← UnJustified
UnJustified
The Hero We Need (feat. Cathy Harris)
01:06:01
Attorney General Pam Bondi has purportedly removed the District of Columbia police chief and replaced her with the head of the DEA as an emergency police commissioner. The DC Attorney General has filed suit against this takeover. DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office has admitted it’s having a hard time securing grand jury indictments against DC protesters for interfering with immigration and customs enforcement. A group of former national security and FBI officials has issued a warning about the ongoing purge inside the FBI. Plus, we speak with former Merit Systems Protection Board Member Cathy Harris about her wrongful termination. Plus listener questions… Do you have questions for the pod?
Loading summary
Transcript180 lines
- [00:01]
Allison Gill
MSW Media.
- [00:07]
Andy McCabe
Attorney General Pam Bondi has purportedly removed the District of Columbia police chief and replaced her with the head of the DEA as an emergency police commissioner. The D.C. attorney General has filed suit against this takeover.
- [00:22]
Allison Gill
D.C. u.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office has admitted it's having a hard time securing grand jury indictments against D.C. protesters for interfering with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
- [00:33]
Andy McCabe
A group of former National Security and FBI officials has issued a warning about the ongoing purge inside the FBI.
- [00:41]
Allison Gill
And we speak with former Merit Systems Protection Board member Kathy Harris about her wrongful termination. This is unjustified, everybody. Welcome to episode 30 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, August 17th, 2020. I'm Alison Gill.
- [01:05]
Andy McCabe
And I'm Andy McCabe. All right, as you can see, we're rounding up another busy week as the Trump administration attempts to federalize the District of Columbia, citing the Home rule Act of 1973. We're going to get to that in just a bit, but first, we're honored to be joined by a former member of the Merit Systems protection board, the MSPB. Now, Donald Trump fired her on February 10th. She sued the Trump administration because members of the MSPB can only be fired for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Eight days later, a federal judge ordered that she be reinstated.
- [01:42]
Allison Gill
But then a three judge panel on the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals found that Trump did have the authority to fire her. But the full panel on BONK ruled to reinstate her, only to have the Supreme Court block the reinstatement during the pendency of her litigation. So please welcome Kathy Harris. Kathy, thanks for joining us on Unjustified.
- [02:01]
Kathy Harris
Thank you so much for having me. I feel a little bit like a ping pong ball after what you described.
- [02:08]
Andy McCabe
It's a torturous history for litigation. I'm sorry that you had to go through all that.
- [02:13]
Kathy Harris
Well, you know, that's okay. I'm, I'm a litigator by training, so it's strange being in the client seat, but I, you know, it is what it is.
- [02:23]
Andy McCabe
Yep.
- [02:24]
Allison Gill
Yeah. And speaking of being a litigator by training, Full disclosure, everyone. Kathy Harris is formerly my attorney in my wrongful termination case against the Department of Veterans affairs from Trump's first administration. But then Joe Biden reached down and, and plucked her brilliant mind out of, out of my case, put her on the Merit Systems Protection Board, which was really, really amazing because there had not been a quorum on the MSPB for so long that everyone's, you know, Complaints were just languishing there, which I think is kind of was kind of the point. It was a feature and not a bug. And so I have a new attorney, my case is going forward. We just had a motion for summary judgment hearing and we're continuing on with that. But I just wanted to give everybody full disclosure that I've worked with Kathy Harris in the past before she was appointed by Joe Biden to the Merit Systems Protection Board. So Kathy, all right, have there been any updates on your case after the ping pong ball, pinball machine thing we just went through?
- [03:27]
Kathy Harris
Well, we're, we're in waiting mode, waiting on the D.C. circuit panel to rule on the merits of my case, basically to rule on whether Judge Contreras ruling finding in my favor on the merits is correct or not. And honestly, we expect a ruling could be any day. So, you know, fingers crossed and hoping for the best.
- [03:55]
Allison Gill
And do you know who the three panel judge? Is it the same three panel judge that considered your emergency motion or is that a different panel? Because I think my understanding is that the emergency motions panel sits for a month and then they change it out. So is this a different panel of judges?
- [04:10]
Kathy Harris
It's a different panel with one overlap. Judge Walker is the overlap than Judge Katzis and Judge Pan are on the merits panel.
- [04:22]
Allison Gill
Gotcha. And let's talk really quick about multi member boards, because first of all, your case was consolidated with Gwen Wilcox, who was removed from the National Labor Relations Board. And there's a doctrine in place, or there has been for a long time called Humphrey's executor, which I think is at stake in these cases because some members of the Supreme Court have been seemingly wanting to overturn Humphrey's executor for a while. So can you talk a little bit about how multi member boards are protected? I think there were additional laws signed during Biden's administration. But mostly I'm, I'm concerned here about Humphrey's executor.
- [05:04]
Kathy Harris
So the law of the land really since the founding of the Constitution has been that there are certain, certain individuals who can only be fired for cause from the government. Those are like myself on a, you know, high level independent agency, multi member board. And what I was doing, I was doing really adjudicatory work. I was like a judge. So hearing cases from federal employees who are fired or whistleblowers and the like. So there's a statute that Congress passed that says I could only be fired for cause. I was nominated and confirmed by the Senate, nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate and my term was supposed to run until at least March 2028. The board is bipartisan by statute only two members of the board can from the same political party. So you know, when there's a the and the terms are staggered. So when I was there there were two Democrats and one Republican. One of those seats expired, not mine. And so I would have assumed that it would be, you know, two Republicans and me as the remaining Democrat until my term expired. So you know, the, the shock of it is that no, no member had ever been terminated of any independent board I think since Humphrey's executor as far as I know. So you know, my friends joke that the new case would be called Harris's Executor but I hope not because that would mean I'd be no longer with us because if you have an executor in your case, it means that the estate takes over. So I'm hoping that justice is served sooner rather than later so I can get back to work and do the job that Congress put me there to do. I think your question though just that was background. The question really is what happens if Humphreys executor goes away? Well, what happens is that the President can fire members of boards like mine, the nlrb, the Fed and other important boards that have bipartisan statutory protections from arbitrary removal.
- [07:54]
Andy McCabe
Hey Kathy, let me just push you a little bit on that to give just by way of background, Humphreys executor. Humphrey of course was on the, I think the Trade Commission. Roosevelt basically inherited Humphrey and he was a conservative and Roosevelt wanted to get rid of him and he asked him to resign. He refused to. And so Roosevelt fired him. And he made it very clear that he fired him because of his political positions and his like conservative policies on that board. Of course he died shortly after getting fired and his executive steps, his executor steps in and files this case which goes on to become Humphrey's executor versus the United States. And the court basically says Roosevelt did the wrong thing, couldn't fire him. And they lay out this test in which they say in a board like this, the one that Humphrey had been on, which is not specifically or purely executive in function but rather quasi judicial and quasi legislative, then the Executive, the head of the executive branch, the President does not have the power to, to fire at will, essentially a member of the board. So is it your, are you concerned that your case will. I guess my question is do you think if the, if the court goes against you here, is it going to be because they're going to make some argument that you failed that test or do you think they're looking to throw out the, the, the ruling in Humphrey's executor entirely and like say okay from now on the President can fire he wants for whatever he wants.
- [09:34]
Kathy Harris
Right. So that's a great question Andy. So the government has said that they want to overturn Humphrey's executor. It's not just that they think that the Merit Systems Protection Board is you know, just doesn't fit in with that within that test, within that framework. It's that they no longer wish for Humphrey's executor to be the law of the land. And they've been quite frank about that in their brief and in their arguments before the Court.
- [10:06]
Allison Gill
And you had brought up the Fed as one of these multi member boards but I think I remember one of the Supreme Court Justices in one of these cases in a concurrence and it might have been Justice Thomas saying we want to get rid of Humphrey's executor. I'm paraphrasing obviously but not for the Fed. It seemed like they wanted a carve out for the Fed. And so I was wondering if you knew the temperature of the six conservative Justices on this because sometimes we see like maybe Amy Coney Barrett or Kavanaugh not going along with what Alito and Thomas would want which in this case would be to over outright overturn Humphrey's executor. Do you have an idea or a feeling about where the Justices come down on the multi member boards? I'm pretty sure none of them want to be have the President be able to fire the Fed, anyone on the Fed board. But it seems like all the other multi member boards there are at least one or two Justices who want to completely overturn Humphreys but I don't know the temperature of the other Justices.
- [11:12]
Kathy Harris
So that's a question you'd have to ask my attorneys. You can ask Neil Katyal what he thinks about that. I'm not a Supreme Court practitioner and I'm not going to guess what the Justices will or won't do in my case if it ever got there. But what I will say is that I think that my case is a very important question about the doctrine of separation of powers. Right. And is it is, is the executive able to fire these high level multi member bipartisan board members at will or is there a reason that we have these laws in place and does our Constitution believe, you know, is, is there a belief of the integrity of the separation of powers. And, and that's, I really think what it comes down to. And you know, how the court comes out on it, I don't know and I'm not going to guess, but I think it's very important. If you think about what the Merit Systems Protection Board does just from a matter of policy and principles, we want our civil servants and our civil service to be looked at with independence and integrity and nonpartisanship. You don't want, for example, air traffic controllers controlling airplanes based on political partisan patronage. You don't want hurricanes to be predicted and managed by people who are appointed out of political patronage. You might want the high level policymakers to be politicals, but you don't want. You can pick your lawyer, the President can pick his lawyer, but he shouldn't be able to pick his judges. And that's what I was, I was a judge, an administrative appellate judge rendering decisions on these kinds of cases.
- [13:42]
Andy McCabe
I think that's such an important point. And it also occurs to me that I think we have a tendency to look at this only from the perspective of Presidents grabbing more power. Right. And there are certainly people who believe that, and some of them are on the Supreme Court. They subscribe to this kind of unitary executive theory that the President is really, you know, can basically do whatever he wants and has unlimited power and all that other stuff. And that's one side of the equation. But the other side of the equation, which I think is like so is in such clear focus in this case. If you, if the court goes that way and throws out Humphrey's executor or executor and, and therefore grants the President this expanded power to fire for any reason members of multi member boards who have been created by Congress. It's not just that the President is getting more power, it's that we are eliminating power from Congress.
- [14:42]
Kathy Harris
That's right.
- [14:43]
Andy McCabe
You were basically saying that Congress, in the things it creates, cannot even control how those entities are administered. And when we take power away from Congress, Congress is the place where Americans actually have a say over how power is executed. And we lose that say, we lose that accountability. That's the part of government that's most accountable to the citizens because you vote for these people, you vote for your representatives and your Senators. So I don't know, I feel like there's a, there's, you know, it's like it's a, it's a zero sum game. There's nothing new being created here. If you give all of this to the President, you, by definition, are taking away power from Congress and therefore taking away the government's accountability to the citizens.
- [15:33]
Kathy Harris
Yeah, I think that's, that's a very good way of describing the, the main issues here, Andy. You know, what I would add is that political patronage and government hasn't gone well for our country when we've tried it before. Right. The reason the civil service laws were passed was after President Garfield was assassinated in the. I don't know, around 1880, something. Right. And we passed the Pendleton act to prevent against political patronage in government. And over time, you know, that was strengthened. And then when we got to the Watergate, corruption and scandals, that's when the Civil Service Reform act was passed right after Nixon left office to prevent, again, against political patronage in government. So it hasn't gone well. It didn't do what we didn't. We didn't succeed in a way that perhaps some would have liked when we lean toward more political patronage in the civil service. And there's been a reason that nonpartisan political, you know, that we haven't accepted that in the government for many, many years because it leads to fraud, waste and abuse. It leads to taxpayer waste, and it leads to inefficiency of the service, which is something I think most Americans don't want.
- [17:18]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. And corruption.
- [17:19]
Kathy Harris
Corruption, that's right.
- [17:20]
Allison Gill
Just what I was going to say. Yeah, yeah. And, and Kathy, I wanted to ask you before, while we still have a little time here, you know, I, I was removed from the Department of Veterans affairs, and now I'm seeing it completely gutted and I'm seeing veterans being sent out to private providers and toward the privatization. Andy. Removed from service at the FBI, seeing it being purged of its, you know, long standing honorable members who, who, who, whose lives are dedicated to that service. I wanted to give you a chance to talk about your sense of the morale in federal government. These smear campaigns against our federal workers, painting them as lazy moochers, all of whom are very honorable, skilled people who are taking a pay cut to serve the United States, by the way, they can make so much more money in the private sector. But I just wanted to get kind of your thoughts on what's this dismantling of the federal government, trying to go back to the spoils system and what that's kind of done to morale and our government as a whole.
- [18:34]
Kathy Harris
Well, listen, I've spent my career representing federal employees and at times federal agencies. My entire career really has been dealing with people in the federal government and fighting discrimination, fighting against fraud, waste and abuse. And fighting for basically the integrity of the civil service. So it was an honor of a lifetime for me to be able to be a judge, an appellate administrative judge at the mspb. And what I saw is, for the most part, our civil servants are professional, smart, dedicated, and honorable. For the most part. Right. But there's. There's systems in place to remove those who are not adhering to performance standards or conduct standards. That's all there. We have that in place. Why it's not used properly, you know, by agencies, that's a different question. But the laws are there to be able to correctly and efficiently have a civil service. Right. So when there's accusations of just, you know, rampant, that people are just, you know, completely lazy and not doing their jobs, it's just not true. I can just tell you from my experience at the MSPB with our employees, they're the most. We're so lucky that these people are in government doing what they do. We are so lucky to have these people who have dedicated their lives to public service rather than doing something else in the private sector. And it's not just them. It's their families who are serving our country. And I just feel very. I want to just offer my apology to those who have felt impugned and to just keep, keep, keep up the good work. Keep doing what you're doing. Someone told me courage is contagious. And I hope that you will continue to do your jobs, and I'm going to continue to fight to make sure that the law is followed.
- [21:05]
Allison Gill
Well, we certainly appreciate all the work that you've done and the advocacy that you're doing going forward. We're going to be keeping an eye on your case. We would love to have you back on in the future sometime to talk about any updates, if that's okay.
- [21:17]
Kathy Harris
It would be my pleasure. Thank you so much, Allison and Andy.
- [21:21]
Andy McCabe
Thank you, Kathy. Such a. Such a privilege and honor to get to talk to you today. So, yeah, please stay in touch with us. We'd love to have you on again.
- [21:29]
Allison Gill
All right, everybody, stick around. We're going to be right back with some more Unjustified right after this quick break. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. That was so nice to get to talk to Kathy again.
- [21:49]
Andy McCabe
She's great. That was really nice for her to come on.
- [21:51]
Allison Gill
Yeah, I look forward to talking to her again. All right, let's talk about what's going on in D.C. this is reporting from the Associated Press. They say the Trump administration stepping up its crackdown on policing in the nation's capital on Thursday named the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration to be Washington's emergency police commissioner with all the powers of the police chief, a significant move that increases national control over the city as part of the federal government's law enforcement takeover. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a directive issued Thursday evening that the DEA boss, Terry Cole, will assume, quote, powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia. Chief of Police. The Metropolitan Police Department, quote, must receive approval from Commissioner Cole before issuing any orders. That's what Bondi said in her order. It was not immediately clear where the move left Pamela Smith, the city's actual police chief, who works for the mayor.
- [22:47]
Andy McCabe
D.C. attorney General Brian Schwab responded late Thursday that Bondi's directive was unlawful, arguing that it could not be followed by the city's police force, quote. Therefore, members of mpd, that stands for Metropolitan Police Department, must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the mayor, schwab wrote in a memo to Smith, setting up a potential legal clash between the heavily Democratic District and the Republican administration. Now, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote on social media that, quote, there is no statute that conveys the District's personal authority to a federal official. Bondi's directive came hours after Smith, that's the police chief, directed MPD officers to share information with immigration agencies, but only regarding people not in custody, such as someone who's been involved in a traffic stop or encountered at a checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief's directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of sanctuary city policies.
- [23:57]
Allison Gill
Now, Bondi said she was rescinding that order, as well as other MPD policies limiting inquiries to immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from Cole. That's the DEA guy. According to Pam Bondi, the police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough on crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the US Illegally. And it also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, I call it houselessness. The city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities. And the Capitol is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the administration has portrayed.
- [24:50]
Andy McCabe
For an already wary Washington, Thursday marked a notable and highly visible uptick in presence from the previous two days. The visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high traffic areas, was striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over DC's law enforcement, which is, of course, the Metropolitan Police Department, for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he'll reevaluate that as the deadline approaches. The response before Thursday had been gradual and by all appearances, low key. But on Wednesday night, officers set up a checkpoint in one of DC's popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. The White House said 45 arrests were made Wednesday night, with 29 people arrested for living in the country illegally. Other arrests included for distribution or possession of drugs, carrying a concealed weapon, and assaulting a federal officer.
- [25:48]
Allison Gill
And NBC is reporting also, Brian Schwab. As you said, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington on Friday challenging the Trump administration's takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department. And this lawsuit challenges Trump's Monday's, Trump's Monday order, as well as Attorney General Pam Bondi's Thursday order claiming federal control of the D.C. police force. Schwab's office argues that the order exceeds the limits on requesting services from dc, which it says can only be done on a temporary basis and under emergency circumstances.
- [26:22]
Andy McCabe
The office also sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the Trump administration from taking over the police department, saying that D.C. would suffer devastating and irreparable harms if the Trump administration's efforts succeeded.
- [26:37]
Allison Gill
Yeah. And this case was then issued to Judge Reyes, a Biden appointee, and she called an emergency hearing same day for it for, like, gave him a couple of hours. And I listened to the hearing, and the first maybe hour of the hearing, it was kind of a. It was the DOJ and the judge kind of going back and forth on section one of this order, which basically hands over control of the, the Metropolitan Police Department to the DEA guy Cole. Right. And says you are now have all the powers of the chief under Home rule Act of 1973, Section 740, I think it was, if memory serves. If I'm, if I'm wrong, I apologize on that section. Because he's got this emergency power, right. And it only lasts for 30 days. Because at first the order said, I'm going to do it until I decide that there's no more crime and the bedlam stops or whatever. But then everyone's like, sir, no, you have 30 days.
- [27:34]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [27:34]
Allison Gill
And I think I said this on the daily beans, too. It Reminded me of mean girls when he was like, I do not care how long this takes, I will keep you here all night. And she goes, sir, we can only keep them till four. And he goes, I will keep you here until four. So anyway, the judge was going back and forth saying this is just really broad. You can't just hand over the police department because specifically because Bondi was saying, you know, everything has to go through this guy. He's the de facto emergency police commissioner. And you, you, you can't do that under the Home Rule Act. What the Home Rule act says is that the President can tell, you know, the mayor of D.C. i need this, for example, right? She used the hypothetical I need the MPD to help me with ICE and immigration arrests. And the Mayor shall offer those resources in the mpd. She has to. And that would be the way to do this. But you can't just grant or hand over the Metropolitan Police Department to a federal agent, namely this coal guy, and put them in charge and they get to tell the MPD what to do and what not to do. It was a thing about that too, not just in the affirmative. And so basically what I was taking away from that is the judge was saying, look, government, your interpretation of the law is too broad, but DC your interpretation of the law is too narrow because the President can come in and order the Mayor to have the mpd, you know, assist in some services.
- [29:14]
Andy McCabe
So yeah, so it's, I think that sounds right. I mean the way, the way that I read the Home Rule act, it's pretty simple in this one respect. It's like the President has the power to draw on the resources of the MPD for the, to accomplish a federal purpose. So yeah, that does make sense. And when he makes that request, slash, demand, which he initially does only for 48 hours and he has to notify Congress to get to the 30 day point, but after the 30 day point they basically have to pass a new law to continue that. But so we're not there yet. But once he does that, the Mayor has to comply, basically has to make that resource available to the President. But it doesn't say anything about like, okay, now we're going to put our own guy in charge and he's going to put in all new policies and maybe hire some people, fire some people like that. It doesn't go that far. It's simply to ensure that that law enforcement resource has been co opted for a federal purpose. I think there's also a limiting factor here on that federal purpose definition. So I Don't think he can come in and say, I need the MPD to patrol the streets of D.C. better. Like that's not enough. That's the job of the MPD already, and that's the responsibility of the mayor and the police chief. So I think there's pretty solid legal ground to fight. I'm just. I was. I've been frustrated that the city hasn't brought this fight before now.
- [30:46]
Allison Gill
It's interesting. Right?
- [30:47]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [30:48]
Allison Gill
Right. Yeah. Because the judge actually pointed that out. She says, am I correct, everyone? I'm the first person to ever rule on this section of the Home Rule Act.
- [30:55]
Andy McCabe
Oh, they didn't go in on Monday. I have no idea.
- [30:58]
Allison Gill
Yeah. And so the other thing, you know, because the way the rule is set up, like, Trump can put. Can make Terry Cole the liaison between the federal government and the mpd, but can't put him in charge. And so the judge pointed that out to the DOJ and said, certainly we can all agree that the president can't just take over the whole MPD and tell them all what to do and what not to do through an appointed federal officer. Right, right. And the DOJ was like, well, your honor, there's not really a huge difference between Cole being the emergency chief commissioner or the liaison. And she goes, oh, well, if it's not a big deal, just rewrite your order and we can all go home.
- [31:41]
Andy McCabe
Very nice. Yeah.
- [31:42]
Allison Gill
So then she took a break after an hour, and she's like, well, 15 minute break and 15 minutes, half hour, 45 minutes, an hour, hour and a half, nothing. And I'm like, maybe they're trying to work out some sort of a deal. But we just got from Anna Bauer that they came back about an hour and a half later. Judge Reyes said, all right, is this how I'm spending my evening? And then counsel for DC says that they've had a productive discussion with the DOJ and they want to continue discussions as to sections 2, 3, and 4, and they want the court to hold in abeyance, meaning don't rule yet on sections 2, 3, and 4, but we still want you to rule on section 1, which is the one where they make Terry Cole, like, in charge of everything. And Reyes says she'd be happy to hear the argument on section five, but she doesn't see how she can enjoin that section because it essentially tells the police to follow existing law in D.C. so that's weird. And Rea says, okay, here's what we do. She says, I think section one of the order is Plainly contrary to the statute, the whole rule. But I don't want to issue an order if I don't have to. And now the Department of Justice said that they're working on rewriting Section One. So she says if I don't hear from anyone by 6:30, I'm going to issue a temporary restraining order and joining Section One. But Reyes won't issue a TRO as to that section if a new order comes out. Right. So if they rewrite the order like she said, then she won't issue the TRO. Council for D.C. says they still want to renew the motion if it comes out. If. If the rewritten section still is against the law, you know, and she said she'll give them the phone number for her new clerks who are being sworn in tonight if that happens.
- [33:23]
Andy McCabe
Welcome to the job.
- [33:24]
Allison Gill
Yeah.
- [33:25]
Andy McCabe
Jumping in the deep end, right? Right away.
- [33:28]
Allison Gill
Yeah. And she adjourned it and she said, you guys are welcome to stick around for the swearing in of the new clerks or you can head out. Otherwise, we're adjourned. So that's what happened in court today with home rule.
- [33:38]
Andy McCabe
All right? This whole thing could have been avoided if they had actually just reached out to D.C. ahead of time and said, this is what we're going to do, even. But they don't. They don't fly that way. They are only concerned with the big press conference, the splashy media moment. We're going to save dc. We're going to throw all these horrible people in jail. It's going to be great. D.C. didn't even know this was happening until they heard the press conference. And the fact is that the city, the relationship between the law enforcement community between the federal side and the city side is actually extraordinarily good and always has been because there's a ton of federal law enforcement in D.C. everyone's got a law enforcement function.
- [34:20]
Allison Gill
There's like 17 federal law enforcement agents.
- [34:23]
Andy McCabe
Bureau, Secret Service, DEA, Marshals, Park Police. It goes on and on and on and on. And MPD is the big dog because they have, you know, 85% of the real estate in D.C. is not federal. It's the. It's the District, not the federal government. So they have to work together, and they work together on everything. They're constantly, like, cooperating and having these meetings. The D.C. council of Government meeting. I used to have to go to it every.
- [34:53]
Allison Gill
I was going to say, how do you know, Andy? How do you even know?
- [34:55]
Andy McCabe
Oh, my God. I mean, when I was running wfo, the Washington Field Office, like, you spent over half of your time, meeting with the MPD chief, meeting with the D.C. council of Government. It's just like this, very collaborative, a lot of liaising. So if they had just gone over there and said, we're doing this. Let's figure out how the mechanics are going to work, they could have avoided all that. But they didn't. Which is why, in the aftermath of the great press conference, the big, beautiful press conference, immediately people started asking questions, okay, who's in charge? And the. And the police chief was like, I listened to the mayor. The mayor's like, the police chief runs the department. Like, they kind of ignored this whole Terry Cole thing.
- [35:38]
Allison Gill
Amy Gleason. Amy Gleason is in charge.
- [35:43]
Andy McCabe
So stupid. They clearly wanted to. They wanted to be friends. D.C. did. Muriel Bowser did. I think they wanted to do this in the least confrontational way possible. And, you know, this whole hearing, extra manpower, what the hell, right? But, man, they just. That's not what the administration was looking for. They just wanted the big foot, take over, everybody, shut up and listen to us moment.
- [36:08]
Allison Gill
Yeah. It reminds me of. Remember when he went. Walked on stage during his first term and shoved the guy from Montenegro out of the way and straight, like, walked right in front of him, like, that's him, right?
- [36:19]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. Yeah.
- [36:20]
Allison Gill
That's what this is. And that's what. I think you're right. That they just wanted that big, tough moment. And they made. They put out that video of all the ice trucks out on the street.
- [36:33]
Andy McCabe
Slow roll.
- [36:34]
Allison Gill
Yeah.
- [36:35]
Andy McCabe
What?
- [36:36]
Allison Gill
It's just. It's. It's propaganda, and that's what they wanted. That's what they were aiming for. And I. The judge was pretty frustrated. She's like, guys, so. So you're fine with Cole being a liaison between the mayor and the mpd then write it up. See you tomorrow. You know, like. So we'll. We'll keep an eye on this, but.
- [36:58]
Andy McCabe
Donald Trump is producing a TV show every day.
- [37:01]
Allison Gill
Yes.
- [37:01]
Andy McCabe
It's the TV show of the presidency, the big, beautiful presidency. And so, like, these kind of things, they don't care. They don't care about the law, how this looks, how it will actually work. They don't really have a lot of knowledge about those things, and so they just. They're just really focused on the TV aspect of it.
- [37:19]
Allison Gill
Yeah, agreed. All right, we have more to get to, but we're gonna take another quick break, so everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Foreign.
- [37:36]
Andy McCabe
Welcome back. It appears that federal prosecutors are continuing to have a hard time getting grand juries to indict protesters who allegedly interfere with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. This reporting comes From CBS affiliate WUSA9. Federal prosecutors twice sought a grand jury indictment against a D.C. woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent during an ICE inmate transfer and were twice rejected. Ouch. Oh, for two. The U.S. attorney's office admitted in court on Thursday. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey revealed the denials to attorneys for Sydney Laurie Reed and later granted their request to remove all bond conditions and release her on her own recognizance over prosecution prosecutor's objections. So they did not get either indictment, and they also lost custody of the.
- [38:31]
Allison Gill
Prisoner, and they still wanted to keep her in custody. Wow.
- [38:36]
Andy McCabe
He will resume a preliminary hearing on Friday afternoon to determine whether to dismiss the case entirely.
- [38:43]
Allison Gill
Quote, two presentations to the grand jury. Return no bill both times. That's what Harvey said. Suggesting the evidence is wanting, given the standard for indictment is probable cause.
- [38:55]
Andy McCabe
That's classic judicial understatement. Suggesting your evidence is wanting, that. Okay, if it was a cop that was saying that same thing. But it would have been. Your case is a leaky bag of shit.
- [39:07]
Allison Gill
Right? Do you. Do you remember in the War Games movie where he's like, it's come to my. I've come to the conclusion, Mr. McKittrick, that your defense system sucks. And, like, that's just so. Suggesting the evidence is wanting, given the standard for indictment is probable cause. So your evidence sucks because it's a real low bar to get an indictment. You can indict a ham sandwich. As Justice Alito has said, suggesting the government may never get an indictment is what the the judge finished with. Grand juries, as we know, are tasked with deciding only whether there's a reasonable basis to support charging someone with a crime. It's a much lower burden for prosecutors than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of criminal juries, and typically make their decisions after hearing evidence only from the government. And at the federal level, grand juries return indictments or true bills the vast majority of the time. Right. We've talked about this, like, a 97% return rate for true bill.
- [40:02]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. It's not even a majority. It's like, almost every time, it's PR. Yeah. Okay, so Reid, 44, was charged last month with an enhanced felony version of an assault charge that requires inflicting bodily injury on a federal officer and carries a maximum sentence of up to eight years in prison. The charge is the same offense filed this week against a former DOJ employee accused of throwing a sandwich at us. I mean, why do you always give Me the lines that I cannot finish without laughing.
- [40:34]
Allison Gill
Sorry.
- [40:34]
Andy McCabe
Okay. A former DOJ employee accused of throwing a sandwich at a U.S. customs and Border Protection agent. In a press release last month, U.S. attorney Jeannie Pirro's office accused Reed of trying to impede the transfer of two alleged members of the 18th street gang who were being arrested by ICE outside the D.C. jail prior to transferring custody to the FBI.
- [41:02]
Allison Gill
Oh, yeah. Now, federal prosecutors declined to call the injured FBI agent or any of the ICE officers involved in the incident during Thursday's hearing. However, instead, they had an investigator with the U.S. attorney's office testify about his review of a video of the incident and brief conversations with the officers. The investigator, Special Agent Sean Riccardi, said he'd had no involvement in the case until he was asked to prepare for testimony Thursday morning. Now, video played by prosecutors shows Reid approaching the ICE officers while holding up her phone, which she says is for her protection. She then is later seen being held by multiple officers against a wall while she asks, how do you feel about stealing fucking people? Wow. Mind your own business, said an unidentified ICE agent in response. So they didn't even have the assaulted officer there. Am I reading that right?
- [41:56]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. So whoever the alleged victim was, which I think is an FBI agent, had nothing to do with the actual hearing where they were trying to indict this woman. So, Riccardi said while officers were attempting to control her, Reid's, quote, flailing arm movements made contact with the FBI agent. Now, no injury is shown on the videos played in court, although prosecutors submitted photographs of the agent with small abrasions on the back of her hand, which Riccardi said did not appear to be present prior to the incident. That is about the hardest way to prove an injury that I've ever heard. Why not just get the agent to come in and say, she hit me with her arm?
- [42:40]
Allison Gill
Because he'd be lying.
- [42:44]
Andy McCabe
Okay. Eugene Ohm, an assistant federal public defender representing Reid, said prosecutors were presenting the court with nothing but hearsay from an investigator who wasn't present. He asked Harvey to review the grand jury testimony himself before ruling on probable cause, although Harvey declined, quote, we should be able to get to the bottom of why all the citizens of the District of Columbia seem to think there's no crime while the government continues to allege one against my cl.
- [43:11]
Allison Gill
Oh.
- [43:12]
Andy McCabe
Oh, wow.
- [43:13]
Allison Gill
Wow. Now, because Reed is charged with a felony, under federal law, prosecutors must secure an indictment within 30 days of her arrest. Now, that clock was paused temporarily until Thursday's hearing, but now it's running again. Following a rejection by a grand jury, prosecutors can attempt again to seek an indictment as many times as they want, with Piero's permission, which I'm sure she'll grant. Alternatively, they could charge Reed with a lower level misdemeanor offense that doesn't require an indictment. Harvey ordered the parties to return to court Friday afternoon to resume the preliminary hearing. And Reid's attorneys have asked him to decline to find probable cause and dismiss the case against her entirely. Now, you mentioned sandwich guy.
- [43:53]
Andy McCabe
Oh, I did, yes.
- [43:54]
Allison Gill
Who's my hero? No pun intended.
- [43:57]
Andy McCabe
That was so awful. I can't believe.
- [43:59]
Allison Gill
Thank you. I have more. He was charged with assault with a deli weapon. I have more. Now, this is just in here. A Judge has released 37 year old Sean Dunn, no relation to Harry Dunn. He's a former DOJ employee and he's been released on his own recognizance, just like Reed in the previous story. Despite charging him with the enhanced version of an assault charge that requires bodily injury and carries up to eight years in federal prison, prosecutors said Thursday they had no basis on which to argue he should be detained. So at least they weren't trying to detain him. Now, again, they have 30 days to get a grand jury indictment. So how many times do you think they'll reject a true bill for sandwich guy?
- [44:42]
Andy McCabe
You know, I guess the question is how many times will the prosecutor's office try to get one? This one. Unlike the last Reid's case, in which you have this bizarre use of video because the obvious witness for some reason won't testify, the sandwich attack was also captured on video, like explicitly. I'm sure you've seen it.
- [45:06]
Allison Gill
Oh, and he said. He said, I did it. I threw the sandwich.
- [45:10]
Andy McCabe
So it really comes down to what the grand jurors are going to think about how injured you could possibly become from getting hit with a Subway. Now, it was a foot long, so I'm going to say, you know, had a little bit more heft to it than a six inch might have.
- [45:25]
Allison Gill
There's salami in there. From what I hear.
- [45:29]
Andy McCabe
The whole thing.
- [45:30]
Allison Gill
They should try to actually indict the ham sandwich.
- [45:34]
Andy McCabe
You are just on fire today with the dad jokes. My God, I can't believe it.
- [45:40]
Allison Gill
It's because I never had children.
- [45:44]
Andy McCabe
Oh, my gosh.
- [45:45]
Allison Gill
It's how I make up for that, I think.
- [45:48]
Andy McCabe
Sandwich guy. Do we know what he did at doj? I'm kind of fascinated by this movie.
- [45:53]
Allison Gill
He worked in the criminal division.
- [45:55]
Andy McCabe
Oh, boy. I mean, I've actually come across this Guy in my travels over there.
- [45:59]
Allison Gill
Yeah. Mr. Dunn, he was fired up.
- [46:01]
Andy McCabe
He is fired up.
- [46:03]
Allison Gill
He was. And he ran. And it. They took a block to catch him.
- [46:07]
Andy McCabe
I thought he was going to get away.
- [46:08]
Allison Gill
He was fast.
- [46:09]
Andy McCabe
He had pretty good legs on him. But they did catch up to him, and he ended up on the ground. But as you said, he immediately. He was very clear about it. I did it. I threw the sandwich, which was really not in doubt at all because it's absolutely captured on video.
- [46:24]
Allison Gill
Yes.
- [46:25]
Andy McCabe
That guy gets hit right in the. The chest with the foot long.
- [46:28]
Allison Gill
And I talked to Harry Dunn about this, and he said that officer, by the way, if he doesn't testify before the grand jury, that's because he's embarrassed.
- [46:36]
Andy McCabe
I mean. Right.
- [46:37]
Allison Gill
And that there are probably group, you know, group chats and. And, you know, signal groups and stuff of officers who.
- [46:44]
Andy McCabe
Who.
- [46:44]
Allison Gill
They have nicknames for him now. They are. They are not letting this guy live down the sandwich.
- [46:49]
Andy McCabe
They are crucifying this guy. And, yeah, I don't know that that could really go wrong for him if he has to step up and testify. And I was hit with a sandwich.
- [46:59]
Allison Gill
I have. And here's the thing. I don't much like in Reid's case, like you said, I don't think that the grand jury is going to buy that there's this enhanced felony with bodily injury. I think it'll be like, come back, actually. You don't even have to bring in a misdemeanor to a grand jury. So. No, no, that would be the proper charge here.
- [47:22]
Andy McCabe
This is what happens when you have a U.S. attorney who is as performative as her boss and really doesn't have any experience, like, at this level.
- [47:32]
Allison Gill
Right.
- [47:33]
Andy McCabe
She's, you know, she was a county attorney in Westchester County, New York, and then she was a judge for a while. So I'm not saying she doesn't know the criminal system, but, like. And not that any of this would happen in normal times, but in normal times, there's no way this stuff would get charged at that level. It would be. If it got charged at all. It was. I had agents when I was in New York. I had agents on my squad who were in, like, legitimate, like, fisticuff with people who were trying to avoid being arrested. And we could not get the U.S. attorney's office to charge those people with assault on a federal agent or any. Anything like that. So those cases are very rarely ever brought. And in these two incidents where the whole thing's on video and it's this minimal kind of Barely contact with the back of your hand or hit with a sandwich. I mean, misdemeanor, if you want to make a point out of it. But man, they're just overcharged.
- [48:29]
Allison Gill
The big picture beauty about all this is thinking back to the immunity arguments before the Supreme Court where Trump was saying, if you don't make me immune, there will be rogue prosecutions.
- [48:44]
Andy McCabe
Oh, yeah.
- [48:45]
Allison Gill
For all of the end of days.
- [48:47]
Andy McCabe
John Sauer made that argument in the.
- [48:48]
Allison Gill
Supreme Court and Sotomayor, Justice Sotomayor said no. We have so many checks on rogue prosecutors. We have grand juries, we have indictments, we have pre trial motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. We have trial. We have petit jury. We have, which is the regular, you know, the 12 jury of your peers trial jury.
- [49:14]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [49:15]
Allison Gill
We have then after conviction, sentencing memorandum, then we have appeals after that. We have so many checks on rogue prosecutions. And now we are seeing exactly what Justice Sotomayor was describing is the protections against rogue prosecutions for political purposes. They can't get indictments, they can't get past the federal grand jury in a lot of these cases. And that just proves that you don't need immunity because you have all these other protections.
- [49:47]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think that's right. I think that's right.
- [49:51]
Allison Gill
Just thinking about that, I think about the immunity decision a lot. Andy.
- [49:57]
Andy McCabe
I'm with you.
- [49:58]
Allison Gill
It still bothers me.
- [50:00]
Andy McCabe
I'm with you. It's a hard one to get over.
- [50:03]
Allison Gill
That In Anderson, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment seems super obvious to me.
- [50:07]
Andy McCabe
But I guess so frustrating because this, these political times will pass. This is not forever, but that decision may very well be forever.
- [50:18]
Kathy Harris
Yeah.
- [50:18]
Allison Gill
Hopefully we can get it overturned at some point. Probably not in my lifetime.
- [50:21]
Andy McCabe
No.
- [50:21]
Allison Gill
Unless we expand the court, kill the filibuster and put four more tilts.
- [50:26]
Andy McCabe
Just as a lot of hurdles, you got to get over there.
- [50:29]
Allison Gill
It's quite a few. Yeah. And eventually that case will end up at the Supreme Court. So, you know, six and one half dozen. All right, everybody, we have one more story to get to before we get to listener questions, but we have to take one last quick break. So stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. We have one more story, as I said, before we get to listener questions. If you have a question, there's a link in the show notes. You can click on it, fill out a form, and Andy and I will read your questions. So an advocacy group opposed to President Donald Trump and made up of former national security officials has issued an open letter to current FBI officials warning about the ongoing purge within the agency. They write Greetings we write to you as former members of the US Intelligence, diplomatic, defense and national security communities, veterans of service to both Republican and Democratic administrations. We are the Steady State, a nonpartisan group of professionals who have served in the CIA, FBI, State Department, Department of Defense, nsa, DHS and the uniformed military. Together we have spent our careers upholding the Constitution and defending the United States from foreign and domestic threats.
- [51:42]
Andy McCabe
We have worked across the globe at embassies, forward operating bases and conflict zones, as well as here at home in Washington, D.C. and in Field offices across the country. Some of us sat across the table from foreign intelligence services. Some led counterterrorism operations or nuclear non proliferation programs, while others negotiated treaties or built coalitions in defense of democracy. Whatever the mission, one constant was our respect for and reliance on the integrity, professionalism and independence of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Together, we help keep America safe from espionage, terrorism and transnational crimes. Together, we ensured that more than a dozen presidents had the best intelligence and analysis available to make decisions that shaped the outcome of the Cold War and safeguarded American interests around the world.
- [52:37]
Allison Gill
They go on to say that it is from this shared legacy of service that we now write in deep concern and solidarity. The recent removals of seasoned FBI leaders, most notably agents Brian Driscoll, Michael Feinberg, Walter Giardina, are not isolated personnel matters. They appear part of a broader campaign to dismantle the FBI's long standing independence and recast it as a tool of political loyalty. That such dismissals are reportedly tied to perceived personal disloyalty to former President Donald Trump is profoundly alarming.
- [53:10]
Andy McCabe
The elevation of unqualified political loyalists such as Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, whose resumes do not meet the basic standards for leadership of the world's premier law enforcement agency, makes the pattern unmistakable. It is not about reform. It is about control. The aim, it seems, is to transform the FBI from a respected, constitutionally grounded investigative service into a personal enforcement arm of a political figure. We have seen these dynamics abroad, leaders who demand loyalty from security services not to the law but to themselves. These regimes do not end well. The FBI has long been a bulwark against such corruption, an institution where rule of law and civil liberties are held in balance with the demands of national security. Its independence is not a bureaucratic feature. It is a democratic necessity.
- [54:08]
Allison Gill
To our friends and colleagues in the bureau, past and present, we recognize the pressure you are under. We honor your service and the sacrifices you've made quietly, honorably, often without recognition. And we want you to know we stand with you. Your integrity matters. Your courage matters. The nation is watching and will be inspired by the FBI. And history will remember with respect, gratitude and resolve, the steady state. So that is the letter. And, Andy, there is some breaking news as we're recording. Senator Dick Durbin is calling on the DOJ inspector general, who is no longer Michael Horowitz, to investigate, quote, the arbitrary removals, forced retirements and reassignments of senior FBI officials, the impact of these decisions on national security operations, and the disparate impact on personnel who are women or persons of color.
- [54:58]
Andy McCabe
Good for him. I hope he gets an answer.
- [55:02]
Allison Gill
I doubt that he will, but they're asking.
- [55:05]
Andy McCabe
It sounds like it could go into that same file that the third witness against Emil Bovey went into the. Oh, we lost it. We never really had it. Oh, wait, here it is a day too late. Hopefully. Hopefully, he'll get an answer. But we'll stay on this and report back as soon as we hear.
- [55:24]
Allison Gill
Yeah, we sure will. All right, it's time for some questions. We have, I think time for one or two. Andy, what do we have this week?
- [55:30]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, so I have one question and then one kind of comment that somebody sent in that I thought was. It was really thoughtful and. And could be helpful to some people. So let's do the question. First question comes from cosmob. Cosmob says, greetings, dynamic duo for democracy. That's a good one. I like that. How are all these creative but subversive strategies and actions generated? How do people like Bondi and Hegseth and Patel and Gabbard and Vance and the rest come up with things like who to fire, what damaging reports to release or leak sequence, to normalize, military in the streets and so many more. Does Trump guide them or even know what they're doing? Do they get together like the Quorum to discuss Epstein issues and workshop ideas? Are they just following the ideas of Project 2025 or operatives associated with it? That's a lot of questions in one question, but I get it. I see where you're headed, cosmob. I'll just give you my opinion then. Of course, I'm interested to hear yours, Allison. I think that what happens is President Trump sets such a clear example of what he wants, what he wants from the people around him, the way he wants them to talk about him, the things that he wants them to focus on, the enemies he wants them to go after. He is so clear in his communication about what he likes and what he doesn't like. And he's also very clear about what the penalty is for falling into the don't like category that everyone around him, they know. They know what they. They decide what to do based upon what they think he will like and look favorably upon because they are tied to one thing and one thing only, and that is the idea of currying the favor of the person they serve. It is not a commitment to the rule of law. It is not a commitment to the Constitution. It is not a commitment to the citizens that they represent or protect or what have you. It is a 100% commitment to satisfying the whims of Donald Trump. And so the playbook is pretty easy to figure out. Anytime things are going bad, you go back to the Russia, Russia hoax, hoax, hoax. If the president needs a lift, he needs a distraction. You just start throwing around names like Barack Obama, Jim Comey and John Brennan. That's. They. They know how to do this because it's been very clearly communicated to them.
- [58:12]
Allison Gill
Yeah, that. That's kind of how I see. I think the way I see it is that Trump just really wants to be a strong man, a dictator. Right. And so there are several competing interests that all over that all have some part of their Venn diagram underneath the fact that they need a dictator to do what they want to do. And so we've got Christian nationalism, right. The Heritage foundation to, to do the. To get the Gilead. They want. They need a dictator in place because there's laws against the stuff that they want to do. So that's a lot of Project 2025. We've got Russ Vaught, right. Who just wants to dismantle the federal government and traumatize federal civil service servants. We've got Miller, Stephen Miller, who wants to. Who as a eugenicist, who just wants to rid the country of everyone who's not a white guy.
- [59:01]
Andy McCabe
Yes.
- [59:02]
Allison Gill
We've got, you know, and have women be subservient and make babies so that they have laborers and people to join the military and ice. And then so we have all these. We have Trump, who is the figurehead, but we have all of these people pulling all the strings who want different things out of a dictator and can only get them from a dictator. And that's who his cabinet is and who his advisors are.
- [59:27]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [59:27]
Allison Gill
And that's what they're doing there. And so they're really just getting all of these ideas, workshopping everything out of the authoritarian playbook and bringing in all of the little pet projects they want to get done that can only Take place under authoritarian rule. That's the way I see it.
- [59:42]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, I totally agree with you. Like, there's all of those special interests. No, that's where the philosophy is in. In this administration. Like, Trump does not really have a political philosophy or political commitment or, like, a really strong sense of value, something he's trying to accomplish internationally or domestically. He is just drawn to those things that he thinks make him look more powerful and make him richer and that sort of thing. It's the Leonard Leos of the world who take advantage of the fact that Trump is ideologically an empty vessel. Putin and. Yeah, Putin. The list goes on and on. And so they're not drawn to him because they think he's great and the best president ever. It's just they know that they can get the thing that they want done under this administration. Now, the people he surrounds himself with in the cabinet and running the agencies, very different than the first administration. It's just all sycophants, people who prove their loyalty, which is basically prove the fact that they are willing to bend and do anything he asks without ever saying, no, this is a bad idea. That's illegal. Whatever. Whatever. No, they'll just do it because they want to make him happy.
- [61:05]
Allison Gill
Yeah, agreed. All right, what's our final comment before we get out of here?
- [61:09]
Andy McCabe
Final comment's a little bit long, but I think it was. I think it's pretty good. So this comes to us from Jay from West Virginia, and he says, andy, I'm a therapist and frequent listener. You mentioned feeling off for years after an unjust firing. What you described is called disenfranchised grief. It involves a persistent and unresolved sense of loss because it centers around something that there is no social template for losing. People can experience disenfranchised grief with the loss of a pet, the termination of a job, or even with chronic illness. It's important to name it correctly so that people can seek help and find ways to feel less off. I wanted to mention this because it's important, especially at this moment in time. So many people at the FBI and in the federal government have lost so much. A few visits with a therapist or even watching YouTube videos to get a better understanding can help. So I just wanted to put that out there because I thought it was helpful that Jay was able to name this thing that probably a lot of people are feeling. And hopefully, if you are, it's a way to start looking into maybe feeling a little bit better. Disenfranchised grief.
- [62:20]
Allison Gill
Well, I'm gonna look that up and I'm gonna mention it to my therapist and also watch YouTube videos about it.
- [62:26]
Andy McCabe
Heck yeah, why not?
- [62:27]
Allison Gill
And Jay also wanted to mention that of course you can also text or call 988 anytime. And he says, sorry, I don't actually have a question. But you always explain things so well. Thanks for listening, Jay, and thanks for letting us know about that because I have it, too. It's gone. That was my life. And I didn't do it for 20 years like you and your 20 plus years like you. I did it only for 12. But I had settled into that. That's what I was going to do until I was done.
- [62:56]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [62:58]
Allison Gill
And it not only did you take my job away from me, my security, but you also took my purpose away from me to help veterans, to help veterans get timely access to quality care and to help active duty service members and their families get the same. Like that was my identity and it's just got now I have a new one.
- [63:17]
Andy McCabe
Right.
- [63:17]
Allison Gill
But you know, that doesn't make that other thing not missing from.
- [63:22]
Andy McCabe
That's right. That's right. I think Kathy Harris, the people she talked about today at the end of our conversation about her impressions of the federal workforce force and people who are drawn to it because they want to do the right thing. And there's a lot of them out there now who are probably going through the same, the same feeling, the same process. And so anyway, hopefully with Jay's steer and guidance here, people have something they can look into to maybe help them out with that.
- [63:49]
Allison Gill
Yeah, thanks, Jay. And thanks to everybody for listening. We really appreciate it. We'll be back in your ears next week to talk about what's gone down. I'm assuming that Judge Reyes is going to block section one unless the DOJ can rewrite their order. The hearing. That should have been an email. And of course we'll have updates on, you know, everything else that's going to be happening between now and then. So we appreciate you. Again, if you have a question, there's a link in the show notes. You can submit your question using that link. Man. Andy, do you have any final thoughts?
- [64:17]
Andy McCabe
No, I'm just, you know, obviously can't wait to see what happens this time next week watching the great summit is taking place now. And so I'm sure there'd be a lot of talk about that this weekend in the beginning of next week. But anyway, we'll be here on Unjustified next week for you as well.
- [64:35]
Allison Gill
I can't believe Interpol didn't just arrest him. Isn't there a red notice out for this guy or because we're not ICC signatories, you can't arrest people on red notices in the United States. That doesn't seem right. I don't know. I don't know the rules.
- [64:48]
Andy McCabe
That seems crazy to me. But huge victory for him. No matter what happens at this whatever it is, summit meeting, conference, whatever. Just the fact that he is standing on terra firma us in a place that hardcore Russians believe is still a disputed territory, which of course, it's not. Yeah. He wins just by showing up and shaking hands and having his picture taken.
- [65:14]
Allison Gill
Yeah. It legitimizes his.
- [65:17]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, he's back.
- [65:18]
Allison Gill
He's back.
- [65:18]
Andy McCabe
He's back in the community of world leaders. Yeah.
- [65:21]
Allison Gill
Yeah. All right, well, we'll update you on anything that comes out of that summit as well. So thank you so much, everybody. Have a wonderful rest of your Sunday, and we'll see you next week. I'm Alison Gill.
- [65:32]
Andy McCabe
And I'm Andy McCabe.
- [65:34]
Allison Gill
Unjustified is written and executive produced by Allison Gill, with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hockey with art and web design by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. The theme music for Unjustified is written in performance, 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 msw media.com.