HITMEINTHEHEADWITHABAT

Summary

---

UnJustified – Episode 61: HITMEINTHEHEADWITHABAT

Date: March 22, 2026
Hosts: Allison Gill (MSW Media, Mueller, She Wrote), Andrew McCabe (Former Deputy Director, FBI)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of UnJustified dives into the latest examples of the erosion of civil liberties and the rule of law in Trump’s Department of Justice, spotlighting the compromised function and politicization of federal law enforcement under the current administration. Allison Gill and Andrew McCabe break down a series of troubling DOJ stories from bungled prosecutions and politicized grand jury practices to the collapse of leadership and basic standards inside US Attorneys’ offices. The episode also highlights memorable moments from federal courtrooms, the lowering of hiring standards at DOJ, continued grand jury misadventures, and direct listener questions about DOJ dysfunction, government self-dealing, and persistent Russia probe myths.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Opening Headlines and Context

• Recent federal court orders and DOJ actions are introduced, setting the tone for an episode focused on the DOJ's politicization and incompetence.
• Judge Boasberg’s New Rule: Requires notification to the judiciary if a grand jury rejects DOJ attempts to indict, prompted by failed efforts to charge sitting members of Congress over a social media video (06:15).

2. Kash Patel’s Worldwide Threats Hearing Flop

• Kash Patel comes under fire for his lack of preparation and dismissive approach in answering basic questions about the firing of a dozen Iran experts.
  • Quote: “He was pressed on it and he said, I don't know. I Don't really know who they are or something to that effect.” – Andy McCabe (02:16)
• Patel mocked reports of voter fraud using inaccurate, dismissive comments.
  • Quote: "Kash Patel was like, sounds low. You know, like just, dude, did you do anything to prepare for this hearing?" – Allison Gill (02:55)
• McCabe highlights Patel’s priorities: custom Punisher sneakers and UFC fighter training instead of congressional prep.

3. Grand Jury Failures & Judge Boasberg's Intervention

• New Federal Rule: Judge James Boasberg orders judiciary notification when grand juries reject indictments.
  • “This court finds that notification should be provided… whenever a grand jury fails to concur in an indictment, regardless of whether the defendant has already been charged.” – Allison Gill quoting Boasberg (05:11)
• DOJ failed to indict six Democrats accused of "seditious behavior" by Trump; none of the accused spoke to the FBI, citing constitutional protections under the Speech or Debate Clause (07:55).
  • “They have that and probably many other defenses if this thing ever gets off the ground. And so why would you waste your time engaging with the folks that are trying to build this ridiculous case against you?” – Andy McCabe (08:05)
• Judge Boasberg also quashes subpoenas against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, calling them harassment (09:03), and rebuffs DOJ appeals that would slow Fed nominations.
  • “There is abundant evidence that the subpoena's dominant, if not sole, purpose is to harass and pressure Jerome Powell…” – Allison Gill quoting Boasberg (09:03)
• U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro demonstrates misunderstanding of grand jury procedures, suggesting she can take any suspicion before a grand jury—completely false per federal rules (11:11).
  • “It's against the rules of federal grand jury. You can't use a federal grand jury for a fishing expedition or just to placate your curiosity…” – Allison Gill (11:39)

4. Historical Context – Grand Juries and ‘No True Bill’

• Gill reads an excerpt on the origin of "no true bill," linking DOJ failures to 17th-century English judicial precedent (13:13).
• “She's more historical than I thought. And I love this quote because it kind of explains the origin behind the phrase no true bill.” – Andy McCabe (13:51)

5. Manipulation of Grand Jury Venues

• DOJ shifting venue shopping for grand jury decisions, ending up with Judge Eileen Cannon in Florida to secure more favorable outcomes for politically motivated cases, notably against ex-CIA Chief John Brennan (15:45).
• “That’s why they started in... ended up down in Florida in Miami, and then moved it to Judge Cannon's courtroom so that she would be the one to make grand jury decisions.” – Allison Gill (15:45)

6. Federal Bench Pushback and Public Humiliation

• Recounting a New Jersey federal judge (Qurashi) ejecting a DOJ lawyer for improper courtroom conduct and order violations, reflecting widespread loss of trust in the DOJ (22:41).
  • “You have lost the confidence and trust of this court. You have lost the confidence and the trust of the New Jersey legal community, and you are losing the trust and confidence of the public.” – Judge Qureshi, relayed by Andy McCabe (28:48)
• Ongoing fight over illegal leadership structures in the New Jersey DOJ, risking overturning of convictions due to legally invalid appointments (24:20, 25:54, 33:09).
• “This is not a well led place right now. You know, put the political part of it aside. It's a department in chaos…” – Andy McCabe (45:04)

7. Collapse in DOJ Standards and Staffing

• DOJ waives its longstanding requirement that new federal prosecutors have at least one year of law practice experience, now hiring straight from law school in some districts (38:54).
  • “‘DOJ used to have a policy that required that you had one uno year experience practicing law [...] And they have now waived that requirement as U.S. attorneys offices struggle to find qualified replacements following mass departures.’” – Andy McCabe (38:54)
• DOJ increasingly depends on “emergency jump teams” and military lawyers to fill vacancies, and faces a dramatic drop in applications for previously coveted positions (43:44).
• Deterioration in case quality and public trust is highlighted with multiple examples.

8. Lightning Round: DOJ Politicization

• Pam Bondi and Epstein Files: Bondi attempts to dodge a House subpoena; Democrats walk out in protest after she tries to claim a briefing satisfies her subpoena requirement (48:23).
• Southern Florida “Grand Conspiracy” Probe: Former FBI Director Jim Comey subpoenaed for new investigations into Trump-Russia origins, now in Judge Cannon’s court (50:33).
• Fired FBI Agents Lawsuit: Agents claim they were terminated for “political disloyalty” over work on election interference. Lawsuit implicates DOJ and Sen. Chuck Grassley in political retaliation (51:52).
  • “...worked in coordination with Patel and Trump to target and disparage FBI personnel involved with Arctic Frost.” – Allison Gill (52:47)

9. Listener Questions and Persistent Myths

• Listener asks if Kash Patel can be held liable for firing Iran experts; hosts clarify: no, questionable leadership isn't individually prosecutable unless laws are broken (57:35).
• Another question asks if the Trump family’s war profiteering is illegal; answer: legality depends on specifics, but self-dealing and lost public trust are the bigger, pervasive issues (58:18).
• Debunking the Steele Dossier Myth:
  • Andy McCabe meticulously explains the true predicate for opening the Trump-Russia investigation (Crossfire Hurricane), centering on accounts from allied diplomats and Russian interference—not the Steele dossier (63:07–67:25).
    • “We opened Crossfire on that predication…We didn't even have the dossier when we opened the case.” – Andy McCabe (63:07)
    • “No dossier used at all in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. I hope that answers your question.” – Allison Gill (70:34)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Kash is always a worldwide threat, at least in my world." – Andy McCabe (02:16)
• “I'd be indicting everybody if it weren't for that pesky constitution.” – Allison Gill (13:05)
• “You have lost the confidence and trust of this court. You have lost the confidence and trust of the New Jersey legal community, and you are losing the trust and confidence of the public.” – Judge Qureshi, via McCabe (28:48)
• “It’s a department in chaos and that is not a good sign for the home team, meaning all of us.” – Andy McCabe (45:04)
• “You can't use a federal grand jury for a fishing expedition or just to placate your curiosity about whether or not crimes have been committed. It's not how it works.” – Allison Gill (11:39)
• “Put the political part of it aside. It's a department in chaos and that is not a good sign for the home team, meaning all of us. All of us who depend on DOJ to do their job well...” – Andy McCabe (45:04)
• “No dossier used at all in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.” – Allison Gill (70:34)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Kash Patel’s Worldwide Threats Hearing & firing Iran experts: 02:10–04:25
• Grand jury failures, Judge Boasberg’s rule: 05:11–13:51
• Boasberg blocks Powell subpoena, Pirro press conference: 09:03–11:39
• Grand jury shopping and Judge Cannon: 15:45–16:53
• NJ judge ejects DOJ lawyer, illegal leadership: 22:41–29:21
• Collapse of DOJ hiring standards: 38:54–46:23
• Lightning Round: Pam Bondi, Jim Comey, ex-FBI lawsuits: 48:23–52:47
• Listener Q&A: Kash Patel, Trump family profiteering, Crossfire Hurricane myth: 57:35–70:34

---

Tone & Language

The episode maintains an urgent, acerbic but well-informed tone, laced with incredulity, dark humor, and a sense of deep alarm at institutional breakdown. Both hosts bring a blend of inside-baseball candor and passionate critique—especially regarding the DOJ’s failings and the threat these pose to democracy.

---

Summary

Episode 61 of UnJustified offers a sweeping, sometimes jaw-dropping tour of DOJ decay—from courts and grand juries actively blocking the administration’s politicized maneuvers, to the collapse of basic competence and the draining of public trust. The unvarnished commentary from Gill and McCabe, their real-time reactions to live courtroom spats, and reliable mythbusting on topics like the Steele dossier provide listeners with both a detailed diagnosis and a sense of urgency about the road ahead for American institutions.

---

Transcript

[Frances Collier]

Hi, I'm Frances Collier.

[Angela V. Shelton]

And I'm Angela V. Shelton.

[Frances Collier]

And we're Frangela. You know what, you mean in your life.

[Angela V. Shelton]

The Final Word podcast.

[Frances Collier]

Yes, you do. That's right.

[Angela V. Shelton]

It is the final word on all things political and pop cultural, where we

[Frances Collier]

make real news, real funny, where we

[Angela V. Shelton]

inspire you so you can resist.

[Frances Collier]

Subscribe and get a new episode of the Final Word podcast each week. It's the news we think you need to hear. That's right.

[Angela V. Shelton]

We think you need to hear it.

[Allison Gill]

Okay.

[Frances Collier]

Yeah. It's what we say.

[Allison Gill]

So.

[Angela V. Shelton]

That's right. And because all we do is give. Every Thursday, you can listen to our hysterical podcast, Idiot of the Week.

[Frances Collier]

We round up the stupid. Because you know what? Somebody has to.

[Allison Gill]

Okay? All we do is give. MSW Media

[Andy McCabe]

A federal judge has issued a new rule requiring Jeanine Pirro to notify the court when she fails to get a grand jury to bring charges.

[Allison Gill]

Jim Comey has been subpoenaed in the sprawling criminal probe against ex CIA chief John Brennan. In Judge Eileen Cannon's district Attorney General

[Andy McCabe]

Pam Bondi attempts to flout a deposition subpoena from the House Oversight Committee in the Epstein files investigation.

[Allison Gill]

And the Department of Justice has suspended minimum work requirements for hiring attorneys. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 61 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, March 22nd. We are just six days away from no Kings 3. I'm Alison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

Nice. And I'm Andy McCabe. My God, Allison. So much going on. We got the war in Iran. We got inflation. Inflation is back and better than ever. And of course, the midterms. You know, with all that, we want to make sure that we're getting through with all. The Justice Department is here because that's what we're all about at Unjustified. And there's a lot this week from Cash Patel's performance at the worldwide threats hearing to God knows what else happened. So should we just dive in?

[Allison Gill]

Oh, the worldwide threats hearing. Was Kash Patel a worldwide threat?

[Andy McCabe]

Kash is always a worldwide threat, at least in my world. The rest of it, I'm not so sure. He just had a. I think I characterized it yesterday on CNN as being stunningly unprepared to answer some pretty ob questions, like, oh, like questions about why did you fire all the. A dozen Iran experts on the night before the war with Iran? And his. When asked if those people were Iran experts, he said, I don't think so. And then he was pressed on it and he said, I don't know. I Don't really know who they are or something to that effect.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. He was also asked about voter fraud and how the Heritage foundation has found 77 cases of non citizens voting in the last 24 years. Wow. And that's a threat. Kash Patel was like, sounds low. You know, like just, dude, did you

[Andy McCabe]

do anything to prepare for this hearing? Like, the most obvious questions. And it is, you know, a big part of his job. So I did notice in some interesting posts this week that he has had his own custom made Nike sneakers made with like Punisher logos and things like that on them. And then also he made time to go down to Quantico and like, train with UFC fighters. So not so much on the prepare for congressional oversight hearings, but like, really, he's bringing back the headlock, I guess, or something to that effect.

[Allison Gill]

And here's the thing. You and I both worked for the government. All you gotta do is put together a commission of counterterrorism Iran experts that work in your agency and have a meet a couple times a month, maybe have a couple of subcommittees and subcommissions, so that when you're asked that in a hearing, you can say, you know what? That might be the case, that some counterterrorism experts on Iran were fired for not, you know, vigorously defending this particular administration's interest. However, I have assembled a commission of the. I mean, like, I've been in so many of those that, of course, I mean, it's. It's bs, but it's better than. I don't know what you're talking about. I don't even know. I don't know.

[Andy McCabe]

I don't know those people I just fired. Yeah. I mean, and in reality, the FBI should be doing a lot right now with respect to threats to the homeland as a result of our engagement and hostilities with Iran. There's a ton of things that should be happening. Hopefully they are happening. I know that the. The good men and women who still work in the FBI, they know what to do, and hopefully they're just doing it despite the fact that they're probably not being particularly well led by their director.

[Allison Gill]

But read your director in on it so he has an answer.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. Yeah. Well, he's got to ask, though. You know, he's got to care. He's got to show that he actually cares. Prepared, but not this time. Who knows? We'll keep our fingers crossed. Maybe next time he'll do better.

[Allison Gill]

No, I don't think so. But it's just me. Yeah. So tons going on, but let's let's talk about the DOJ for a minute and let's talk about their performance in court this week with this story from NBC. The chief federal judge for the District of Columbia has ordered that the judiciary be notified when a grand jury rejects the Trump administration's attempts to indict defendants following the failed effort to charge six sitting members of Congress over a social media video. This is Judge James Boasberg. He said that the rule applies when the effort to indict comes first as a grand jury investigation. He said it would be in place for 120 days, but it could become permanent if he likes it. He wrote that the decision was, quote, in furtherance of the interests of consistency and transparency and said this court finds that notification should be provided to the duty magistrate judge whenever a grand jury fails to concur in an indictment, regardless of whether the defendant has already been charged.

[Andy McCabe]

The new policy, dated March 4, clarifies that even if a prosecutor decides to drop the case after a failed prosecution, the magistrate judge must be notified of the unsuccessful prosecution attempt. Now, Boasberg's order requires that the grand jury, four person, quote, promptly and in writing, report the lack of concurrence to the duty magistrate under seal and that those notifications be maintained in the confidential files of the clerk's office. Grand juries are a core part of the American system of government and recognized in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which mandates that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime or unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, integral part, right?

[Andy McCabe]

For sure.

[Allison Gill]

Now, as NBC News first reported, the government was unable to convince a single grand juror they were shut out when, you know, that it had met the low probable cause threshold to indict those six Democrats featured on the social media video that upset Trump. Now, the video advised members of the military and intelligence communities not to obey illegal orders. In November, Trump accused those six Democratic lawmakers of seditious behavior and called for them to be arrested and put on trial for behavior punishable by death. Now, days later, the FBI attempted to schedule interviews with the six lawmakers. That's Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris d' Aluzio and Chrissy Houlihan, and Senators Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin, none of whom chose to sit down with the bureau.

[Andy McCabe]

I mean, yeah, I'm not speech or debate.

[Allison Gill]

It's speech or debate. It's clear in the Constitution that members of Congress cannot be questioned out, you know, as when they're doing their jobs.

[Andy McCabe]

That's Absolutely right. They have. They have that and probably many other defenses if this thing ever gets off the ground. And so why would you waste your time engaging with the folks that are trying to build this ridiculous case against you? There's no reason to do that. So in February, attorneys from the office of Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, including a longtime associate and former House Republican staffer, presented a case against the six lawmakers to a federal grand jury, which rejected the attempted indictment. Now, Boasberg's order also noted that in a sealed memo, the government gave an opinion on whether the judiciary should be notified, but he did not say what their opinion was.

[Allison Gill]

We can guess.

[Andy McCabe]

I bet we can guess. Piero's office declined to comment. And this order we've been discussing was first noticed by Politico.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. Now, Judge Boasberg also issued a scathing order blocking subpoenas that Pirro issued to the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell. Boasberg suggested the investigation was political. Quote, there is abundant evidence that the subpoena's dominant, if not sole, purpose is to harass and pressure Jerome Powell either to yield to the president or resign and make way for a Fed chair who will. That's what Boasberg wrote about that. And then Piro attacked Boasberg last week as an activist judge and said the Justice Department would appeal. And there is some updated news on this. Apparently, the White House and Department of justice were fined to let that go so that they could just go forward with nominating their new Fed chair that takes over in May because Jerome Powell's term will end and he will just be lowered to the, you know, a regular board member. At that point, Jerome Powell would. But they want to now fight it. They want to now appeal it. And in doing so, they could really screw up the nomination of the new Fed chair. It could put that off while this is being litigated.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, but I mean, like, cutting off their nose despite their face. Kind of a standard decision tree formula for a lot of what comes out of the White House. So I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. So when NBC News asked Pirro at a news conference on Friday why some of the federal grand jurors seem to be skeptical of the cases being brought by the U.S. attorney's office, she responded that she was, quote, willing to take a not guilty and also said, quote, willing to take a no. True, bill, because I'll take all the crimes and put them in.

[Allison Gill]

Well, she's got a couple of slam dunk cases against Corey Lewandowski and Kristi Noem right now, but she could really up her winning percentage. But I don't see her bringing all the crime right now.

[Andy McCabe]

I don't really. And I'm curious, like, I'll take all the crimes and put them in. Put them in what? What are we talking about, like a tote bag here or another indictment? I don't even understand what this woman says.

[Allison Gill]

The grand jury. I'll take all the crimes to the grand jury.

[Andy McCabe]

I'll put them in a box bigger than a bread box, but smaller than an elephant.

[Allison Gill]

She even said, Andy, that it was up to her, even if she just had a feeling or if she just wanted to verify that the law wasn't being broken, that she had the right to take these cases to a grand jury. And that's completely untrue. It's against the federal rules of criminal procedure. It's against the Constitution. You can't use. It's against the rules of federal grand jury. You can't use a federal grand jury for a fishing expedition or just to placate your curiosity about whether or not crimes have been committed. It's not how it works.

[Andy McCabe]

No, I mean, the whole concept is you going in front of the federal, going in front of the grand jury and proving, hopefully for you, that they have. That you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, has in the past been committed. So to just use it as. Like, that's a lark. We'll see what comes back. No, that's not actually how this is supposed to work. So on Friday, her office dropped a case against a man who burned an American flag. So maybe that'll be the first notification. Trump issued an executive order meant to crack down on that constitutionally protected action. And Boseberg had ruled that the man who was facing two misdemeanors over alleged violations of a federal park order, Boasberg ruled that he was entitled to an inquiry over whether his prosecution had been for, quote, allegedly illegal actions or for his constitutionally protected speech.

[Allison Gill]

Yep. Yep. And that she just dropped him right after she got up and said, I'll take any crime to the grand jury. I take a not guilty. I'll take a no. True, Bill. Thank you. Right after she said that, her office filed to drop the charges against this veteran who had burned the flag in opposition to Trump's executive illegal, unconstitutional executive order.

[Andy McCabe]

Now, damn you, Boseberg. Nah, you've out foxed me once again. I'll get you next time.

[Allison Gill]

I'd be indicting everybody if it weren't for that pesky constitution.

[Andy McCabe]

Where's the ham sandwich guy?

[Allison Gill]

Now, the NBC goes on to say that the grand jury system was first developed in England. And the handbook for federal grand jurors in the US Highlights the celebrated English case involving the Earl of Shaftesbury. In 1681, quote, displeased with him, the crown presented to the grand jury a proposed bill of indictment for high treason and recommended that it be voted and returned. The grand jury manual states. After hearing the witnesses, the grand jury voted against the bill of indictment and returned it to the king, holding that it was not true. So early. Jeanine Pirros trying to indict people getting a no true bill.

[Andy McCabe]

She's more historical than I thought. And I love this quote because it kind of explains the origin behind the phrase no true bill. That's what we say now when a grand jury rejects an indictment, we say that they returned a no true bill. And I always wondered, like, it's such an awkward thing to say, where did that really come from? It's got to come from here, where they said, we hold that it is not true. What you've said about this person is not true.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, it's not true. No true bill. There it is.

[Andy McCabe]

There it is.

[Allison Gill]

The Earl of Shaftesbury. I'm sure I'm saying that wrong. My apologies.

[Andy McCabe]

Well, he's probably not around to complain about it, so I figure you're in the clear.

[Allison Gill]

Very true.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. This is amazing, because I think it's worth noting that Boasberg is the presiding. He's. He's the presiding judge over the D.C. district. And one of the. The responsibilities of the presiding judges. They oversee all of the action of the grand jury. So here, him coming, you know, issuing this order is entirely within what is one of his ancillary judicial responsibilities. He's trying. He sees something very different happening in the grand juries, that we are getting a spate of no true bills. And so he's trying to collect data on that, which makes sense to try to figure out what's happening here. My guess is the conclusion he'll draw eventually is that the U.S. attorney's office has become significantly less competent. But we'll see. Let's collect the data and we'll find out. This is not him being an activist and shoving his nose in something that's not part of his biznatch. This is him, like, actually doing his job, which is. Which is a good thing to see. And he is. You get the sense from his rulings that he is not to be pushed any further.

[Allison Gill]

No, no. And we'll talk about him a little bit more later. But, you know, this is why. And I know you can't talk too much about this case, but this is why the Department of Justice is trying to bring this grand conspiracy case by attaching the Mar A Lago executed search warrant to it down in Judge Eileen Cannon's court. Because that's right. As Judge Boasberg sits atop the grand jury stuff in D.C. eileen Cannon is in charge of grand jury decisions down there. So if they bring a no true bill or whatever, she's not gonna. Yeah, I'm assuming, give them a hard time about it or quash subpoenas or do anything that you're supposed to do in those cases. Not that this case against. This is the case against ex CIA Chief John Brennan and many, many more people, including yourself. That's why they started in. Noped out of there. They went to Pennsylvania, noped out of there, ended up down in Florida in Miami, and then moved it to Judge Cannon's courtroom so that she would be the one to make grand jury decisions

[Andy McCabe]

because she's the only judge in that courthouse.

[Allison Gill]

Judge of the circuit or the exact. But the only judge in that courthouse.

[Andy McCabe]

And. And you can see in another responsibility of being chief judge and of course would also fall to canon if. For matters in her courthouse is exactly what you just referred to, the challenging of a subpoena. So if somebody subpoenas you, there are legal grounds that you can just say, no, I don't think the subpoena is valid, and you can attack them. That's what happened in the Powell case. And so it's remarkable, like, subpoenas very rarely ever get canceled or what the legal term is quashed. But in this case, Boasberg stepped in and quashed those subpoenas. So he's. What he's essentially doing is this is Even before any. Any attempt at an indictment, this is when the government is still in the investigative stage and Boseberg is saying, no, these subpoenas have. They're clearly political. There's no. There's no basis for this. That's a. That is an incredibly. We talk about no true bills being rare and they. They were before this administration. Quashing subpoenas is. Is like extremely rare. But. But Boasberg is not having it. So. Yeah, I think it's a really interesting.

[Allison Gill]

He has the. He. It's in his jurisdiction. It's within his. His inherent power as a judge to do that.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right.

[Allison Gill]

And he cites all of the case law. He goes, that doesn't really happen here. And there's not a lot of case law, but here's all the sister district case law that goes with it. And Jeanine Pirro's lawyers, her office, lawyers from her office agreed to that principle during the hearing for quashing the Powell subpoenas. They agreed and said, yeah, of course judges have the power to quash a subpoena if it's inappropriate. We don't argue that. But then bureau goes out and says he can't do that. It's against the rules that I just made up.

[Andy McCabe]

It's damn activist.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, Activist judge. And they really don't like. They really don't like him. So we're going to talk a little bit later about that other case that's down in, in Judge Cannon's neck of the woods. But we've got other stuff to talk about before then.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. For sure. One story, a federal judge ejected recently, just this last week, a DOJ lawyer from his courtroom ejected him like it was a nightclub. And the guy gotten too rowdy and he had walked out the door. So we're going to discuss that, and we're going to discuss how the Justice Department is lowering hiring standards to fill the positions of nearly 5,000 people who've left the department. So we're going to get to all that right after this quick break. So stick around. We'll be right back.

[Allison Gill]

There is a real difference between laundry that smells clean and laundry that smells great. That is what stood out to me about laundry sauce. I thought it would be a nice change for my usual detergent, but I ended up being blown away by how much I absolutely love it. The scent is incredible. It's fantastic. It smells way better than what I had been using. And the scent actually sticks around. I love that when I take my clothes out of the dryer now, they smell better than ever. And I want to thank Laundry Sauce for sponsoring this episode and making laundry smell awesome. Check them out. Get 20% off your order@laundry sauce.com with promo code unjust. The one thing I really love about laundry Sauce is that it's not just a single product. They have a full laundry routine. Pods, fabric conditioner, scent booster, dryer sheets, and fabric refresher spray. That makes the whole process feel more complete and a lot more enjoyable. The biggest difference for me is that when the laundry is done, it actually smells good enough to enjoy, not just clean enough to fold. So for a limited time, our listeners get 20% off your entire order. When you use code unjust@laundry sauce.com, that's 20% off your [e-mail] with promo code Unjust. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please, please support our show and tell them we sent you. It's time to make Laundry Day the best day of the week.

[Frances Collier]

Hi, I'm Frances Collier.

[Angela V. Shelton]

And I'm Angela V. Shelton.

[Frances Collier]

And we're Frangila. You know what you need in your life?

[Angela V. Shelton]

The Final Word podcast.

[Frances Collier]

Yes, you do. That's right.

[Angela V. Shelton]

It is the final word on all things political and pop cultural, where we

[Frances Collier]

make real news, real funny, where we

[Angela V. Shelton]

inspire you so you can hashtag, resist,

[Frances Collier]

subscribe and get a new episode of the Final Word podcast each week. It's the news we think you need to hear.

[Allison Gill]

That's right.

[Angela V. Shelton]

We think you need to hear it.

[Allison Gill]

Okay. Yeah.

[Frances Collier]

It's what we say.

[Allison Gill]

So.

[Angela V. Shelton]

That's right. And because all we do is give. Every Thursday, you can listen to our hysterical podcast, Idiot of the Week.

[Frances Collier]

We round up the stupid. Because you know what? Somebody has to.

[Allison Gill]

Okay. All we do is give. All right, everybody. Welcome back. So for a long time, Andy, you and I have been talking about the destruction of something called the presumption of regularity. That's the court's loss of faith or, you know, the benefit of the doubt that the DOJ usually enjoys in court. And we've been talking about that a lot here on Unjustified. The hits keep coming, Andy. The New York Times reports that a federal judge threw a top prosecutor from the New Jersey U.S. attorney's office out of his courtroom during a sentencing hearing this week and demanded that the office's leadership testify about who had authority over their actions, according to court documents. The rapid sequence of events on Monday in the courtroom of Judge Saheed Qurashi. This was the latest indication of growing tensions between the Justice Department and the federal judiciary in New Jersey specifically, but also on the whole, it came during the scheduling the scheduled sentencing of a man who last year agreed to plead guilty to possession of child pornography. So this is a sentencing hearing on a. On a guilty plea?

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. That's right. And the hearing did not go as prosecutors had planned. Judge Qureshi grew frustrated with the office's head of appeals, a gentleman named Mark Coyne, who had not formally disclosed that he would appear. And the judge fiercely interrogated a more junior prosecutor about whether the former interim U.S. attorney, Alina Haba, still had some role in operating the office. Judge Qureshi then eventually threw Mr. Coyne out of the courtroom. The judge then ordered the three leaders of the New Jersey office who last week were found to be occupying their positions unlawfully. He ordered them to appear to testify about their office's leadership structure. Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed the unconventional three person leadership team in December after Mrs. Haba was disqualified. The leaders are Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox, and ari Fontecchio.

[Allison Gill]

Now, Ms. Haba is now a senior advisor to the Attorney General and supervises US Attorneys around the United States. She's been in the New Jersey office in recent weeks. She's been lurking around. It's unclear why her presence alone would not be inappropriate or out of the ordinary, given her position. It's unclear, though, what motivated Judge Karachi's questions about her. Asked for comment, Haba said she had absolutely no role in operating the office. Quote, I'm not the U.S. attorney anymore. I left my post. She defended Mr. Coyne, the guy who was tossed out by this judge as, quote, an incredibly talented attorney, prosecutor and appeals chief, and said that he should only be treated with the utmost respect.

[Andy McCabe]

The clash in Judge Qureshi's courtroom comes at the height of a remarkable extended confrontation between the Trump administration and federal judges in New Jersey who have accused the Justice Department of prioritizing its own personnel choices over public safety. Judges have warned that if the department continues to insist on installing the office's leadership illegally, the integrity of criminal cases will be threatened. Last week, the Judge who disqualified Ms. Haba, Matthew W. Braun, found that the office's three person leadership team was unlawful. He wrote that President Trump's reliance on illegal maneuvers to appoint New Jersey's top prosecutors might mean that, quote, scores of dangerous criminals could have cases dismissed or convictions reversed because the law would be in their favor. Now, Judge Brand paused any effect of his own decision to give the government time to appeal, but it has yet to do so.

[Allison Gill]

It's trying to figure out what to say, I think.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, exactly.

[Allison Gill]

Now, the day after Judge Brown's order, Judge Qureshi asked the U.S. attorney's office if it wanted to delay the sentencing of this defendant, this child pornography defendant who planned to plead guilty, Francisco Villafane. And Judge Qureshi said that if the government were not requesting a delay, the line prosecutor on the case, Daniel Rosenblum, would have to be prepared to answer questions about his office's leadership structure, sometimes referred to as the triumvirate.

[Andy McCabe]

This is amazing because the judge, like, gave him a shot, right? He's like, do you want to. Do you Want an extension? Do you want to delay this? Are you sure you want to go down this road? And they did, and much to their peril. So Mr. Coyne, who is a veteran in the office, he accompanied Mr. Rosenblum, a relative newcomer to the Monday hearing. But judge Qureshi, upon determining that Mr. Coyne had no formal right to appear in the case, told him that he could pass Mr. Rosenblum notes, but he could not address the court. Quote, I'm not going to hear from you, Mr. Coyne, he said. If you want to sit there for moral Support or hand Mr. Rosenblum post its or whisper in his ear, I'll let you do that as supervisor. The judge then proceeded to ask Mr. Rosenblum questions first about the details of Mr. Vilafane's plea agreement, saying that the prosecutor had operated without having all the evidence in hand and was preparing to agree to allow the defendant to serve significantly less time than the guidelines suggested.

[Allison Gill]

Wow. And here's a quote, how did this screw up happen? That's what the judge asked. Was it your office, the u. S. Attorney's office, the FBI, or both? How did you execute a plea agreement without having all the evidence? Then Judge Qureshi asked Mr. Rosenblum a series of questions about who's running the office, including whether Ms. Haba retained some leadership role, Quote, none that I'm aware of, Rosenblum said, quote, so she could be operating the office, the judge said. And then Mr. Coyne interjected, she is not, he said.

[Andy McCabe]

Judge Qureshi told Mr. Cohen to sit down, quote, you don't get to blindside the court and do whatever it is you guys want to do. He mourned. So if you continue to speak, you can leave. Mr. Coyne then continued to speak, and the judge directed the court security officers to remove him him before they could act. He asked Mr. Coyne to leave once more, and Mr. Coyne did so. The judge then resumed questioning Mr. Rosenblum, asking whether he knew personally whether Ms. Haba was still, quote, influencing the operations of your office. When Mr. Rosenblum said he did not have personal knowledge, Judge Qureshi said that he would call the three leaders to testify under oath. Those are the three guys that are apparently running the office, but maybe not very well. He said that he would, quote, figure out who's currently operating this office before I proceed with today's sentencing hearing.

[Allison Gill]

Wow. Now, originally, the judge said he would call the leaders to testify April 1, but then on Tuesday, Mr. Coin said, can we have 30 more days to allow for developments in the case in front of Judge Bran in which the leadership team was disqualified. Maybe they're going to finally appeal that. In response, Judge Kishi moved the hearing to May 4th. Yeah, you can have 33 more days.

[Andy McCabe]

As a matter of fact, get your ass together. Okay. So toward the end of Monday's hearing, Judge Qureshi told Mr. Rosenblum to alert his colleagues, some of whom had hearings scheduled in his courtroom in the next week. He said, they're not going to be able to just walk into this courtroom and say, we just want to proceed. He said, quote, you have lost the confidence and trust of this court. You have lost the confidence and the trust of the. The New Jersey legal community, and you are losing the trust and confidence of the public.

[Allison Gill]

Oh, that's. Wow. To it. To a DOJ lawyer.

[Andy McCabe]

Bad summary of the state of affairs in New Jersey.

[Allison Gill]

Wow. The rhetoric about the DOJ coming from the bench is pretty amazing. And, Andy, in my FOIA case against Doge and Elon Musk, Judge Boasberg actually last night just ruled in our favor on a motion to compel. And in his ruling last night, he said this. He said, quote, the government raises vague separation of powers concerns with me ordering the executive Branch to contact senators. In doing so, it provides no relevant case constitutional provision, or even a line of reasoning to support its argument. And the court remains dubious of the merits of such an objection. So, yeah, Ouch. The reason he's bringing up separation of powers, basically, I filed my Freedom of Information act request and First Amendment Coalition joined me. Right. And this is being filed by national security councilors Kel McClanahan, and we were just asking for documents from Doge, but then there was some sort of a public thing at the White House where somebody said that Elon Musk had given his. His private phone number to Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy and several senators and said, get in touch with me if you have problems of doge, because we're trying to get at the bottom of whether or not, first of all, he's in charge. Elon Musk is the administrator of doge. And secondly, is Doge part of the Executive Office of the President or is it subject to foia? Right. Those are our goals with this case. Okay. And so then Freedom of the First Amendment Coalition filed an amended FOIA request to the lawsuit and said, hey, we also need you to file a motion to compel the court to order DOGE to preserve any communications on whatever that private phone line is of Elon Musk's. And there was a hearing about it. And Judge Boasberg was kind of like, well, why don't I just tell you, Doge, that you have to ask these senators what that phone number is, and, you know, also ask Sean Duffy what that phone number is so we can just locate it first steps. And DOJ was like, you can't make us do that. And so our. My lawyer, Kel McClanahan, was like, well, how about you just go make, you know, have them go through Doge records to see contacts from Elon, right. Go through the Doge Bros. Phones. And then that's when DOJ flipped out and said, you want us to go through all these records to locate this phone to blah, blah, blah. That's too much work. That's too much work. And the judge was. Was like, yeah, I think so. And so he issued a minute order saying, all right, you should just. Just ask the senators and then ask Sean Duffy. And then DOJ filed a motion to reconsider that order saying, you can't make us ask senator stuff. There's a separation of powers problem here. That's where the separation of powers problem comes in. So. So Boasberg said, all right, well, then we'll go with what the plaintiffs originally suggested. You can go through all the Doge communications to look for this number so you don't have to talk to the senators. So he amended the order, and so they have to now do all that work that they didn't want to do in the first place. But for. For Judge Boasberg to say, you know, you raised the separation of powers issue, but you have no relevant case law, no constitutional provision, no line of reasoning even to support its argument. So we remain dubious of the merits of your objection, but nonetheless will say you don't have to ask the senators. So now you have to go through

[Andy McCabe]

all of your kind of a have it your way ruling for real.

[Allison Gill]

They. They painted themselves in this corner, and now they have to do it so.

[Andy McCabe]

Well, this whole. This whole thing, I mean, these. These two examples, like, really highlight what we've been talking about in terms of that loss of confidence, loss of presumption of regularity. There's a couple of little things here that I think are. Are worth explaining quickly. The whole issue with this guy, Mr. Coin, who gets kicked out of the hearing. He. So when you, Rosenblum, is the attorney on this case, the sentencing case, and you can't just show up and cover that, like if, if Rosenbloom wasn't available, or you want to go with Rosenbloom, you have to first send a request to the court saying we would like leave to.

[Frances Collier]

Right.

[Allison Gill]

You have to ask permission to appear.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. You. So that you' the record as an attorney, you know, involved with that case and I guess Coin never. What's that?

[Allison Gill]

He should know that if he's been at the office for that.

[Andy McCabe]

Of course, of course. But you know what places that aren't well supervised, those sorts of details tend to get lost in the fog of war. That's been my experience. But in any case, I think that's what Coin failed to do here. But he shows up intending to basically make all the arguments for this new kid and the, the judge just wasn't having it. This judge is going to say like he's going to hold them to every little detail now. Right. Because he sees this stuff slipping away and the danger that Judge Brann is citing if these three, the triumvirate, the three basically AUSAs who are running this office as the U. S. Attorneys or singular. I don't even know how you would phrase that. The problem is it's not lawful. If it's not, if it doesn't comply with the statute, then any decision they make, any indictment they authorize is no longer valid. So all these criminals who are being prosecuted and whose cases are going through the system every day, they have a built in defense now they can come back later after they've been convicted and say my conviction should be thrown out because there was no lawful U.S. attorney presiding over this office during the time I was indicted or prosecuted or whatever. So they're not. This is not a. We don't like Donald Trump. So we're pushing back on Donald Trump. This is. The judges are standing up to try to protect the sanctity of the legal process in that district which they feel like has been legally undermined by the shenanigans. Now on Pam Bondi side, of course she's doing this because they've run at it. They, as we know with the Alina Haba saga, they ran out of time. You know, they, they appointed Haba, she did not get confirmed. Therefore, you run out of time to serve as the acting. If you're the appointed person and you don't have your, you know, confirmed by the Senate and then the responsibility flips to the judges of the circuit. They get to put the U.S. attorney in until that person is replaced by someone who's been confirmed by the Senate. Well, every time they do that, Todd Blanche fires them them. It's happened in D.C. or I think it's happened in Virginia. It's happened in other districts as well. And so in this case, Bondi is trying to get around that by appointing these three guys in the office to run it. And that's not going to work either, because it's not in the statute. Right. It's just not how these things go.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And that's the problem, is that this judge is trying. This is. This is a guy who's ready to plead guilty for child pornography. And if it doesn't go properly because they don't have the right leadership in the office, this guy could walk. The judge wants to make sure that everything is proper. I mean, I've heard guilty pleas before. I remember sitting there listening to Mike Flynn's guilty plea. Are you sure this is what you want to do? Have you been coerced? Have you spoken to your lawyer? I mean, it's a long process to make sure that somebody pleads guilty properly. And if the leadership thing is screwed up, this guy could walk. And if I'm a criminal in New Jersey, I feel like there's a lot I could get away with right now.

[Andy McCabe]

Totally, totally. So I have this guy Bran, who deemed the three of them to be unlawfully serving. He's not even from New Jersey. He's a lawyer from Pennsylvania that's gotten brought into this problem to try to help out what's going on over there. But it's getting worse with every effort by the administration to dodge the requirements of the statute that define how US Attorneys can get get appointed and approved. But we'll see. It's not getting any better.

[Allison Gill]

And like you said, they're running out of lawyers because everyone's leaving, quitting, being fired. So how does the DOJ replace all these attorneys? Well, we've already seen a Twitter post asking lawyers to apply, which is unusual because DOJ usually is inundated with applications for these coveted positions. But now, much like the FBI and ICE lowering their standards, Department of Justice is doing the same thing. And we'll tell you what they're doing right after this. Quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back.

[Frances Collier]

Hi, I'm Frances Collier.

[Angela V. Shelton]

And I'm Angela V. Shelton.

[Frances Collier]

And we're Frangela. You know what you need in your life?

[Angela V. Shelton]

The Final Word podcast.

[Frances Collier]

Yes, you do. That's right.

[Angela V. Shelton]

It is the final word on all things political and pop cultural, where we

[Frances Collier]

make real news, real funny, where we

[Angela V. Shelton]

inspire you so you can resist.

[Frances Collier]

Subscribe and get a new episode of the Final Word podcast each week. It's the news we think you need to hear.

[Allison Gill]

That's right.

[Angela V. Shelton]

We think you need to hear it.

[Allison Gill]

Okay. Yeah.

[Frances Collier]

It's what we say.

[Andy McCabe]

So.

[Angela V. Shelton]

That's right. And because all we do is give. Every Thursday, you can listen to our hysterical podcast, Idiot of the Week.

[Frances Collier]

We round up the stupid. Because you know what? Somebody has to.

[Allison Gill]

Okay. All we do is give.

[Andy McCabe]

Welcome back. Okay, Our next story comes from Bloomberg Law. The Justice Department has waived a policy requiring newly hired federal prosecutors to possess at least one year of experience practicing law. So let me back up because this is stunning. DOJ used to have a policy that required that you had one uno year experience practicing law doing something. Trust in estates. Who knows? Writing wills for you? Who knows? You had to have done that for at least a year before you could be an assistant U.S. attorney, a full, fully fledged federal prosecutor. And they have now waived that requirement as U.S. attorneys offices struggle to find qualified replacements following mass departures. Holy cow. Many offices have previously adopted their own rules mandating at least three years of legal practice rather than the nationwide baseline threshold of one year. But the reduced standards of this month were implemented in federal districts such as Minnesota and Southern Florida that have experienced significant attrition to put new prosecutors to work. Straight out of law school, baby. Right out of contracts class. Bam. You're putting people in jail for life.

[Allison Gill]

Wow. This move was confirmed by two people familiar and recently in newly posted online vacancy announcements in a handful of offices. In a March 13 message with the subject line Suspension of Attorney One Year Experience Requirement, DOJ Headquarters informed U.S. attorney's Offices that the department's lawyer recruitment office now permits them to exclude the one year minimum when advertising vacancies. The memo reviewed by what's next? You don't need to be a lawyer, maybe. The memo reviewed by Bloomberg Law goes on to state this suspension is in effect until February 28, 2027, and was implemented due to an exigent hiring need for attorneys across the department.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I bet there is. There are now public postings for Assistant U.S. attorney openings in Minnesota, South Florida, Montana, Alaska and Louisian that list a law degree and an active state bar membership as required qualifications. They don't mention a minimum period of service, while other U.S. attorney's offices still mandate at least one or three years out of law school. The policy shift comes as federal prosecuting offices across the US have faced challenges meeting court deadlines in immigration proceedings and as judges have increasingly criticized the quality of DOJ's attorney's legal work while Stand by for more of those criticisms because the one year rook, the no year rookies are less are unlikely to bring up the quality standard there.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, this is not going to help that. The department has previously exempted applicants from a one year experience rule if they were hired through the attorney General's honors program, which is an entry level talent pipeline for elite new lawyers or as uncompensated special assistant U.S. attorney general attorneys. But the March policy revision has a potentially much further reach. As current and former DOJ supervisors have said they're observing a sharp decline in the volume of resumes they're reviewing in recent months for what have long been highly coveted positions. Sharp decline in people applying to be Assistant U.S. attorneys. Wow.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. Yeah, for sure. The Minnesota vacancy that excludes a legal service requirement is for the office's civil division, which is among the many U.S. attorneys Civil Unit units inundated by the recent surge in habeas petitions from detained immigrants who've been denied bond hearings. A federal judge held one of the Minnesota office's attorneys in civil contempt last month over his handling of one such case. As judges in other districts are increasingly contemplating DOJ attorney discipline.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, that's Minnesota. In the Miami based South Florida district, u. S Attorney Jason Redding Quinones has advanced Trump aligned initiatives such as grand jury investigations into those involved in past cases against the president. The Trump justice department has tried other ways to Backfill short staffed U.S. attorneys offices, such as recruiting emergency jump teams that transfer prosecutors to nearby districts for short term surges and bolstering the number of military lawyers taking details as line prosecutors. Wow. Emergency jump teams. They're doing this with the DoD civilian employees too, Asking if they want to, to serve a stint in ICE or, you know, whatever, voluntarily. Right? Emergency jump teams.

[Andy McCabe]

The idea that you could be maybe toiling away in the bowels of the Pentagon for a couple of years reviewing, like DOJ, I'm sorry, DoD procurement contracts, and simply raising your hand puts you on the front line in a courtroom arguing for the continued detention of some human being from someplace else. I mean, it's, it's absolutely crazy to me, but this is where we are and I don't think we should be surprised by it at all. This is what happens when a department is just in chaos and kind of free fall, right? You have, you have people who are leaving for principled reasons because they don't agree with the things that they're being asked to do. You have people leaving probably for just fear, like they're afraid of getting caught up in something and, you know, some political drama that then follows them around for the rest of their career. It makes it hard to find employment or what have you. It's just, or the workload is, isn't. You know, we've seen a couple of these cases where there was that case where the female attorney in Minnesota just like, I can't stand this job is terrible. I, I quit right here.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. Or the other guy who's like, just hope. Oh, she said hold me in contempt so I can get some sleep.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

[Allison Gill]

So this is, he's running for Congress now.

[Andy McCabe]

Oh, no way. So my point is this is not a well led place right now. You know, put the political part of it aside. It's a department in chaos and that is not a good sign for the home team, meaning all of us. All of us who depend on DOJ to do their job well, to uphold the constitution, to bring strong prosecutions against people who do bad things, put those people in jail or get them convicted of crimes. Like all these things start to fall apart. And you know, I'm just afraid like we can count the number of people who've quit to the best of our ability. We can now with the help of people like Judge Boasberg, we can count the number of no true bills that are happening. We can't count the lack the, the, the erosion of competence. We can't count how many cases they didn't bring because they didn't have enough people. How many cases drug dealers or child sex traffickers or whoever didn't get sentenced or sent to jail because, you know, the unit or the division or the, or the U.S. attorney's office is running on a one quarter staff or something. So yeah, it's really, this is a serious concern. I think everybody should be kind of focused on.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, agreed. And you know, that might be by design if you want to dismantle the government and dismantle the Department of Justice and undermine its integrity, drain the reservoir of trust. Trust, so to speak. That's one way to do it. But, but meanwhile the people in the Department of Justice are drowning. You know, they're.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah.

[Allison Gill]

Barely treading water at this point, trying to keep up with the number of cases and, and you know, maybe, maybe these. What are they called? Jump emergency jump teams will, will help lawyers with jump streets. Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Square back square. You know, briefcases jumping out of planes of parachutes par way in. Good lord.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Anyway, all right, we got a, a few more quick stories followed by, of course, listener questions coming right up after this last break. So stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. All right. Lightning, lightning. Round time. I can't even say that Attorney General Pam Bondi held a briefing with the House Oversight Committee this in the Epstein files saga. But Democrats walked out after Bondi insinuated that, that the briefing satisfied the deposition subpoena she had received from the committee. She was scheduled to be deposed on April 14 about her failure to comply with the Epstein files transparency Act. And I have to say, AG when I first saw this story I thought, you know, maybe this is a little bit of an overreaction by the Democrats. But sure enough, on Friday day it's being reported that all of a sudden committee chairman Comer is now talking to the few Republicans who voted for the subpoena and trying to convince them that maybe they should pull that back. So that's exactly, exactly what the Democrats were concerned about here. That seems to be what's happening.

[Allison Gill]

Right. And the walkout happened pursuant to Representative Summer Lee trying to hold Pam Body to account saying, are you trying to tell us that this satisfies your subpoena for deposition that's going to occur on April 14th. And Jim Comer accused her of bitching about it. And the Democrats are like that's it. And they, they left and help press conferences pretty much immediately after. But yeah, I'm sure we'll see a letter from Pam Bondi saying this should satisfy the requirement for the subpoena. Please withdraw it and we'll see if Comer's able to talk. The other Republicans in the committee from Take five of them voted for. For her to do this. Yeah, for her to be deposed. We'll see if they change their mind. I don't know. There's a couple on there who, who are pretty adamant about this, but we'll see. Next up from NBC, former FBI director Jim Comey has been subpoenaed in connection with that wide ranging investigation being run by a Trump appointed federal prosecutor in Florida, Quinones. The probe, which focuses on an earlier investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and other prosecutions related to President Donald Trump, like I said, being led by Jason A. Red and Quinones, the U. S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida. The sprawling probe has been dubbed a grand conspiracy investigation by Trump allies. So that's what's going on in this case. I know you can't talk about it because you've been subpoenaed in this case, but there's been a ton 130 subpoenas have been sent out in connection with that investigation and federal prosecutors have wide discretion when it comes to subpoenas, which can seek their records or testimony. But like we talked about earlier, if you've got somebody like Judge Boasberg sitting atop the federal grand jury, it can quash these kinds of subpoenas. But here you've got Eileen Cannon. Federal grand jury subpoenas are typically issued by federal prosecutors without judicial oversight or direct involvement of federal grand jurors. While the subpoenas are issued under court authority, it's only when a recipient of a subpoena files a motion to quash, as the Federal Reserve did Jerome Powell, that a judge reviews the matter. So that's where we are with this right now.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I, I mean, again, I can't really comment on this one because of my own involvement in this. But. Or the fact that I've received a subpoena. Two subpoenas. Now. Now. But I will.

[Allison Gill]

You're one of only 130 people in the country. That's a. I know.

[Andy McCabe]

I feel so special.

[Allison Gill]

Special.

[Andy McCabe]

I will say that my attorney.

[Allison Gill]

It's an honor to be nominated.

[Andy McCabe]

My attorney did provide a, quote that's been shown up in a bunch of media stories this week. He referred to this whole thing as a vendetta. Searching for a crime.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

So sounds. I think that's where we are. Okay. Okay. So from the Times, two former FBI agents fired last year for having worked on an investigation into President Trump's attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. These two agents accused senior leaders at the Bureau and the Justice Department for targeting them for, quote, political retribution in a lawsuit filed on Thursday. In their suit, the agents claimed that the FBI director, Cash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi had retaliated against them for being, quote, politically disloyal to President Trump even though they had worked on the election interference case known as Arctic Frost only briefly and in largely administrative roles.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. The lawsuit accuses Patel in particular of going back on the vow he made under oath during a Senate confirmation hearing last January not to fire any agents solely based on the cases that may. That they may have worked on. And it noted that Ms. Bond had been threatening as early as March 2025 to fire agents who had worked on Trump related cases. Their lawsuit also claims Chuck Grassley, senator from Iowa, powerful Republican, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had worked in coordination with Patel and Trump to target and disparage FBI personnel invol involved with Arctic Frost. So there we go. The another lawsuit for. For wrongful termination for political reasons. Mine. I, I filed mine. My first complaint in 2019. And we still don't have a trial date.

[Andy McCabe]

Oh, God, Poor you. That's terrible. That's terrible. For these folks, I say, go get them. Good for you. Stand up. Stand up for yourself. Don't, don't just slink away. It is worth it. And for Senator Chuck Grassley, who's been accused of, quote, apparent coordination. I saw some of that apparent coordination once. 1 times. 1 times, long times ago. I was told to go to the White House and go into the Oval Office and talk to the dude who was the president then, who's the same guy who's the president now. And it was around the time they were kind of dangling the job, the permanent job of FBI director, which I knew was really not a thing, but, you know, you get told to go to the Oval Office. You go. So I was sitting there in a little chair right outside the open door to the Oval Office, and he was screaming at a bunch of people who were in there. And then they left. And he got a phone call right before this quote, unquote interview of, you know, my job interview for the director's job. And I heard his secretary, I guess it was Hope Hicks who was sitting there. I don't know if that's official her. Her official job title or not. She just kind of like put the person on the caller on hold and then yelled through the door at the president, chalk Grassley online four for you or whatever, some phone line. And so I was like, oh, man. Man, I don't think I'm going to get this job now. Chuck Grass calling him. So sure enough, they have a little chat, he hangs up, and then they send me in. And, you know, I had surmised all this because I'm an investigator. I'm capable of that sort of, you know, serious thought work. Yeah. But if there was ever any doubt, as soon as I sat down, Trump looked at me and said, that was Chuck Grassley on the phone. Boy, he doesn't like you at all. And I just said, yeah, I'm well aware of that. Oh, it's like, geez, you guys can't keep a conspiracy, can you? Jesus. It's supposed to be quiet about those things. Anyway. Good old good times.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. Listener questions. It's time for listener questions. Hey, everybody, if you have a question, there's a link in the show notes. You can click on that to submit your question to us. What do we have this week, Andy? I think we've got time for one or two.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay, so we have a few. I want to say that the names for the. For the new segment, which we are just charging forward on here, the names keep pouring in, and I know that at some point I'll have to stop this and we'll have to pick one, but I just like reading them every week, so just kind of letting it fly. A few of the highlights from this week were hit me in the head with a bat. All in one word. So it's really. You gotta see how it looks. So if everybody playing at home, just open up your computer, your phone or something, and type in in capital H I T M E I N T H E H E A D W I T H A B A T. And I think you really get the sense of how cool it is. All right.

[Allison Gill]

It's a good name. This is for the.

[Andy McCabe]

The blues, the DOJ Failures segment of the show. Just essentially the whole show with a bat.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. Okay. Pam's Pernicious Posse, which is interesting, could get you into some trouble there. But anyway, how about this one? One IG Noble Pursuits.

[Allison Gill]

Okay.

[Andy McCabe]

IG no Bill Pursuits. Get it?

[Allison Gill]

I get it. Ignobill Pursuits.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. Yeah. It's got a real dad humor to it, which is probably why I think it's funny. And then. And then the last one I want to mention because there's a number of suggestions along this play on our name here. Justice Fried. They should have gone with Unjustice. Fried. I don't know. Anyway, keep them coming. We love it. It's great, and creativity is awesome. All right, so first, actual.

[Allison Gill]

Hit me in the head with a bat. All one word.

[Andy McCabe]

I know, right? All. All in one word. It might become my password to every account I have.

[Allison Gill]

It looks like a password.

[Andy McCabe]

No, it won't. Don't try to hack into my bank. It's not. It's not. Hit me in the head with the bat. Okay, first question comes to us from someone who did not share their name, and they said, can Cash Patel be investigated or sued for firing people specialized in bad actors from Iran if we do have an attack within the US or just in general for his complete ignorance and stupidity, not to mention lack of work ethic?

[Allison Gill]

Nope.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. As much as I love the idea no, the answer is no. He can't be. Because, you know, all firing.

[Allison Gill]

Even if you make really dumb decisions as part of your official duties, it's still an official duty.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. Exactly right. And, you know, there is a remedy for making really stupid decisions, and it's getting the job taken away from you. So that would be one way to hold him accountable. But I really doubt that that's going to happen. So, yeah, no, no lawsuit about that right now. So sorry about that. Anonymous. But that's where we stand on that. So should we go one more quick one before it's all over?

[Allison Gill]

Sure.

[Andy McCabe]

All right, here we go. This comes from Jerry J. She says, I am so thankful for you both, for your insight and service to our country. It seriously allows me to feel that there is some hope. I'm glad that's the case. Jerry. She says, do you think that Trump and his family have doubled down on the giant by creating the Iran war and further aggressions as a way to profit his sons are now producing drones for the Defense Department with no bid, with a no bid contract. Isn't this illegal? And what can be done? How many other atrocities are they committing with false pretenses? It's all for the money. Well, that's a, a great question and I, I share your skepticism about the way that Trump's family members have been really just capitalizing enormously on, on things that are dependent upon decisions that come out of the White House. And this used to be something that we were very concerned with in this country. And it's kind of a form of self dealing and nepotism. It's something that politicians tried to avoid. Republicans, you'll remember in the last administration, got really exercised about Hunter Biden going and marketing himself around the world to different places to, to try to make business deals based on his status as the son of the president and, but apparently not, not so concerned about any of those things. Now, any of those same people we're not hearing about, like Don Jr's laptop showing up at a laptop repair shop somewhere in Delaware. So is it illegal? That would depend upon like the specifics of one instance of this. So I can't really say, you know, in general, it's hard to say whether something's legal or illegal. You need the specifics. But what I will tell you is that the simple fact that they are doing it undermines confidence in the decisions that are being made. And that is why we don't, that's why politicians, typically, they don't allow or they discourage their family members from doing things like this. You don't want to create the impression of self dealing and prophetizing, but that is gone. This administration does not care about that. And so as a result, many, many, many people have the same sorts of questions that you have, Jerry. And that is just, I think, a really sad, you know, sign of where we are right now in terms of Our mistrust of government.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, agreed. We have one more question come in from somebody who listens to us, but I don't think really likes us very much. But, you know, hey, we. We want to take all kinds of questions from people who click on that link in the show notes. This person says, call me Mark. And he says, you probably won't choose this question because it's not fawning over you, but here goes. I would love to hear Andy's explanation of the predicate for an FBI investigation of Trump related to Russian collusion, relying primarily on the debunked Steele dossier as seasoned professionals. Did you and the FBI's 7th Floor believe the dossier was legitimate? How can your side think everything during the Biden administration is sacrosanct and everything Trump is illegal and worthy of prosecution. That's how it reads. So I think what he means is everything that Trump does is illegal and worthy of prosecution. Now, Andy, when I first had you on the Mueller She Wrote podcast, I'm assuming, Mark, this gentleman did not listen to the Mueller She Wrote podcast.

[Andy McCabe]

That's a fair assumption.

[Allison Gill]

I asked you about what it means. What. What sort of standard you have to meet in order to justify opening an investigation. The predicate, Right, Yes. And what that predicate was for opening Hurricane. Right. What was a Crossfire hurricane?

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah.

[Allison Gill]

Which was the investigation. And from my understanding, it had nothing to do with the Steele dossier. It was that an Australian diplomat named Alexander Downer, who had had overheard, I think it was Papadopoulos talking in a London pub, saying that he's got dirt in the form of emails from Russia on Hillary Clinton that he wanted to share. Share with the Trump administration in that particular campaign. And that I think, in June. I think it was before the dossier even came in, but I'm not sure. Can you refresh us to answer Mark's question here about what the minimum predicate is to open an investigation and how it was met in Crossfire Hurricane?

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, absolutely, I can. And you will remember all these details. You will remember them better than call me Mark, I'm quite sure. But here we go. So, yes, you're right. The predicate for an investigation is information that a. That a federal crime may have been committed or information that a threat to national security might exist. So that's what gets you a full investigation open in this case. We knew a couple of things in July. We knew. Knew that the Russians hacked into democratic systems and stole a ton of material, emails, documents, things like that from the DNC and that they had done that and released some of those materials on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. When that happened, the. The friendly foreign diplomat who you referenced saw what happened. The world saw it. It was in the news. And he then reached out and said, this is really troubling to me because months earlier in May, he personally had been approached by a member of the campaign, George Papadopoulos. They met in a pub, and Papadopoulos told him essentially what you said, that the Russians approached us. They offered to help the campaign by providing emails from Hillary Clinton that they had stolen from Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. So we knew that the Russians hacked into these systems illegally. That's a federal crime. We also then knew, based on what the story that we heard from this friendly foreign diplomat, that they had offered to do exactly what we knew they did to the. They offered to help the campaign in that way. So we opened Crossfire on that predication, that the Russians were trying to meddle with the campaign by helping the Trump campaign. And we opened four cases. No, we didn't even have the dossier. When we opened the case, it was floating around in the New York City field office. Nobody was really doing anything with it. It finally made its way to headquarters weeks after we'd opened Crossfire Hurricane. So the dossier had nothing to do with the opening of the case. That makes, I think, the 10,000th time I've said that, but I'll. I'll be saying it on my grave now, much later.

[Allison Gill]

The dossier was. Was used as part of a FISA application to open an investigation or continue an investigation into Carter Page. Not Donald Trump. Yeah. Who had left the Trump campaign at the time because there was information in the Steele dossier that had to do with him and his visits to Russia and a Russian college. I believe that's exactly right. And the inspector general looked into that and decided that, you know, because the dossier was raw intelligence and hadn't been confirmed or denied, that it probably shouldn't have been part of the FISA warrant, but that Rod Rosenstein, who Trump appointed, a Republican, signed that FISA application that it would have gone through, and he would have signed it without the Steele dossier being part of it. But that in future, make these. Here are 17 recommendations on what to do to change the FISA warrant application. That wasn't Donald Trump.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. So.

[Allison Gill]

And Papadopoulos plead guilty.

[Andy McCabe]

He certainly did. Yeah. So when we opened Crossfire without the dossier, there were four people who were under investigation. One was Papadopoulos, because he was the guy that said that they had gotten help from the Russians. One was Carter Page because he was already under investigation in New York for interacting with Russian spies. So he was pretty likely a decent target at the time. One was Mike Flynn, for reasons we all know. And the last was Paul Manafort, who Manafort pled guilty. Flynn ultimately pled guilty. Papadopoulos pled guilty. Carter Page was not prosecuted. Now, as you said, like, of the four, only the FISA was only used in the Carter Page case. And to be absolutely fair, there were mistakes in that FISA that should not have happened, and those were pointed out by the IG as well.

[Allison Gill]

But that was an investigation into Carter Page, not Donald Trump or his campaign, correct?

[Andy McCabe]

That's correct. That was an investigation into Carter Page. So that was pretty much it. There was no case, no individual case on Donald Trump at that time, not until he fired Jim Comey on May 9th. And I oversaw the opening of that case, and I supported that. And we opened that case because. Not because of the dossier, didn't have anything to do with anything in the dossier. It only had to do with Donald. What Donald Trump had said and done in the lead up to the opening of that case, he said repeatedly, did not like the fact that we were investigating Russia, asked us to stop investigating Russia. When we didn't stop investigating Russia, he fired the director of the FBI. Then he told the media that he fired the FBI because of the Russia investigation. Then he told the Russians that he fired the director because of the Russia investigation. So with all that, we had to say, gee, is the president trying to obstruct a lawful and valid and fully predicated investigation? The answer was very possibly. So there you go. That's that predication to open a case against Donald Trump for. For trying to shut down that case. And also, if the president's trying to get us to stop investigating Russia, why would that be? Feels like there's maybe a national security threat there as well. Well, so with that joint predication, we opened an individual case on Donald Trump. And there you go. Then it all went to the Mueller report or to the Mueller team.

[Allison Gill]

And how many concluded that those actions against Jim Comey met the three elements of obstruction of justice? Yes. And however, stopped short of saying that Donald Trump obstructed justice because you can indict a sitting president. And if you can indict a sitting president, you can't make accusations against him because it violates his constitutional right to face his accuser in court, which left the door open for Bill Barr. To come in and say nobody obstructed any justice, which means the case could never be brought in future.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Right. So I guess. I guess the answer for call me, Call me, Mark. Okay, Mark, we did choose the question. We don't require fawning, although we appreciate it. So, yeah, that's what actually happened. I know that's probably not consistent with the version of the Russia hoax story that you've probably heard many times, but. Yeah, dig a little deeper, Mark. And you know, one way of doing that is. Which you did. So we. We have answered your question. There you go. Every customer.

[Allison Gill]

Check out the Mueller She Wrote podcast. It was a episode with Andy McCabe called, I think it was called Mueller Goes to Paper. And it was in 2019 and we talked about. No, actually it was the one I interviewed you about. The threat. Your book.

[Andy McCabe]

Yep.

[Allison Gill]

Right. And I asked you about the. The predicate to open that and what's required. So.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

Yep. No dossier used at all in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. I hope that answers your question. Thanks for writing in. Thanks for listening. I mean, even if you don't like, you know, what we have to say, I appreciate you taking the time to listen and thanks to everybody else as well. We apprec you and please continue to send in your questions. I'm sure we'll have a Questions Nothing but Questions episode coming up soon because we keep getting so many questions. So thanks for sticking around with us. There was a lot of news to cover this week, so it was a long show, so we appreciate you.

[Andy McCabe]

Yes, absolutely. Always great to kind of round this stuff up. And we will be here next week to do the exact same thing again. So stay tuned.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, we'll see you then. Thanks so much. I'm Allison.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe.

[Allison 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 Reader at Moxie Design Studios. The theme music for Unjustified is written and performed by Ben Folds and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator owned independent podcasts dedicated to news, politics and justice. For more information, please visit mswmedia.com.