UnJustified | Episode 40: "The Case Against Halligan"

Host: Allison Gill | Co-host: Andrew McCabe

Release Date: October 26, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode of UnJustified centers on major legal challenges to the Trump-era Department of Justice, focusing particularly on the controversial appointment of Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and resulting prosecutions of former FBI Director Jim Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Hosts Allison Gill and Andrew McCabe dissect critical court motions, discuss the White House East Wing demolition as a metaphor for institutional decay, and unpack new bombshell reporting on the Trump administration’s dealings with El Salvador. Other topics include Trump’s $230 million compensation demand from the DOJ, Jack Smith’s pushback against congressional distortions, and ongoing threats to civil liberties and prosecutorial integrity.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. White House East Wing Demolition: A Metaphor for Institutional Destruction

• [02:16] Allison and Andy use the abrupt, secretive demolition of the White House East Wing as a physical reflection of the Trump administration’s disregard for tradition, transparency, and the rule of law.
  • Private money is funding the demolition, raising transparency concerns.
  • The process bypassed the normal public planning and congressional oversight.
  • "It's not, it's a metaphor of itself... We've long talked about the figurative destruction of our institutions, and now it's been physically destroyed." – Allison Gill [03:58]

2. Comey & James Motions: The Challenge to Lindsey Halligan’s Appointment

a. Unlawful Appointment Argument

• [06:09] Comey’s legal team, referencing both statutory and constitutional law, argues Halligan was unlawfully appointed under Section 526 (not 546) after the interim appointment of Eric Siebert expired. Only the district court could appoint another interim attorney at that point.
  • "So after that 120 day period expires, the district court may appoint a U.S. attorney... But that's not what happened here." – Andrew McCabe [08:33]
  • The Appointments Clause demands Senate-confirmed or legally specified appointments, which also did not occur.

b. Comparative Precedents—Even US v. Trump

• Comey’s motion draws on Collins v. Yellen, Rider v. US, Lucia v. SEC, and, poignantly, the recent US v. Trump (Jack Smith’s appointment), to argue that improper appointment nullifies all subsequent actions.
  • "In that case, the court applied these principles... and they dismissed the charges against Donald Trump because of a defect in the appointment of the prosecutor." – Andrew McCabe [12:41]
  • Comey seeks dismissal with prejudice due to retaliation and the lateness of the indictment.

c. Motion Status and Court Procedure

• The Halligan disqualification is being heard outside the Eastern District of Virginia for conflict-of-interest reasons—moved to Judge Curry in S.C.
  • DOJ response deadline: Nov 3; defense reply: Nov 10.

d. Letitia James Joins the Fight

• James files a virtually identical motion, seeking to consolidate with Comey’s for judicial efficiency.

3. Retaliatory & Selective Prosecution: The Constitutional Challenge

a. Strong Language from Defense

• Comey’s motion argues retaliation for protected speech and clear equal protection violations.
  • "Those are really strong words coming from a guy like Pat Fitzgerald." – Allison Gill [25:37]

b. Proof of Animus & Selective Targeting

• Trump’s own public posts are entered as direct evidence of retaliation:
  • "Justice must be served now." — Donald J. Trump (Truth Social post) [30:41]
  • The motion chronicles the timeline: Halligan’s rushed appointment, indictment days before statute of limitations expiry, and public boasts/declarations by Trump.

c. Fatal Flaws in the Indictment

• Comey’s statements, as challenged in the indictment, are shown to be literal, contextually true, or based on mischaracterizations by senators in hearings.
  • "It's literally true that he stood by his 2017 testimony." – Allison Gill [36:57]

d. Comparative Non-Prosecutions ("Similarly Situated" Defendants)

• The motion lists several Trump allies who made false statements to Congress without prosecution:
  • Scott Pruitt (EPA/personal email)
  • Tom Price (HHS/bio tech shares)
  • Steve Mnuchin (autopen)
  • Jeff Sessions (Russia contacts)
  • "All of the similarly situated individuals are people who basically were part of the first Trump administration and lied to Congress... It's hilarious." – Andrew McCabe [39:19]

e. Judge’s Potential Paths

• The judge could either dismiss outright or grant discovery and hold a hearing on vindictive/selective prosecution.
• Likelihood is that courts will await a decision on Halligan’s appointment before considering these arguments.

4. Justice Department Internal Revolt & Firing Fallout

• [21:13] Senior DOJ officials, including Elizabeth Youse and her deputy, were fired after refusing to pursue the Letitia James case, evidencing a "full-on revolt." Halligan had to seek support from other districts to proceed.

5. El Salvador-Prison Deal & Betrayal of US Informants

• [45:55] The hosts break down devastating Washington Post reporting:
  • Marco Rubio promised El Salvador’s president, Bukele, to deport protected MS-13 informants, betraying existing DOJ commitments in return for access to Bukele’s notorious mega-prison.
  • “The deal is a deep betrayal of US law enforcement whose agents risked their lives to apprehend these gang members.” — Douglas Farah, US contractor and investigator [50:03]
  • Sets precedent undermining US credibility with informants, paralleling similar betrayals of Afghan translators and immigrant whistleblowers.

6. Trump’s $230 Million DOJ Claim—Corruption & Conflicts

• [54:37] Trump is demanding DOJ pay him $230 million for “wrongful prosecution”—a move without precedent.
  • The request may be rubber-stamped by current Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former Trump lawyer, raising acute ethical concerns.
  • "He [Blanche] still maintained a relationship, an attorney-client relationship with President Trump. So now a guy who has an attorney-client relationship... is going to have to decide whether or not to approve the president's demand for $230 million." – Andy McCabe [59:41]

7. Jack Smith Goes to Paper: Defending DOJ Integrity

• [62:40] Special Counsel Jack Smith pens letters to Chuck Grassley/Jim Jordan:

  • Clarifies his team never “wiretapped” senators; they obtained brief, routine toll records, as is commonplace in major investigations (including under Trump/Barr).

  • Smith offers to testify publicly before Congress to confront distortions—if DOJ allows, and if he has access to his case files and can address classified/under seal portions.

  • "His role in attempting to overthrow the 2020 election" (not ‘alleged’) – language shift noted by Allison Gill [62:40]

  • “Wiretapping, by contrast, involves intercepting...which the Special Counsel’s office did not do.” – Andrew McCabe [63:12]

  • “The cyber place in a vault in a lockbox is the turducken of information hiding.” – Andy McCabe [66:55]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Allison Gill [03:58]: "It's not, it's a metaphor of itself... We've long talked about the figurative destruction of our institutions, and now it's been physically destroyed."
• Andrew McCabe [08:33]: "After that 120 day period expires, the district court may appoint a US attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled... The Attorney General had no additional authority."
• Andrew McCabe [12:41]: "The court applied these principles and they dismissed the charges against Donald Trump because of a defect in the appointment of the prosecutor."
• Douglas Farah [50:03]: "Who would ever trust the word of US law enforcement or prosecutors ever again."
• Andrew McCabe [66:55]: "The cyber place in a vault in a lockbox is the turducken of information hiding."
• Allison Gill [70:42]: "It dares them to say you got to keep quiet about volume two, and it dares them to not produce [Jack Smith’s] files to him. It's fascinating. It's a baller move."

Important Timestamps

• 02:16 — Infrastructure destruction as metaphor for institutional damage
• 06:09 — Unlawful appointment argument for disqualifying Lindsey Halligan
• 12:41 — US v. Trump cited as precedent for dismissing an indictment due to prosecutor appointment defect
• 25:37 — Comey’s motion uses powerful, direct condemnation of DOJ’s motives
• 30:41 — Trump’s post to Pam Bondi as direct evidence of animus
• 39:19 — "Similarly situated" non-prosecutions listed in Comey motion
• 45:55 — Reporting on MS-13 informant betrayal and El Salvador deal
• 54:37 — Discussion of Trump’s $230M DOJ claim and potential Blanche conflict
• 62:40 — Jack Smith’s response to congressional attacks and push for public testimony
• 66:55 — Debunking the “lockbox cyber-vault” claims

Episode Structure

I. Demolition of East Wing and Its Symbolism

II. Detailed Breakdown of Halligan Appointment Challenge

III. Motions for Vindictive/Selective Prosecution – Evidence and Precedents

IV. Internal DOJ Resistance and Fallout

V. El Salvador Gang-Prison Quid Pro Quo

VI. Trump’s DOJ Compensation Claim—Ethical Crisis

VII. Jack Smith’s Defense and Congressional Testimony Offer

Tone & Language

• Candid, direct, and urgent—frequently referencing “chutzpah” of government actors, and using concrete legal reasoning accessible to a lay audience.
• Melding legal rigor with incredulity and harsh critique, especially when discussing perceived abuses.
• Liberal but precise use of legal citations and real-world examples to illuminate abstract concepts.

In Summary

Episode 40 captures the ongoing, multifaceted confrontation with the remnants of Trump’s Justice Department. The hosts marshal statutory law, case law, and extensive public record evidence to illustrate how core prosecutorial norms—a fair process, non-retaliation, constitutional appointments—are being actively undermined. The themes are sobering but energizing: from the symbolic destruction of the White House to international betrayals and unprecedented restitution claims, listeners are left with a clear sense of both the stakes and the tools available for accountability. The episode closes with hope that transparency, legal integrity, and collective vigilance can still prevail.

For further questions or comments, listeners are urged to submit queries for an upcoming listener mail special episode via the show notes link.