Scrivener’s Error

Summary

UnJustified, Episode 47: “Scrivener’s Error”

Podcast: UnJustified (MSW Media)
Date: December 14, 2025
Hosts: Allison Gill & Andrew (Andy) McCabe

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the deepening erosion of civil liberties and the rule of law under Trump’s Department of Justice. Allison Gill and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe examine DOJ’s repeated failures in high-profile cases, possible grand jury abuse, judicial pushback against executive overreach, the criminal misuse of the Alien Enemies Act, and alarming ethics concerns around government-justified military strikes. The conversation is sharp, irreverent, and nuanced, confronting both legal and moral implications of the administration’s actions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Repeated DOJ Failures in High-Profile Indictments

Cases: Letitia James & Jim Comey (00:07–09:34)

• The DOJ failed repeatedly to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on mortgage fraud—most recently due to grand jury refusal, after a prior dismissal tied to Lindsey Halligan’s unlawful appointment.
• DOJ’s persistence in seeking indictments, especially multiple grand jury attempts, risks claims of selective/vindictive prosecution and legal peril.
  • Aaron Zelinsky quoted:

    “One no true bill is a point. Two points make a line. That line points to an acquittal at trial...The government should hang it up, rather than going down swinging.” (02:45)

• In the Jim Comey investigation, central evidence (Daniel Richmond’s emails) has been blocked by court order due to 4th Amendment violations—likely ending the government’s weak case.

Memorable Quotes:

• Allison Gill:

  “I went on social media and I begged the Department of Justice, please go back a second time, go back a third time. I love watching you lose. And they did. They granted all my wishes for this holiday season.” (02:02)

• Andy McCabe:

  “You’re making a prima facie case for manipulating the grand jury and abusing the grand jury. Not a hole the government wants to go down.” (03:56)

---

2. Daniel Richmond and The Fourth Amendment Victory

Government Overreach in Search & Seizure (05:00–09:34)

• Richmond successfully argued that DOJ’s continued retention and access to seized computer data without a valid warrant was a 4th Amendment violation.
  • Court ordered all such files be identified, segregated, and not accessed further by the government. (07:04–07:52)
• The ruling fundamentally impairs DOJ's ability to reindict Comey based on this evidence.

Memorable Exchange:

• Allison Gill:

  “Put it all in a box and don’t touch it.” (07:53)

• Andy McCabe:

  “It’s shocking to me.…Not surprised Richmond is getting what he’s asking for—he’s just having the court enforce the earlier directive.” (08:49)

---

3. The Kilmar Abrego Garcia Saga and “Scrivener’s Error” Abuse

Immigration Law, Judicial Defiance & Administrative Corruption (11:30–18:22)

• Abrego was unlawfully deported under Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, despite an active court order blocking his removal. After months in ICE detention and legal battles, a judge ordered his release.
• Immediately, the administration tried to retroactively fabricate a removal order, calling the absence of one a “scrivener’s error”—misapplying a legal term meant for small typos.
  • This move was likened to Pam Bondi’s previous attempts to “retroactively appoint” prosecutors and was called “deeply corrupt.” (13:28–13:52)
• Judge Sinise granted a temporary restraining order, echoing that such practices grossly violated due process and jurisdictional rules.

Notable Moment:

• Garcia, upon release, was filmed wearing a brand-new Chicago Bulls hat—after the government based gang allegations partly on his past association with this symbol—a pointed rebuke by the freed man. (17:39–18:17)

---

4. Contempt Proceedings Against DOJ: Judicial Showdown

The Alien Enemies Act and Judicial Accountability (18:41–36:00)

• Judge Boasberg’s contempt proceedings against DOJ for ignoring orders to halt mass deportations generated fierce legal wrangling.
• DOJ attempted to block crucial testimony from whistleblower Erez Reveni and DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign, citing attorney-client privilege and pushing to move the process “where criminal referrals go to die.”
• Plaintiffs (and the hosts) argued this is an abuse of privilege, especially since DOJ attempted an “advice of counsel” defense, thereby waiving privilege.

Judge Boasberg’s Response:

• Memorably underscored the seriousness:

  “Approximately 137 men were spirited out of this country without a hearing...many suffered abuse and possible torture. Despite this court’s order that they should not be disembarked. This inquiry is not some academic exercise.” (28:57)

• Ruled testimony must proceed; privilege claims undermined by government’s own disclosures and waived by legal strategy.

• DOJ escalated, petitioning for mandamus relief, accusing Boasberg of “retaliation and harassment.”

• The episode closed with breaking news: the same D.C. Circuit panel (two Trump, one Biden appointee) issued a temporary stay blocking the contempt testimony—leaving future inquiry uncertain.

Memorable Quotes:

• Andy McCabe (mocking DOJ):

  “The place where criminal referrals go to die. Is that it?” (23:06)
  “To claim you’re trying to protect the seamliness of interbranch relations—come on...This is a government that exhibits nothing but disdain and disrespect for the courts.” (32:01–32:12)

• Allison Gill:

  “A ‘scrivener’s error’ is for fixing typos, not retroactively adding a deportation order that doesn’t exist. It reminds me of Pam Bondi trying to retroactively appoint Lindsay Halligan.” (13:28)

---

5. Boat Strike Memos and DOJ Ethics Scandal

Alarming OLC Legal Reasoning (36:00–46:53)

• A bipartisan group of former ethics officials (Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, Virginia Cantor) formally demanded an internal DOJ investigation into the OLC memo authorizing lethal military strikes against civilian targets (drug smuggler boats) in Latin America.
  • The opinion provided, in their words, “free reign for the government to murder and assassinate foreign civilians...the most profound legal ethics concerns.” (38:18–39:05)
• They argued the OLC’s reasoning—claiming the U.S. is in an “armed conflict with drug cartels”—is legally absurd and dangerous.
• Painter explained OLC’s traditional role as the DOJ “brain trust,” providing legal opinions with quasi-official weight; meaningful accountability is unlikely, as precedent shows (e.g., John Yoo's “torture memos”).
• Gill and McCabe lamented that the administration “has no shame” and now wields the Take Care Clause as a catchall excuse for overreach. (42:38–44:48)

Notable Quotes:

• Painter (via CBS):

  “All signs point to OLC’s opinion being nothing but a legal fig leaf to justify the president’s attacks on foreign civilians.” (39:43)

• Allison Gill:

  “This president seems to use [the Take Care Clause] as a green light to do whatever he wants as opposed to the restriction that it’s meant to be.” (42:56)

---

6. Listener Questions & FOIA Fights

DOJ Accountability & Executive Power (47:29–53:44)

• Gill revealed her own FOIA lawsuit against DOJ for access to FBI redaction training videos related to the Epstein files, calling out the government’s claim that there is “not widespread public interest in the Epstein information” as laughable. (49:31)
• Listener Q: Can a President revoke other President’s pardons?
  • Andy clarified: once delivered, pardons are final and unalterable—even by a later president.

    “Mechanically…the pardon is not final until delivered, but once received, it cannot be modified by anyone—even a future President.” (51:45–52:29)

    • Any “revocation” talk is political fantasy, not legal reality.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• Allison Gill (mocking DOJ’s serial indictments):

  “Go for it. Give it a shot. President Trump. I will have fun that day.” (52:55)

• Andy McCabe (on spurious privilege claims):

  “Once you’ve opened the door, the door is open, right?” (27:30)

• Allison Gill (on government narrative around the Take Care Clause):

  “He will say, I have all the power because of Article 2 and I’m taking care that Article 2 is faithfully executed. Like he—it’s just backwards. It’s all like, right into Marbury v. Madison’s face.” (44:49)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Letitia James grand jury failures: 01:11–05:00
• Dan Richmond's Fourth Amendment victory: 05:00–09:34
• Kilmar Abrego Garcia “scrivener’s error” and release: 11:30–18:22
• Judge Boasberg contempt proceedings and privilege fight: 18:41–34:44
• DC Circuit panel’s administrative stay breaking news: 36:00
• OLC boat strikes ethics scandal: 36:00–46:53
• Listener questions and FOIA case: 47:29–53:44

---

Tone & Style

Gill and McCabe balance rigorous legal analysis with witty, sometimes biting commentary. They’re cynical about government excuses, deeply alarmed at ongoing abuses, and occasionally giddy over DOJ’s repeated failures (“I love watching you lose”). The conversation is sharp, informal, and steeped in legal and government knowledge—making knotty constitutional issues accessible and urgent.

---

Conclusion

Episode 47 of "UnJustified" is a tour-de-force analysis of a DOJ at war with longstanding norms and the Constitution. From prosecutors’ overreach and courtroom setbacks, to judicial showdowns and the brazen misuse of executive power, Gill and McCabe deliver searing commentary and granular legal insight. Whether you’re a legal nerd or a concerned citizen, their breakdown is both disturbing and essential listening.

Transcript

[Allison Gill]

Msw media.

[Andy McCabe]

The Department of Justice has failed to indict New York attorney Letitia James for a third time as Daniel Richmond wins a motion blocking his emails from being accessed by the government.

[Allison Gill]

Main justice has filed a motion to block the testimony of whistleblower Erez Reveni and Department of justice lawyer Drew Ensign in the Alien Enemies act contempt proceedings before D.C. district Judge Boasberg.

[Andy McCabe]

Judge Zanise accuses the Justice Department of misleading the court in an order for the immediate release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and issued a follow on temporary restraining order blocking his rearrest.

[Allison Gill]

And the Justice Department faces a call for an internal investigation into the Office of Legal Counsel memo allowing the boat strikes in the Caribbean. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 47 of Unjustified. It is Sunday, December 14th. We're rolling into the holiday season here in 2025. I'm Allison Gill.

[Andy McCabe]

And I'm Andy McCabe. Allison, we got a stack of things to get through today. There's a whole load. So I'm going to just jump right in and we're going to start. Where else but with the repeated failures of the Justice Department in the cases against Jim Comey and Letitia James? So first we have from Hannah Rabinowitz at cnn, the Justice Department's mortgage fraud investigation into New York Attorney General. Letitia James is on life support after a grand jury for the second time rejected an indictment that would have revived the charges against her. I can't believe I just read that. The rejection is an embarrassing setback for the Justice Department, which had sought to revive the criminal case after a federal judge ruled Halligan was appointed unlawfully. And for the administration who had positioned James's case as a centerpiece in its retribution campaign.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, man. And after Lindsey Halligan was ruled unlawfully appointed and they dismissed that, I went on social media and I begged the Department of Justice, please go back a second time, go back a third time. I love watching you lose. And they did. They granted all my wishes for this holiday season.

[Andy McCabe]

But what happened to so much winning? We're gonna all get sick of winning.

[Allison Gill]

I. Yeah, well, we are. Letitia James is not sick of money.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right.

[Allison Gill]

But this latest setback may not necessarily be the end of the story. Prosecutors can go back to a grand jury again and again and continue their efforts to re indict James over the same allegations in hopes that one will approve the charges. Continuing to pursue indictments is exceedingly rare in federal cases. According to former federal prosecutor Aaron Zelinski, the Trump Justice Department, however, has shown a proclivity to try the strategy in some other immigration related cases earlier this year. Quote 1 no, true bill is a point. 2 points make a line. That line points to an acquittal at trial. That's what Zelensky said. The government should hang it up, he said, at strike two rather than going down swinging. And Andy, there are legal implications for this. If they go back a third time, which would actually be their fifth time trying and secure an indictment now they're going to face a really bolstered vindictive and selective prosecution argument from Letitia James. They came back at me five, Eric Siebert wouldn't do it. Lindsey Halligan did it, but did it wrong. And then they went back three more times to finally get an indictment. And it would also bolster a request to release the grand jury tapes to her so that she could hear like we said yesterday or last week. Excuse me, what did you say different in that fifth time that you didn't say the first four times? You know it's legally perilous.

[Andy McCabe]

You're making a prima facie case for manipulating the grand jury and abusing the grand jury. And the only way to get to the bottom of that would be if she's indicted on this next round, which we're assuming there will be a next round, the defense will certainly make that motion right of improper use of the grand jury. And the only way to figure that out is the judge is going to have to go in and get the tapes, all the previous grand juries and the current one, and try to figure out what was different the third time or whatever time this is. And that's not a hole that the government wants to go down.

[Allison Gill]

No. And they were actually let off the hook by Judge Curry dismissing the cases for Comey and Letitia James for the unlawful appointment of Lindsey Halligan before either of the judges could get to grand jury malfeasance, misconduct, vindictive and selective prosecution, Bronston literal truth defense, et cetera. So. But I have a feeling they'll keep on going because otherwise they have to admit that they lost. And this isn't the kind of administration that likes to do that.

[Andy McCabe]

That's very true.

[Allison Gill]

And they have no shame. So they aren't embarrassed by any of this as we, any normal prosecutor would be. But next up, regarding Jim Comey, Dan Richmond, this is the man with the emails at the center of the government's case against Jim Comey filed for a temporary restraining order in the D.C. district, asking a court to block the use of his materials seized in the Arctic Hayes investigation during Trump's first term. These were the emails in evidence at the core of the case against Jim Comey.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right.

[Allison Gill]

And here's this is from the the temporary restraining order or from the. Yeah, the issue the ruling on the temporary restraining order. The court concludes that Richmond is entitled to a narrow temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo. While the court evaluates his motion for return of property and awaits full briefing and argument from the parties, three facts weigh in favor of of entering a prompt temporary order to preserve the status quo now before the government has filed a response.

[Andy McCabe]

First, the U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia has not yet entered an appearance to make representations on behalf of the government, and counsel for the government has not yet been identified. Second, the government has not yet indicated who has custody of the material at issue, and neither the petitioner nor the court can determine the identity of the custodian until the government appears in this case. Third, the court finds that the government has received actual notice of petitioner Richmond's motion ensuring that the government is positioned to act promptly to seek any appropriate relief from this order.

[Allison Gill]

Yep. And the court concludes that Richmond is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that the government has violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures by retaining a complete copy of all files of his personal computer, an image of the computer, and searching that image without a warrant. Richmond has also shown that absent an injunction, he'll be irreparably harmed by the ongoing violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures arising from the government's continuing retention of the image of his computer and related materials.

[Andy McCabe]

The United States and its agent, the Attorney General of the United States, are ordered to identify, segregate, and secure the image of petitioner Richmond's personal computer that was made in 2017, his Columbia University email accounts, and his iCloud account, any copies of those files and any materials obtained, extracted, or derived from those files collectively, and this is referred to as the covered materials that are currently in the possession of the United States. The United States and its agents, including the Attorney General of the United States, are further ordered not to access the covered materials once they are identified, segregated and secured, or to share, disseminate, or disclose the covered materials to any person without first seeking and obtaining leave of this court.

[Allison Gill]

Wow.

[Andy McCabe]

So this is fascinating.

[Allison Gill]

Put it all in a box and don't touch it.

[Andy McCabe]

Fascinating to me because the underlying order, the search warrants that provided for the seizure of this Material back in like 2017, 2019, it included a restriction that the government could only review it for the very limited purpose of the case they were investigating at that time. And then after, if anything that was found not relevant to that case had to be, had to be given back or destroyed, which is a really weird thing to have in a search warrant like this. It's not common. And so to have that very specific direction in the search warrant itself and to not follow it is really a massive mistake by the bureau and the prosecutors who are working that first case.

[Allison Gill]

And then to go back in five years later and rummage through them, a totally separate case without getting a warrant.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, it's, it's shocking to me. But here you go. I'm not surprised that Richmond is getting what he's asking for here because what he's asking is that this court simply enforced the earlier court's directive. And they're always going to do that.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, yeah, for sure. We'll keep an eye on this. I, you know, they keep referring to the Comey case and the James case as being on life support. I think it's beyond that at this point.

[Andy McCabe]

But yeah, yeah, I mean, that's of course the implication for the Comey cases. This is the core of that very coreless, weak case. So without being able to access any of this material, goodbye, new indictment. Now, they'd have a problem with that anyway because of the statute and all that other stuff. But this really might be the final nail in that coffin.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, I agree with you. All right, we have a lot more to get to everybody, but we have to take a quick break. So stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody. The holiday season is expensive enough without Big Wireless draining your budget every month. And right now, Mint Mobile has all of their unlimited plans at 50% off, which is their best deal of the year. Grab a 3, 6 or 12 month unlimited premium wireless program for just $15 a month and stop overpaying for overrated phone service. Give yourself the gift of more money for travel, food, gifts and fun this December. So help us thank Mint Mobile for sponsoring today's episode. Make the [e-mail] unjust now. Mint Mobile's best deal of the year is happening right now. You can lock in a 3, 6 or 12 month unlimited plan for just $15 a month. You get high speed data and unlimited talk and text on the nation's largest 5G network. Bring your current phone and your current phone number and all of your contacts. And there's no contracts, no Nonsense. No hidden fees. One of our show producers signed up with an old Android phone and he he has a second line up and running and he did it within days because of Mint Mobile's quick SIM delivery and simple activation instructions. And for just $15 a month. He says he's never had a more budget friendly second line in his life. The quality is much better than his last provider. He's glad he made the switch. So turn your expensive wireless present into a huge wireless savings future by switching to Mint Shop. Mint unlimited [e-mail] unjust that's mintmobile.com unjust limited time offer upfront payment of $45 for 3 month, $90 for 6 month or $180 for 12 month plan required $15 a month equivalent taxes and fees Extra initial plan term Only more than 35 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. Capable device required availability, speed and coverage varies. Cmitmobile.com for details. All right, everybody, welcome back. It was quite a week for one. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, if you've been listening to Unjustified and following all of our stuff, you're familiar with the backstory. Back In March, between 100 and 250 people were loaded onto planes in the early hours of Saturday morning, March 15, bound for Seacoat Prison, torture prison in El Salvador, and the Trump administration used the Alien Enemies act to justify that. The government was ordered to turn the planes around by Judge Boasberg, but refused, which is the subject of contempt proceedings taking place now in the D.C. district, and we'll talk about those later in the show. But one of those passengers, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was unlawfully removed. They all were. But he was especially unlawfully removed on one of those flights because he had an active court order blocking his removal to El Salvador. Now he sued to be returned. The government defied that court order as well, and the judge Polissinis began contempt proceedings. But rather than air their dirty laundry in court, the government charged Mr. Abrego with two counts of human smuggling and returned him to the United States to face trial.

[Andy McCabe]

After a detention hearing in Tennessee, a judge determined he should be out on bail, but he was immediately detained by ICE for removal to a third country. They told him if he pled guilty to the charges, he could be sent to Costa Rica as a refugee with protections. But if he refused to plead guilty, he'd be sent to Uruguay. He decided to fight that deportation, and after four months in ICE detention, Judge Sinise found that there was never a removal order on the books and that he was being detained unlawfully.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. You aren't allowed to detain someone if you're not in the process of removing them. And there was never a removal order. Now, this past Thursday, she ordered his release, his immediate release, and he was free later that night with strict conditions to check in with ICE the following morning and on a repeated basis. But at 7:01pm, the Trump administration had an immigration judge and immigration judges work for him, not the judiciary.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right.

[Allison Gill]

Had an immigration judge correct the lack of a removal order, calling it a scrivener's error. Now, this is a deeply corrupt move. A scrivener's errors for things like fixing typos are very minor, non material errors. Not retroactively adding a deportation order that doesn't currently exist. It reminds me of Pam Bondi trying to retroactively appoint Lindsay Halligan. Exactly.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly.

[Allison Gill]

Hegsef retroactively declassifying the stuff he sent out on signal. Right. Mr. Abrego's lawyers immediately filed for a temporary restraining order to block his rearrest because he had to check in with ice. And they asked Judge Sinis to issue that temporary restraining order before his 8am appointment the following morning for checking in with ICE.

[Andy McCabe]

Petitioner seeks a TRO because an immigration judge unlawfully issued a purported removal order at approximately 7:01pm yesterday evening. Detention would contravene this court's order. An opinion issued this morning that granted his habeas petition and ordered his immediate release from U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement. To begin, the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to issue the 7:01pm order. Previously, the judge denied petitioner's motion to reopen his case. That denial is currently on appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Once an appeal is filed with bias, the immigration judge loses jurisdiction.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. Kind of like how if you appeal to a circuit court of appeals, the lower court judge no longer has jurisdiction.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right. Until the termination of the appeal. Maybe they get it back later. But during the pendency of the appeal, they don't have it.

[Allison Gill]

Right. It'd be like if Judge Boasberg continued contempt proceedings after it was with the appeals court.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly.

[Allison Gill]

Now, second, even if the immigration judge had jurisdiction, his order is not a final order for removal. The order expressly reserves appeal rights for both parties with an appeal deadline of January 12, 2026. Third, the government's attempt to manufacture a removal order sua sponte through an ex parte proceeding without notice to the petitioner and without any opportunity to be heard, violates The INA and due process. The government had six years to identify and correct any alleged scrivener's error. In quotes. And petitioner has repeatedly pointed out the lack of an order throughout these proceedings.

[Andy McCabe]

Judge Sinise granted that motion. She said, respondents are enjoined from redetaining petitioner in ICE custody until this court can receive further briefing from the parties and conduct a hearing on the TRO motion. Setting briefing schedule granting 113 and clarifying that the injunction previously imposed at 20 and the order to provide written notice to Abrego, Garcia and all counsel of record at least 72 hours prior to the intended removal, identifying the country to which removal is sought, remain in full force and effect. Friday morning, Mr. Abrego checked in with ICE and left without being detained.

[Allison Gill]

Okay, excellent. So when Judge Sinis in her minute order there referenced granting 113, she was granting this, this temporary restraining order. And clarifying that the motion at 20, which was the. Remember the motion where they. Where she. You know, they said, we need 72 hours and you have to tell us what country.

[Andy McCabe]

You have to tell us where he's going.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, yeah. Because the lawyer said, oh, also can. Judge, can you clarify that they still have to give 72 hours notice and tell us what country they're going to if they're going to detain him. So she did enter that restraining order. He checked in at ICE and walked out. He is a free man, despite Kristi Noem's multiple declarations that he would never set foot on US Soil as a free man. So this is really good news. This is actually an outcome that I wasn't predicting. I figured he would be sent to Costa Rica because he agreed to be, but the government dug in their heels and said, no, it's got to be Eswatini or Liberia or Uganda or Uruguay, unless you plead guilty. But he fought. He fought this administration every step of the way, and he has prevailed. This is a stupendously brave man.

[Andy McCabe]

You know, there was an amazing video of him yesterday, I guess, getting released. And he's. He's seen how tight he's with his lawyers, you know, making the kind of classic on the courthouse steps type of statement. And while he's standing there, he's wearing a Chicago Bulls hat, which I thought was so perfect because it's. It was clearly like a brand new hat. And, you know, that was just a massive f you to the government, who based their entire argument that he was a gang member on the fact that he wore a Chicago Bulls hat, which is so ridiculous. So I just started laughing as soon as I saw that.

[Allison Gill]

But that was great. I wonder. I wonder if that was his idea. I love it. I absolutely love it.

[Andy McCabe]

It's perfect. It's perfect.

[Allison Gill]

All right, we've got a pretty long block coming up on Judge Boasberg's contempt proceedings, but we have to take a quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back.

[Andy McCabe]

Welcome back. All right, Allison, earlier you mentioned the contempt proceedings over the Trump administration's defiance of Judge Boasberg's order to turn the planes bound for El Salvador around and bringing back the putative class members removed under the Alien Enemies act back to the United States. So let's talk about the updates in that case, which is referred to as jgg. Remember, they were giving those INIT names to all these different cases. Okay. So the plaintiffs in this case filed a blistering response this week to the government's motion to block testimony in the contempt proceedings.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, they sure did. And this is what I wrote up last night in the middle of the night, because that's how I party here on the West Coast.

[Andy McCabe]

That is so nerdy. I'm just saying.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, yeah. And I was really. I was like high fiving myself like Liz Lemon after I was done. Okay.

[Andy McCabe]

Very nice.

[Allison Gill]

In my. What are those blankets that you wear.

[Andy McCabe]

Called the co. Is it like a cozy or the Snuggie or whatever? Yeah. Nice.

[Allison Gill]

You still working on my night cheese, wearing a Snuggie and writing this up for sets down?

[Andy McCabe]

Still rocking the Snuggie.

[Allison Gill]

I love it. So I said it's a long and sordid saga that has led to Thursday's late night filing by the plaintiffs in the JGG case on Judge Boasberg's docket. As you know, last March, the Department of justice and Department of Homeland Security defied an order given by Judge Boasberg to turn the planes around that had been sent to El Salvador in the middle of the night. Under the Alien Enemies Act, Judge Boasberg found probable cause of criminal contempt, which the government appealed to the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals. A three judge panel, two Trump judges and a Biden judge, vacated his contempt finding, which is important here. It's going to be important. With the dissenting judge pointing out that while the two Trump judges agreed to vacate the lower court's order, Boasberg's order, they did not agree on a reason. They had different reasons.

[Andy McCabe]

The plaintiffs appealed en banc to the full panel of the D.C. circuit, which left Boasberg's criminal contempt finding vacated, but mooted the three judge panel's finding because of the conflicting reasoning. So that returned the issue to Judge Boasberg, who basically revived the contempt proceedings by ordering DOJ to submit declarations from all individuals involved in the decision to defy his order to turn the planes around. Now, despite there having been multiple people involved, DOJ submitted three very scant declarations, one from Kristi Noem, Acting General Counsel for DHS Joseph Mazzara, and also Todd Blanch. Those raised more questions than they answered. Now, Judge Boasberg said that they didn't contain enough information for him to make a determination about whether to refer anyone to DOJ for criminal contempt. And ordered testimony from Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign and whistleblower, former DOJ attorney Erez Reveni. Now, you'll recall Raveni was the guy who was in the meeting when Emile Beauvais told DOJ and oil lawyers to tell the courts to fuck off. He also provided insights into the Eric Adams quid pro quo and the Abrego case.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, lots of stuff from Erez Reveni.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

And as you can imagine, Department of Justice really doesn't want sworn testimony from Arez Raveni or Drew Ensign because that could expose Emil Bovey as having lied to Congress in his confirmation hearing to be a judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals when he told Congress he did not tell DOJ lawyers to ignore court orders. Now, you know, these two guys, Raveni and Drew Ensign, are going to be under oath in a court of law, not under oath, you know, in front of Jim Jordan or whatever. So the Department of Justice. Actually, it would have been the Senate. Right. Chuck Grassley, whatever. You know what I mean?

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

So the Department of Justice filed a motion for Judge Boasberg to reconsider his order, the order that requires testimony from Rouveni and Ensign. And in it, they argue that Boasberg already made a probable cause determination for contempt, so he has everything he needs. He should just make his criminal referral to doj if that's what he wants to do. And of course, DOJ wants Boasberg to refer the case to doj.

[Andy McCabe]

The place where criminal referrals go to die. Is that it?

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. Pam Bondi's not going to investigate or charge.

[Andy McCabe]

Of course not.

[Allison Gill]

They want to cover this whole thing up. Yeah.

[Andy McCabe]

So there's a power courts have to appoint their own special prosecutors for contempt. But based on a recent Supreme Court ruling in Donzinger, it's pretty apparent a majority of the justices would find that rule to be unconstitutional. Now, DOJ knows that as well. So they're not afraid of criminal contempt prosecution. What they're afraid of is discovery and the process to determine probable cause. That contempt occurred because Boasberg conducts that inquiry, not the DOJ or special prosecutors under the rules disfavored by the Supreme Court.

[Allison Gill]

Yep. Ding, ding, ding. Now, in their motion for reconsideration, the Department of Justice argued that criminal contempt is for the Department of Justice to prosecute, not for the courts to determine. DOJ claims the judge has all the information he needs to make the referral for criminal contempt and doesn't need to determine intent or state of mind or willfulness. And besides, an inquiry into the basis for the decision to let the planes continue to El Salvador would implicate the attorney client privilege. Now, that brings us to the response filed late Thursday night by the plaintiffs.

[Andy McCabe]

The plaintiff's response hinges on the fact that the higher courts did vacate Boasberg's initial probable cause determination. But the en banc court also ruled the three judge panel's split decision wasn't a majority, according to the plaintiffs, that returned the contempt proceeding back to Boasberg to start anew. And Boseberg said the scant declarations filed by Noem, Mazara and Blanche aren't enough for him to make a probable cause determination. So the DOJ asking Boasberg to cancel testimony and just make the DOJ referral is ridiculous. The court has the power to get to the bottom of what happened, so it has the requisite information to make a referral in the first place. That's why testimony, additional declarations as determined by the court, and an inquiry into the willfulness and state of mind are necessary.

[Allison Gill]

Yep, the declarations. Those three declarations by the government didn't answer any of the basic questions needed to make probable cause determinations. And the plaintiffs point out that there are a lot of problems with invoking attorney client privilege. You ready for this list?

[Andy McCabe]

I am ready. Hit me first.

[Allison Gill]

They pierced attorney client privilege when the government declared it would use an advice of counsel defense at trial. Further, a party waives privilege by placing otherwise privileged matters in controversy. Remember when Trump wanted to use advice of counsel in his classified documents case, saying Corcoran and Epstein told him to do it, but he tried to get the court to ignore the part where that waives attorney client privilege because he'd have to hand over all of his communications with those lawyers. They're doing it again now. Additionally, Andy, there's the crime fraud exception and the fact that the Department of Justice lawyers are entitled to disclose client confidences to respond to charges of wrongdoing against them. That's called the self defense exception. If you're a government lawyer and somebody's accusing you of contempt, you can pierce attorney client privilege to defend yourself.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah. Which is fascinating, but okay. Further, the attorney client privilege doesn't preclude government lawyers from disclosing information related to possible criminal wrongdoing. In fact, they're duty bound to report it because DOJ lawyers, clients are the people that's all of us. So, in fact, that they tried to invoke it, I think shows a gross misunderstanding of the role of government attorneys. Now, the government also actually disclosed some of the legal advice in a Nov. 25 filing.

[Allison Gill]

Oops.

[Andy McCabe]

Oops, Quote, email from then Acting Assistant Attorney General Yakov Roth that Mr. Bovet had advised DHS that, quote, the deplaning of the flights that had departed US Airspace prior to the court's minute order was permissible under the law and the court's order. Close quote. And by revealing some of that legal advice, they effectively waived attorney client privilege.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, you can't talk about some of the stuff that you and your lawyer talked about without waiving all of your privileges. You don't.

[Andy McCabe]

It can't cut both ways. You can't say, no, we're not going to disclose anything because it's privilege, but then disclose little selections that support you once it's. Once you've opened the door. The door is open, right?

[Allison Gill]

Yep. Furthermore, attorney client privilege doesn't prevent a witness from taking the stand. To do it properly, they'd have to take the stand and assert privilege to each individual question.

[Andy McCabe]

That's right.

[Allison Gill]

Additionally, the court can impose a broad range of sanctions besides criminal contempt referrals. And it has the authority to investigate bad faith conduct. For example, Department of Justice argues that Boasberg can only make criminal contempt referrals because civil contempt is no longer available because SCOTUS vacated his initial temporary restraining order, the one that stopped the. That ordered the planes to be turned around. But the government ignores that civil compensatory contempt may be sought where an order has lapsed but was not beyond the court's authority, which is true in this case. So the government asked Boasberg to rule on their motion for reconsideration. Stop the testimony of Reuveni and Ensign by this past Friday, as the testimony for Raveni and Ensign are scheduled for December 15th and 16th of this week. And all of that that we just read is stuff that I wrote. Here's what based on that, you know, response to the motion for reconsideration. But here's what Judge Boasberg has to say about it because he has issued his ruling.

[Andy McCabe]

Okay. To begin this inquiry is not some academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were spirited out of this country without a hearing and placed in a high security prison in El Salvador where many suffered abuse and possible torture. Despite this court's order that they should not be disembarked, The En Banc D.C. circuit has authorized this court to proceed with its contempt inquiry which requires a consideration of officials state of mind. The cursory declarations defendants have provided offer little to assist such consideration. The circuit has also vacated this court's prior probable cause determination.

[Allison Gill]

Aha. Ahahaha. I was right. But to be fair, I was reminded of that very specific fact that the circuit vacated his prior probable cause determination through the filing in the response to the motion from the plaintiffs. While the government also asserts that the court's inquiry should be cabined to March 15, that is too restrictive. What occurred at the March 14 meeting with the Department of Justice attorneys, including Emil Bovey, Erez Reveni, and Drew Ensign, for example, may well help to illuminate officials decisions the next day and their mental states. Nor would everything said at such a meeting necessarily be covered by attorney client privilege, the sole privilege defendants have invoked inasmuch as no client was allegedly present and a policy was apparently discussed. In any event, to the extent that future contempt was being considered, the crime fraud exception would. What is it? Vitiate. Yeah, vitiate, negate Pierce, put down, crush, squash, Eliminate privilege. So that's interesting too. I didn't think of that. There were no clients present because the people are your clients. And also Andy, attorney client privileges, the only privilege they invoked. They didn't invoke deliberative process privilege, they didn't invoke work product privilege. The other. The usual things that they usually do. Yeah. So this court accordingly orders that the defendant's motion to reconsider, the motion to stop the testimony is denied.

[Andy McCabe]

In the meantime, the government has filed a notice of mandamus petition with the appeals court and it reads as follows. This long running saga never should have begun, should not have continued at all after this court's last intervention, and certainly should not be allowed to escalate into the unseemly and unnecessary interbranch conflict that it now imminently portends. I'm going to choke for having had to read that sentence. This long running saga should never have begun. Yeah, no kidding. You should have turned the plane around when the judge ordered it, and none of this crap would have ever happened.

[Allison Gill]

Oh, imagine.

[Andy McCabe]

Holy cow. And then, I mean to.

[Allison Gill]

To.

[Andy McCabe]

To claim like you're trying to protect the seam. The seamliness of. Of interbranch relations.

[Allison Gill]

Come on.

[Andy McCabe]

This is a government that exhibits nothing but disdain and disrespect for the article. For the courts. The article three courts. This is absurd. Okay, I. Sorry, that's my rant. Here we go. Continuing, this court should therefore again grant mandamus relief, this time foreclosing any further inquiry. The court should also order the case to be reassigned, given the strong appearance that the district judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment. Two things that this government knows a lot about, retaliation and harassment, by the way, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this matter impartially. They then filed notice with judge Boasberg asking him to stay the testimony pending the outcome of their mandamus petition with the appeals court. Oh, my God.

[Allison Gill]

Now, Andy, I think this goes back to the same three judge panel, wouldn't it? The two Trump appointees and the Biden appointee. And if they can get their ish together and agree on a reason to vacate the contempt proceedings, then we may have a different outcome here. We may see that this actually come to a stop.

[Andy McCabe]

It's possible. I don't know. Honestly, I don't know. I'm not sure that the same three judge panel gets everything that comes out of this case. It would make sense, but I just can't confirm that.

[Allison Gill]

No. And then also it would be appealed again to en banc, and they may have a different view once those two judges agree. They would. They were like. Because basically they're like, the. The full panel was like, we don't have to address this because you didn't have a majority. So we're not going to. But if they do come up with a majority, then the en banc appeals court can actually address that majority. And if they put it back to where it was, then of course it would go to the supreme court.

[Andy McCabe]

That's possible, but only if this. Okay, this mandamus request goes to them and then they decide to kind of reopen the old box and go back into the issue that was in front of them the last time. Like, the mandamus request is just like, please stop this nonsense. So they can't base the decision to stop it on their prior decision because that got kind of thrown out. Right?

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. I think they make most of the same arguments, but they're but they're different this time because they're trying to stop this particular testimony and additionally trying to stop the entire contempt proceeding and trying to get the case reassigned because Judge Boasberg is a big meaning.

[Andy McCabe]

Right. None of these things have been briefed. Right. But that, so we don't know what will happen, but they should. I would expect that they'll go deep on those specific issues and that'll essentially tee up the case, the issues in this request in a very different way that was in front of the court the last time. Right. It's going to have to be very testimony focused and also bias focused. And I'm not sure either of those came up in the original round of appeal.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And we also have to remember that the utilization of the Alien Enemies act still hasn't been decided by the Supreme Court.

[Andy McCabe]

Right.

[Allison Gill]

There's many, many cases that have been working their way up. They still haven't decided whether it's even legal to use the Alien Enemies act here. They're also waiting to decide whether it's legal to use Title 10 of U.S. code Section 12406 to deploy the National Guard that's been fully briefed since November 17th in the Chicago case past the 7th Circuit to the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court said, hey, we're going to need the parties to define what you think regular forces means in the, in this law. And so they've been fully briefed for almost a month now and haven't made a decision there either. But that doesn't close the door forever on Trump deploying the National Guard. He may just invoke the Insurrection act, et cetera. Nor would this completely close if they Supreme Court ruled that the Alien Enemies act isn't something you can use here. That wouldn't close the door on him trying another way. So. Right. We'll see what happens. We'll follow it all here on Unjustified. Hey, everybody, it's Allison Gill and I have some breaking news. Late Friday night after we recorded this episode, the D.C. circuit with the same panel of three judges decided two to one to temporarily halt with an administrative stay Judge Boasberg's plan for contempt hearings and testimony regarding the Alien Enemy's act deportations case and that it may have violated his order. So currently the testimony of Arez Raveni and Drew Ensign appears to be on hold while the D.C. circuit 3 judge panel tries to decide whether a more permanent stay is necessary to decide on the merits of the contempt proceedings going forward. It is the same three judge panel as I feared and the two Trump judges voted to stop it and the Biden judge dissented and would not have granted this administrative stay. So we will be right back after this quick break. Thanks for listening to Unjustified. All right, everybody, welcome back. Our final story comes from CBS. This is Scott McCarthy. Farland a bipartisan group of former federal ethics officials is asking for an internal Justice Department investigation into the legal opinion the Office of Legal Counsel legal opinion that justified the US Military strikes on suspected drug running boats in the waters off South America. The ex officials sent the request Tuesday to the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, calling for an immediate investigation into whether members of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel violated their professional legal responsibilities in preparing legal guidance that justified the unilateral use of lethal force against civilian foreign nationals, including alleged drug smugglers.

[Andy McCabe]

The group includes Norm Eisen, Richard Painter and Virginia Cantor, who served as ethics counsels for Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Their letter cited a Nov. 12 report in the Washington Post which said the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel authored a still classified opinion finding that, quote, personnel taking part in military strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution. The group's request for a formal inquiry said, quote, the result of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel's opinion, free reign for the government to murder and assassinate foreign civilians is shocking and certainly raises the most profound legal ethics concerns.

[Allison Gill]

In their request for a formal Justice Department internal review, the group of former ethics officials also questioned the administration's determination that the US Is in an armed conflict with the suspected drug cartels. Quote, the US Is not in a non international armed conflict, and even if we were, the murder of civilians would still be a violation of both international and domestic law. That's what Eisen, Painter and Cantor wrote, quote, these flaws call into question whether the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel's opinion was prepared independently, objectively and competently. Probably not.

[Andy McCabe]

Painter told CBS News that the role of OLC is to provide unvarnished legal advice to the president to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed as is required by the Constitution. Unfortunately, all signs point to OLC's opinion being nothing but a legal fig leaf to justify the president's attacks on foreign civilians. Eisen, Painter and Cantor are seeking a review by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which serves as a version of an internal affairs office for the department. The office's professional mission statement said it works, quote, to ensure that department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation's principal law enforcement agency. So, A.J. i got a side note here. It's interesting because we got a question this week that is like, directly on point with this issue. So Scott from Seattle asked who leads or is a part of the OLC and can they be held accountable for issuing bad and faulty opinions? Well, Scott, this is basically what accountability looks like inside the doj. Now, OLC is led, I think, by an assistant attorney general is the head of it, and then there's a bunch of attorneys in there. They're generally considered to be kind of the brain trust of doj. The kind of smartest, best writers end up working there. And they do exactly what was described in the just a minute ago. They provide legal opinions to the White House, to doj, and also to the president on matters that have not been decided essentially by the Supreme Court. And their opinions are given. It's not law, but they are traditionally respected by presidents and their staff and the DOJ and courts as, like, official policy positions that cannot be violated. So OPR nominally would be the group inside DOJ that would investigate when any DOJ lawyer was basically not doing their job. I find an investigation in this case to be, like, so unlikely that it's practically impossible. But what, what accountability typically looks like if you. The best example we have, I think, is this.

[Allison Gill]

The.

[Andy McCabe]

Is the infamous torture memos that were written by John Yoo and others in OLC during the Bush administration after 9 11. And eventually all of those memos were revoked and walked away from essentially by DOJ in the next administration. That alone is like such an embarrassing and humiliating kind of process for the people at OLC that wrote those original memos. They kind of go into. They go down in some infamy as having given bad legal advice to the government. So you could see something like that happen here eventually, but it's not the kind of thing that happens quickly.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And also this administration is. Has no shame.

[Andy McCabe]

So that's true. So it doesn't matter kind of.

[Allison Gill]

I mean, I'm glad they're doing an internal review, but I mean, I'm not expecting much from this.

[Andy McCabe]

No.

[Allison Gill]

But I also want to talk about, you know, the whole idea of the, what's it called, the take care clause, that the laws are faithfully executed. This administration, this president seems to use that as a green light to do whatever he wants as opposed to the restriction that it's meant to be. Do you know what I mean when I say that.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, it's both a green light for what he wants and then it's completely ignored when it comes to laws that require things that he doesn't want. They basically don't have any respect for that piece of the Constitution.

[Allison Gill]

Right. Because he uses it as a sword and not a shield. Right. It's used because to take care that the laws are faithfully executed means that what he did on January 6th was a problem, not, not that he was actually taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. So I just think that that's something that I, I keep seeing this administration talk about. Well, Article two and the take care clause. I can murder people on the high seas because of the, you know, it's just, it seems like he's using it as an excuse to do whatever he wants as opposed to. Because it seems like a ceiling and not a floor.

[Andy McCabe]

It is, but it's also, it's also an imperative. Right. It's like saying you must enforce all the laws, not just the ones you like or the ones that are convenient, but all of them. So in other words, when Congress passes a law that creates an agency and gives it money, when you walk in and say, we're going to get rid of that and fire all the people and reprogram all the funds, you're essentially violating that part of the Constitution. So it's, it's, I, I agree with you. It is, it's problematic.

[Allison Gill]

But he will say, I have all the power because of Article 2 and I'm taking care that Article 2 is faithfully executed. Like he, it's just backwards.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

It's all like, right into Marbury v. Madison's face.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah.

[Allison Gill]

But anyway, separately, on Tuesday, Andy, civil rights groups, including the aclu, center for Constitutional Rights and the New York Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York seeking the public release of this particular Office of Legal Counsel memo that's being used to justify the boat strikes and other documents related to the campaign. The groups say that they're suing because the federal government has thus far failed to release the records that they requested under the Freedom of Information Act. And it reminds me of when several people sued to get the Office of Legal Counsel memo that Bill Barr wrote saying that Donald Trump didn't commit obstruction of justice per volume 2 of the Mueller report. And the bar attorney, you know, the bar Justice Department did not want that released. And they invoked deliberative process privilege, attorney client privilege, work product privilege. And Judge Beryl House said, you're out of your mind. I'll let you redact these couple of things, but you spent six minutes on a Friday night and then to come up with this by the Monday morning, that's not deliberative process. That's preconceived notions about what you wanted to say.

[Andy McCabe]

That's rushed process. And there's no rushed process privilege. No, it's only for deliberative.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, there's no preconceived notion privilege.

[Andy McCabe]

Exactly.

[Allison Gill]

For you to put that out. So that's why we got to see that Bill Barr memo, which likely made it very difficult to bring any criminal charges on those 10 obstruction of justice instances that Mueller outlined in volume two. So I think that there could be a good chance that we could see at least parts of this memo. But this administration is also saying the memo is classified. And if they did it right, if they learned their lesson from the Bill Barr Mueller obstruction of justice memo, they may have actually done deliberative process properly to be able to keep this out of the public's eye.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, and there's also. I hate to even bring this up because it's also extremely unlikely, but there is Congress, and particularly if Congress turns over in the midterm election, then there is a possibility that Congress starts to put enormous pressure on DOJ to at least turn the memo in some form, likely redacted, to keep some of this classified stuff out of it, turn it over to be reviewed by Congress in the course of their oversight duties. And so we could learn more about it through that process as well. But again, that's a long one. That's a long shot.

[Allison Gill]

Right. You're still asking Pam Bondi for something or whoever replaces her after she's fired for whatever. So one last thing, Andy, before we get to another listener question and get out of here. I sued the government. So, back in the summer, I had a bunch of sources from the FBI who reviewed the Epstein files to redact Donald Trump's name, redact victims and survivors names and personally identifiable information, reached out to me and. And one of them confided in me that not only was there an Excel spreadsheet where they were told to log all of the instances of Donald Trump's mentions and mark for redaction in the files, in these Epstein files, but that there were also training videos disseminated on the SharePoint site, embedded in PowerPoint presentations on how to do that, because the Information Management Division isn't as trained on redactions as rids. Like it's rid's job. But Pam Bondi and Kash Patel needed a thousand people to go over these because there's so many files. So they sent out these training materials. And before I published the story, I held the story for about 15 minutes on these training videos. I filed a Freedom of Information act request to get the training videos. Then I published the story. Then we got assigned to Judge Beryl Howell. And we've been going back and forth and I'm asking for expedited processing of my request. And I got a response from the government. The government filed, the Department of Justice filed their response arguing that I should not have expedited processing to get these videos, even though recent emails pried loose from the FBI by Jason Leopold for Bloomberg confirm the existence of these PowerPoint training videos and the Excel spreadsheet log. As a matter of fact, they don't think I should have expedited processing. Andy, their argument is that they are actually arguing that there is not widespread public interest in the Epstein information.

[Andy McCabe]

Yeah, nobody cares about that. It's not really on the news much. I've started calling cnn, enn, it's the Epstein News Network. I feel like every show is all about Epstein, including on Friday when all these picked photographs came out. So, yeah, that's, that's going to be a tough. The government has signed themselves up for another tough argument.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, well, we'll see. We'll see what Judge Barrel Howell says and of course, we'll let you know here on Unjustified. All right, I think we have time for a listener question. Andy, what do we have this week? Oh, by the way, if you have a question you want to ask us, you can click on the link in the show notes and fill out the form and it'll submit your questions to us.

[Andy McCabe]

Roger that. So, okay, so we'll just do a quick one here from Ed. And this is kind of going back to what was one of our topics from last week, but we talked about this part of it a little bit then. But Ed has asked a question to go a little deeper here. Ed says if the President can modify his January 6 pardon to exclude the pipe bomber, could he revoke other pardons and is it possible for him to revoke pardons granted by a different president? So it's an interesting question, Ed, but I think there's a pretty clear answer for it. Essentially, as we know, the President has basically zero limits on how they execute a pardon and who they choose to pardon and what those people can be pardoned for. That's pretty much whatever the President wants. But the way it works mechanically. The pardon is not, not final until it's been delivered to the person it's intended for. And oddly enough, the most legal scholars agree that once the pardon has been finalized and it has been received by the, by the person pardoned, it cannot be modified by the president. It's like a done deal. And the person who gets it, I suppose, is supposed to be able to have confidence that it's not going to be changed. It's also pretty clear that presidents absolutely cannot impact, revoke, change, edit pardons that were given by other presidents before them. They're not revocable by any other president. So in this case, you know, we know there's been kind of a lot of ridiculous talk about Trump's interest in revoking some of the pardons that President Biden issued. And there's making all kinds of claims that it was the auto pen and it wasn't President, President Biden. I think most people agree that that's really not a thing, that it would be impossible on any, for any reason for President Trump to go back and try to revoke the pardons that President Biden issued. So, no, no president can do that.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. And along the same lines of trying to re indict Letitia James. Go for it. Give it a shot. Give it a shot. President Trump. I did go ahead, try to revoke the pardon of, you know, I don't know, Hunter Biden. See what happens. I will have fun that day. I mean, even the Supreme Court, because they want to preserve the pardon power for people like Donald Trump, wouldn't sure step on previous president part, but because otherwise the next Democratic president could come in and revoke all the, wipe them all out pardons for all of the January 6th people and then put them back in jail. That seems like a, a pretty big violation of their rights. So, no, I gotta agree with you on this one, my friend.

[Andy McCabe]

Yep, yep. I think that one's cut and dry, but that's it. That's our questions for this week. Thank you, Ed. Thank you. Also, I think it was, we talked about a question from Scott from Seattle earlier in the show. So thanks. Thanks, guys. And yeah, if you have questions for us, throw them. There's a link in the show notes, send them our way. And we will get in a few every episode. And I think we're thinking about maybe team up another questions exclusive special episode coming up in the next few weeks. So stick around for that as well.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, that should be, that should be. You know, I, I really like those questions episodes. Our our listeners have such thoughtful and amazing questions that it really, I, you know, I have fun recording them. Yeah. Not that I don't have fun going through hundreds of pages of court documents and translating them for this particular show, but I do, you know, I do really enjoy those questions. So please click on the link in the show notes, send them in, and we'll continue to answer your questions as best we can. That is our show for this week. We will be back next week. Yeah, I think we're going full steam ahead through the holidays, my friend.

[Andy McCabe]

Heck, yeah. That's what it looks like. So batting down the hatches, it's probably going to be a rough road, but we'll get you there one way or another.

[Allison Gill]

All right, everybody, thanks so much. We'll see you next week on 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, a collection of creator owned independent podcasts dedicated to news, politics and justice. For more information, please visit mswmedia. Com.