McCabe Subpoenaed

Summary

UnJustified: “McCabe Subpoenaed” (Nov 16, 2025)

Host: Allison Gill (MSW Media)
Guest/Co-Host: Andrew McCabe, Former Deputy Director of the FBI

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on unprecedented legal maneuvers and assaults on civil liberties unfolding under the Trump-aligned Department of Justice. The big headlines: Andrew McCabe himself has been subpoenaed as part of a renewed probe into the 2016 Russia investigation; the legality of key Trump-appointed prosecutors is under serious judicial scrutiny; sweeping, if largely symbolic, pardons have been issued for Trump allies implicated in election interference; and Congress is sneaking in new privileges for Senators to sue the government if their phone records are subpoenaed. The hosts dissect the chilling implications for the rule of law and democratic norms, drawing on exclusive scoops and inside knowledge.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. McCabe Subpoenaed in Renewed Russia Probe

• [00:41-03:09]

  • The Department of Justice under Trump is running a new investigation—now in the Southern District of Florida—into the 2016 Russian intelligence assessment.
  • Andy McCabe received a subpoena, joining a host of other intelligence officials (James Clapper, Pete Strzok, Lisa Page, John Brennan, etc.).
  • McCabe will not comment on the substance of the subpoena per legal advice:

    “If you see me in the grocery store, don’t ask me about this one...” —Andy McCabe [02:16]

• [03:09-09:30]

  • Allison Gill reads details from New York Times reporting, exposing right wing narratives tying Mar-a-Lago search to supposed “deep state” conspiracies, and highlights the lack of evidence behind these conspiracy theories.
  • The subpoenas themselves do not specify any crimes/statutes under investigation—an unusual and troubling omission.
  • Previous investigations (IG, Durham) found no criminal misconduct; the statute of limitations appears expired, prompting conspiracy theorists to reach for far-fetched "extensions."
  • Burn bag documents from the FBI are being bizarrely cited by Trump supporters as proof of a coverup in the Russia case.

• Quote:

  “This group of people… they just won’t let it go. It’s like one of their favorite things ever. It’s evergreen for some people.” —Andy McCabe [01:38]

• [09:30-11:42]

  • Allison Gill notes she broke the news of McCabe’s subpoena before mainstream media and expects to be under-credited.
  • Discussion of possible appeals process for McCabe and the irony that discovery could let him access John Durham’s grand jury materials.

---

2. Legal Chaos in the Comey and Letitia James Cases

• [13:49-20:51]

  • Federal Judge Cameron Curie, skeptical of Trump-appointee Lindsey Halligan’s legal standing, is reviewing whether Halligan was lawfully appointed.

  • Major irregularities:

    • Part of the grand jury transcripts are missing—no court reporter in the room during key minutes when the indictment was returned.
    • Halligan, inexperienced, was alone presenting to the grand jury during crucial moments.
    • Repeated “dog ate my homework” excuses from DOJ for failing to produce required grand jury records.
    • Judge Curie finds it impossible to verify if the Attorney General retroactively approving Halligan's actions actually reviewed all facts, given the absence of transcript.

  • Memorable Quote:

    “It’s not a podcast, for gosh sakes. It’s the grand jury. You can’t just stop recording and fix the cough or the sneeze. You gotta keep going.” —Andy McCabe [21:07]

  • Defense argues that without these records, there can be no presumption of regularity, undermining the legitimacy of indictments.

---

3. Appointing Prosecutors and Implications for DOJ Authority

• [22:49-24:37]

  • DOJ attorney Henry Whitaker frames Halligan’s appointment problems as "paperwork errors," relying on AG Pam Bondi's retroactive approval.
  • Judge Curie challenges whether Bondi could honestly review missing grand jury proceedings.
  • This retroactive empowerment of prosecutors draws disturbing hypotheticals—could private citizens now indict adversaries, then seek retroactive DOJ approval?

• Jack Smith Appointment Parallels:

  • Government’s attempt to distinguish Halligan’s case from Jack Smith’s fast-tracks a broader debate about the legitimacy of special prosecutors under AG authority—a precedent with massive consequences (Jack Smith was appointed under the same statutes now being debated).

---

4. Prosecution Arguments and Defense Responses in Comey Case

• [24:39-27:08]
  • DOJ’s case hinges on communications between Comey and Dan Richmond (who had left the FBI)—a questionable foundation.
  • DOJ tries to import debunked Russian intelligence (“the Clinton plan”) to buttress charges—rejected in prior proceedings.
  • DOJ opposes requests for bill of particulars or grand jury disclosure, refusing to clarify specifics of their charges.
  • Notable legal disconnects and procedural ironies emerge—leading Andy McCabe to remark:

    “How in the world do you argue against that? … The indictment was the vaguest thing I’ve ever seen on its face, had no facts in it, and they’re going to stand there… and say we don’t have to give them any facts?” [26:51]

---

5. Pardons for 2020 False Electors: A Symbolic But Troubling Move

• [28:10-31:23]
  • Ed Martin (Trump’s “whackadag paw”) announced pardons via Twitter for everyone accused in the 2020 false elector scheme—including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, etc.
  • Critical Context:
    • These pardons are legally meaningless as no one’s been federally convicted, and they do not touch state charges.
    • Gill and McCabe view the pardons as a signal: “If you break the law to help him steal an election, he’ll pardon you.”
  • Late-breaking: Nevada’s Supreme Court revives state charges against fake electors.

---

6. Congressional Self-Dealing: Special Rights for Senators

• [32:44-38:59]
  • Congressional spending bill includes a secretive provision: any senator whose data is subpoenaed without notice can sue the government for $500,000 per incident.
  • This privilege would retroactively benefit eight GOP senators whose phone records were swept by Jack Smith (Lindsey Graham, Marsha Blackburn, Josh Hawley, etc.).
  • This right does not exist for regular citizens and would strip traditional legal immunity protections from the government.
  • Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) calls out the hypocrisy:

    “[It’s] an unacceptable giveaway of your tax dollars to Republican senators.” [38:59]

  • McCabe’s take:

    “Once again, our ruling class is walking away with creating for themselves another… legal right and a way to use your money to pay them in a way that you could not ever do as a citizen of this country.” [34:25]

---

7. Kash Patel’s Outlandish Tenure as FBI Director

• [40:20-51:30]
  • WSJ reporting reveals new details:
    • Patel fired dozens of agents for insufficient loyalty, wore hoodies and hunting vests, and used FBI private jets for personal trips (e.g., to see his girlfriend sing at wrestling events).
    • McCabe provides background: Directors are required by law to fly government planes for security, but past directors minimized personal use and reimbursed for commercial fare.
    • Patel “has taken only about a dozen personal trips” per Bureau statement—flight logs contest this, putting the number closer to 20.
    • Firings targeted agents involved in investigations disfavored by Trump, including those related to 2020 election interference and BLM protests.
  • McCabe delivers biting commentary:

    “I think you need to pay a reasonable amount for the travel that you’re doing. But apparently he’s doing absolutely nothing.” [43:14]

---

8. Capstone: Epstein Files, Political Classification, and Listener Q&A

• [53:08-58:27]
  • Trump moves to open a new Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell investigation—likely a tactic to block public release of the Epstein files, having just recently closed the same type of probe.
  • Listener Q: “Can Trump classify Epstein files to block release after a discharge petition?”
    • McCabe: Yes, presidents can technically classify almost anything but it’s a deeply political act that would be seen for what it is.
    • Allison Gill: “Now he has an excuse to veto it… he can say there’s an ongoing investigation.” [57:18]
  • Correction segment: Not all classified information is national defense information (key nuance for Espionage Act cases).
    • McCabe: “It’s hard sometimes, in the abstract sense, to imagine a document that’s been classified but is not related to the national defense… but [the listener is] right.” [60:32]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On the surreal recurrence of investigation:

  “It’s like 2016 all over again… They just won’t let it go. It’s Evergreen for some people.” —Andy McCabe [01:38]

• On missing grand jury records:

  “This is the classic blame the dog… ‘my dog ate the homework’ sort of thing.” —Andy McCabe [17:27]

• On DOJ’s case against Comey:

  “How in the world do you argue against that? … The indictment was the vaguest thing I’ve ever seen on its face, had no facts in it, and they’re going to stand there… and say we don’t have to give them any facts?” —Andy McCabe [26:51]

• Calling out Congressional privilege:

  “Once again, our ruling class is walking away with creating for themselves another… legal right and a way to use your money to pay them in a way that you could not ever do as a citizen of this country.” —Andy McCabe [34:25]

• On Kash Patel’s stewardship:

  “Nine plus seven is 12. New FBI math…” —Allison Gill & Andy McCabe [46:16]

• Listener question on document classification:

  “Would the Epstein files qualify for some sort of classification designation if a normal original classification authority was doing it? No… The President has wide latitude.” —Andy McCabe [54:23]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:41] – McCabe subpoenaed, Russia probe revived
• [03:09] – NYT reporting, no evidence for “deep state” conspiracies
• [13:49] – Judge Curie examines Halligan appointment, missing grand jury transcripts
• [22:49] – DOJ retroactively ratifies appointment, Judge Curie skeptical
• [28:10] – Trump “pardons” fake electors
• [32:44] – Senators get special rights to sue government over legal subpoenas
• [40:20] – Kash Patel’s firing spree and abuse of FBI travel
• [53:08] – Epstein files as political leverage, listener questions
• [58:27] – Correction: Classified info ≠ always national defense information

---

Tone & Language

• Conversational, irreverent, but deeply informed; plenty of gallows humor and incredulity at legal absurdities.
• The hosts maintain a critical, at times biting tone about the current state of DOJ, offering expert context and inside perspective.
• Frequent banter and self-aware asides, especially as they see the dangers and ironies inherent in these legal proceedings.

---

Summary Takeaway

This episode underscores a period of aggressive politicization of the Justice Department, where the rule of law is bent to serve Trump’s narratives and allies. Through inside scoops, meticulous legal unpicking, and darkly comic commentary, Gill and McCabe chart the corrosion of institutional norms: dubious prosecutions, retroactive authority, performative pardons, and special privileges for the ruling class—each warning of deepening threats to American democracy.

Transcript

[Allison Gill]

MSW Media.

[Andy McCabe]

The judge reviewing the legality of Lindsey Halligan's appointment in the Comey and James cases said that a chunk of the grand jury transcripts and recordings are missing.

[Allison Gill]

The Department of Justice whack a dagpaw Ed Martin announced pardons for all the co conspirators and electors in the 2020 fraudulent elector scheme.

[Andy McCabe]

The continuing resolution to fund the government includes a provision allowing the eight senators whose phone records were subpoenaed by Jack Smith to seek at least $500,000 in damages from the government and a criminal.

[Allison Gill]

Investigation into Russian intelligence community. Assessments from 2016 has resulted in over 30 subpoenas for records, including to Pete Strzok, John Brennan and yes, Andrew McCabe. This is Unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to UNJ. It's Sunday, November 16th, 2025. I'm Allison Gill. Hey, Andy, how's your day?

[Andy McCabe]

Hey, Allison. As you know, I am Andy McCabe, and I don't know, my day's gone.

[Allison Gill]

All right.

[Andy McCabe]

The week, the week's been a little rocky, but in some ways, but it also feels very familiar in other ways. As you mentioned in your intro just there, one of the big stories this week has been the investigation being run by now, I guess, the South District of Florida, the attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida, into something having to do with the work that we did in 2016. That's been in the news a lot because some people have received subpoenas in that investigation. And unfortunately, one of those people is me. So that's the part of this that feels very familiar. It's like 2016 all over again. 2017 and 2018-2019-2019-2020. It's just, you know, I'll say one thing for this group of people. They just really, they're really focused on this. They just won't let it go. It's like one of their favorite things ever. It's Evergreen for some people. And so here we are again, going down this road again. So, but because I've been subpoenaed in the investigation, Alison, you and I talked about this, but I wanted to let our audience know I now am not going to speak about this investigation on our podcast or really anywhere else. I'm not going to talk about it on CNN or any place else that I might show up. So if you see me in the grocery store, don't ask me about this one because it just would be, would be stupid for me to do that. So I'm going to take a very kind of typical line, listen to good advice and just not comment on this investigation, which is kind of unfortunate because I have a lot to say about it. But I will. I'm going to leave that up to you, though. I know that you will cover it well as I sit here and kind of hold my water, as it were.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, probably for the best. I did announce that you had received a subpoena earlier in the week when I was able to confirm that with you. That's probably going to start coming out more widely now. So look for that. I have not received a subpoena, just so everybody knows, even though I've hosted podcasts with you and Pete Struck and have interviewed multiple people who probably were hit with subpoenas this week. But I'm going to go ahead and do this reporting. And as much as I would love to ask you questions about your subpoena and what was in it, we're going to leave that up to other people who might want to talk about it. So let me just read some of this reporting to you. This is from Thrush, Foyer and Savage at the New York Times. Far right influencers have been hinting in recent weeks that they they finally found a venue, Miami and a federal prosecutor, Jason Redding Quinones, to pursue long promised charges of a grand conspiracy against Trump's adversaries. Their theory of the case still unsupported by evidence. A cabal of Democrats and deep state operatives, possibly led by former President Barack Obama, has worked to destroy Mr. Trump in a years long plot spanning the inquiry into his 2016 campaign to the charges he faced after leaving office. But that narrative, which has been promoted in general terms by Trump and taken root online, has emerged in a nascent but widening federal investigation. Last week, Mr. Redding Quinones, the Trump appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, issued more than two dozen subpoenas, including to officials who took part in the inquiry into ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. That's according to people with direct knowledge, among them James Clapper, Pete Strzok, Lisa Page, John Brennan, and as we can now report, Andy McCabe, the investigation in Florida appears to wonder what judge they're looking for anyway. The investigation in Florida appears to focus for now on January on a January 2017 intelligence community assessment about Russian interference in the 2016 election, particularly the role played by John Brennan, former CIA director, in drafting the document. The investigation started earlier this year after criminal referrals to the Justice Department by top Trump intelligence officials. It was assigned to David Metcalf, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania who was given special authority to scrutinize and possibly prosecute Mr. Brennan. That's according to four people familiar with the matter. Mr. Metcalfe. In Pennsylvania, there is a veteran prosecutor who held senior Justice Department positions during the first Trump administration. And he was given a relatively narrow mandate in his authorization, limited to examining Mr. Brennan's work on the intelligence assessment. In 2017, however, like many career professionals in the Department of Justice, he struggled to advance a case that was regarded as weak by current and former department officials. Actually, it was deemed unchargeable by former officials because they never charged it, even though they investigated it multiple times. Now, it's not clear if Metcalfe believed a prosecution of Brennan was viable, but he never got a chance to complete his work. This fall, senior Justice Department officials transferred that investigation to Mr. Redding Quinones. Some of the people who have reviewed the subpoenas said that the subpoenas did not mention specific crimes being investigated. And this is interesting just to break in here, and I know you can't comment, Andy, but you and I have covered multiple subpoenas over the many, many years, and usually they list search warrants and subpoenas, list statutes, Title 18, you know, US Code, section whatever for what they're investigating. But none of that appears. None, no crimes, no statutes appear on these subpoenas. Efforts to bring charges against Mr. Brennan or others involved in the Russia inquiry are almost certain to run into serious hurdles. Yeah. Two previous investigations, one by Justice Department Inspector General and the other by Special Counsel John Durham, have already scrutinized the actions of law enforcement and intelligence officials and found no evidence to support charges against high level officials like Mr. Brennan. The statute of limitations is also an issue. Conspiracy theorists have floated theories about how prosecutors could extend the statute of limitations. All this happened in 2017, that is eight years ago. But conspiracy theorists claim, with no evidence, that the August 2022 search of Mar A Lago, during which the FBI found reams of highly sensitive classified documents, is somehow connected to the Russia investigation. In their efforts to connect the Mar A Lago search to the Russia inquiry and other investigations into Trump, Trump aligned influencers and right wing media figures have seized on an internal FBI memo made public last week in the case of Mr. Comey. The document, dated from July, recorded the opening of an investigation into the discovery of Trump related records three months earlier inside room 9582 at the Bureau's Washington headquarters, a space designed for the storage of highly sensitive materials. The records found in so called burn Bags, and presumably intended for destruction include printouts of investigative records and at least one page of handwritten notes, including materials related to the Russia inquiry, Mr. Durham's investigation and the Mar A Lago search. So I guess documents next to each other connect the conspiracy, connect the search of Mar A Lago with the Russia investigation where they were next to each other in the burn bags. And I remember when Kash Patel was like, look at this, they're trying to destroy Russia evidence. It's like, no, that's just normal burn bag stuff. If you print out electronic documents, you get rid of them anyway. Pretty, pretty incredible stuff. And I'm sorry, my friend, that you are once again being dragged into this.

[Andy McCabe]

Well, thank you. I appreciate that and thank you for covering this. I think it's important that we do cover it. It's certainly relevant to our focus here and following the misadventures of this Justice Department. So we'll continue to do that. And I appreciate you carrying the load on this story. It is harder than I thought it would be to sit here and refrain comment, but I'm going to continue doing that. I will say, of course, you are the first person, really the only person that I have confirmed this to and I have received numerous, numerous inquiries from different people in the media and I've just kind of ignored all that. But yeah, you got it here first. And I'm glad that our, our listeners are going to be able to stay up to date on it.

[Allison Gill]

Well, 50 bucks that a bunch of mainstream media outlets put it out and don't mention the fact that I report.

[Andy McCabe]

I'm not betting you that. I don't want to lose 50 bucks. Come on. I know I'm going to need my 50 bucks.

[Allison Gill]

Maybe I should just start tagging them now in that Blue sky post I put out. There you go. Earlier this week. Just a heads up before you say exclusive.

[Andy McCabe]

Put it out there, put it out there. Stake your claim.

[Allison Gill]

Well, this will hold together, I'm sure, as well as the Comey case and the Letitia James case. And now Eric Swalwell has been referred to the Department of Justice by Bill Pulte for criminal mortgage fraud.

[Andy McCabe]

Oh, for God's sakes.

[Allison Gill]

I'm sure this case, I mean, it's going to be real hard when you have discovery from like perhaps certain aspects of Durham's report that we didn't get to see. So, my friend, I'm a little bit jealous because you actually, in discovery could get John Durham's grand jury materials or other reports and you might find out why? What crime Donald Trump committed in Italy to prompt Bill Barr to make John Durham a special counsel.

[Andy McCabe]

But again, you never know. You know inside every cloud is a silver lining inside every.

[Allison Gill]

99% of your job. I don't know, like, like 99 of your job. Only you get to know about it. That's, this is not for sharing anyway, everybody. We are going to talk more about these cases that are coming apart at the seams against Letitia James and Jim Comey. But we, we have to take a quick break. So stick around. We'll be right back. If you're looking at your phone bill and it's a real pain, start saying yes to saying no. Mint Mobile says no contracts, no monthly bills, no overages, no hidden fees and no BS. So make the switch to get premium wireless for $15 a month with easy activation, free shipping and coverage that just works. Keep your phone number, keep your phone, keep your contacts, and stop paying for nonsense everywhere. So thanks a bunch to Mint Mobile for sponsoring today's episode. Make the [e-mail] unjust Mint Mobile is a smart way to cut your wireless bill without cutting quality. Instead of paying inflated monthly charges or getting hit with hidden fees and surprise overages, you get premium wireless starting at just $15 a month. Every plan includes high speed data and unlimited talk and text on the nation's largest 5G network. So coverage is dependable and fast. You can bring your own phone, too. Keep your phone number, transfer all your contacts very easily. It's everything you need from wireless from a wireless provider. It's simple, it's affordable, and it's refreshingly honest. So say goodbye to overpriced wireless and hello to Mint Mobile. One of our show producers recently signed up with Mint Mobile using an old Android phone he had in a drawer. And within days, a SIM card arrived at his door and he followed the clear instructions. And now he's got a second phone line up and running for just $15 a month. He says the call quality and data speeds are noticeably better than his last carrier and he's so glad he made the switch. So if you're ready to say yes to saying no, make the [e-mail] unjust that's mintmobile.com unjust Upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month Limited time new customer offer for three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Andy McCabe]

Welcome back. Okay, let's talk about the latest in the case against Jim Comey and Letitia James. So this week, there was a hearing in the Eastern District of Virginia in front of a federal judge from South Carolina, Judge Cameron Curie. Judge Kerry was brought up to the EDVA to hear arguments about the appointment of Lindsey Halligan. Politico reports Judge Kerry expressed deep skepticism Thursday about whether a federal prosecutor handpicked by President Donald Trump to bring criminal cases against his political rivals was legally appointed to the roll. She said she'd issue a ruling by Thanksgiving.

[Allison Gill]

Deeply skeptical, Judge Kerry seemed to tip her hand in her first question. Andy Thursday asking if Comey's defense attorneys had seen the declination memo related to the case that alluded to news reports that career prosecutors in the United States Attorney's office prepared a detailed analysis of the potential charges and concluded they were too flimsy to pursue. Comey's lawyers revealed that they had not yet seen that declination memo, but hoped to obtain it during the discovery process before trial. Man, I hope we get some of this stuff before the case is decided.

[Andy McCabe]

That's going to paper in a real way. They knew what was happening and they wrote all that stuff down, sticking it to her.

[Allison Gill]

Man. Yeah. Now, Curry, one of two judges, by the way, who have reviewed the grand jury transcripts related to the indictments, revealed little about the grand jury proceedings, but said they confirmed that Ms. Halligan was there by herself without any other government attorneys in the room.

[Andy McCabe]

Oof. That strike two on this story. Okay. Curie seemed particularly concerned that a portion of the grand jury proceedings that led to to Comey's indictment was, quote, missing, leaving certain aspects of Halligan's interactions with the grand jury unreviewable. Curie said that it appeared at about 4:28pm on the day the indictment was returned in September. There was no court reporter in the room to transcribe the proceedings, leaving no record of the final minutes of the grand jury session. Last week, when we covered Comey's filing about alleged grand jury misconduct, we learned that Halligan kept the grand jury there until 6:40 47pm so when Politico says the final minutes, it appears they may be missing the final 140 minutes.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, it was only 18 minutes for Nixon.

[Andy McCabe]

Halligan's setting new, new records right and left. I mean, and, and the fact that she's in there by herself, first time ever in front of a grand jury, zero experience and no one to back her up. Not a witness, not another person who can say, no, she did this or she didn't do that. It's just a bad situation.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And, Andy, this is like the third time the judge has tried to pry these grand jury recordings and transcripts out of the hands of the Department of Justice. I mean, the first time is, you know, just when they were like, just give us the stuff and all they gave. They didn't. And then the judge was like, we need the grand jury materials. Because, you know, the DOJ was fighting having to hand over any. So then the second time, they handed over just the. The tainted FBI guys transcripts of his interview at the grand jury. And then the judge was like, look, I'm assessing whether or not Lindsey Halligan was appointed lawfully. I need all the other parts, too. I need Lindsey Halligan's presentation to the grand jury. And they're like, okay. And they hand it over, but it stops at 4:28pm like, how many times?

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, I mean, there's not a number of times that you're allowed to try to produce what the court has requested. It's one time is how it's normally supposed to work. And if you remember, last week's excuse was, oh, the transcription service screwed it up. Like, this is the classic blame the dog. You know, my dog ate the homework sort of thing.

[Allison Gill]

Well, now it appears the court Reporter left at 4:27pm yeah. The only thing I could think is that they were sent home for the day. But then after the no bill was returned. But then Lindsey Halligan kept everybody another couple hours and to not know what she told them, especially when Comey is alleging that maybe she kept them there until. Unless they returned a true bill without that having that on the record, that's, you know, makes everything. I mean, they can't defend the doj, can't defend themselves here.

[Andy McCabe]

No, no, that's absolutely right. They can't. I mean, there's no record to prove that her interactions were lawful and acceptable and standard, and she deserves no presumption of regularity. Right, Right.

[Allison Gill]

So this story goes on to say Justice Department attorney Henry Whitaker urged Judge Curie to treat questions about Halligan's appointment as mostly a paperwork error at most, and emphasized that Pam Bondi had reviewed the grand jury materials and agreed to retroactively ratify Halligan's actions, even if her initial appointment was deemed invalid. But the judge was like, oh, she reviewed the grand jury materials. The judge was like, there's a missing component of the grand jury transcript called into question. It calls into question the sufficiency of Pam Bondi's review. Quote, it became obvious to me that The Attorney General could not have reviewed those portions of the Transcript presented by Ms. Halligan. The judge also questioned why Bondi signed a statement saying she'd reviewed Halligan's actions before the grand jury when the transcripts of some of that presentation do not exist. She couldn't have reviewed them, said Judge Curry. I mean, unless you've got them and you're just not giving them to us.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

Like, maybe they took a break at 4:27 and the court reporter actually did come back, but they didn't hand over that last one hour and 40 minutes. I don't know what the truth is, and no one can know if the DOJ is acting like they don't exist.

[Andy McCabe]

Or maybe Halligan dismissed the transcriber. Right, Right. Get out of here. Like, kind of Trump style. I don't want the translator for my meeting with Putin.

[Allison Gill]

Right.

[Andy McCabe]

I don't want anyone taking notes. Like, I don't know. I'm totally speculating. And that may be unfair. But this is. This is why this is a problem. You can't know it's unreviewable. And it's not supposed to be unreviewable. Defendant who brings a motion like this has the right to have the judge consider what took place in that room. And that right is being denied because of whatever led to Halligan not having the records she's supposed to have for that grand jury presentation.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And you can't go off the record and do procedural stuff. Like, you can't just be like, all right, let's continue with trying to get a new true bill on these two counts off the record. Like, you can't.

[Andy McCabe]

It's not a podcast, for gosh sakes. It's the grand jury. You can't just stop recording and fix the cough or the sneeze. You got to keep going.

[Allison Gill]

Somebody interview this transcription person. Somebody find the court reporter. Their name is on it, and ask them what happened at the end of that. That's what I want to see. I want to see that court reporter in a chair raising their right hand and telling everybody in the court what happened at.

[Andy McCabe]

Not if they ever want to get another gig in the EDVA again.

[Allison Gill]

I guess. So I'll hire you. Could do a GoFundMe for you. All right.

[Andy McCabe]

The DOJ argued that Bondi had reviewed the, quote, material facts of Halligan's grand jury presentation, which showed that, quote, the grand jury made a decision based on the facts and the law. Close quote. Well, how could she have reviewed that if you don't actually have what she put in front of the grand jury because there's no record of it.

[Allison Gill]

I don't know.

[Andy McCabe]

I'm confused here. A Justice Department spokesperson suggested Curie's concerns about missing components of the transcript were unfounded. There is no missing time. That time period refers to when the jurors were deliberating behind closed doors, which would not be included in the transcription. This isn't a story. That's a pretty typical response for them. Attorneys for Comey and James said it's not possible for the Justice Department to retroactively empower a prosecutor who acted without legitimacy to secure an indictment. James's lawyer, Abby Lowell, said that such a ruling would mean that private citizens like Steve Bannon or Elon Musk could secure a grand jury indictment, only to have it blessed later by the Justice Department. To which Pam Bondi replied, yeah, sure, why not?

[Allison Gill]

Right? This is a head turning moment, by the way, because I'm in my back of my head, I'm like, well, what about Jack Smith's appointment? Yes, right. Right here, here and now. I deem him credibly appointed, like, right. But this, this came up. Whitaker said from the Justice Department said the Justice Department actually takes issue with one aspect of Judge Eileen Cannon's ruling last year tossing Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump on charges related to classified documents. At Mar a Lago. DOJ said Cannon went too far when she questioned the Attorney General's appointment power in a way that he said could undercut the authority of most of the lawyers working at DOJ headquarters. You think? Isn't Todd Blanche your boss? Didn't he argue in multiple motions, the judge.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay, I love that line. Whitaker said the Justice Department takes issue with one aspect of US History.

[Allison Gill]

That's the whole aspect.

[Andy McCabe]

We think what she did illegal, but we like the result. So we've been very careful in what we object to. We only object to the illegal part, but not the whole thing. Because the whole thing, the aspect we.

[Allison Gill]

Don'T like is how she came to her conclusion. The conclusion we love. So DOJ said, we do disagree with that. The issue could have relevance for Halligan's appointment since Bondi's recent order claims to retroactively appoint Halligan as a DOJ prosecutor under several alternative statutes if her interim U.S. attorney appointment is deemed invalid. And those statutes are the one that gave Merrick Garland the power to appoint Jack Smith.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, hate it when that happens.

[Allison Gill]

Oh, bummer. So some other things that happened in the Comey case. Department of justice filed its response to his motions for the literal truth. Bronston defense.

[Andy McCabe]

Yep.

[Allison Gill]

And fundamental ambiguity of the charges. You know, claiming Ted Cruz's. The DOJ says Ted Cruz's questions were totally clear and 100% precise, but they failed to explain how that's. They just left it at that. They talked about communications between Comey and Dan Richmond that happened in October of 2016. This is the crux of the DOJ's case. This is at the center of their indictment, these communications. But as Anna Bauer has pointed out, Richmond was no longer at the FBI. So that takes away from the precise argument of Ted Cruz's and Chuck Grassley's questions about did you give authority to anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source?

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Allison Gill]

Also, they tried to. Eddie, they tried to shoehorn the Clinton plan. You know, the one based on Russian intelligence that Durham said was fabricated and.

[Andy McCabe]

Fabricated by the Russians.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, they tried to shoehorn that in there with no apparent connection to the actual charges because that was the one count that got him a no on the first indictment of Comey as they were trying to bring in that Clinton plan, which is just. It's Russian propaganda. But they're trying to shoehorn it into their. Into their filings now so that they can, I don't know, just have a megaphone to talk about it.

[Andy McCabe]

Would love to see John Durham have to take the stand as a defense witness in this trial. Come on. That's my. That's my Bing. I'm putting that on my bingo card if it goes to trial. That's something I want to see.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. The government also filed a response to the motion to disclose the grand jury information. So they oppose it, saying that he hasn't. Comey hasn't met his burden to see the grand jury information. And besides, we gave it to the two judges in camera to review, even though they still haven't given all of it to them. They also argued against having to submit a bill of particulars, which is like, if this does go forward, you have to tell us what we're charged with here so we can defend ourselves.

[Andy McCabe]

How do you argue against that? How in the world do you argue against that? The indictment was the vaguest thing I've ever seen on its face, had no facts in it, and they're going to stand there in front of a judge and say we don't have to give them any facts. We just want to go to trial?

[Allison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

That's just insane.

[Allison Gill]

It is. Comey asked to move the December 9th motions hearing to December 3rd, 4th, or 5th because Pat Fitzgerald or One of his lawyers is going to be on trial, doing another trial on December 9th. And separately, Anna Bauer reports that a watchdog group has asked the Florida and Virginia state bars to investigate Lindsay Halligan, alleging she violated ethics rules when pursuing criminal cases against Jim Comey and Letitia James. She says, Anna Bauer says in a 17 page complaint filed on Tuesday, the nonprofit Campaign for Accountability said Halligan may have committed multiple violations of legal ethics, including by pursuing cases unsupported by probable cause. I love this for her.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, the outcome of this hearing will have a big impact on, on those investigations if they go forward because it'll essentially she could end up in this case getting a finding from this judge that there was no probable cause.

[Allison Gill]

That could be bad. There's also a hearing, a motions hearing this week on November 19th. And our friend Adam Klassfeld from All Rise News, and I'm sure Anna Bauer as well will be there reporting on it. All right, we have news about our friendly wackadagpa. That's the weaponization czar, associate Deputy Attorney General Pardon attorney Ed Martin. But we have to take a quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody, welcome back. This week, with the help of the wackadag paw, Ed Martin, Trump issued fake pardons for fake electors. Well, they're actually real pardons, but they don't do much besides. Well, we'll talk about that in a minute. But NBC is reporting President Trump has pardoned Rudy Giuliani and scores of others accused of involvement in their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This happened on late Sunday. Ed Martin posted a proclamation on Twitter which is how all government proclamations are communicated, which says Giuliani and scores of others will be pardoned for alleged activities linked to the 2020 election. Martin was replying to his own Twitter message from May in which he said no MAGA left behind.

[Andy McCabe]

The list of 77 people also includes other high profile Trump allies, including attorneys Sidney Powell, John Eastman and Kenneth Cheesebrough, and Trump's chief of staff in 2020, Mark Meadows. The pardon is written in broad language that exonerates, quote, all citizens accused of election interference. The pardons are largely symbolic as none of the people listed were actually convicted of federal crimes, which the presidential pardon covers. Several of those pardoned had already had their charges dropped by state court. So, of course, the pardon does not do anything for you on state charges, but most people who had them have had those cases dismissed anyway. So there's really very little effect here.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And the pardons relate to additionally any conduct relating to efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 presidential election. The notice which says it was signed by Trump November 7, adds that the pardon does not extend to the president himself. So, interesting. Again, useless pardons in the legal sense, but this seems like a bat signal to future election criminals that Trump has your back. If you break the law to help him steal an election, he'll pardon you. Whether you've, you know, attacked the Capitol to try to overturn the 2020 election results, whether you want to attack the Capitol again, or whether you participate in some sort of an election scheme to try to overturn or interfere in election results.

[Andy McCabe]

As long as you're trying to do it in his favor.

[Allison Gill]

Well, of course. Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

So if you're planning on really stepping up for the other side in 2028. Yeah. Probably no pardon for you. Likely prison time.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And by the way, late Thursday night, the Nevada Supreme Court revived the state case against the Trump 2020 fake electors. There's just six electors charged in that case. None of the other folks in Nevada in that case are charged. But that's a ruling that Attorney General Ford was correct to bring the case in Clark county because the six electors said that it shouldn't have had a venue challenge to it. I see that case is now revived. State crimes, not pardonable. And Fulton county, that case is revived, but probably not for long because Scandalakis has assigned it to himself. So in Georgia, if you think a long time ago, Fani Willis was rightly disqualified from investigating and prosecuting Georgia Senator Burt Jones. And the reason she was disqualified is because she held a political fundraiser for his opponent. And, and when she had to recuse herself from that case, Scandalakis said, I'll find someone else to take it over. And he let it sit until the very last possible minute and then said, I can't find anybody. I'll take it over. And then he just ended the case. So we have the same situation here. He hasn't ended the case as of this recording, but I don't think it's long for this world, but we'll keep an eye on it.

[Andy McCabe]

Definitely. Definitely. And more benefits for those who assisted Trump with his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. Now, this story comes from the Times. They say a spending package expected to be approved as part of a deal to reopen the government would create a wide legal avenue for senators to sue for as much as half a million dollars each. When federal investigators search their phone records without notifying them. The provision, tucked into a measure to fund the legislative branch appears to immediately allow for eight GOP senators to sue the government over their phone records being seized in the course of the investigation by Jack Smith, the former special counsel, into the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Now, I should point out, AG this is not a right that any other citizen enjoys. You don't have the right to sue for half a million dollars. And if the government, in the course of a legally predicated authorized investigation, gets a subpoena, a grand jury subpoena to look at your phone records, you don't have the right to be notified of that right away. The government can hide that from you for a year or more if they continue to request that sort of non disclosure from the service. So once again, our ruling class is walking away with creating for themselves another. Yet another legal right and a way to use your money to pay them in a way that you could not ever do as a citizen of this country.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. This is a thing called Blevins. And if you've worked for the government and tried to sue them, you know exactly what blevins is. It severely curtails your rights as a citizen to sue the government. Yep. So we've been wanting a fix for Blevins for a long time. This ain't it. Yeah. Okay.

[Andy McCabe]

Strangely, they didn't take that up in the bill to reopen the government. All right, Interesting.

[Allison Gill]

Now, this provision would make it a violation of law to not notify a Senator if their phone records or other metadata were taken from a service provider like a phone company. There are some exceptions, such as 60 day delays in notification if the senator is considered the target of an investigation. Which is BS because a lot of these phone records are just to confirm witness testimony. These people generally aren't targets.

[Andy McCabe]

And 60 days is not enough time to run an investigation, especially into a political person.

[Allison Gill]

Right.

[Andy McCabe]

So this 60 day delay is supposed to. Is. Is there, what is a fig leaf to make it look like they're trying to be responsible and not completely proactively gut the ability of the FBI and the Department of Justice to investigate politicians. We are creating a legal a. We are creating a ruling class in this country that is beyond the law.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And. And one that will allow these eight senators who, some of which participated in trying to overturn the 2020 election, a payday with our tax dollars.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, sure. Why not?

[Allison Gill]

The language of the bill says any senator whose Senate data or the Senate data of whose Senate office has been acquired subpoenaed searched, accessed or disclosed in violation of this section may bring a civil action against the United States if the violation was committed by an officer, employee or agent of the United States or of any federal department or agency. So, yeah, you're exactly right. It's creating a ruling class that's above the law. That's right. Join Donald Trump and his immunity.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly. Because the provision is retroactive to 2022, it would appear to make eligible the eight lawmaker whose phone records were subpoenaed by investigators. For Mr. Smith as he examined efforts by Donald J. Trump to obstruct the results of the 2020 presidential election, each violation would be worth at least $500,000 in any legal claim, according to the bill language. The bill would also sharply limit the way the government could resist such a claim, taking away any government claims of qualified or sovereign immunity to fight a lawsuit over the issue. So there is a way to file these federal tort claims against the government now, but the government basically can defend those by saying no. Sovereign immunity or qualified immunity sets in. Basically, if the agent who did the thing that you're complaining about was acting within the scope of their duties in a officially authorized or lawful manner, then your claim will be denied. And once it's denied, you can then sue in federal court. But those lawsuits typically don't go anywhere but in this special place. This special little half a million dollar bill bonus that's been created for senators is going to restrict the government's ability to defend against such a nonsensical claim. And so therefore, it's like an instant payday.

[Allison Gill]

Yep. And the, the Republican senators who were subpoenaed as part of Jack Smith's investigation, Lindsey Graham, Marsha Blackburn, Josh Hawley, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Loomis, and of there was a Representative Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, who also had his phone record subpoenaed, but would not be el because he's a member of the House. It was unclear which Republican lawmaker added this language, by the way, but my money's on Lindsey Graham. He's been really mad about being investigated and having, you know, being unmasked when he's talking to Russians and, you know, he's, he's real mad about that. So that's where my money is. But we don't have any, we don't have any proof.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. Now, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, accused Republicans of hiding a provision in the funding bill that would give millions of taxpayer dollars, quote, to a handful of Republican senators. Who helped Trump try to overthrow the government. Well stated, Senator Wyden. Mr. Wyden said in a statement that every American should have the right to be told if the government spies on them. But added that this bill takes reasonable protection against government surveillance and wraps it in an unacceptable giveaway of your tax dollars to Republican senators.

[Allison Gill]

Yep. Well said. Oh, by the way, I don't agree.

[Andy McCabe]

With Ron Wyden on everything. He's a real anti surveillance guy. And as you know, I did a lot of surveillance in my career. I feel like some of it is very necessary to keep us safe. So, like full stop, like, you know, you can have principal differences over those sorts of things. But man, he's right about this. He's calling this out for what it is. So good for you.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And something else I figured I'd tell you. In case you hadn't heard, Mike Flynn is in talks with the Department of Justice to settle for million for his wrongful prosecution.

[Andy McCabe]

Oh, my God. Why did I not file a claim? I feel like everybody's got claims now. I should have a claim.

[Allison Gill]

Sorry, man.

[Andy McCabe]

Tells me it's going nowhere.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, maybe next time. Maybe, maybe you got a claim.

[Andy McCabe]

There's always a next time, isn't there?

[Allison Gill]

Well, you know, who knows with this government, but. All right, we have a final story from the Wall Street Journal and it's just about some, some of the stuff, some of the problems that Kash Patel has been as the director of the FBI. But we're gonna take one last quick break and we're also gonna get some listener questions. Stick around. We'll be right back.

[Andy McCabe]

Welcome back. Okay, our final story comes from the Wall Street Journal. In his nine months on the job, Cash Patel has drawn flack from his bosses in the Justice Department and from his underlings at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where he has fired dozens of agents deemed hostile Trump or hostile to conservative ideals. Patel hit the news for taking an FBI plane to attend a wrestling event where his girlfriend, a country western singer, performed, and then to her home in Nashville. I can't believe I just read that.

[Allison Gill]

Okay.

[Andy McCabe]

A former FBI agent, Kyle Seraphin, publicized the trip and called the taxpayer funded travel in the middle of a shutdown. Pathetic.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. After that, Patel visited a Texas hunting resort called Boondoggle Ranch. That's quite flight records.

[Andy McCabe]

That is a bad. Just the name is so ridiculous.

[Allison Gill]

Okay. Sorry. No, it's all right. That's according to people familiar with the trip, which wasn't publicly previously reported until the Wall Street Journal did Patel's travel has frustrated Justice Department officials who complained to the White House about it and the White House itself, which has told Cabinet officials months ago in. In writing to limit their travel, particularly if it's overseas or unrelated to Trump's agenda. That's according to administration officials. Details about Patel's trips to visit his girlfriend and an August trip to Scotland have been passed around the White House in recent days. FBI Director Kash Patel is required by law to take the Bureau's private plane instead of commercial flights in order to have access to secure communications. If the travel is personal, the director is required to reimburse the government for the cost of a commercial flight, typically far less than the actual cost of the private jet used.

[Andy McCabe]

Can we do a timeout here just for background? So all FBI directors have been required to travel on government aircrafts, and this is a post 911 thing. Congress signed this law after 9 11, and it's so the FBI director has access to classified communications while he's traveling. And it makes sense, but it also puts them in the position where it's hard for them to travel. They can't travel personally in any travel that requires a flight without doing that. Now, what they all have done, Mueller, Comey, Ray, myself, while I was in there for a few minutes, they just try to limit their personal traffic. There is a way to avoid saddling the government with obscenely expensive travel for your personal enjoyment. That is don't do it.

[Allison Gill]

Oh, that's a weird concept.

[Andy McCabe]

And when you do, you have to pay them back. It's kind of weird. What you do is you go on, like a travel planning website or something. You find.

[Allison Gill]

Been on it.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. The cost of the commercial, you know, the commercial cost of the flight that you would have taken if you were just flying as a private citizen. Now, of course, that's not even a of. That's a tiny fraction of what it costs the government to run the plane and take it to wherever you're going. But it's just the principle. I think you need to pay a reasonable amount for the travel that you're doing. But apparently he's doing absolutely nothing. So back to the story. Patel has defended his travel, dismissing his critics as, quote, clickbait haters, which is something I don't even understand because I guess Patel is saying he's clickbait. Yeah, I don't know.

[Allison Gill]

Whatever. I don't get it.

[Andy McCabe]

A spokesman for the Bureau said the director has taken only about a dozen personal trips. Okay, so a dozen. My count is 12. Right. All right, so put a pin in that a dozen personal trips since assuming the role in February, and had taken steps to cut down on travel costs, though there's no indication here of what those steps might have been. In a written statement, Patel said the Bureau has achieved historic success on violent crime and drug trafficking, which the last time I checked, was actually just a part of his job. Quote, thankfully, Americans can see through Wall Street Journal hot garbage. This FBI has never been stronger. He said Patel's presence at the Bureau has been something of a culture shock for a buttoned up workforce used to wearing suits and ties. Instead, Patel has appeared at events in hooded sweatshirts, jeans, or hunting vests, and often speaks colloquially, calling agents, quote, cops, and telling podcaster Joe Rogan that the job of the FBI director was, quote, effin wild.

[Allison Gill]

Okay. He also handed out an oversized commemorative coin to colleagues resembling the logo of the Punisher, the Marvel character who came to embody a general distrust in the US justice system. That's him. Okay. Yeah. The coin also has a larger number, nine on it, a reference to him as the FBI's ninth director. Patel's supporters say he's trying to present himself as a down to earth, accessible guy, accessible to the workforce. And that's Andy. That's like when your friend describes the blind date that they're setting you up on as somebody having a good personality. I just. The whole Punisher thing just throws me for a loop. Like, do you read the Punisher? I don't think they do.

[Andy McCabe]

No. No, of course not. There's no like, like, logic here for Johnny Clickbait. Okay, so here's where the math comes in. Okay, go with me on this. Back to the story. The Justice Department's Gulfstream G550 took nine trips to Las Vegas, where Patel lived before running the FBI and seven others to Nashville, according to a Wall Street Journal review of flight records. Okay, so nine plus seven is 16, which I think is more than 12, which is.

[Allison Gill]

No, Andy, nine plus seven is 12.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay?

[Allison Gill]

Nine plus seven is 12. All right.

[Andy McCabe]

I must have been wrong about that.

[Allison Gill]

It's. Everyone knows that. It's a beautiful number. 12. 9 + 7. New FBI math I've read greatly men called me with tears in their eyes to say it's 12.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right, sir. It's just 12.

[Allison Gill]

Okay.

[Andy McCabe]

On a late Friday, he took the FBI private jet to State College, Pennsylvania, for a real American freestyle wrestling event where his girlfriend, country music singer Alexis Wilkins, was performing the national anthem. The next day, the same FBI plane traveled to Nashville. Okay, so that would be two more, which, by my count, would make it 17 or 18, but I guess it's still just 12. Right. Okay. That Sunday, the jet landed in San Angelo, Texas, where Patel visited the. The boondoggle ranch, appropriately named, owned by the family of a Republican donor and friend of Patel's CR Bubba Salisbury Jr. The plane.

[Allison Gill]

Bubba Salisbury, Jr. Heck, yeah. Maybe that's the Bubba that was in the Epstein files. I digress. Keep going.

[Andy McCabe]

Who knows? The plane stayed in San Angelo until Wednesday. The government was shut down, and much of the FBI workforce was working but not getting paid. Okay, so that's actually two more, which brings us to 20 by my count, but I guess I'm wrong again. It's still just 12, despite all these extra flights.

[Allison Gill]

Now, you know, when you talk about reducing your personal vacation, 18 trips in nine months. Actually, less than that. Fewer than nine months, because I don't think he got there until a little bit later. That seems like a lot of personal travel to me.

[Andy McCabe]

You know, sometimes I feel like I travel a lot. Private citizen, you know, Joe Normal here, I don't come anywhere near his numbers. And as FBI director, I mean, I'll be honest, most FBI directors, I've known, a bunch I've worked closely with all of them. They work. They work five days a week, and then they also work on the weekend. Chris ray moved to D.C. this beautiful historic house in Atlanta probably still does. Moved to D.C. bought a place in D.C. right near headquarters. His wife moved up. His kids are, like, grown kind of. They were out already. But he isn't a big fan of DC but he basically lived there, there while he was director. Comey, of course, he moved as well. He moved. He was living in Connecticut when he got the job. Sold his house, packed up everything, moved to Northern Virginia, you know, very close to D.C. commuted there. Mueller, I'm trying to think. I think he was in San Francisco before he became director, back after. Right after 9, 11. So, like, they knew they were going to have to do this job that's hard and has to be done basically every day. Not this guy. He's. He has a very different view of those responsibilities.

[Allison Gill]

Yep. Yep. Now, the. The story says Patel's travel has become a source of gossip within the Bureau, despite that his firings in particular have riled the broader workforce. In his confirmation hearing, Patel said he had enters no interest in going backward and would not punish agents just because they participated in politically charged investigations. Said he wouldn't fire anybody for that. Patel, though, has fired 30 agents at least, and that's 30 more than none.

[Andy McCabe]

30 more than none. Yeah, for sure.

[Allison Gill]

All of whom did things Trump allies disapprove of. Some took a knee during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protest. Another implemented government policy denying religious exemptions for the COVID vaccine. A third one had a gay pride flag in the office. The FBI declined to comment on the firings, but several others also worked on the investigations. As we know, that led to Trump's indictment and that to related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Dubbed internally as Arctic Frost. So there we go.

[Andy McCabe]

The day after returning from his October hunting trip to San Angelo, Texas, at the boondoggle ranch with his good friend Bubba, Patel forced out the head of the San Antonio field office, Aaron Tapp. Tapp was a 22 year agent and an expert in financial crimes whose job had been to work with the FBI lawyers to make sure department policies were followed when opening sensitive cases, including Arctic Frost. The firings have sparked some confusion. Two of the ousted Arctic Frost agents were told they would be retained after the Trump appointed top federal prosecutor in Washington, Jeanine Pirro, privately said that they were needed for active cases. People familiar with the matter said Patel overruled her and fired them again.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, so that he fired him and then she brought him back and then they fired him again in.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right.

[Allison Gill]

On. On Halloween. Patel also fired Stephen Palmer, 27 year agent who ran the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group, the unit that responds to high risk situations like child abductions and hostages. It also oversees the agency's use of its government planes. Weird. Palmer and other officials had tried to explain to Patel staff that the more he used the plane for personal travel, the less it could be used for other bureau stuff. That's according to people familiar. An FBI official said Palmer's ouster was not related at all to the plane issue and said Patel regularly consults his advisors on how to allocate resources.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, the plane, at least when I was there, was used a lot for things like, oh, I don't know, taking an investigative team to someplace that you can't fly commercial into, like Somalia or Iraq and Afghanistan. First time I ever flew on was to go to Iraq and then Afghanistan right after that. So often it flies to places where we have to return dangerous, violent fugitives back to the United States. And it's generally not a good idea to put those people on commercial flights with regular full paying citizens. But none of that stuff can happen if they're busy taking the director to a wrestling match where his girlfriend is singing the national anthem. Trump has complained in recent months that he believed Patel wasn't moving fast enough with some of the firings and about Patel's media appearances, including on the Joe Rogan experience, which Trump believed were not helpful, according to the officials familiar with the complaints. Trump also had been upset with Patel over his handling of the review of the investigation into deceased financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which had consumed the White House earlier this year. The official said Bondi had accused FBI leadership of, quote, trying to destroy her by leaking information about internal discord. The Journal previously reported other administration officials who tried to repair the ties concluded the issue had spiraled largely because the Justice Department and the FBI had mishandled it. So there you go.

[Allison Gill]

Well, I don't think the Jeffrey Epstein thing is going away, although. So today, Donald Trump announced he's opening an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's co conspirators. And Pam Bondi has assigned a special prosecutor to this. I don't think she's appointed a special counsel. I think she's just assigned, you know how they kind of assign people to do things.

[Andy McCabe]

Yep.

[Allison Gill]

Like how they assigned Quinones to do the case against Brennan at all. Yep. So he's. So he's opened that investigation. I think it's so that he could say, oh, the DOJ can't release the Epstein files. Now. We have an open and ongoing investigation. But we also learned through Jamie Raskin this week that there was an open and ongoing investigation in the Southern District of New York. They had interviewed up to 50 of the survivors and that that investigation was ongoing as of January 2025. But when Trump got into power, that investigation was ended. He ended it in July. So it's weird to open an investigation that you went and closed. Yeah, but I think, you know, he wants to open it where he has control over it so he can sit on it and do nothing and use it as an excuse not to release the Epstein files from the Department of Justice. Just my guess.

[Andy McCabe]

Well, that's a perfect segue into what was going to be our second question. But I'll make it first now today as we go into questions and of course, as always, questions, the end of every show. Occasionally we're going to do special episodes where we have nothing but questions. And you can just go to the show notes and you'll find the link there where you can post your question if you want. You want to hear your question read and answered on the air. We try to do that as often as we can. Okay, so the second one comes from Leslie, who sends it in from Paris, France. Thank you, Leslie. She says, can Trump declare that the Epstein files are classified to block their release following the discharge petition? Really interesting question. Thank you, Leslie. And I guess kind of the, the first answer is, yeah, he can. The President is the ultimate authority over how government information is handled, and the President has the authority to classify anything he wants. Would the Epstein files qualify for some sort of classification designation if a normal original classification authority was doing it? No, they don't fit any of the categories of information that are presumptively classified. But again, the President has wide latitude. He can declare something classified. The problem he confronts here would confront by doing that is they're very clearly not typically classified sort of information. People would see right through that. And his biggest problem with, with the files is going to be political, not legal. So the, the position we're in right now is the discharge petition, which Congress has voted on or has the votes to. To pass that. That we've already kind of passed that. That's the first hurdle. The discharge petition just requires the speaker of the House to bring the matter to a, to a vote, a substantive vote. So Mike Johnson indicated that he's going to do that this week in just a couple of days. So we'll get. That'll be Congress voting to require. It's basically like passing a law that says that the files must be released, then that's. That that bill has to go across to the other side of the Hill and be voted on by the Senate. Is not clear that, that, that the Senate would pass it. They might, they might not. There's differences of opinion on that. If they do pass it, then it has to go to Donald Trump for final signature. Now, Trump could sign it, and then the files must. It would be a law that the final files must come out, or he could veto it. So the question becomes it's a similar kind of thing, Right? Like, can he really veto it? I mean, he could, but, boy, will that look book absolutely horrible. That's like a legacy decision.

[Allison Gill]

Now he has an excuse to veto it.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly.

[Allison Gill]

So he can say, look, I'm looking into this. I want to bring these creeps to justice. I'm open and I've opened an investigation, even though I recently closed one for the same thing. But I've opened an investigation and so I have to veto this because you can't release records that pertain to an open and ongoing investigation.

[Andy McCabe]

Yep. Yeah, exactly. They're just kind of creating another opportunity to obfuscate But I would tell you from my perspective, and I was really kind of not, not hanging on every development in the story from the very beginning saying, like, look, there's never been a credible allegation against him. He hasn't really been identified by, you know, victims that I was aware of at that time. And, and we don't, so far, we have not actually seen any evidence that he was engaged in any wrongdoing. But the more they act in this way, it just becomes impossible to believe that they're not trying to hide something. What they're trying to hide, I don't know, but I've never seen a more poorly handled public relations disaster.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, it's pretty bad. I wanted to bring up, speaking of classified documents, according to quick correction that was sent to me separately and Andy, this has to do with when you said all classified information is automatically national defense information when we were talking about cisa and the correction comes from national security law classification. All classified information is not automatically national defense information. Classification is generally an indicator of being ndi, because to legally be NDI for the purposes of the Espionage act, which does not actually define the term, and the only real definition comes from case law as information related to the national defense, which is completely unhelpful, the information has to be closely held, as in the lunch menu at the commissary cafe may be related to national defense, but it's not NDI if anyone can walk in and see it.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Allison Gill]

So. So classification is generally treated as an indicator that something is closely held. But because information can be classified due to the harm it would either cause to defense or foreign relations, you can have NDI that's not classified and classified information that has nothing to do with defense, national defense. One of the best examples is a FOIA case where a white paper on a pending trade deal with France was deemed to be properly classified because if it were released, the French would learn what we would be willing to accept, and so our foreign relations would be harmed because they'd insist on us paying a few more cents per widget than we might have otherwise been able to negotiate. And two Espionage act cases actually fell apart because the government put all of its eggs in the it was classified basket and didn't emphasize the difference. So thank you very much for that correction. I think, I think it's important that, you know, we talk about those nuances and those differences. But somebody sent that in, thought I'd bring it up.

[Andy McCabe]

I think that's really well put and they are correct. It's hard sometimes. In the abstract sense, to imagine a document that's been classified but is not related to the national defense. I think the, probably the majority of classified documents are, but I think that example of like, like foreign relations matters. So, like for instance, like some State Department employee who is memorializing in a cable the content of a conversation that an ambassador had with an official in a foreign country. Like, that would absolutely be classified and it's typically classified at the secret level. But it might not be about national defense information. It might be about economic data or whatever. So I think that's a really good example and I appreciate them sending it in.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

Cool.

[Allison Gill]

Well, thank you everyone for your questions and corrections. If you have any, there's a link in the show notes and you can send them in. And we, as always, really appreciate you listening to Unjustified. I'm glad sometimes we can break a little bit of news for you. We usually are just kind of going over the things that happened last week. But thank you so much for listening to us and supporting independent media. And do you have any final thoughts today on gestures broadly? Andrew?

[Andy McCabe]

No, I think we covered it, but man, you never know where this stuff is going to go. Holy cow. Every week I say like, oh, I'm probably going to have another busy week next week. And then seven days later I'm looking, I'm like, man, I didn't imagine this was going to happen. So, yeah, feeling like we had another one of those and probably many more to come. So stay tuned.

[Allison Gill]

Many more to come. And that next one comes next week. We'll see you then. Thanks so much for listening to Unjustified. I'm Alison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe.

[Allison Gill]

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