← UnJustified
UnJustified
Gutting Public Integrity
01:02:28
The Trump Administration is gutting the Justice Department's unit that oversees prosecutions of public officials accused of corruption.Emil Bove has fired the Chief of the Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Task Force, and Todd Blanche has fired the Justice Department Pardon Attorney. Judge Beryl Howell has blocked sections of Donald Trump's executive order punishing the Perkins Coie law firm. The top ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee calls for the Department of Justice Inspector General to open an investigation into Ed Martin, interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. Judge Dale Ho has canceled the hearing in the Eric Adams dismissal case after amicus Paul Clement recommended he dismiss the bribery charges with prejudice. Plus listener questions.
Loading summary
Transcript121 lines
- [00:01]
Alison Gill
MSW Media.
- [00:08]
Andy McCabe
The Trump administration is gutting the Justice Department's unit that oversees prosecutions of public officials accused of corruption. Emile Beauvais has fired the chief of the organized crime and drug trafficking task force. And Todd Blanch has fired the Justice Department pardon attorney.
- [00:28]
Alison Gill
Judge Barrel Howell has blocked sections of Donald Trump's executive order punishing the Perkins Coy law firm, saying that they likely violate the Constitution.
- [00:40]
Andy McCabe
The top ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has asked the Department of Justice Inspector General to open an investigation into interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin.
- [00:54]
Alison Gill
And Judge Dale Ho has canceled the hearing in the Eric Adams dismissal case after amicus curi Paul Clement recommended he dismiss the bribery charges against the New York City mayor with Prejudice. It's Sunday, March 16, 2025, and this is Unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the Unjustified podcast. It's the eighth episode, so we are eight weeks in to this new Department of Justice, the Trump administration. I'm Alison Gill.
- [01:26]
Andy McCabe
And I'm Andy McCabe. Okay, as you can see, we have a lot to cover today, plus, we're going to take some listener questions. As always, you can submit your questions to us by clicking the link in the show notes. All right, Ag, where are we going to start today?
- [01:41]
Alison Gill
Well, I think we should probably start at Main Justice. That's where Trump's personal attorneys Emil Bove and Todd Blanch are taking a sledgehammer to key units and personnel at the department. Now, this reporting comes from the Hill. The head of a Justice Department task force dealing with organized crime and drug trafficking was fired by the Trump administration Friday, and he indicated he believes politics may have played a role. This is Adam Cohen. He said he was fired by Acting Deputy Attorney General. General. General Emil. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Beau. After spending weeks actually working with the Trump administration and the Trump team on a new memo concerning the task force. Cohen shared the news, which he labeled a shock, in a LinkedIn post. He said putting bad guys in jail was as apolitical as it gets. He said my personal politics were never relevant, not until yesterday. The outgoing ocdetf. Do. Do we say that? No.
- [02:49]
Andy McCabe
No, we don't. I don't know why I'm laughing, because no one would know this unless you were on the ins. But it's OSA def. That's how it's pronounced by people in the game.
- [02:58]
Alison Gill
Oh, silly me. OSA def. So the T is silent and the C is soft. Okay.
- [03:06]
Andy McCabe
Apparently.
- [03:06]
Alison Gill
Anyway, the outgoing O saideft. Def. No T. Anyway. French.
- [03:14]
Andy McCabe
No, it's Not.
- [03:15]
Alison Gill
I'm sorry, it's French. The ocelot. The outgoing ocelot head. No. So, anyway, this is Cohen. And this is, you know, actually serious business. Shouldn't make light of this because this is a really important Drug trafficking, an organized crime unit. He added that he'd been in regular discussions with leadership about crime initiatives and recently helped draft a memo outlining the task force's role in combating illegal immigration under Operation Take Back America, which is a Trump initiative. The decision to fire Cohen can be seen as part of a broader trend in which the Trump administration is removing or sidelining career Justice Department officials who traditionally hold their positions across different administrations. An internal email from Acting U.S. attorney Matthew Podolski. I think that's how you say that. This memo reveals that three assistant US Attorneys in the Southern District of New York were also placed on administrative leave the same day that Cohen was fired from the Department of Justice.
- [04:10]
Andy McCabe
Two of them, Cecilia Cohen and Andrew Rohrbach, were involved in the corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. These removals came after eight DOJ attorneys resigned in protest for refusing to file a motion to dismiss corruption charges against Adams, which they claimed were politically motivated. In the email, which was seen by Reuters, Podolski expressed his disagreement with the decision. Quote, we were given no choice nor asked for our views on the decision, with which I disagree, he stated. A third prosecutor, Alex Krzysztofcik, was also placed on leave after criticizing ed Martin. Washington, D.C. interim U.S. attorney Krzysztofcik condemned Martin's warning to Georgetown University Law School that he would not hire students unless the school removed diversity, equity, and inclusion from its curriculum.
- [05:04]
Alison Gill
Ah, I remember that letter. Now, the ossadef, under Cohen's leadership, was responsible for operations targeting drug cartels and organized crime across the United States. Experts are concerned that Cohen's sudden firing could disrupt those investigations, potentially leaving crim criminal organizations with less oversight. Now, Andy, you worked a lot in organized crime at the FBI. Did you ever work with this OCDEF office at the DO at doj?
- [05:34]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, absolutely. So this is like the highest. That's not an official thing, but I would say, like, unofficially, this is one of the most kind of the premier appointments in the Justice Department on the criminal side. So forget about terrorism and chasing spies and counterintelligence, things like that. On the purely criminal side, the Organized Crime Drug Trafficking Task Force, this is the group that does the biggest, most complicated criminal prosecutions that we have around the country. You know, organized crime cases take years and years and years and they have lots of intelligence and electronic surveillance and things like that. The major drug trafficking organizations, same thing there. You're working internationally with foreign partners and maybe like Mexico and other places where we have good partnerships to try to go after these cartels. And there's like what we call sophisticated investigative techniques that are used. So that's title three, electronic surveillance interceptions and the use of like very complicated undercover techniques and things like that.
- [06:43]
Alison Gill
I was going to ask about undercover there seems like there was a big undercover element to this as well.
- [06:48]
Andy McCabe
Full on. So this is a prime job and my suspicion is they are just clearing it out because they have someone they want to give it to. This is something that, this is a real plum assignment that typically only goes to someone with a lot of criminal investigative and prosecutorial experience. And if you're looking to give away premier jobs to supporters and things like that, this might be one that they had their eye on. I'm just speculating, don't know that for a fact, but that's the way I see it.
- [07:25]
Alison Gill
But yeah, but like you said, usually this isn't one of those jobs that administrations give their, you know, inexperienced friends.
- [07:34]
Andy McCabe
Absolutely not.
- [07:35]
Alison Gill
It's not like an ambassadorship to the Bahamas or something?
- [07:39]
Andy McCabe
Oh, not at all.
- [07:40]
Alison Gill
Which are, which are jobs, don't get me wrong. I mean, they're important jobs and they have, they have functions, but they're not, you know, you don't have to have a lot of experience in counterintelligence and, and drug trafficking and criminal law enforcement in order to, to get a job like that, to like an ambassadorship where here you, you would need that very specific, it would be very important to have that very specific experience under your belt.
- [08:07]
Andy McCabe
Absolutely. This is the kind of thing that goes to a non political career prosecutor, somebody who has really proven themselves, having taken many, many cases to trial in court, having served in leadership, leadership positions within a U.S. attorney's office. This is a major job for a very serious criminal prosecutor. Not someone who's political, not an appointee, not someone who's been confirmed a career prosecutor. So the idea that we would now be turning this into some sort of a patronage position is pretty unnerving.
- [08:46]
Alison Gill
Yeah, that is sort of frightening. But that's not all. We have more, more gutting of more important departments, other important departments, I should say. Not that they're more important, just other different, more important departments going on. What, what do we have going on at public corruption?
- [09:02]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. So next up from Ryan Reilly and his colleagues at NBC. The Trump administration is gutting the justice department's unit that oversees prosecutions of public officials accused of corruption, Three sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity told NBC News the unit, the Public Integrity section, which is typically referred to by people inside DOJ as pin, has overseen some of the country's most high profile and sensitive prosecutions. Now, though, only a small fraction of its employees will remain and the unit will no longer directly handle investigations or prosecutions. The the two sources said prosecutors in the unit, which had housed dozens of employees, are being told to take details to other positions within the department. Current cases will be reassigned to U.S. attorneys offices around the country. Now, David Laughman, who, full disclosure, somebody I know well and have great respect for, worked with him closely when we were both still working for FBI and DOJ. Laughman is a former head of the DOJ's counterintelligence section who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, questioned the move. Quote, the only reasonable interpretation of this extraordinary action is that the administration wants to transfer responsibility for public corruption cases from career attorneys at Main justice to political appointees heading U.S. attorneys offices. Laughman said the decision, he added, raises serious questions about whether future investigations and prosecutions will be motivated by improper partisan considerations.
- [10:51]
Alison Gill
Yeah, that's, that's exactly what it sounds like to me, what Laughman said. It sounds like he, he wants to have more control over which public officials and elected officials get investigated and prosecuted by putting them, you know, under U. S. Attorneys that he, he himself appoints, of course. But I mean, of course he's still also going out of his way to get rid of all career like line prosecutors and stuff at Main justice anyhow. But he's farming these specific cases out. Didn't, didn't Jack Smith used to work at Penn?
- [11:24]
Andy McCabe
He did. He ran Penn for a while. He came in after a kind of embattled period there. And he, as we talked about in one of our very first episodes of the Jack podcast, he dedicated himself to basically reviewing all the cases they had investigations they were involved in, and he closed a bunch of them down and others he moved forward with. So it's always been a very influential and important place in Main justice because those cases that are undeniably political, right, not because they are embarked upon for political purposes or that the prosecutors are politically motivated, but rather that the targets of those investigations are political people by definition. This is the group that investigates whether politicians are involved in corruption. So it's always been influential and controversial, and it's been the type of work that DOJ does that they felt like they needed to keep a. They need to do what we refer to as centrally manage it, meaning doj, Maine, really controlled that program to ensure that you didn't have one off random prosecutors in districts around the country that were, you know, starting investigations or prosecutions for political reasons. This is the way DOJ managed that program to keep it consistent and, you know, ruthlessly controlled by applicable law. So the idea that they're going in the opposite direction now and sending this program out to I think there's 90 something U.S. attorney's offices around the country is, to me, it speaks of an administration that does not want successful, penetrating, insightful investigations of political corruption. That's what it feels like to me.
- [13:22]
Alison Gill
They also do want to be able to tell the, you know, these political appointees at the U.S. attorney's offices to go investigate certain things. We know that. We know that. ML Bove and you know, Ed Martin, a lot of people have been having trouble with, you know, the kicking off investigations into people, you know, political enemies they don't like for no good reason, with no, you know, you know, probable cause to do so or whatever the standard is to, to do that. You know, I'm thinking of specifically Ed Martin trying to get seizing funds from the Inflation Reduction act and being unsuccessful at that and then trying to get somebody else to do it and get somebody else to do it. That. And so, yeah, obviously Trump doesn't want anybody looking into people he doesn't want looked into, and he wants to be able to instruct pe people to look into people he wants to look into. And that's, this is going to help him do that. And also, you know, these are the guys that, that Emil Bove locked in a room for an hour and said, if I'm going to come back in an hour, if you haven't decided who's going to file the motion to dismiss the Eric Adams charges, I'm firing all of you. And so that one guy, Edward Sullivan, came forward and, you know, violence said, all right, to spare everyone's jobs, I'm going to go ahead and file this. And now they're just firing everybody anyway.
- [14:40]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, of course they are. Yeah. So, like, throwing this to the four winds and maybe ensuring that investigations that you want to happen are in the hands of political appointees that will be willing to do whatever is necessary to stay in their jobs and also to distract from and water down the ability of pin to undertake investigations into people you like. Yeah, this is a heck of a strategy for the new administration.
- [15:10]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And, and we're still not done yet with this section of, you know, reshaping with a sledgehammer. The Department of Justice. This is from the Washington Post. They fired the pardon attorney because she wouldn't let Mel Gibson have his gun back. So this. This is Elizabeth Oyer. She said she was fired after refusing to back the restoration of gun ownership rights to actor Mel Gibson, who's a Trump supporter, but who was also convicted of domestic violence in 2011. Oyer headed the Office of the Pardon Attorney, which works with the White House to decide who should be granted clemency. She said, the only reason I'm speaking out about this is because I think it's important to shed some light on what's going on at the Department of Justice. It is incredibly difficult for people who are still there to speak up, and people who are still there fear retaliation from the current administration and, you know, rightfully so. So what ended up happening was Trump administration came to her office and said, you have a new job. I want you to find people who have been convicted of crimes that can. And restore their gun rights is. Is basically what I want you to do. She's like, all right. So she spent a bunch of time her in her office putting together a list. They scoured the country. They found 95 people they thought it would be okay to restore their gun rights. You know, folks who had committed all 95 of those people, their crimes were committed over 20 years ago. All of the crimes were not violent in nature, like domestic violence, for example, and shows to show she had this. And then the. I think maybe ML Bove came to her and said, okay, whittle it down to. To. To nine. And she's like, okay, so she picked the nine most, you know, deserved deserving candidates for clemency.
- [16:58]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. And this is a part of the law. Right?
- [17:02]
Alison Gill
That's why you have a pardon attorney.
- [17:04]
Andy McCabe
Exactly. The law that strips your gun rights if you are convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. There's a part of that law that says you can, under special circumstances, have those rights restored. And that's what was kind of the heart of this process.
- [17:20]
Alison Gill
And so she whittled the list from 95 down to nine, gave it over to. I think it was Bove. I can't remember who she said she was on doing an interview with Chris Hayes on msnbc. And they came back to her and said, okay, now just add Mel Gibson, would you? And she was like, no, he's not deserving of clemency. And so. So they fired her. And so now we don't have, we don't have a part. And, and you know, honestly, they were probably going to fire the pardon attorney anyway. She's a, again, a career, a civil servant, a front, you know, line lawyer who's started because she was started, I think, under the Biden administration. But that's just, you know, one of the things that can get you kicked out of this administration is if you worked for the Biden administration.
- [18:12]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. I mean, she basically said, look, he doesn't fit the criteria of the other 95 or whatever people that we suggested. His conviction wasn't that long ago, and it did involve domestic violence, which, like all kinds of studies indicate that people who engage in and are convicted of offenses involving domestic violence are more likely to hurt people, particularly if they're armed. And so with that, she found herself in a position where she just couldn't ethically agree to add him to this list. And, you know, I point this out only because, like, it's, this is what I've been telling people, young people who I interact with and some of whom are, were or are students in my class, and they talk to me about their concerns about taking jobs in the administration. And what I always say to them is when that moment comes that you're asked to do something that's not consistent with your values, your ethics or your morals, that's when you leave. Other than that, stay and try to do your job well. But it's just, I feel like that's what Elizabeth Oyer did here. She talks in detail about how she really spent a sleepless night over it trying to figure out how to answer this question. She knew she was going to be held accountable for whatever her answer was. And she, in the end of the day, could not really stomach going against what she knew was the right thing to do. And good for her, man. Good for you.
- [19:41]
Alison Gill
Yeah.
- [19:41]
Andy McCabe
Ms. Oyer.
- [19:42]
Alison Gill
Yeah, I wouldn't be able to. I wouldn't have restored a domestic violence offenders gun rights in order to keep my job. No way, right? Absolutely. 100% not going to do it. So, yes, congratulations. Way to stand up. And that's a great interview. If you get a chance to catch it, you can Google it and I'm sure It's up on YouTube, but I think it was with Chris Hayes, so. So check that out. All right, we're going to talk some more about attacks on the rule of law, but this time Trump is going after law firms and we're going to do this after the break, so stick around. We'll be right back.
- [20:27]
Andy McCabe
Welcome back. Okay. In addition to slashing personnel and departments that would otherwise provide independent oversight of the Trump administration, the President is also going after law firms that have represented his perceived political enemies. During remarks given at the Justice Department on Friday, Trump called for his perceived enemies to be jailed. His courtroom opponents scum, and he called judges corrupt, and he labeled the prosecutors who investigated him as deranged. Then, after Covington Burling took Jack Smith on as a client, he revoked their security clearances. Days later, Trump signed an executive order intended to punish Perkins Coie, a large law firm that has had high profile Democrats and, and also the infamous Fusion GPS as one of their clients.
- [21:19]
Alison Gill
Yeah, this is a grudge that goes way back for Donald Trump ever since. I think FBI Director Comey sat him down and said, we have a pretty salacious dossier out there that you should know about, and then took contemporaneous notes about some of those meetings and follow up meetings. And here we are. Andrew, it never goes away.
- [21:46]
Andy McCabe
Oh, my God.
- [21:47]
Alison Gill
Right. So anyway, Perkins Cooey has sued the administration for this attack. So, so that he did it to, to Covington Burling. Right. There were just a handful of lawyers who were representing Jack Smith and he yanked their security clearances specifically. But then a couple days later, he, he signed this executive order against Perkins Coey name. And, and so now Perkins Coie has sued and also filed for a temporary restraining order to block major parts of this executive order, namely parts 1, 3, and 5. Now, part 1 bars diversity, equity and inclusion, and is kind of a just a weird political rant about Fusion GPS and the Christopher Steele dossier, all that. Right. So that's part one, part three orders, the cancellation of any government contractor that does business with Perkins Coie. So if you, like I said, I think I said on the beans, if you make Navy blank blankets in Terre Haute, Indiana, and you once hired Perkins Coie to litigate something, you could lose your contract or if you, if you hire them in the future, they will cut off your contract, your government contract. That's right. Yeah. So part 5 bars Perkins Coe employees from entering government buildings, which makes it impossible to be part of any case that involves a government official and prohibits government employees from interacting with the law firm. Now, Judge Beryl Howell held a hearing on this. She, the, she got the case. She was assigned the case, and it did not go well for Trump's Department of Justice or his executive order. Quote, I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through. It sends little chills down my spine to hear arguments that a president can punish individuals in companies like this. So there were a lot of choice phrases that she had for the Department of Justice lawyers about the chilling effect that this would have on people's ability to have legal representation. Perkins Coie saying that they're being damaged because they're losing clients and money, obviously. So within hours, she actually granted the temporary restraining order.
- [24:05]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, that's right. And so this is some of the language from her ruling. She said, upon consideration of plaintiff Perkins Coie LLP's motion for a temporary restraining order, the memoranda, declarations and exhibits submitted in support, and the arguments in support and opposition presented at the expedited TRO hearing held on March 12, 2025. For the reasons explained orally at the hearing, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is granted. It is further ordered that defendants are enjoined, which of course means stopped from implementing or enforcing sections 1, 3 and 5 of Executive Order 14230 issued by the President on March 6, 2025, entitled Addressing Risks from Perkins Coy LLP. It is further ordered that defendants are enjoined from using the statements laid out in section 1 of Executive Order 14230 in any interactions with plaintiff or plaintiff's clients. That's the important part there. Or employee of plaintiff or plaintiff's clients. It is further ordered that defendants are directed to suspend and rescind all guidance or other direction provided to their officers, staff, employees, or contractors to communicate, effectuate, implement, or enforce sections 1, 3 and 5 of Executive Order 14230. So that basically prohibits the government from enforcing any parts of that order. It is further ordered that defendants are directed immediately to issue guidance to their officers, staff, employees, and contractors to disregard sections 1, 3 and 5 of Executive Order 14230 and to carry on with their ordinary course of business absent these sections of the Executive Order. It is further ordered that defendants are directed to immediately communicate to every recipient of a request for disclosure of any relationship with Perkins Coy or any person associated with the firm made pursuant to Section 3A of Executive Order 14230 that such request is rescinded until further order of the court and cease making such requests pursuant to Section 3A of Executive Order 14230 until further order of the court. It is further ordered the defendants must in good faith take such other steps as necessary to prevent the implementation or enforcement of sections 1, 3 and 5. It is further ordered that defendants of US Department of Justice, Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as U.S. attorney General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Russell Vogt in his official capacity, must additionally immediately issue guidance to all other agencies subject to Executive Order 14230 to suspend and rescind any implementation or enforcement of sections 1, 3 and 5. It is further ordered the parties shall file by 4pm on March 13 a joint status report proposing a schedule to govern further proceedings in this case. So that's where we are. That's a pretty much a very long way of issuing a full on judicial smackdown in a TRO motion. I mean, she could not possibly have granted them any bigger of victory and been any clearer about the fact that she thinks that, that those three sections of that executive order are basically poison pills.
- [27:42]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And I mean, she, like you said, it's not just ordered that they're blocked. It's ordered. You have to rescind it. You have to make a statement rescinding it. You have to send out to all your agencies that you're not going to enforce this. You have to apologize and do a dance. And you know, there's, there's a whole, yeah, a whole lot that goes into temporary restraining orders for these kinds of, or, you know, executive orders that you, you. It's not just like, hey, hang back. It's like, no, you have to actively tell everybody that it's not in effect. And.
- [28:17]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [28:18]
Alison Gill
And so now it's gonna. The case will go forward. The underlying merits of the case. Right. I'm. I'm assuming here that if. And there'll be another hearing for a preliminary injunction, which is a more permanent temporary restraining order. But also she could, you know, she could be asking to hear on the merits and consolidate a preliminary injunction with the merits, which is kind of what you get when like what Kathy Harris did. She was a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board and she said, combine my preliminary injunction request with the merits and have a hearing on that. And then when they did, she filed for summary judgment on the merits because she consolidated with preliminary injunction, which gave her a permanent injunction. Both preliminary injunction and permanent injunction can be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, as I assume this will also be because Donald Trump will not back down from fighting against Perkins Coie and other law firms.
- [29:21]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, I agree. I mean, I don't think it'll be successful. This thing was so over the top and like, overtly coercive. I mean, they basically sent a blast message out to every business in this country that if you Hire this law firm. You can never do any business with the United States government. And that's an incredibly destructive and coercive thing to do. And so I think there are the law firms on good standing here. You know, from all of our coverage of these things and over the last couple of years, like, one of the factors that the court has to consider before they grant this is chances of success on the merits. So it isn't in an underlying way. It's a statement from the judge about the fact. Not that you needed this, because her. Her position on this is pretty clear, but she thinks that they'll probably proceed on the merits. This is why this is a point at which in. This really only happens in civil litigation. But it is a point where if somebody gets this kind of order, it usually then leads to some sort of a settlement or resolution of the matter, because there's not much. If you, if you're on the wrong side of the tro, this case ain't going in a good direction for you.
- [30:33]
Alison Gill
Right? Yeah. No, agreed. All right, everybody. Representative Jamie Raskin, he's, he's, I believe he's the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee. He wants the Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate good old Ed Martin, the interim or acting or maybe I don't know what he is, but he's right now he's playing the role of the U.S. attorney for District of Columbia. So we're going to go out over Jamie Raskin's letter after this quick break. Stick around. Hey, everybody, welcome back. The inimitable Jamie Raskin, ranking member on the powerful House Judiciary Committee, has written a letter to Michael Horowitz, the Department of Justice Inspector General, one of only two inspectors general that Trump didn't fire. Which tells you a lot about Michael Horowitz.
- [31:28]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, right. I mean, like, are you kidding me? Don't get me started. You know, you know, this. Take this whole show off the rails. Holy cow.
- [31:37]
Alison Gill
I know how you feel. Anyway, him and Kufari, Right. Who all Raskin also said should be removed because he lied to Congress. But anyway, Jamie Raskin is asking him, the Michael Horiz, to investigate Ed Martin. It says, I write to request the Department of Justice Office Inspector General immediately open an investigation into several recent actions by Edward R. Martin Jr. The interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, that appear to violate the Constitution, federal statutes, DOJ regulations, and rules of legal ethics as detailed below. Since taking office, Mr. Martin has used his office to illegally attack critics and perceived enemies of the Trump administration while endangering the public safety of citizens of and visitors to our nation's capital. Mr. Martin has already fired over a dozen career federal prosecutors assigned to prosecuting violent crimes in Washington, D.C. simply because they had worked on the investigations of the massive lawless attack on the Capitol on January 6, an attack Mr. Martin was personally involved in and publicly supported and praised. In addition to firing the January 6th prosecutors, Mr. Martin has demoted senior career leaders within the office to entry level positions, including the leaders of the office responsible for prosecuting violent crimes and firearms offenses in D.C. almost certainly on the basis of political retribution and revenge for doing their jobs. Mr. Martin has also threatened to investigate and prosecute critics of the Trump administration, including journalists, attorneys, peaceful protesters, and members of Congress, in blatant violation of the First Amendment. He even ordered an attorney to illegally freeze the bank accounts of nonprofit organizations who received grants for climate and clean energy projects, leading to the resignation of the office as Career Chief of the criminal section. And Mr. Martin violated one of the most basic principles of professional ethics by making court filings on both sides of the same matter, filing both on the behalf of the United States and separately on behalf of a criminal defendant convicted of assault in the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. I have previously issued oversight requests to Mr. Martin. He's refused to respond to them or even engage with the committee. In light of his stunning refusal to cooperate with legitimate Congressional inquiries, even while his nomination to be the permanent U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia is still pending before the Senate, I am requesting that your office urgently initiate investigations into these profoundly troubling developments, detailed below.
- [34:07]
Andy McCabe
Now, section one is Ed Martin's participation in the January 6th attack in the Capitol. Quote, Mr. Martin actively participated in the lead up to the January 6th attack on the Capitol and was present on Capitol grounds himself on January 6, 2021. His actions and his efforts since the attack raised serious questions about his political bias and his fitness as the chief law enforcement officer in D.C. now, next, he goes on to section two, which is about his dismissal of a January 6th case that he himself defended in court. After being an active Participant in the January 6th insurrection, Mr. Martin personally served as defense counsel for at least three January 6th rioters, all of whom were found guilty at trial. One of Mr. Martin's clients was a rioter named Joseph Padilla. Following his conviction, Mr. Padilla filed an appeal while Mr. Martin continued to represent him. On January 21, 2025, the day after, after keyword after the day after, he was appointed as Acting US Attorney, Mr. Martin, in his official capacity, and while still listed as Padilla's attorney promptly filed a motion to dismiss Padilla's case. You can't do that. You can't be on both sides of a single case. You could be the prosecutor and the defense attorney. Oh, my God. Sorry, I. I went off there. Okay. Beyond this extraordinary action, as a lawyer for both the government and its criminal defendant, Mr. Martin also failed to recuse himself, generally from participation in the January 6 cases or to seek advice from the career ethics lawyer in his office before seeking to dismiss Mr. Padilla's case. Oh, my God.
- [35:59]
Alison Gill
Yeah. Now, I mean, this is just something. Being the lawyer on both sides of a matter is just something so outrageous, it's probably never even really talked about, like, something that you don't do, because it's just like, no.
- [36:12]
Andy McCabe
No one would ever do this. What clown would do this? I mean. Well, I guess we know. I guess we have the answer to that question. We know the clown, but it's. It's. It's insane that you would get the job if any normal person. And I'm not talking about Democrats versus Republicans. I'm saying, like any lawyer would say, right, okay, now I'm the district attorney or the state's attorney or the. Or the.
- [36:39]
Alison Gill
Yeah. Do you just get up and go to the. To the other table and put on a different hat and argue?
- [36:45]
Andy McCabe
You do this extensive, what they call conflicts review, and you withdraw from every. You recuse yourself as the U.S. attorney from every case that you had any involvement or interest in.
- [36:58]
Alison Gill
Andy, I think if you want to be the prosecutor and the defense attorney, then you just need. You need to get one of those quick change outfits and maybe just change your accent a little bit, and while you're in court, just run over, like, kind of duck down and run to the other side of the, you know, the other table and be like, well, see, I'm the defense attorney now, and I think the.
- [37:19]
Andy McCabe
I think the. They'll never know represent. Yeah, the represent both sides Kit includes a Groucho Marx glasses. The glasses with the nose and the mustache. And then you put that on when you're jumping to the other side.
- [37:34]
Alison Gill
Is that. What. Is that how Ed Martin's going to respond to this letter? Hello. Michael Horowitz, Inspector General. It's important to note that when I wrote the letter dismissing the case, I was wearing my Groucho Marks.
- [37:46]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [37:48]
Alison Gill
Appearing as other attorney. Kit.
- [37:52]
Andy McCabe
Appearing as U.S. attorney and Defense attorney and subject of the investigation, slash witness.
- [38:03]
Alison Gill
No, no, your honor, it was my twin brother. That was my twin brother. All right, so Those are the first two things he wants the inspector, Jamie Raskin, wants the inspector general to look into. Right. First of all, his participation in January 6th. Second of all, the fact that he played both lawyers, you know, on two sides of the same case when he dismissed a case that he was defending. So the third thing that Raskin wants Horowitz to investigate is political bias and retribution in the January 6th cases. Extraordinary favor for January 6th defendants. Now, the fourth thing is the Ed. Is Ed Martin using the office to target perceived enemies of Trump and Musk. And the fifth thing he wants the inspector general to look at is the pressuring of prosecutors to initiate sham prosecutions to fulfill Trump's policy goals. That's a reference back to that seizing the money from Inflation Reduction act grants to nonprofit organizations. So all of that together, like all those are the. Those are the five things that he wants the Inspector general, your good friend, and one of only two spared by Donald Trump's firing of every single other Inspector general, Michael Horowitz, to look into.
- [39:20]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. Yeah. So Raskin goes on to conclude the letter by saying, in seven short weeks, the list of Mr. Martin's constitutionally, legally, and ethically indefensible actions have grown exponentially. The U.S. attorney's Office for the District of Columbia is one of the largest and most important U.S. attorney's offices, uniquely charged with enforcing both federal and local laws and serving the nearly 700,000 residents in the District of Columbia. As head of the office, Mr. Martin has a responsibility to enforce the laws faithfully and impartially. But so far, public reporting has indicated that he has failed to adhere to these high ethical standards and may have violated DOJ's own regulations, federal statutes, and the Constitution. The House Judiciary Committee is charged with the responsibility of conducting oversight of the Department of Justice. In order to conduct oversight of the D.C. u.S. Attorney's office, members must have a full and accurate understanding of Mr. Martin's actions. Because Mr. Martin and the DOJ have declined to respond to our requests for information, we respectfully request that the Office of Inspector General immediately open an investigation into each of the matters listed above and upon conclusion, issue a public report detailing your findings about this astonishing sequence of events. So there you have it.
- [40:45]
Alison Gill
Yeah. I'm assuming we'll get this. If Michael Horowitz does open this investigation, I'm assuming we'll get the report in 2032.
- [40:54]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, yeah. If then. Actually, you're not going to ever get one. He's not going to open an investigation. The ground he's going to stand on is DOJ's, like, official mandate is to investigate the actions of DOJ employees. So Martin is not an employee yet, technically.
- [41:12]
Alison Gill
Right.
- [41:13]
Andy McCabe
He's not been confirmed yet.
- [41:14]
Alison Gill
Even if he's getting paid and he's the acting.
- [41:17]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, I know, it's dubious. Totally shady. That's my guess. I think he's gonna say this guy is not a fully onboard confirmed person. He's simply serving at the president's request as a, as an acting. And in light of that, we, you know, if he's, if he gets confirmed, we'll look at it again. Something like that. That's my guess.
- [41:41]
Alison Gill
Wow. All right. That sucks. Have you, have you seen it where they, where he's turned. He's refused to look into acting appointed before.
- [41:52]
Andy McCabe
No, but it's pretty consistent. Like, if he's looking at someone and then they. They quit, the investigation goes away. Like, they see that termination, a very clear employment agreement as somehow essential, then.
- [42:07]
Alison Gill
You probably should, probably should do something to make it so that your investigations don't take four years.
- [42:14]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, that would help that. If you could get one done, like within the span of the lifetime of a cicada. Yeah. Come on. Anyway.
- [42:24]
Alison Gill
Oh, it's 17 years. Time for Horowitz to shed his skin and release his reports.
- [42:30]
Andy McCabe
Time for the Brood X IG report. Okay. Too much on this occasion.
- [42:36]
Alison Gill
Plague. It's one of the plagues. Michael Horowitz is one of the plagues. All right.
- [42:40]
Andy McCabe
Definitely.
- [42:41]
Alison Gill
Everybody, we, we have the. We're almost at the conclusion of what's going on with Mayor New York City Mayor Eric Adams's bribery and fraud charges. And we're going to talk about where we're at. We'll give you an update, but we have to take one last quick break, so stick around. We'll be right back. Foreign. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. As I said before the break, we are nearly at the conclusion of New York City Mayor Eric Adams's bid to dismiss the criminal charges against him with the assistance of Trump's Department of Justice. As you know, Emil Bovet wanted this case dismissed without prejudice, leaving the option for the Department of Justice to bring the charges again later if they so chose. But there was some evidence of an alleged quid pro quo between the Justice Department and Eric Adams. Namely, you do our immigration bidding in New York and we'll grant you leniency. Now, Andy, as you pointed out, the only two scenarios here that could have been happened, could happen are both corrupt. Either Eric Adams opposes Trump's immigration policies and is willing to go along with them for leniency or he agrees with the immigration policies.
- [44:02]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [44:02]
Alison Gill
But will refuse to carry them out unless he gets leniency. That's it. Those are the two choices. And they're both super corrupt.
- [44:10]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, totally. It's. The whole thing is ridiculous on any logical grounds. It's indefensible. But you know, honestly, it's great for Eric Adams and he's. This is his chance to dodge what would have otherwise been a very significant and according to the former acting U. S. Attorney, likely successful prosecution of him.
- [44:35]
Alison Gill
Years, years in prison. So with the Department of Justice and Eric Adams on the same side, Judge Dale Ho, who is the judge deciding whether or not to grant Emil Bove's motion to dismiss the charges against Eric Adams. He asked a third party to write an amicus curi brief in opposition. He, he explained, it's like the adversarial thing that we do here is important to get all the facts out. And since there's no adversary, we need one. Paul Clement, you're it. Tag, you're in. So his brief, Paul Clement's brief came in late last week. We mentioned it briefly on last week's show. We promised to get into the weeds of it today with you on this episode. But there actually aren't really any weeds to get into. It's a 30 page filing. He says, Paul Clement says that judge Dale Ho should dismiss this case with prejudice, not without. He says that judge Ho doesn't really get to decide whether to dismiss, just how to dismiss. He also said that, that the judge can consider materials outside of the four corners of the motion to dismiss, remember? Because M.L. bowie was like, no, you can't have those meeting notes and you can't use my memo like that memo that he wrote to Danielle Sassoon. And so, and you know, she talked about in her letter, her resignation letter, those notes, how he collected those notes from the meeting where the quid pro quo was discussed. But Paul Clemens says if you decide to deny the motion to dismiss, what would happen with it? The department of justice wouldn't prosecute, and then Eric Adams would file a motion to dismiss the whole thing on speedy trial grounds requiring a dismissal with prejudice. And if Trump pardons him, that's the same as a dismissal with prejudice. So why bother with all the expensive, long, drawn out processes that all end the same way with a dismissal with prejudice? So Beauvais and DOJ filed their response saying they really, really, really think this should be dismissed without prejudice. And they cite this, this, you're going to love this. Remember how we talked about how ridiculous it was that Trump was citing Marbury v. Madison to say that he should be immune when it specifically says the opposite? So I do remember the two, the two cases that the DOJ cites here, same lawyers, by the way, who cited Marbury in the immunity case. The two cases they cite to back up their reasoning to dismiss without prejudice are USV Rosenberg and USV Gogarty. And I talked a little bit about this on, on the Daily Beans, Andy, because there's a reason why Beauvais doesn't explain how those two cases support his argument, because they don't. Both of those case cases were pre indictment. Okay.
- [47:31]
Andy McCabe
Okay.
- [47:32]
Alison Gill
And actually one of them, you know, the Rosenberg case, the old, the Espionage case. Right. They wanted to be charged under the Atomic Energy Act. Yeah. And so then the judge said, no, you're, this is a good case. You were charged under the Espionage act properly. And they said, okay, well, we want the, do we want the judge to write us a letter that says we will never be prosecuted under the Atomic Energy Act? And he's like, no. And that would have been, and that would have been without prejudice. Right. And so that's what Emile Beauvais is saying here, why Eric Adams should be, should be dismissed without prejudice. And yeah, and Gogarty was pre indictment. So this is post indictment, obviously pre indictment is going to be dismissed without prejudice because you, you haven't had, there's no prejudice anyway.
- [48:23]
Andy McCabe
You've never been prejudiced.
- [48:26]
Alison Gill
Yeah. It's just bonkers that he mentioned those two cases. I, I, and it was just a real quick sentence, like in his big old long thing about why this whole thing should be dismissed with prejudice. There were just only two sentences about why it should be dismissed specifically without prejudice. And it was Rosenberg and Gogarty. And I was like, do you think I'm not going to look those up, bro? Do you think I'm.
- [48:46]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [48:47]
Alison Gill
You think you can just slide by? Because normally when you file a, when you file something like this, Andy, you would say, you would cite your case law and you would quote from it or say, why that case, for example.
- [49:02]
Andy McCabe
The point that you're making.
- [49:03]
Alison Gill
Yeah, right. None of that. It's just like, well, you know, Rosenberg and Gogarty were dismissed without prejudice. So, so this should be, that was it, period.
- [49:12]
Andy McCabe
So honestly, he should have stayed with Marbury vs Madison. It worked for him. In the other case, as insane as it was, it worked out for him. So, you know, he should have, he.
- [49:23]
Alison Gill
Should have gone back, didn't learn yeah, yeah, exactly. So the judge, Judge Dale Ho, he's canceled the hearing that was scheduled that he was going to have. I don't know if that is a signal that he's going to follow what Paul Clement has said, but as of this recording. I'll check one time here, one more time here. I haven't seen a ruling yet from him, but what do you think about this? Because, I mean, he brings up. I disagree. I think that you should, should deny the motion because on its face it's wrong, it's not legal, and you should make the DOJ do nothing and then file a dismissal for, on speedy trial grounds. I think you should go through that exercise if, if you think that it, that it's unlawful to, to grant the dismissal of these charges. But we'll see.
- [50:21]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, I mean, I agree with you. To me, and this is just how many times I'll beat my head up against the same tree stump. I guess to me, it's worth making a point over. Like, the judge could easily take the position here that, like, yeah, sure, this is. If I refuse to grant leave to dismiss the charges, then I leave this big problem for doj. But so what? That's the executive branch's issue. They need to figure out how to clean this thing up. They need to show up for the trial or embarrass themselves by not showing up for the trial or pardon the guy. So pardon him.
- [50:58]
Alison Gill
Right.
- [50:58]
Andy McCabe
I would, you know, refusing to go along with Clement's opinions, I think puts the judge in the position of putting the attention on the appropriate place here in this issue. It's not what the judge says, it's what DOJ did.
- [51:15]
Alison Gill
Problem is now, though, you've got three parties who say that this should be dismissed.
- [51:20]
Andy McCabe
Oh, yeah, yeah.
- [51:22]
Alison Gill
Two are saying with and because Eric Adams changed his tune. He said, oh, yeah, no, dismiss me with prejudice, please. And one, the DOJ saying without. So now that's the only opposition here is, you know, with or without. So I don't know. I, I, I, I wish Judge Ho would do, would, would deny this motion to dismiss, but it would also, I think, be hard for him to go against everybody.
- [51:51]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, no doubt. And I mean, like, there is, there is a logic to Clement's argument. This is where we're headed anyway. One way or another, the same thing happens. These charges go away, never to come back. And so if you're Judge Ho, you could just be kind of like throwing your hands up. But, like, I don't know, I think it's worth fighting the war but that's just me.
- [52:11]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And I mean, he's got to execute the law the way he sees fit. So it's not like. I don't think Judge Ho's the kind of guy who say, well, you know, I'll go ahead and not follow the rules because it just doesn't make sense this one time. Like, I don't. It doesn't strike me as that. But we'll see what he says when he says it, and we'll let you know. All right, everybody, that's the show. It's time for listener questions. If you have any questions for us there, you find a link in the show notes and you can email us any question that you might have, and Andy and I will be happy to try to answer it. So, Andy, what do we have for listener questions this week?
- [52:46]
Andy McCabe
All right, so we have two this week that I picked for what I think will be obvious reasons. The first one comes to us from Dallas, who is in Australia. So not somebody in Dallas, but his name is Dallas and he's in Australia. Okay. Hi, from Dallas, in Austria, in Australia. And I gotta say, Dallas, that opening line had my brain tied up for, like, five minutes before I figured this out. But. But anyway, hi from Dallas and Australia. We treasure your work creating scrutiny. So these horrible things are not happening in the dark. I have a question about Eric Adams. Dallas says, given that there were other charges being developed against him, with a superseding indictment anticipated, does that mean that if this batch gets dismissed with prejudice, there's still a possibility of other charges being brought against him in the future? And it's a good question. Dallas and a lot of people are talking and thinking about this. This case right now. So unfortunately, I think the answer is no. There's. If this. The case that is current, the current state of the indictment against him is dismissed with or without prejudice. Let's say it's dismissed without prejudice. The likelihood of any prosecution coming forward that was based upon or drew upon the same basic facts that will be considered part of the same matter. And I don't see that as ever being a possibility of new prosecution under a different term.
- [54:28]
Alison Gill
That is a really interesting question, because the charges here are the bribery and fraud. The superseding indictment was obstruction of justice. I know Bill Barr had written a memo about Trump's obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation saying that without the underlying crime of conspiracy with Russia, there's no. You can't go after obstruction. I thought that was legally incorrect. And I thought that the obstruction that. That Eric Adams participated in namely getting his co conspirators to delete things, destroy evidence and lie to the FBI were separate from his bribery charges. But yeah, I don't see anyone being willing to bring the obstruction of justice for crimes that were pardoned or dismissed. Do you know what I mean? I've, I've never seen, I've never seen a obstruction case brought against crimes that.
- [55:37]
Andy McCabe
Were dismissed, chargeable basically anymore.
- [55:41]
Alison Gill
Right.
- [55:42]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, I agree. So, and I may have reversed this.
- [55:45]
Alison Gill
Which is a bummer.
- [55:46]
Andy McCabe
But yeah, if, if his, if these charges are dismissed with prejudice and you come back later and try to indict him under a different statute, he's going to come into court and say, yeah, Judge, the Justice Department is just trying to get around its own problems. It's all derived from the same conduct and therefore it should be any charges based on this conduct and these same facts should be barred by the prior dismissal. Whether he succeeds on that or not is a different question. But that's certainly the, the attack that the defense would take.
- [56:25]
Alison Gill
Yeah, and, and if I were trying to bring the charges, I would say, yeah, no, sorry, these are two different crimes. Your, your bribery and stuff was one crime that was dismissed. That doesn't get you off the hook for telling your co conspirators to lie to the FBI and destroy evidence in that case. But I don't, I honestly don't think a judge would let you hang obstruction of justice out there without the, without.
- [56:48]
Andy McCabe
The rest of the.
- [56:49]
Alison Gill
Yeah. What are you obstructing at this point if it was dismissed?
- [56:53]
Andy McCabe
I agree. I agree.
- [56:54]
Alison Gill
Right. Anyway, great question. Really good question.
- [56:58]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. Yeah. So, all right. From Dallas's very specific question, I want to kind of back up a little bit and hit something on kind of a bigger, a bigger issue that we also got a lot of comments about this week. And I should say that some of those messages that we got indicate a real kind of concern or desire, desire to understand, I think, like, what might be the pathways to like resisting the current state of political affairs more comprehensively or effectively. So there's, I definitely sense that kind of strain of, of, of what some of our audience is thinking about right now. So along those lines, Mike from Atlanta writes in longtime listener. Thanks for keeping us well informed. My question is about the Supreme Court's immunity decision. Prevailing discussions seem to posit that the president can break the law and that there is no remedy available to those harm. But doesn't the Supreme Court decision just mean that Trump can't be prosecuted for the decisions defined illegal actions? However, that decision doesn't prohibit a court from providing remedies to the victims of the illegal actions. What am I missing? I think the bigger issue here, Mike, is whether or not the things that we are currently seeing the President do are, in fact, illegal. And that's a, that's kind of a question that's come up from many people this week as well. So that's a hard thing to answer so far. I guess the best way to do that is to say we don't know. Certainly the President has the ability to enact these executive orders, including them, whatever he wants. Those things are being now challenged in court, and that's when we're going to find out whether the courts disagree with whether or not the President had the authority to, you know, take the action he did. So it's, it's a little bit, I think, premature to try to determine that, but there you go.
- [58:56]
Alison Gill
Well, those civil cases are being allowed to go forward. And so in that you are, people have been and are continuing to sue him to get remedies and relief as victims, as people who have suffered harm, namely Blasengame et al, which is about Capitol Police and certain members of Congress in a Swalwell lawsuit that I think Benny Thompson had one, too, but he had to withdraw because he became the chair of the January 6th committee. So the fact that those lawsuits are still alive and well tells me that the immunity decision does not prohibit a court from providing remedies to victims of illegal actions. So unless you're talking about some other kind of remedy besides, you know, damages in a civil suit, I, I, I think that the, that you're, you're right on with your assessment in that it.
- [59:54]
Andy McCabe
Doesn'T, yeah, yeah, I think that's right. I mean, yeah. And of course, yeah, as you mentioned in the question, the Supreme Court decision talking about the fact that the President can't essentially can't be prosecuted, or more specifically, what evidence can and can't be used against him in a prosecution. I think the problem that a lot of people have now is they're recognizing that that opinion, in addition to the specifics involving prosecution, indicated a broader interest on the part of the Supreme Court to expand the role of the presidency and the power that the President has. And I think that's what's driving a lot of concern right now. The fact that they may be pushing in that direction doesn't make it explicitly illegal, but you can count on the fact that there are many institutions out there that are going to file these sorts of lawsuits to determine that in the court of law, which is the way it should be.
- [60:50]
Alison Gill
Agreed. All right. Thank you so much for your really, really good questions, very thoughtful questions. If you have any questions for Andy and myself, please click on the link in the show notes and submit your questions to us. Can be about anything and we appreciate you listening and we're going to keep doing our best to keep you, you know, up to date on what's going on with the Department of Justice. So thanks so much for listening. If you want to become a patron and support this program, you can do that@patreon.com MullerShiprote Our shows are always free, but you can always support and pledge for for independent media. Support us. Thanks so much to everyone who does already. Andrew, do you have any final thoughts before we get out of here this week?
- [61:36]
Andy McCabe
Not really. Another head spinning week. All kinds of crazy things happening and I'm sure we can count on that being repeated next week. So we'll be right back here to talk to you about all the developments.
- [61:48]
Alison Gill
Yes, we will. And I just double checked. So far, nothing from Judge Dale Ho yet on the Eric Adam dismissal. So we'll save it for next week, everybody. Until then, I've been Allison Gill.
- [61:58]
Andy McCabe
And I'm Andy McCabe.
- [62:00]
Alison Gill
Unjustified is written and executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hockey with art and web design by Joelle Reeder 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.