruction of justice case, the classified documents case as many people refer to it. Well, now he's filed another motion to dismiss and this is on top of the motion he filed to dismiss the, the January 6th charges against Donald Trump. And here's what it says. It's very short. Government's supplement to its Motion to dismiss on November 25 on the government's motion, the court dismissed the operative superseding indictment without prejudice, the clerk acted on the court's order and the docket now reflects the absence of any pending charges against the defendant and classifies this case as closed. Nonetheless, because certain out of circuit case law indicates that a superseding indictment does not void the original indictment. See for example, States v. Vavlaitis from 1993. The government now supplements its dismissal motion to avoid any doubt that for all of the reasons set forth in our other motion to dismiss, the original indictment is also dismissed. Without prejudice, the government is conferred with defense counsel who does not object to the relief requested. So, Andy, I looked up the Vavlitis case.

[Andy McCabe]

Of course you did.

[Allison Gill]

I don't know if I'm.

[Andy McCabe]

Well done.

[Allison Gill]

I don't know if I'm saying that right. It sounds like.

[Andy McCabe]

I think that's what's wrong with my throat.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

I've got Vevlitis.

[Allison Gill]

I've got Vevlitis in my spleen. It sounds like. Yeah, it sounds like something we. We actually. When I was in the Navy, we had a guy in our brother company whose last name was Petritis. And we always used to joke about, you know, oh, my Petritis is killing me. Okay. On February 19, 1991, I was a. I was a junior in high school. A grand jury returned an indictment charging VLTIs with one count of bank fraud. The indictment alleged that between January and May of 1990, Vladis orchestrated a check kiting scheme by depositing checks written on insufficient funds into the accounts he controlled at Atlantic bank and bank of New England. The charging paragraph of the indictment, paragraph seven, alleged that this scheme allowed Vavlitis to obtain $1,615,968, more or less owned by and under the custody and control of Atlantic bank and bank of New England. So he's floating checks.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Allison Gill]

On March 12, 1991. And it wasn't like when I floated a check for groceries for $14 when I was in college. This is 1.6.

[Andy McCabe]

This is different, although kind of the same in principle, but different in size.

[Allison Gill]

Same in principle.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay.

[Allison Gill]

On March 12, 1991, which was like a month later, less than a month later, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment identical in all respects to the original indictment except for paragraph 9. Paragraph 9 of the Superseding indictment, the new one stated that as a result of the check kiting scheme, Atlantic bank suffered a loss of 1.65, $1.62 million, more or less. The superseding indictment thus alleged the total loss resulting from the scheme, but did not describe the net ultimate loss.

[Andy McCabe]

I see.

[Allison Gill]

Because of an oversight by the prosecutor, Vavlitis was never arraigned on the superseding indictment. So after the first day of trial, they wanted to have a mistrial. The ruling here says the court found that Vavlaitis had not been arraigned on the superseding indictment. But the court granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment and allowed the trial to continue on the original indictment. Now, Vavlaitis argued in an appeal that the mid trial dismissal of the superseding indictment prevented any further prosecution on the original indictment. He's like, if you, if you're, if you're dismissing the superseding indictment, that's it, game over.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes.

[Allison Gill]

And that the continuation of the trial on the original indictment violated the double jeopardy clause. The court disagreed. This is the First Circuit Court. Breyer was on this. By the way. It is clear that the grand jury's return of a superseding indictment does not void the original indictment. So, wow. Because of a First Circuit appeals ruling in 1991 that the dismissal of a superseding indictment does not void the original indictment. Jack Smith went back to clean this up and I can't, I can't quite figure out why. I mean, I guess I want to.

[Andy McCabe]

Know the story about how they found this out. Like, why did they even look for this?

[Allison Gill]

Did Trump's lawyers come up and say, well, we're going to file a speedy trial motion.

[Andy McCabe]

You guys didn't cover your VTIs exposure here. It's, it's remarkable. And I have to say, like, if I were flitis, I'd be kind of, kind of angry about this because what does superseding mean?

[Allison Gill]

Right?

[Andy McCabe]

I mean, you, I've been involved in many, many cases with superseding indictments, and I always just assumed that the superseding indictment knocked out the first one because it's a superseding indictment. That's what we call it. But, hey, there you go. This is Jack covering down, making sure he's got everything tied up nice and tight.

[Allison Gill]

Makes me wonder if we're going to see a motion from Vavlitis to vacate his charges. Or maybe, maybe that's why Jack Smith did this. Like, I'm going to go ahead and, you know, submit that we dismiss the original indictment so that Vavlitis isn't mad.

[Andy McCabe]

You know, honestly, the more I think about it, I think he's probably was just like, oh, my God, this is a 1 in 10 million chance that this ever comes back. But I don't ever want to hear from these people again. I'm going to knock this thing out because it's easier to just do it now and then I can just ignore the phone calls ten years from now or whatever it is.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, I'm going to double dismiss it and then maybe he'll file another one. Like anything else ever. Just make sure that everything is dismissed.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes. Kill it. Kill it where it sleeps.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And I wonder if we'll See, one in the documents case, that was a superseding indictment, but actually the case was dismissed.

[Andy McCabe]

It was already dismissed by the judge.

[Allison Gill]

And he was only pulling it out of appeals. That's right. That's right. Right. All right, well, interesting. I learned a little bit about check kiting and vlitis and things that were happening while I was in high school. That. That Jack Smith somehow. Yeah, I'm with you. Did somebody, like, knock on the door and say, hey, boss, like, I'm a huge, like, case law nerd? And. And you. You forgot about this first circuit thing from 33 years ago.

[Andy McCabe]

I mean, Jimmy, what do you want now, really? I've got all these things to do here. This is Jack Smith talk. He's in his office. He's trying to figure out this report. Do I get this out? Does the world end? Do I have to leave the country? I don't know. And then it's the. Yeah, boss, I found this lightest head. Do you know vavilitis? Oh, my God.

[Allison Gill]

I can just see Jack Smith going, okay, what? Write it up, Jimmy. Write it up, Jimmy. Write it up.

[Andy McCabe]

Crazy.

[Allison Gill]

I'll submit it. All right, everybody, we have more news to get to. I think in the next segment, we're going to talk a little bit about a story that sort of flew under the radar about Fani Willis and Judicial Watch, who we all know and love.

[Andy McCabe]

Is that our buddy Tom Fitton?

[Allison Gill]

I think that's. I think that's him. I'll have to look that up. I think it is. I think it's him. I think it's the. Yeah, my shirt doesn't fit my arms guy. But we'll. We'll tell you about that story. Kind of, like I said, flew under the radar with all of the cabinet picks this week. But we have to take a quick break first, so stick around. We'll be right back.

[Andy McCabe]

Welcome back. Okay, we have a story for you that, as we just said, we think kind of slipped on by this week. Slipped under the radar, you know, with all the cabinet picks and palace intrigue that's going on down at Mar a Lago. So this week, a court in Georgia found Fulton County District Attorney Fawney Willis in violation of Georgia's open records law. Now, this comes from Judge McBurney's ruling on the matter. And in. In his ruling, he said, On the 22nd of August, 2023, plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. Submitted an open records request to defendant District Attorney Fawney Willis seeking, quote, all documents and communications sent to, received from, or relating to Special Counsel Jack Smith and quote, all documents and communication sent to or received from the United States House of January 6th Committee. Now, plaintiff received a response the next day from K. Burwell, Open Records Custodian and the Office of the County Attorney stating that Defendant, quote, did not have the responsive records. Plaintiff subsequently brought this action on 5th March, 2024, alleging that defendant violated the Open Records act because the defendant, in fact, does have responsive records that that should have been produced. Plaintiff seeks the requested records and attorney's fees.

[Allison Gill]

H so what happened here is that Judicial Watch served Fannie Willis, but because the service wasn't docketed, she never responded. So here's more from the ruling and I'm going to replace plaintiff with Judicial Watch and defendant with Fannie Willis. So, so we don't get confused, Judicial Watch moved for default judgment on April 30, 2024. Fannie Willis made her first appearance in the case on May 15. Fifteen days later, with an answer and a response opposing the Judicial Watch motion, Fannie Willis concedes that she was served on March 11, but reasonably claims that she was unaware that Judicial Watch had filed the Affidavit of service on March 13, since it didn't appear in the public docket for this case. So that's kind of the setup here.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes. Yeah. So the ruling goes on to say the court finds Fannie Willis is in default and has been since 11th April, 2024. As already mentioned, it is undisputed that the defendant was served on 11 March and that plaintiff filed the return of service on 13 March. While it is true that the return did not immediately appear on the court's electronic docket, this delay does not change the fact that that plaintiff filed it and that it was stamped as received by the clerk on 13 March. Because the return was filed within five days of the service, the defendant was required to answer within 30 days of service, which would have been 10 April 2024. Fani Willis could have opened her default as a matter of right on the 15th of April or soon thereafter, as she remained well within the 15 day grace period established by law. Moreover, even had she delayed and filed her motion to open default outside the 15 day statutory grace period, Fannie would have had a compelling case for opening her default on any of the three statutory grounds.

[Allison Gill]

Yep. And it goes on to say, but Fani Willis did none of that. She never moved to open default on any basis, not even during the period when she could have opened default as A matter of right. She never paid costs and she never offered up a meritorious defense. Judicial Watch is thus entitled to judgment by default as if every item and paragraph of the complaint were supported by proper insufficient evidence. So that's kind of a little hint there. Like, I don't necessarily think Judicial Watch's stuff is supported by proper evidence, but because Fani Willis didn't do anything, there's a default judgment here. So we have to grant that judgment as if every item and paragraph of Judicial Watches complaint were supported by proper insufficient evidence.

[Andy McCabe]

Correct.

[Allison Gill]

The court also hereby orders Fani Willis to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials within five business days of the entry of this order. Within that same five day period, Fani Willis is ordered to provide Judicial Watch with copies of any and all responsive records that are not legally exempted or accepted from disclosure. A hearing on the plaintiff's request for attorneys fees and costs will be set for 20 December 2024. 10:00am Courtroom 8D, as in David. So here we are. He gets the default judgment, right? But, you know, I want to be clear because some on the right are insinuating that, you know, the headlines at Fox News are like Jack Smith and Fani Willis canoodling on the docket or whatever, you know, and, you know, I just want to be clear that the judge said I have to take. Because you didn't do anything funny, Willis. I have to take everything Judicial Watch says at face value.

[Andy McCabe]

Right?

[Allison Gill]

And so you got to go and check your stuff and then come back and either confirm that you don't have anything with the court. If you do, you got to hand it over. If it's responsive, if you have it and he's not allowed to have it, you have to explain why he's not allowed to have it. And so this is a lot like what we were going through, Andy, with the discovery motions from, from Donald Trump, right? Like, I want this, I want, I want the, the last 20 years of happy emails about Donald Trump from the Department of Energy. I want, you know, like just this super broad stuff and, and Judge Tuckin's like, you can have these three things. And Jack Smith, you need to let us know in a week if you don't have any of it, it doesn't exist, or you do have some and hand it over. Right? Like that's kind of what we're looking at here.

[Andy McCabe]

This is like hyper technical. And I, and I honestly, this thing is a hot mess. I mean, he served. She acknowledges that she was served. But because the service was never docketed. She didn't respond. Like, that's not great lawyering right there.

[Allison Gill]

Right.

[Andy McCabe]

And. And that's.

[Allison Gill]

Just come back and say, I don't have anything. And the things I do have are accepted under these rules of Georgia law. The end.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly. But she didn't do that. So she kind of set herself up for this default judgment and then. Right. And default judgment's like, you never responded. Therefore, we take everything the other side says at face value. Which brings me to my biggest question, when I'll go back and reread this part just to set it up. So plaintiff subsequently brought this action on 5th March, alleging that defendant violated the Open Records act because Defendant, in fact, does have responsive records that should have been produced. Now, again, that's the plaintiff saying that. So I've got two really interesting questions here. One, if how does Judicial Watch know that she has records when she never even replied to this thing? Like, there's gotta be. He must be holding onto a leak.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Or want it revealed by her.

[Allison Gill]

Or they have no evidence. Which is why the judge said, hey, at a default judgment, I have to act like he's got evidence.

[Andy McCabe]

That's the other thing. Like, why. I guess this is what they're referring to. This is what they're having to accept at face value with absolutely no evidence. He's just saying in the pleading, she does have it. Not providing any evidence of that fact. But he's. The judge is obligated to take him at his word. Which is. Which kind of sucks, to be honest, but.

[Allison Gill]

Well, it's kind of like how the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals and any appellate court has to take what's in an indictment as fact.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. That's right. That's just the rules. And that's what these sort of default judgments are all about. This is the court enforcing the rules. If you let lawyers get away with things like getting served and not responding, then the whole system falls apart. So that's why the rules are enforced pretty strictly. But, yeah, a bit of a mess here that she kind of walked herself into. It seems like maybe there's more to the story that we don't know, but there might be.

[Allison Gill]

But I'm also interested to see how she responds, because should she respond, yeah, we've got stuff, but you can't have it, or. Yeah, we have three things here. They are, or no, we have nothing. I'm really interested to see what the answer is, so.

[Andy McCabe]

Sure. All right, so next up, we have a Story from Kevin Collier at NBC News. And Kevin says federal officials warned on Tuesday that a massive Chinese hacking operation against American telecommunications companies hasn't yet been fully expelled and that the best way to hide communications from Beijing spies is to use encryption.

[Allison Gill]

I feel like this should say. And the best way to hide communications from Kash Patel and Pam Bobby is to use encryption.

[Andy McCabe]

Wink, wink, nod, nod, don't be heard by the wink, wink, nod, nod Chinese, wink, wink, nod, nod.

[Allison Gill]

I mean, when does the FBI ever come out and say, hey, make our job harder, everyone? Yeah, it's just interesting.

[Andy McCabe]

It is, it is. Okay. Kevin goes on to say encryption is a technology that scrambles messages and requires a quote key to be able to see or hear it. Different app makers and platforms have used the technology in various forms for more than a decade. So governments and hackers that intercept them as they pass through telecommunications infrastructure will see only gibberish. While adopting the technology has historically prompted complaints from law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. It's also a way people can communicate more privately. Side note, this is what the. When I was in the FBI, we, we've cried and moaned about for years and referred to as going dark. The going dark problem. Right. Our access, our lawful access to the content of communications was shrinking with every development in encryption technology.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay. Telecommunications companies tend to temporarily store call and SMS records, which phone number called or texted, which and when, and they briefly store the contents of SMS texts. Audio, however, is generally not recorded. That means it's easier for hackers like those in the Chinese campaign, which Microsoft has nicknamed Salt Typhoon, to get massive amounts of data on phone records and some stored text messages. But they have to be targeted in listening to specific phone calls as they happen.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And the article continues, for everyday consumers, the simplest way to send encrypted messages or make encrypted calls is to use communications apps like Signal or WhatsApp that have implemented end to end encryption between other signal and WhatsApp users. With end to end encryption, every user of an encrypted chat app holds the unique code to unscramble a message sent to that account. Importantly, the corporate owner and the operator of the app, they don't have access to that key, so they won't be able to unscramble an encrypted message, even if a court demands it or it is hacked. Signal and WhatsApp automatically protect their messages that way. With Signal's encryption, which cryptographers find among the best that are commercially available, both apps allow users to make encrypted phone calls with other users through the Internet. But even without apps like Signal and WhatsApp, many Americans frequently text with end to end encryption turned on even if they don't know it.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. If imessage users text other imessage users or Google Message users text other Google Message users, those chats are automatically encrypted with the signal protocol. But when Google and imessage users text users who use different texting applications, such as when an imessage user texts a Google message user, the messages are encrypted only with rich communication services, which in the US are all decrypted by Google. While that means they are in theory hidden from telecommunications companies, they're not encrypted end to end. And they can be seen under court orders to Google or by hackers who might break into some of these companies for phone calls. Google and Apple offer encryption if the calls are made through their Internet connected calling apps like Google Fi and FaceTime. While the controversial app Telegram does offer what it claims is an option to message users with end to end encryption, some leading cryptographers are wary of endorsing it, noting that some of its code is not open to the public to test and that it doesn't encrypt conversations by default.

[Allison Gill]

The it goes on to say here that the FBI began investigating Salt Typhoon in late spring or early summer. US believes Chinese intelligence hacked into AT&T, Verizon and Lumen and gained significant access, including records of phone calls and text messages for many people, particularly in the D.C. area. In some circumstances affecting members of both the Trump and Harris campaigns as well as the office of the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. They were able to listen to some of the phone calls. China denied this accusation, as it routinely does when a Western company or government accuses it of deploying a vast cyber espionage capability. A spokesperson for China's embassy in Washington said in an emailed statement that, quote, China firmly opposes the US's smear attacks against China without any factual basis. And Andy, I wanted to share the story because we have, like I said, long covered the FBI trying to access communications and investigations and every time going all the way back to the Mueller investigation. When I would read like the Mueller report or some of these court filings, they always have WhatsApp and signal communications. Not so much Signal, but they certainly had Telegram and WhatsApp. But I think that's because they got it from one end of the conversation, right? Not because it's easy to break into these apps and get get these messages back and forth.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. It's impossible to break into them. I mean, maybe scientifically there is a. There is some mathematical equation that would enable you to defeat the encryption, but that's like, you know, so. So, so many years away. They are essentially impossible. If you can. If you serve a warrant on, or court order on, let's say, WhatsApp, for communications between two different identified parties, they have to comply with that court order. They provide you a recording of those calls, and you cannot. You play it, and it just sounds like fuzz and static. It doesn't. There's no discernible content there.

[Allison Gill]

They can't decrypt it themselves.

[Andy McCabe]

They can't decrypt it. But the text messages, again, same thing, are encrypted on either end of the communication. So each person's phone maintains the key to decrypt that communication. But if you really want those texts to be private, you have to also delete them from your phone because they reside on your phone in an. In a decrypted form, so you can read them.

[Allison Gill]

Oh. So like, if you're the US Secret Service, after January 6th, you just make sure you delete those messages.

[Andy McCabe]

That's how it works. If you delete them adequately, you know, you have to not. You know, you have to be pretty careful about how you do that. Then they're gone for good and they can't be recovered. But that's how, you know, you'll remember the beginning. The Jack Smith case. You had agents out there taking the telephones out of the hands of people whose communications they were seeking as part of the investigation because. And then they would have. They would have the owner unlock the phone, and then that's how you get those communications.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. Give them their phone back. Jeffrey Clark. John Eastman. Scott Perry. Um, hi, we're the post office cops.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. So you're going to great. You go to great lengths to, like, use encrypted apps so that no one can see what you're writing or hear what you're saying. But if you keep all those writings on your phone, they can still be found.

[Allison Gill]

I just. This is such a fascinating warning from the FBI to me. We've got Kash Patel coming in. We got Pam Bondi coming in. We got Donald Trump coming in. We got the FBI saying, hey, everybody, start using signal Peace. You know, like, this is. I know, I understand Salt Typhoon, the Chinese hack into AT&T, Lumen, Verizon, etc. But I've never seen a warning. I've never. I never thought I'd see the day where the FBI came out and told the American people to start using encrypted apps. Blows my mind.

[Andy McCabe]

We spent so much time and effort talking about this conference after conference after conference. Comey gave speeches about it all the time. Chris Wray came in, he continued the exact same march. And you know, the, the, we are constantly complaining about encryption for good reason. And it's really, it's made investigations much harder, particularly for local police who don't have this sort of technology and resources that the FBI has to try to work around some of these things. Yeah. So to hear them kind of advocating it, it's, I mean, if that's where we are, if that's what the threat from China really looks like on a day to day basis, like we're in a bad spot. And I think that's how, that's how I take this warning. This is the bureau saying in a kind of oblique way how serious the threat from China really is.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, agreed. And I advocate everyone start using signal. And if you're imessaging, go imessage to imessage. If you're Google messaging, go Google message to Google message. And that's just because of the incoming administration. But you know, also, also salt typhoon. All right, we have another story to get to before we get to listener questions. We're going to talk a little bit about Kash Patel, but we have to take one more quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Hey everybody, welcome back. All right, before we get to listener questions, I wanted to talk to you, Andy, about Trump's pick to head up your former agency.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes.

[Allison Gill]

This reporting comes from your colleagues Evan Perez and Zachary Cohen at cnn. And you actually headed up this agency as the acting director for a time.

[Andy McCabe]

I did. For a brief shining moment in 2017. The months of my life I can.

[Allison Gill]

Never, never get back.

[Andy McCabe]

But anyway, yes, I did. I have a unique perspective on this.

[Allison Gill]

One and I can't wait to hear.

[Andy McCabe]

It because you've been listening to CNN at all in the last week. You were, you've probably heard my rant already, but I'm teeing it up.

[Allison Gill]

Well, we want to hear it again. Here's what, here's what your folk, your colleagues over at CNN have to say. President elect Trump plans to nominate firebrand and I wish they would stop using that, let's just call him loyalist Kash Patel to serve as FBI director. An extraordinary move that would put a self described enemy of the so called deep state as the head of the nation's top law enforcement agency, a role that would give Patel power to carry out Trump's threats to go after his political opponents. Trump's interest in Patel speaks to his urge to fill top law enforcement and intelligence positions with supporters and I'm going to add absolutely, wholly unqualified, ridiculous supporters who may be open to carrying out his demands for specific investigations, as well as inoculating Trump against possible future probes. Quote I'm proud to announce that Kash Patel will serve as the next director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Kash is a brilliant lawyer, investigator, America first fighter, has spent his career exposing corruption, defending justice, protecting the American people. That's what Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday evening.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, so the article continues. Even among Trump loyalists, Patel is widely viewed as a controversial figure and relentless self promoter whose value to the president elect largely derives from a shared disdain for established power in Washington. Putting him in charge of the FBI would require forcing out current Director Christopher Wray, who was appointed by Trump before his term expires, prompting bipartisan criticism. Former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton compared Patel to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's leader of the secret police, the NKVD, telling CNN, quote, the Senate should reject this nomination 100 to 0.

[Allison Gill]

Wow.

[Andy McCabe]

I don't usually agree with John Bolton, but here, you know, here we are.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, half man, half mustache, coming through.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan cautioned Sunday that the FBI director should not be subject to the whims of politics, but declined to weigh in directly on Patel. Quote, what makes the FBI director different from most other nominees is they're not just appointed for one term of a president. They're appointed for enough time, just 10 years, to last past two terms of a president because they're supposed to be insulated from politics. Sullivan told CNN's Casey Hunt on State.

[Allison Gill]

Of the Union now, wasn't Mueller actually extended to like 12 years?

[Andy McCabe]

He was, but it took an act of Congress to do it.

[Allison Gill]

Took an act of Congress to, to extend it. That's interesting because there will be no acts of Congress this time around to get rid of or install people. Patel has heavily criticized the FBI, as we know. In a podcast interview in September, he called for the agency's headquarters in D.C. to be dismantled and turned into a museum of the deep state. The FBI's footprint has gotten so freaking big. That's his official assessment of the bureau. That's what he said on the Sean Ryan show, whoever that is criticizing the agency's intelligence gathering operation. During the interview, Patel also ridiculed the FBI for its 2022 search warrant of Trump's Mar A Lago residence in Florida, which led to charges being brought against the former president for retaining classified documents. Does he know that? The FBI actually didn't want to do that. And they pushed back on Garland and said, let's just do a subpoena instead. And Garland was like, man, I really want to search that place. And so they did a subpoena, and then they got more evidence. And finally, a month later, Garland was like, we're going in. And the FBI was still like, we don't want to look in that one closet. I mean, I don't think he knows that.

[Andy McCabe]

And despite all that, their application for the search warrant was dead on. Right.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

They went in and convinced the judge, we, we think we have probable cause to believe there's evidence of a crime in there. And sure enough, there was a ton of it.

[Allison Gill]

There was.

[Andy McCabe]

So, okay.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And in fact, it wasn't dismissed because there was no evidence of a crime. It was dismissed because they don't think Jack Smith was appointed properly.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Allison Gill]

The judge overseeing that case eventually dismissed the charges in 2023. In an interview with Steve Bannon, the former Trump advisor, Pennsylvania Patel said the Justice Department under Trump would go after members of the media. We're going to come after you. Quote, we've got to put in All American Patriots. We've got to put in All American Patriots, top to bottom. What does that even mean?

[Andy McCabe]

You can't try to make that into something better. It just is what it is.

[Allison Gill]

We've got to put in all. Oh, we have to put in. Into the doj. We have to put All American Patriots top these jobs.

[Andy McCabe]

We need to put in All American Patriots, dude.

[Allison Gill]

Adding that. Yeah, because, you know, notoriously Democratic and liberal doj.

[Andy McCabe]

Not all American and not patriotic in any way, right?

[Allison Gill]

No, not at all.

[Andy McCabe]

The current people who. Who work in the FBI are not American and patriotic. Okay, thanks.

[Allison Gill]

Definitely not. And he also added that the department under Trump will go and find the conspirators, not just in the government, but in the media. Yes. We're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. Plural. We're going to come after you, he said.

[Andy McCabe]

Patel rose to prominence within Trump's orbit in 2018 when he served as an aide to Representative Devin Nunez, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee at the time.

[Allison Gill]

I mean, okay, I still can't believe he was. He was on the house Intelligence Committee. Mr. Midnight Uber to the White House. Mr. 65 square foot farm in Fresno to be able to put farmer on the ballot.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes.

[Allison Gill]

Mr. You know, I mean there's a 9 million things that we could talk about with.

[Andy McCabe]

And now the CEO socials presided over the loss of billions revenue. Anyway. Patel played a key role in Nunez's efforts to discredit the FBI's Russia investigation into the Trump campaign, including a controversial classified memo that alleged FBI abuses of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act warrants on Trump advisors. In his 2023 book, Government the Deep State, the Truth and the Battle for Our Democracy. That is too long a title. I'm sorry. Patel lambasted, quote, crazed partisans for hijacking the law enforcement apparatus against Trump.

[Allison Gill]

Do you ever just think like, man, I could make so much money if I pretended to be a Trump supporter and built these guys. Can you imagine like just the songs you could write or the books you could write, how easy it would be? I don't know.

[Andy McCabe]

I'm more often I just think, how did I get here? How did we get here? What, what has happened? Okay. Patel's book heavily criticizes what he refers to as the deep state. An amorphous term he says includes elected leaders, journalists, big tech tycoons, and quote, members of the unelected bureaucracy, calling it, quote, the most dangerous threat to our, to our democracy. Patel, in his book also calls for a comprehensive house cleaning of the Justice Department, arguing it has protected high ranking members of the Democratic Party, failed to prosecute individuals who leaked information during the first Trump administration, and unjustly targeted Republicans and their allies.

[Allison Gill]

Wow. So the number one leaker of information during the Trump administration was the Trump administration. I just want to let everybody know it goes on to say FBI directors, as you know, serve 10 year terms in part to shield the bureau's leader from political pressure. FBI directors serve decade long terms as a result of a post Watergate law passed in response to J. Edgar Hoover's controversial 48 year leadership at the agency.

[Andy McCabe]

Disastrous, I would have called it. But okay, controversial works if they hits.

[Allison Gill]

You know, it's legacy media here. The breaking of its norm is not new for Trump, who fired Comey shortly after taking office in 2017. Comey, who helmed the FBI during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, as well as the Hillary Clinton email controversy, was fired by Trump in May 2017 after serving in the position for just over three years. So I think at the end, I think, I think, doesn't Ray have three more years left in, in his Term?

[Andy McCabe]

I think so. I think he's at about 7.

[Allison Gill]

All right, so you're teed up. Go rant. What are your thoughts on? There's so many Patel.

[Andy McCabe]

There's so many directions to go with this. But I think you got to start with the basics. Number one, the guy is profoundly unqualified for this job. If you look at his experience, he has almost none. He has very little basic legal experience. He was a defense attorney. I think he worked for the Federal Defender's office in Miami for a couple of years. And then he actually did a very brief tour through DOJ as a. As a kind of line level attorney in the National Security division. But that is like a drop in the bucket compared to basically anyone else who has ever served in the role, period. This is not my opinion on him as a good guy or not a good guy. This is just a fact. The guy is wholly unqualified. He's got zero experience running any organization of any size. So he's going to step into an organization. 37,000 people all over the globe, 11,000 of them carrying guns every day, a budget of 10 billion plus dollars a year, and by the way, a pretty important mission to protect our nation. And you're going to. Just going to kind of step into that as your, you know, first, you know, you had your lemonade stand as a kid and now you're going to do that is basically the, the stretch that he's trying to make. Now you're into my opinion part of the rant. Kash Patel is not a serious person. Forget about the fact that he's targeting me and people in the media and whoever else, for whatever reason. Put that aside for a minute. This guy is a clown. He says ridiculous things all the time that betray the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He says he's going to close FBI headquarters and force the 7,000 employees to go out across the country and work as cops. You're cops. Go be cops. No idea that 6,000 of those 7,000 people are not even law enforcement officers. They are professional support staff, scientists, forensic analysts, forensic scientists, computer scientists, people who, who contribute in meaningful ways to this massive accomplishment every day of being the FBI. He has no idea who they are, what the FBI does, what it involves to direct an organization like that. I could not have survived for five minutes in that acting role had I not spent the previous 20 years serving in every single level that an agent can serve. And the FBI came in as a field agent, walked in the door, didn't know a single human being in the place and served in every single role up to director. The only way I could get it, I could, I could hold it together for as briefly as I did was because I knew the organization. I'd seen it, I'd done it. I, I lived my adult life in and around FBI people as one of them, this guy will fail and he will take the, the organization backwards. And finally, the most dangerous part of this is the only thing he cares about is doing whatever Donald Trump wants. It has been the, the keystone of the FBI in the last 50 years in the post J. Edgar Hoover era. Right. So you had Hoover for 40. I didn't think it was 48. But anyway, 40 something years, complete disaster. Hoover did the bidding of every president he worked for. He used the awesome powers of the FBI, its intelligence collection powers, its investigative authority, its legal authority to terrorize American citizens at the direction of American presidents, to collect political intelligence, to seek revenge against enemies, political enemies. Hoover did all of that. And it wasn't until like 1975 and you had the Church Committee and the Pike Committee, those two committees in Congress that unearthed all these problems, all these things that had gone on under Hoover, you know, illegal surveillance of Martin Luther King, which by the way, was approved by Robert Kennedy as Attorney General. So this is not a Democrat or Republican thing. This went both ways. We got past those disgraces by committing ourselves to being independent of the political side of the White House. Yes, the FBI works with the National Security Council to protect the country as a intelligence agency, domestic intelligence agency, but they don't interact with people on the political side. You're not even allowed to talk to people on the political side of the White House. It all has to go through doj. That's been how we got away from that disgraceful past and actually turned into a credible domestic intelligence and criminal investigative agency that prioritizes protecting people and upholding the Constitution. Cash Patel is right out there and the things he says, telling you he's going to take the FBI backwards back to a Hoover esque model where he just sits, waits for Donald Trump to tell him what to do and then goes out and does that without any regard for the Constitution, legality, morality, ethics or anything else. So I think it's a disastrous appointment if it ends up being a recess appointment, because I know that's something that they're talking about with problematic jobs they need to fill. That's probably less than two years. That'll be a big problem. But people will hunker down and ride it out. Because FBI people are really good at ignoring leaders. Don't like they've had a lot of them and they have perfected that art. But if he gets approved, you're going to have this guy for maybe 10 years. I mean, it's possible. I think it's unlikely. But you can do a lot of damage to an institution, to a great institution over the course of 10 years. And I really hope that doesn't happen.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, agreed. And, and you know, as far as the, the experience necessary. Right. Like you said, you came in as a field agent, did every job all the way up to director. I was at the VA for half as long, 10 years and I made it halfway up. Right. GS14. I was still in the general schedule as a junior executive. My other 10 years, if I hadn't been removed, would have gone to, you know, hospital director or working in D.C. to Under Secretary to a secretary of a department underneath the VHA or VBA or something like that and you know, so on and so forth up into and including, you know, a director of a medical sharing office or some sort of SES executive level job. And then I might be ready to be the secretary of the VA, you know, maybe with my PhD and 20 years of experience. Because, you know, when I came into the VA, I started out as a GS5, worked in my all the way up through the GS through the general schedule, but that's halfway. And with a PhD, I'm still more qualified than Doug Collins is to run the Department of Federal Affairs. But this, yeah, this is just absolutely unbelievable guy who, I mean I think he had a role as a deputy over at the NSA for a minute or the DNI maybe. I don't, I think the CIA, Gina Haspel were threatened to resign if he came within 10ft of her building. So she, so that didn't happen. But he can't pass, he can't pass the background check that will be conducted by the, by the agency he wants to lead. He wouldn't be able to, but his background checks aren't going to matter. Trump is just going to ignore him like he did in his first term.

[Andy McCabe]

We have had a series of, we have, to my count, two former FBI agents who served as director. Clarence Kelly, who was career FBI agent, ran field, multiple field offices as a special agent in charge, ultimately came in as an agent, worked all the way up, same as me. Then he retired and he was the chief of police in Kansas City, Missouri I think before he was pulled in after Hoover. And then of course Louis Free, who was an agent and then an assistant U.S. attorney and then a federal judge and we've had a lot of other federal judges. And then we've had some super heavy hitters from DOJ, like Robert Mueller. Right. Who was a U.S. attorney, I think, in two places. And a high level, a bunch of high level jobs at doj. You know, so these are people who came to the job with careers, entire careers in, in law enforcement.

[Allison Gill]

Well, that's what they ship. And the law, that's what they don't want.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. It's a disqualifying factor for this, for, for this administration.

[Allison Gill]

Sure.

[Andy McCabe]

But anyway.

[Allison Gill]

Well, my friend, I, I given you a virtual hug about this appointment because I know, I know it's, you know, it's, you know, joking aside, it's. I can't imagine how personal this is for you.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, it sucks.

[Allison Gill]

Given your entire career at the FBI.

[Andy McCabe]

These people deserve better. The people, men and women of the FBI deserve better. I'm not saying look is a, it's a. We elected a Republican president. You're going to get a Republican president's pick for FBI directors.

[Allison Gill]

Chris Wray was his pick for FBI.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly. That's the way it works. Everybody understands that. That's. Those are the rules. And we play by the rules.

[Allison Gill]

I don't think we've ever had a Democrat FBI director.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. And you don't get to, as a, you know, whatever you are in the FBI, you don't get to pick your director. You just serve the director. That's, that's confirmed. Everybody's good at that. But this is just a bridge too far. They deserve better. And the American people deserve better.

[Allison Gill]

We do. And I'm worried for our safety because of all the, you know, I don't think a lot of Americans understand how much safer we are. Because of the FBI.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, for sure. For sure.

[Allison Gill]

All right. We're going to take some listener questions and see what you sent in. If you have a question, there is a link in the show notes. You click on it, you can send a question to Andy and me and we'll answer it as best we can. We do have a lot of questions and we will continue answering a lot of these questions as we wait patiently.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes.

[Allison Gill]

For Jackson Final Report, which we are on now because you remember Andy, we were talking about like, is this it? The November 25th dismissal of the case? Is this what he was giving himself to December 2nd to do? Yeah, because nothing else came in on December.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly.

[Allison Gill]

That was it. So we aren't expecting anything else from from Jack Smith's office outside of a report at least. I don't know, we may keep an eye on the 11th Circuit because the, you know, the nauta and the appeal is to the, you know, the co, co conspirators. Now to and De la Vera still on.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

All right, we'll take a break and we'll come back with your questions. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. It's time for listener questions. Andy, what do we have this week from our intrepid introduction? Intelligent, brilliant, handsome, good looking, smart, wonderful listeners.

[Andy McCabe]

That was such a great intro. I wish I was included in it. But anyway, okay, so staying with the report topic, we have a question from Curtis. Curtis writes in I was listening to the interview with Dan Goldman on the Daily Beans and he said he did not think a report from Jack Smith would be completed before January 3rd. I think this is the day the new Congress is seated. How will that affect the fate of his report? I'm so worried that the report will be buried by Trump. Thanks for all you are doing. So I guess generally, what's your thoughts on the timing? Like when do you think it drops? I know predictions are terrible, but let's try.

[Allison Gill]

Well, yeah, the new Congress comes in after the 3rd of January. That's when they're sworn in. But it's up to Merrick Garland what part of this report gets released. Now I do think he has to deliver it to Congress as well. And you know, having currently a majority in the Senate that could release the report if it's not released by Merrick Garland but given to the Senate, you know, I don't see there being a problem. I don't see this Congress being in charge of releasing the report. I think I, I am 98 sure Merrick Garland will release this thing mostly unredacted except for the things that you have to redact like grand jury materials, names of people that aren't charged and handoffs to other agencies if there are any and you know, PII and PPI and all that stuff. This stuff that, that again, Garland has no control over whether or not he releases that stuff. He has to redact that stuff by law.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Allison Gill]

I think we'll get it and I don't think it matters if we get it before or after the third because again, I don't think Congress has a role in releasing, releasing the report. I think what's interesting though, and I think you and I talked about this last week is what if we can't get him in for Because I talked to Rep. Goldman about this, too. Are you going to bring him in and have him question before January 3rd?

[Andy McCabe]

Yep.

[Allison Gill]

And he's like, probably not. I don't know that we have time to do that. But, you know, I, I agreed and I think I brought this point up to you last week. I don't think it really matters. The, the margins are so close and we're going to have Democrats and Republicans in each of these committees. And, you know, I think you talked about like, maybe he wouldn't be brought in by Republicans right away, maybe they'd want to investigate first. But he, I think they'll bring him in, at least Republicans to just beat him up. But that, that's my, that's my take on this.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I agree. I still think that's the right. I think they'll definitely bring him in. They may try to time, they might try to even delay it. Maybe they want, maybe they think there's some, you know, there's some benefit to doing it like before the, right before the midterms or something to get everybody fired up. But they'll bring him in. But I think, I think they're going to want to do some work first. They're going to want to pester DOJ with all kinds of requests for records and things like that. But we'll see. I think we'll see him testify for sure.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And you think the report will come out before or after January 3rd and it doesn't happen?

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I think after January 3rd, I don't think there's going to be quite enough time to get things completely packaged up by then, because you remember, it's got to go from Jack to doj, and then they have to review it and figure out what they're going to, what the redactions will be. That takes some time.

[Allison Gill]

Doesn't he also have to bring in the intelligence agencies for redactions?

[Andy McCabe]

He does.

[Allison Gill]

Both of these have.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

But classified information involved, presumably.

[Andy McCabe]

He's done some of that already in the course of preparing the case for trial. So I don't think that would be a huge hurdle at this point. I think a lot of that groundwork has already been laid word and he probably was staying away from evidence that was problematic for them to begin with. So I don't see. I mean, it's another thing to do. No question. It's another thing on the to do list, which, which takes a little bit more time. But that's why I feel like it's after January 3rd. But it's definitely before the 20th.

[Allison Gill]

Right here. Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

All right, so here we go. Here's another question, this one from Mike, and this is like totally off the wall, but I thought it was kind of cool. Mike says, I have a non Jack related question. How does one become a member of the FBI? In TV shows, it's always the best cop in New York City being recruited to the big show, like getting called up from aaa. And I'm sure the real process is very different. Can you share your personal story of joining the FBI, Mike? You nailed it, buddy. It's very different than that. It's not like you're getting called up to the big leagues. Well, it kind of felt that way.

[Allison Gill]

You're going to the show, Andy.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. So, yeah, as the budget allows and they have space at Quantico to bring in classes of new agents, they take applications. There's an application posted on, you know.

[Allison Gill]

FBI jobs, USA jobs, FBI jobs. It takes months and months and months, months. You have to have the exact right resume. There are bonus points if you're a veteran. There are bonus points if you're a disabled veteran. If you're a service connected disabled veteran, your stuff goes to the top of the pile. And then you wait and you wait and you wait and then you take tests and Elijah test and then you have to take it.

[Andy McCabe]

Now they start the background.

[Allison Gill]

It's like getting on Jeopardy.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, it's hard. It took me two years to get through the application process. That was a long time ago. I don't think it's much better now. When I came in, the bureau was recruiting from four different categories. Lawyers is one, Accountants was another. People with a foreign language capability was third. And then they had a last kind of a catch all category that they called diversity. You had to have a college degree and you had to have significant work experience after college. Graduate degree is not required, but it was, you know, it's obviously a plus. Historically, the Bureau has always been a ton of lawyers and accountants because originally you had to be a lawyer or an accountant to get hired. So now it's much different. The recruiting is much more targeted and specific. So they know from the cases that we're working and the strategy for those operations, the operational divisions, where they think, you know, the threats are going in the future, they know we need more people who can speak Arabic or Mandarin or Russian or whatever, so they look for that. Or they know, for instance, we need more people who can analyze data and structure data for analysis and review complicated cyber, you know, infrastructure and things like that. So we start recruiting for more people with cyber skills or actual computer scientists things. Things along those lines. So they're constantly adjusting the dials to look for the people that we need now and in the future. I keep saying we. I can't stop doing that.

[Allison Gill]

I know.

[Andy McCabe]

Sorry.

[Allison Gill]

No, it's okay. I've been divorced for years and I still say, oh, we're down the street on the left, you know, oh, me, me and this. My cats is what.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm kind of divorced from the FBI. It's sad, but that's just the way it goes.

[Allison Gill]

Good question, though. I mean, it is a long process. I mean, just to get into the Department of Veterans affairs as a file clerk. Took me six months.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, it's a. It's a long haul.

[Allison Gill]

The SBI background investigation itself took a month and a half for onboarding. I mean, I. It took. After I was hired, it was another three or four months before I even started.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, it's tough. It's tough. You gotta get a. Everyone in the bureau has a top secret clearance. So that's a big background. It takes a while to go through, especially if you have like, relatives living overseas.

[Allison Gill]

Not anymore. You can, you know, apparently it doesn't matter.

[Andy McCabe]

It's still requirement for people who actually do the work. It's. The heads of the agencies aren't going to have to get any kind of clearance anymore anyway. That's how it works. Anyone can apply. It's very hard. There's thousands and thousands of applications every year, and a very small percentage of those actually get offers of employment. But the best day in your life when it happens. So give it a shot.

[Allison Gill]

What year was it?

[Andy McCabe]

For me? 96. Yeah. And I was working. I was in my second private law firm, and I was finally making like, just about enough money that I could pay my student loans. And I took a 50% pay cut to go.

[Allison Gill]

I took. I. I made three times less. A third of what I made when I. When I got my job at the va. But that's what I wanted to do for the rest of my life.

[Andy McCabe]

You're not going to get rich doing it. You're hopefully not going to get famous doing it.

[Allison Gill]

There's no money in it at all. I mean, but it's the best. Yeah, but totally unpatriotic.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay, so why don't we take one more question? All right, this next one comes to us from Rafa. And Rafa says, okay, first he says, I have two questions in a pod. Name suggestion. He said. A couple of episodes ago, Allison suggested that you might also track Trump shenanigans at CIA, for example. I like the name tracking Trump as it describes hopefully the larger scope of your podcast beyond the Justice Department. So. Okay, Rafa, we will put that on the list of items to consider. All right, first question. Donald Trump is one thing, but what to do about Trumpism? There is this regressive cultural movement full of xenophobia, misogyny, racism, Christian nationalism. What do we do about that? Separate from the guy with the name?

[Allison Gill]

Okay, I've got it all figured out.

[Andy McCabe]

I hit it.

[Allison Gill]

No, but I do have an idea. I've started to notice since 2016, a real big growth in populism. Right. Anti billionaire sentiment.

[Andy McCabe]

Yep.

[Allison Gill]

We're seeing it a lot in, especially in, you know, in light of recent events and with this administration. I think he's got 14 billionaires coming into his cabinet.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

And I think it's gonna start if anything dawns on Trumpism, on Trumpers, on maga. It's. I think it's going to dawn on them that they aren't. And I'm going to quote George Carlin here, and there's a, an F bomb in it. So earmuffs if you're not into it. But it's a big club. It's a big club and you're not in the fucking club.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

And these are all billionaires. Kelly Leffler, Elon Vivek, Trump himself, who's actually probably not got any money. He just think he has money that is becoming and has been becoming a huge problem, our wealth gap. And so I think that the, if we message around populism, we message around workers rights, we message against billionaires. I, I think that that might be the answer. And I think politicians like Ocasio Cortez, for example, gave a brilliant speech at the dnc and, and who, who, you know, took the time to answer questions and ask questions about voters who voted for her, but also voted for Trump, split their ticket.

[Andy McCabe]

Right, right.

[Allison Gill]

It was all about populism. And they had been misinformed. So I think we have to get the message on the populist track and which it has been. I mean, Biden's the most progressive president that we've had ever. But also, and Harris was an extremely progressive candidate, too. I'm not saying they weren't progressive enough. I'm saying we need to focus on that. But we also have to focus on misinformation and disinformation that is killing us. Yeah, it's killing us.

[Andy McCabe]

Before I comment on that, I'M going to read Rafa's second question because I think it dovetails into that. Well, he says, what do you see as the possibilities for the incentives and disincentives to change so that quality people, people with integrity, courage and character actually run for office? Do you see any pathway towards changing conditions in this positive direction? Well, I do, actually, and I think that I've said this many times in different, like speaking engagements and things. I think leadership is the first thing that has to change. And unfortunately, we have what we have for the next couple of years. But you cannot overstate the impact. Donald Trump didn't create the conditions that led to his presidency in 2016 or in, in 2024, but he has undeniably altered what politics looks like in the United States of America in the way that politicians talk, the things that they say, those elements of xenophobia, misogyny, racism that are, that are almost acceptable now because he has somehow punctured this veneer of, I don't know, civility that we had had for the last 240 years, whatever. And now it's just kind of, it's taken us to a different place. We need a change in leadership, not just him, but the people around him who support him and mimic him, mimic the way that he talks in the way that he conducts himself, and to elevate our expectations about what we should want in people, in people in positions of trust. And I think that can happen. We need the right candidates. We need to get them elected. And there's, there's always the ability to get better, the ability to turn this situation around. I, I really do think, I don't know if it's going to happen like the next time. I hope it does well, but that's what we need to work for.

[Allison Gill]

We picked up a couple of House seats and this was by no means a mandate or a landslide. I mean, he, he won by fewer than 250,000 votes. He didn't get half the votes. He didn't get a majority of the votes in this country. His, his margin of victory is, is smaller than the, the mar. Than, you know, the, the amount of votes that Clinton got over Trump. It was very, very close. Fewer than 7, 000 votes the house this time around. So, like, we are getting these really great candidates, these young candidates, these more progressive candidates that, that actually can speak to a, a larger group of people than what we used to think of as, you know, middle of the road or moderate Democrats versus progressive Democrats. And, and, and we're seeing that and it's coming together. We do. I, you know, I have great hope for 2026. I have great hope for our midterms. I do.

[Andy McCabe]

I do as well. They don't. And I'm not trying to say, like, oh, we got to go back to, like, politicians who look like whoever. Fill in the blank. I'm not saying that. I think we need younger people with different ideas and a different way of conducting themselves.

[Allison Gill]

I was a little bummed out when Schumer got a unanimous nod for the minority leader. Again, like, what are we doing?

[Andy McCabe]

I think some of the. There are some different candidates and different leaders out there that I think show real promise and show that there is a path forward that's different than what we did in the. In the past, but it's also not what we're doing right now.

[Allison Gill]

I think there's echoes of 2,000 people.

[Andy McCabe]

To judge Jason Crowe.

[Allison Gill]

Yes.

[Andy McCabe]

Even, like, John Fetterman. Really? Like, I was not a big John Fetterman fan. I've been listening to more of the. His interviews lately, and, like, the guy's got a really unique perspective on things. Like, there is a place for change, and we need it.

[Allison Gill]

No, yeah, I agree. And I see it. I see that we can get there, but we have to. We can't give up. That's it. You know, we have to keep working and we have to keep pushing and doing the right thing, but we really got to. We really got to beat back this disinformation stuff, man. There are countries around the world looking at us like, what are. Are you new? Like, how do you not see this coming? How are you falling for this? It's the messaging. Because Trump messaged as a populist, as a man of the people, as a workers president.

[Andy McCabe]

Such a joke.

[Allison Gill]

And it's so the opposite of that. We have to figure out how to combat that. Great question. I could talk forever on that. But thank you for sending in your questions again. There's a link in the show notes you can click on. Send us your questions. We would love to answer them. We might have a lot of free time over the next couple of episodes waiting for the report to come out. So we're happy to always, always answer your questions. Andy, do you have any final thoughts before we get out of here this weekend?

[Andy McCabe]

I do. One very quick thing I wanted to say, your sub stack this week was awesome.

[Allison Gill]

Oh, thank you. What do I have?

[Andy McCabe]

I loved it.

[Allison Gill]

Are you talking about the starfish one?

[Andy McCabe]

Yes. Yeah. It was so great. And then I have a friend, a really really good friend who's a loyal listener to the pod. I'm just going to call him Jim P. And he sent it to me, not know, thinking that I, he's like, you should, you should read this. He didn't know I had already. I had already read it. But yeah, that was great. I really enjoyed it. So well done.

[Allison Gill]

Thank you so much. Yeah, that was a chapter in a book that I pitched a year ago and it was, it, you know, it's part of a, a chap. A book about the, the perils of corporate media. And everybody was like, nobody cares about the perils of corporate media. Nobody cares about Donald Trump and the perils of corporate media. And I'm like, oh, okay. And they're like, you got anything else? I'm like, well, not today, but now I'm, I'm just going to be publishing my unpublished book one chapter at a time on Substack. So thank you. I'm glad. Thank you for saying that. I appreciate that.

[Andy McCabe]

And everyone, I'm sure everyone who's listening to this is already reading you on substack. But if you're not, you should subscribe and check it out. It's the best.

[Allison Gill]

Thank you so much. And, and my final thought is for you again, virtual hugs for what's happening to. Thank you, Agenc. See there where you spent your life, dedicated your life and your work to protecting the American people. I can't like, my heart sinks for you in these moments and all my.

[Andy McCabe]

Friends, rough time, but they'll be okay. They're going to get through it. They're going to get through it. And hopefully this Kaj Patel thing doesn't happen.

[Allison Gill]

So if anybody can, it's you, your former colleagues.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. That's right.

[Allison Gill]

All right, everybody, we'll be back in your ears next week again. Click on that link if you want to submit a question. Thanks so much for listening. I've been Allison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe.