Andy McCabe (2:43)

Yes, we are. So good. Time to remember all of the significance of that trial, which a lot of people wrote off at the beginning, like, oh, this is the least significant, significant case against Trump. And that's a position that Jonah, I know disagrees with. And sure enough, it's the one that made it over the finish line. And. And it was a super significant prosecution in and of itself. So anyway, let's jump forward and talk about the many, many things that happened this week. We don't. It's another week. We're not getting off easy here with a light show. We do have a lot to cover today.

Allison Gill (3:19)

Yeah, indeed. And thank you for filling in for Harry Dunn, by the way, earlier this week on clean up on aisle 45. That was fun.

Andy McCabe (3:26)

Super fun. I enjoyed it. Thanks for having me.

Allison Gill (3:29)

Yep. So with everything going on, we had an incredibly active week on the Abrego Garcia docket. So I think we should start there.

Andy McCabe (3:37)

Yep.

Allison Gill (3:37)

And it all has gone down in the past couple of days, andy. Starting on May 27, the government, the Trump administration, filed a request for 30 more days to respond to the Abrego Garcia complaint that was filed back in March. Okay, so this is separate from the discovery that might lead to contempt. Right. This is the actual underlying case.

Andy McCabe (4:01)

Right.

Allison Gill (4:02)

And here is what they said. The defendants have responded to requests for production of documents, answered interrogatories, and prepared four individuals for their depositions. Defendants have expended significant resources coordinating across multiple agencies and reviewing and producing documents, preparing witnesses and assessing complex privilege issues within the expedited time frame. Accordingly, defendants request that this court grant them until June 26, 2025 to respond to plaintiff's complaint.

Andy McCabe (4:35)

The same day Judge Sinise denied their request for more time. She said today, the very day defendants answer or response to the complaint is due to defendants move for a 30 day extension of the filing deadline. Defendants expended no effort in demonstrating good cause. They vaguely complain in two sentences to expending, quote, significant resources engaging in expedited discovery. But these self described burdens are of their own making.

Allison Gill (5:05)

Ooh, buddy.

Andy McCabe (5:06)

Yes. Further, as the docket plainly demonstrates, defendants are intimately familiar with the causes of action and of the pending deadline. The court has conducted no fewer than five hearings in this case, and at no point had defendants even intimated that they needed more time to answer or otherwise respond. Thus, to say now that additional time is needed to do that which the law requires. Rings hollow. Accordingly, the motion is denied. Defendants shall file their answer or otherwise respond to the complaint today.

Allison Gill (5:41)

Ouch. Yeah. She's like, hey, maybe if you'd brought up that, you might need more time weeks ago, months ago.

Andy McCabe (5:50)

Yeah.

Allison Gill (5:51)

But you tell me today, on the day that it's due. So did they file on time? No. No, they have not. And they still have not. As I look at the Docket right now. Instead, that same day, they filed a motion to dismiss the whole case on jurisdictional grounds. They say the court must dismiss the plaintiff's claims against the defendants because taking all factual allegations in their complaint as true, they fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction. This court lacks jurisdiction because Abrego Garcia is not in United States custody. His injury is not redressible by this court. And of course, Andy, this all hinges on whether the US has constructive custody of Abreco Garcia.

Andy McCabe (6:35)

Yeah, and of course, like to read that sentence, his injury is not redressible by this court. It's like his injury is directly a result of what the government did to him. And this court certainly has jurisdiction. But whatever. I digress. Then on May 29, still no response from the government to the complaint that was due two days prior. The government asked for a 14 day extension on discovery. So another request for delay, they said. On April 15, 2025, this court granted plaintiffs motion for expedited discovery. Since then, defendants have responded to requests for the production of documents, answered interrogatories, prepared four individuals for their depositions, and prepared briefing on issues ranging from privileges to a motion by the press seeking to unseal documents and a motion to dismiss. Defendants have expended significant resources coordinating across multiple agencies. Well, at least one of the sentences in that paragraph was completely cribbed from their other request for 30 days. But nevertheless, they go on to say completing these tasks has been extremely burdensome on defendants, who through their diligent work, dedicated an enormous number of attorney hours. Despite defendants diligent efforts, additional work is ongoing. That necessitates a modest extension of the May 30 document production deadline. First, defendants have made numerous concessions to plaintiffs to expand the scope of discovery, requiring defendants to repeatedly task their IT personnel with identifying and collecting and their limited staff available for document review with reviewing additional documents. Okay, I gotta pause here because my. My head is exploding.

Allison Gill (8:25)

Why do you have limited staff?

Andy McCabe (8:27)

It's the government. It's the Department of Justice. They've got more attorneys there than anywhere.

Allison Gill (8:36)

Okay, and if they're understaffed, how come.

Andy McCabe (8:39)

Yeah, just get more of them to work on this thing that's due.

Allison Gill (8:43)

And don't they have 19 law firms that are gonna do $140 million of pro bono work for them?

Andy McCabe (8:49)

That's a lot of backup. Yeah, that's a lot of backup. I've never in all of my life, briefly as a lawyer in private practice for a couple of years before I went into the FBI and then all of the Prosecutions and the litigation around them that I've been exposed to, I have never seen the Department of Justice have the temerity to make an argument to a federal judge that they just can't dedicate any more attorney hours to responding to the court's deadlines. This is like so embarrassing. It's, it's humiliating. I, I, I'm, I'm stunned. I'm absolutely stunned. Okay. So they go on to say, for instance, plaintiffs asked to expand the date range for documents collected. Defendants agreed. Plaintiffs also asked defendants to collect documents from 10 additional custodians, including two cabinet level secretaries, DHS Secretary Christy Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Defendants agreed. Plaintiffs proposed additional search terms to identify potentially responsive documents. Again, defendants agreed. Plaintiffs even asked defendants to collect and search documents and records in the custody and control of Attorney General Bondi, including paper records. The court has ordered defendants to do so. And defendants are complying.

Allison Gill (10:11)

Yeah, can I stop you right there? Because they're like, defendants asked for this and we did it. Defendants asked for that and you didn't. As you're reading that, I'm like, no, the court ordered you to do that and they finally acknowledged that and I led. The court ordered us to do it and we're complying. So it just, it blows my mind.

Andy McCabe (10:26)

And you can't complain about things that you agreed to.

Allison Gill (10:30)

Right?

Andy McCabe (10:30)

That's the idea of agreement. Like, you don't get like goody goody points for each time that you agree and work non confrontationally. They asked for something. If you agreed with it without filing a motion to quash the request, then live with it like that was your, that was your opportunity. But nevertheless, they say, but collecting and reviewing records from high ranking officials has required time consuming controls and procedures to ensure security, including a severely curtailed number of document reviewers granted access to sensitive documents. Again, if the problem is you haven't tasked putting enough attorneys on these requirements, get some more attorneys.

Allison Gill (11:14)

You have more and time consuming controls to ensure security. Just use a signal chat man on a dirty Internet line like you did.

Andy McCabe (11:21)

With war plans and the insanity that like they're up against Abrego Garcia. Like the United States government is complaining we don't have enough resources to litigate against this all powerful single immigrant who's not even here in the country because you threw him in a dungeon in El Salvador.

Allison Gill (11:42)

Yeah, it's pretty, pretty bold. Now, Judge Sinis asked Abrego Garcia's lawyers to respond to that request for delay, and she did it on that, that morning. And she said, I want your response. Plaintiffs lawyers for Abreco Garcia. I want your response by noon today. And they responded. They said, the government was ordered to complete its supplemental production by tomorrow. Yet in the past two weeks, the government has produced one and only one document, an apparently incomplete copy of the Earm file relating to Abrego Garcia's 2019 immigration proceedings. Defendants have still refused to produce any documents reflecting or even relating to any efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release and return. This is far from a good faith effort to comply with the court ordered discovery. It is reflective of a pattern of deliberate delay and bad faith refusal to comply with court orders. The patina of promises by government lawyers to do tomorrow that which they were already obligated to do yesterday has worn thin.

Andy McCabe (12:48)

Nice.

Allison Gill (12:49)

I know. I love that sentence.

Andy McCabe (12:51)

Yeah.

Allison Gill (12:51)

The government states that it, quote, attempted to contact plaintiffs to obtain their position on this motion, but were not able to obtain their position. In fact, while the parties conferred on discovery matters over email and phone over the course of the past week, including yesterday, the government did not raise its extension request until 11:35pm last night and then filed its motion an hour later without waiting for the plaintiff's response. In sum, in the more than six weeks since this court ordered expedited discovery. Remember, it was supposed to be a two week discovery and we're week six now. The government has produced just 165 documents, most of them court filings and and related materials that Shirley took no time to review. The government has produced just one document since the May 16 deadline that fixed the operative document production deadline. Zero documents produced to the plaintiffs to date reflect any efforts made to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release and return to the United States. The court should deny the government's motion.

Andy McCabe (13:57)

Judge Sinise ruled on the motion on the same day. She said defendants now move for a two week extension of the May 30 document production deadline. The motion avers nonspecific, quote, hard at work assertions. But for the last two weeks, according to plaintiffs, defendants have produced exactly one document. Defendants also represented that they had, quote, attempted to contact plaintiffs for their position on the motion, but were unsuccessful. This may be because defendants did not try to reach plaintiffs until 11:35pm last night by email and having predictably received no response, filed the motion an hour later at 12:33am this is hardly a good faith attempt to obtain plaintiff's position. The court has reviewed defendant's motion and plaintiff's opposition and finds no good cause to modify the deadlines set forth at ECF number 146. That's the prior order. Thus, the motion is denied. Furthermore, to preserve the orderly progression of expedited discovery, defendants shall submit the May 23 privilege log to the court by no late later than June 4, 2025, in Excel format, along with the representative sample of withheld documents necessary for the court's in camera inspection regarding all assertions of privilege, apart from state secrets, by no later than June 6, 2025. The party shall file simultaneous letter briefs, not to exceed five pages, regarding the propriety of defendants privilege assertions in the May 23rd privilege log.

Allison Gill (15:32)

Hmm. Well, as of, what is it, almost 5pm May 30. I'm looking, I'm going over to the docket. Nothing shocked. Nothing there. Not even their thing that was due three days ago. Their response to the complaint? Nothing about discovery. We do have a couple of motions by amicus cure and the press to unseal documents because apparently Marco Rubio submitted a supplemental declaration.

Andy McCabe (16:05)

Nice.

Allison Gill (16:06)

And things like that. And the press wants to get at that, as do some amicus cure. And so those motions have not been answered yet. The amicus cure brief was granted and made, but most of that is under seal. So we will continue to keep an eye on this docket. But so far, one document produced since May 16 and 165 documents produced in the last six weeks. And they want another two weeks to do it. And the judge says nope. So as we record it on May 30, that discovery is due today. I'm, I'm assuming we'll have a pretty good, robust follow up for you on next week's episode, for sure. Yeah, I don't. Do you have, like, this just seems like, just like the typical stonewalling and delay.

Andy McCabe (16:57)

Yeah, that was the sense that I got. Honestly, the only, the only part of her order that I really disagree with is this line where she says, furthermore, to preserve the orderly progression of expedited discovery. We have not preserved that so far in the kind of cynical scoreboard it's. The Trump team is winning here. If what they're trying to do is delay and obfuscate and turn over nothing, they're six weeks into succeeding at that. And the plaintiffs are six weeks into getting 165 documents to tell them nothing about what is happening to this poor man who's stuck in El Salvador. So, you know, I wonder like, how closely this is impossible. This is just total speculation, impossible to figure out. But like, this is echoing the, the litigation strategy that we saw in the Jack Smith cases by none other than the current Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche and his henchman, Emile Beauvais. You know how much of what we're seeing here in this case is a direct, you know, an effort to kind of follow that line. Like this is what you do. Just keep throwing up, you know, nonsense, throwing, you know, what on the wall, see what sticks, appeal every adverse ruling, blah, blah, blah.

Allison Gill (18:19)

Yeah. And a lot of it. They know what to do. They know what threshold issues are. For example, when they want to, you know, assert privilege, that. They know that that has to be untangled before you complete discovery, which has to be untangled before you get to contempt proceedings. They know that. And so by obfuscating and stonewalling this privilege log that was due a week ago, you know, in Excel format, with all the stuff that she can review in camera, that's. They know exactly how to do this. They know exactly how to delay, because there's not much a judge can do to overcome those threshold issues other than just say, hurry the F up and do it now. And no, you can't have any more. You can't have any more time. But, you know, she knows that if she moves forward without addressing those threshold issues like privilege, that the government will win, the case will get tossed out.

Andy McCabe (19:15)

So, yeah, it's really frustrating. I mean, they're just working the system in the most kind of underhanded way. It's not the kind of thing you typically see from a Department of justice, but of course, you don't typically see a Department of justice crying poor mouth over, we don't have enough lawyers. Yeah, that's what I'm just saying. I think the bar is much lower than anything that I've seen before.

Allison Gill (19:36)

Yeah, agreed. All right, we have an update for you on Judge Murphy and his court and the case about the men that were, you know, transported to war torn South Sudan, then they stopped in Djibouti in Africa. And we're going to talk about an update on that case right after this quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back.

Andy McCabe (20:06)

Welcome back. Okay, last week we discussed Judge Murphy's hearing and subsequent ruling in a federal court in Boston that the government had violated his court order blocking the government from sending migrants to third party countries without due process when DHS sent a plane to South Sudan. Okay, so a lot has happened in the case in this past week. There were two parts to the case. One was about the plane that was trying to drop the immigrants in South Sudan, which ultimately ended up stopping in Djibouti. And the other was about a man who was originally deported to Mexico and then ended up in Guatemala. So let's start with the South Sudan case.

Allison Gill (20:50)

Yeah, that's a good idea. And the OCG case, which is the Mexico, Guatemala case, is kind of subsumed in this. It's very interesting because there was a class certification that this judge entered, Judge Murphy, back in April, saying, no, you can't send anybody to a third country. And we're going to call that a certified class. And that's what the. You know, that's what the government violated when they put people on the planes to South Sudan. So during that hearing with Judge Murphy, we briefly touched on it in the last episode. We urged you to go to lawfare to get more information about the hearing. But during that hearing, the judge said that due process has to happen and that these plaintiffs must be given a credible fear interview before they're handed off to a third country. The plaintiffs argued that they should be brought back to the United States, but the judge asked the government if they'd be willing to do that, and they said, we'd rather not. If we had our druthers, we'd rather hold these administrative interviews on the ground in Djibouti. And they spent a great deal of the hearing hashing out the details of what that due process looks like. The plaintiffs complained. They're like, this is going to be really hard. How do we get them, their lawyers, if they're in Djibouti? How do we have translators? What. This is going to be really, logistically, a nightmare. Nightmare. And. And the government was like, we'd much rather do that. And the judge is like, you can just fly him back to the United States. And by the way, I was tracking that plane, Andy. It returned empty to the United States the next morning. They could have just brought everybody back to do this, but that's not what they wanted to do.

Andy McCabe (22:26)

That's so heartbreaking.

Allison Gill (22:28)

That's not what they wanted to do. And so they spent a great deal of that hearing hashing it out. And when it was done, Judge Murphy issued an order based on what the government wanted to do.

Andy McCabe (22:38)

Yeah, yeah, that's right. So before I get into that order, I just want to do. This was something that I read off of Steve Vladic substack, which we're going to go into in more detail later in this story. But just a quick explainer on what the difference is here with the third country aspect. So normally when people come into the country if they're going to file an asylum claim, just, like, two ways it happens, right? You either, like, get on the website, at least during the Obama administration, this doesn't even work anymore, or the Biden administration, and you could file, you know, make a claim for asylum, and then you would actually get an appointment to cross the border, and then you'd have a adjudication. You'd be in an adjudication process where you got to make the credible fear claim. That's the standard. A judge has to find that you have a credible fear of being persecuted or tortured if you're sent back to the country that you come from. So that all happens on the front end. And if you lose in that process, then at the end of that litigation, they enter an order of deportation, and you have to go back. But you've already had an opportunity to air your claim. The difference here is that the government has the authority under the law, if you have been ordered deported, to send you back to the country that you are from. Or they can send you to what's called a third country someplace else that you're not actually from, but they can send you there if that country falls into one of a couple of different, you know, categories that are outlined in the statute.

Allison Gill (24:11)

And that's a last resort. That's like the last thing you do, right?

Andy McCabe (24:14)

That's right. So the problem here is, if you've been ordered deported and then the government decides you're going to go to a third country, if you are, if you have a credible fear of being tortured or persecuted in that third country, you've never had a chance to raise that claim because you didn't know that you were going to be sent to a third country. So that's why you lose this element of due process. That's what happened to these men on this plane. They had deport deportation orders. And then all of a sudden, for whatever reason, the government decided, we're going to send these people to South Sudan, which is a crazy idea, but they were beyond the end of their litigation, which ended up in a. With a deportation order. So they never had the opportunity to say, hey, hold on a second. If I go to South Sudan, I could be in great danger. That's why this. This due process issue in this case is a little bit different than the ones that we've been talking about in other cases. So back to Judge Murphy in this case. So here's his response to the government's motion to stay his order. Okay. He says defendants have mischaracterized this court's order while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry by racing to get six class members onto a plane to unstable South Sudan, clearly in breach of the law and this court's order, defendants gave this court no choice but to find that they were in violation of the preliminary injunction. Even after finding that violation, however, the court stayed its hand and did not require defendants to bring the individuals back to the United States as requested by plaintiffs. Instead, the court accepted defendants own suggestion that they be allowed to keep the individuals out of the country and finish their process abroad. Now that of course would have happened in Djibouti, right? Okay. He goes on to say, since that hearing merely five days ago, defendants have changed their tune. It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than defendants anticipated. However, the court never said that the defendants had to convert their foreign military base into an immigration facility. It only left that as an option, again at the defendant's request. The other option, of course, has always been to simply return to the status quo roughly one week ago, or else choose any other location to complete the required process.

Allison Gill (26:47)

It goes on to say defendants argument might be stronger if this were at all close. But the court breaks no new ground in finding that the events of May 20, 2025, did not include a meaningful opportunity for the class members to present fear based claims. Defendants own submission shows that it that it is ICE's general practice to provide 24 hours notice prior to removal. Here the class members had fewer than 24 hours notice and zero business hours notice before being put on a plane to South Sudan. Class members appear not to have had any access to counsel. Indeed, a declaration submitted by the plaintiffs alleges that ICE canceled at least one attorney's pre scheduled meeting with her client. It cannot be said enough that this is the result the defendants asked for. And he quotes the defendants, he quotes the DOJ when they said, quote, I think we can certainly agree that any remedy should be narrowly tailored. I don't know that return to the United States would be required to carry those interviews out. You know, I think those could probably be conducted abroad, unquote. For the foregoing reasons, defendants motion for reconsideration and for a stay pending appeal are denied.

Andy McCabe (27:59)

Now, the order the government violated here was an amended preliminary injunction issued by Judge Murphy back on April 30, barring the government from removing migrants to a third country. The government appealed to the First Circuit, who denied them a stay of the order. That denial is what allowed the government to file this week for an emergency stay with the Supreme Court. Now here's where we get to Steve Vladek, because Steve writes about the government's motion for an emergency state of the court. He says, to my mind, there are three basic points that the application gets right. That's the government's application, but a lot more that it gets quite badly wrong. Starting with what it gets right. The net effect of Judge Murphy's April 18th injunction as modified on April 30th, is to create the possibility of a 25 day delay before individuals can be removed to third countries. There is a colorable argument, albeit one that I don't think is self evident, that 8 USC Section 1252, which is the law that provides for third country deportations, divested Judge Murphy of the power to issue class wide injunctive relief requiring notice and an opportunity to seek CAT relief. CAT refers to the UN Convention Against Torture and CAT relief includes notice and the opportunity to object to third country removals on the basis that they credibly fear torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to that country.

Allison Gill (29:38)

Okay, so what Steve Vladek is saying here is that there is actually a potential argument that the government makes that Judge Murphy can't doesn't have the power to issue a class wide injunction on CAT relief. Got it?

Andy McCabe (29:53)

That's right. Based on the law, and that's a colorable argument, means like there, there is, there is an argument to be made there. It doesn't necessarily mean that's persuasive or we'll win the day. But just like you could make that argument without looking like a F. Okay. Steve goes on to say the district court's mid flight intervention was quote, extraordinary, as were the court's orders to the government to effectively maintain custody of the six class members at issue until and unless they've received the notice and opportunity to seek CAT relief required by the original jurisdiction. So that's kind of a second thing that he's pointing out that the government could not unreasonably argue to the Supreme Court like the Court essentially went pretty far in what they ordered the government to do or, or refrain from doing. He goes on to say in the abstract then the government has a non laughable case that it might win on the merits and that it's being harmed in the interim. That of course is a reference to the standard to stay the court's order, right. Not to win on the whole case at large eventually. But again, this is the government asking the Supreme Court to stay, stop or block this judge's order and showing in your application that you're likely to win on the merits and that you're being harmed unless the order is blocked and stayed. That's the standard that the. That the Supreme Court will apply.

Allison Gill (31:29)

But leave it to Trump's DOJ to take a non laughable case and make it laughable.

Andy McCabe (31:34)

Right.

Allison Gill (31:35)

Because here's what they got wrong, according to Steve Vladek. Again, you gotta subscribe to one first if you. If you haven't.

Andy McCabe (31:41)

Yeah, it's truly the best.

Allison Gill (31:42)

He says the claim that Judge Murphy invented procedures for notice and resolving entitlement to cat relief is just wrong. Murphy's actions closely mirror and indeed are based upon existing regulations for reinstated orders and motions practice. The only genuine innovation is the 10 day minimum between notice and removal. The claim that Judge Murphy kept moving the goalposts is more than a little galling given the government's own behavior. Clarifying that the injunction bars use of Department of Defense resources and not just DHS resources is not moving the goalposts. Reiterating that Libya and Saudi Arabia are covered by the April 18th injunction like any other third country is not moving the goalposts. And holding that the government violated the 10 day notice requirement in the case of the six class members being removed to South Sudan is not moving the goalposts. It's throwing a flag.

Andy McCabe (32:42)

Yeah. And probably the most egregious claim the government made to the Supreme Court is in its filing is that Judge Murphy forced DHS either to repatriate the six deportees or to detain them at a US base abroad. That's the location in Djibouti. The transcript shows that DHS counsel asked to complete Reasonable Fear processing overseas so as to avoid return. Judge Murphy adopted that proposal verbatim and allowed, but did not compel repatriation.

Allison Gill (33:14)

Yeah, that one blew me away. And Aaron Reichland Melnick, who's an expert on immigration law, said that that's possibly sanctionable to say that the court forced us to do this in Djibouti. Like. No, that was your idea, bro.

Andy McCabe (33:31)

It's really very close to that line of an intentional misrepresentation.

Allison Gill (33:37)

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how the Supreme Court comes back on this. And the last issue that Steve Vladeck notes in one first is he says final government suggests that Judge Murphy has claimed the power to order the return of any class member. But as noted above, exactly one person has been ordered returned, and that's ocg. That's what we mentioned before, the person who went to Guatemala via Mexico, and only after DHS admitted that it had removed him without any notice or fear inquiry, and after discovery showed that its earlier declaration was completely bogus because they had said, you know, oh, OCG told officers he loved Mexico.

Andy McCabe (34:18)

They did, yeah.

Allison Gill (34:19)

And. And they were like, show me where that says that. Oh, we can't find him. Oh, it looks like it wasn't said. And. And Steve talks about this. He says OCG is the second part of this case. And at first, OCG was removed to Mexico before Judge Murphy entered his restraining order based on the government's claim that OCG had stated that. That he did not fear being sent to Mexico. But the government has since filed what's called a notice of errata, which is a we screwed up filing suggesting that it has been unable to identify any officer who asked OCG whether he feared being removed to Mexico or who had even informed OCG that he faced imminent removal to Mexico. And on May 23, like, almost like a little over a week ago, Judge Murphy ordered the government to take all immediate steps to facilitate OCG's return. Which, by the way, the government has filed a. Something with the court saying they're in the process of doing that, of chartering a plane to get OCG out of Guatemala. So they recognize that. And to say that, oh, you're just over broad with this whole class thing. You, you know, it's like, no, there's one guy we're trying to return to the United States.

Andy McCabe (35:31)

Honestly, I'm kind of stunned that they. That they admitted their error here.

Allison Gill (35:36)

I know. I've never. I never thought I would see a notice of errata from this government.

Andy McCabe (35:40)

Right. And it must be, because when they looked back at the statements they had made to the court, they were just like, oh, my God, this was absolutely wrong.

Allison Gill (35:52)

I think there was evidence that the opposite was true. Right. There was evidence in an immigration hearing that he feared Mexico because he had previously been raped and kidnapped there.

Andy McCabe (36:00)

That's right.

Allison Gill (36:01)

And so the evidence, like, it's all there in black and white.

Andy McCabe (36:04)

Yeah, there was.

Allison Gill (36:05)

And they just know.

Andy McCabe (36:06)

Explaining this. And this is from a group of people who will explain away anything.

Allison Gill (36:10)

Right.

Andy McCabe (36:11)

There was no, no, no explaining this other than just like, okay, you got us, we'll go bring him back.

Allison Gill (36:17)

Yeah, for sure. All right. We'll keep an eye on both of these cases. And of course, Bozberg's docket to. Nothing much happened there. But, you know, that's with the original JGG going all the way back to the March 15th, turn the planes around Contempt, which we haven't really, don't really have any significant updates there. But we'll keep you posted on all of that. I'm sure we'll get more information this week. We haven't had a quiet week since we started.

Andy McCabe (36:41)

Nope.

Allison Gill (36:42)

But we do have to talk a little bit about the intense pressure the White House is putting on law enforcement agencies to, you know, to ratchet up their mass deportations. And we're going to talk about that right after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. Let's talk about what's going on at the FBI. Andy.

Andy McCabe (37:09)

Yeah.

Allison Gill (37:10)

And this comes from your colleagues at cnn. They say the White House is putting intense pressure on law enforcement agencies across the government to meet a goal of a million deportations a year. And I'll interject here, I think Stephen Miller said he wants 3,000 a day. That's led to a surge of agents and officers across the federal government focusing their attention on arrests and deportation efforts and in some cases straining resources. And you and I have been talking about this for weeks and weeks now. Right. Like, I think I remember one of the first discussions we had to kick off this straining of resources was when they took the whole Joint Terrorism Task Force and assigned them to ice. Right, Right, right. At the FBI, hundreds of agents have been reassigned to immigration related duties, raising concerns among agents that the shift could hinder important national security investigations, including into terror threats and espionage by China and Russia. Now, top FBI officials have provided little guidance to field offices on how agents are expected to increase immigration arrest numbers while also working their top priority cases. That's according to the sources. And here's the kind of the twist. And this is the buried lead. FBI agents have been told by their supervisors not to document moving resources away from high priority cases toward immigration related.

Andy McCabe (38:24)

Work that is so concerning.

Allison Gill (38:27)

I repeat, they have been asked not to document what they're doing at the FBI as it relates to moving resources away from high priority casework to immigration related casework.

Andy McCabe (38:40)

That is just like if that's true, that is just like an on the ground acknowledgment of we're doing the wrong thing here and we don't want any records of it. Which. Yeah, just the, the idea of, of doing that is it just injects a level of subterfuge and falsity into the, into the organization that is just incredibly corrosive.

Allison Gill (39:04)

Yeah. And I think the Supreme Court gave them a boost, gave the, the, you know, this particular administration a boost in their efforts to deport more people. I honestly am sure. This just probably has to do with the fact that Obama and Biden deported more people than Trump is deporting. And that makes him really mad. And he wants to be number one at deporting people. And so they're having a real hard time. But the. On Friday, unfortunately, the Supreme Court granted the government's request for an administrative stay, pending appeal in the temporary protected status people here legally, under the Biden administration, they were granted asylum on parole status, right? Temporary protected status. About a million people just today have lost their legal citizenship. And that's where I think they're going to go to beef up their deportation numbers. Do you know what I mean?

Andy McCabe (40:02)

For sure. Yeah. These are mostly people from Venezuela and Afghanistan, Cuba and Nicaragua. Yep. And so they were here. They didn't have, they didn't have like green cards or, or long term visas, but they had this tps, this temporary protected status, which means you can't be, you can't be deported to the country you're from while you have tps. So wipe out the tps, which is what the Trump administration has done. And that makes all those people here, like overnight, you're here without status, I. E. We can deport you.

Allison Gill (40:37)

Yeah. And even if the good guys win this case on the merits, these people will be gone by then, at least a great number of them.

Andy McCabe (40:46)

So I heard. I've also heard in the last few days that the FBI director has decided to offer agents overtime for working, I guess, on immigration matters, which is also weird because FBI agents cannot earn overtime. You get something called, well, you get a certain percentage of your salary as what they call availability pay. And that's what acknowledges and compensates you for the fact that you're basically on duty 24 hours a day.

Allison Gill (41:19)

I gotcha.

Andy McCabe (41:20)

He's also offered to off to give people who work immigration and detention cases until the end of this fiscal year the chance to move to offices of their preference, which, you know, this is like a really con. It's a, this is a big deal for agents. Like, you have the ability, no matter where you're assigned, you can put in a request to be transferred to your, like, the office that you want to work from. So maybe you're stuck in New York and you really want to be in Salt Lake City.

Allison Gill (41:53)

It's kind of like the military like that.

Andy McCabe (41:54)

You got orders, you designate Salt Lake City as your office of preference, and then at some point in your career, once you get senior enough, you get high enough on the list, you could be sent there. Every year, the director has to decide how many transfers he's going to allow to be used for these sort of voluntary moves. The numbers get very small and the budget is tight. It's also tough to manage the workforce if you're allowing people in Mass to just start showing up at different offices. You create some real. So this is like one of those decisions that seems probably clear to him. Like, yes, it will serve as an incentive for agents to do something that normally they probably wouldn't want to do, but you are creating a huge problem in the future. But this is not a. A group that really leads the Bureau with a great eye on the future.

Allison Gill (42:46)

No. And when we talk about, you know, moving people away to immigration from other FBI priorities, we're talking about past priorities because they have some new priorities now that. That are a little different. And you have that story right from our friend Joyce.

Andy McCabe (43:03)

Yeah, that's right. So Joyce Vance writes for her newsletter Civil Discourse. This entry came in under not your mama's bureau. I love Joyce.

Allison Gill (43:17)

I do, too.

Andy McCabe (43:17)

She says. Recently, FBI Director Cash Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino gave an exclusive joint interview to Fox News host Maria Bartiromo. Despite the friendly venue, it did not go well. The criticism from the right was fast and furious. The Twitterati conspiracy theorists wanted to see more prosecutions of Democrats who weaponized DOJ and other parts of government and weirdly, people who visited Epstein's sex island. That would be Jeffrey Epstein. The Twitterati, they seem to assume that they're all Democrats or maybe maga, faithless Republicans. In a clarifying tweet, Bongino said he and the director, quote, made the decision to either reopen or push additional resources and investigative attention to three cases. The D.C. pipe bombing investigation involving bombs found ahead of the January 6th riot outside of the DNC headquarters. Now, of course, before joining the FBI, Dan Bongino asserted that it was an inside job. So basically accusing the FBI of having placed the pipe bomb. Thanks, Deputy Director Bongino. The second case is the discovery of a bag of cocaine in an area frequented by visitors to the White House during the prior administration. Now, this bag of cocaine is frequently linked to or attempt people tried to link it to presidential son Hunter Biden's acknowledged cocaine use. Although the discovery of the bag in the White House postdates a Hunter's recovery and no evidence linking it to him or any other Biden family member has ever surfaced. Despite Trump's insinuation situations.

Allison Gill (44:56)

You know, Ronny Jackson was running a pill mill out of the White House, okay, under the Trump administration. Number two, there's a big New York Times story out this weekend about how much, how, how high Elon Musk has been while he's been the head of Doge.

Andy McCabe (45:17)

That came out today.

Allison Gill (45:18)

Ketamine, cocaine, ecstasy, Molly. Like he's, he showed up with a black eye today. He said his son kicked him, he got punched by his 5 year old son or something. BS.

Andy McCabe (45:31)

But it was a Tesla owner.

Allison Gill (45:33)

But my, my God, I wish it was me. No, I'm kidding. I, I take that back. I, I just to, to investigate this baggie of cocaine from years. It's just, it's mind blowing.

Andy McCabe (45:48)

Oh yeah, and the third case, this is a great one, is the leak of the opinion in Dobbs, the Supreme Court case that reversed Roe versus Wade. And Joyce points out that there's at least some reporting suggesting that the leak was the work of a conservative. So who this renewed prosecution, who this renewed case would go after is not, not really clear.

Allison Gill (46:11)

Marco Alito, be careful.

Andy McCabe (46:13)

Yeah, so because of the leak or the cocaine?

Allison Gill (46:19)

I don't know.

Andy McCabe (46:19)

Which one are you.

Allison Gill (46:20)

Oh, because of.

Andy McCabe (46:21)

Just kidding. Don't answer that. Do not answer that. I'm your attorney. Don't answer that.

Allison Gill (46:25)

Well, let's see what flag she flies this week.

Andy McCabe (46:29)

So the insanity of this announcement by Dan Bongino, of course, on his own private social media, but put that aside, is only one of these is actually an FBI case. That's the pipe bomb. The pipe bomb case is not solved, which doesn't surprise me because these cases are not easy. But the idea of going back with fresh eyes and reevaluating what's been done on that case and trying to come up with new strategies, maybe putting new resources on it. Not a terrible idea. Not a terrible idea. You do this with cold cases periodically, so I don't have a problem with that one. What I do have a problem with is the fact that he said in his announcement that these were cases that he and Patel believe there was a great public interest in because they involved public corruption. So are you, are you suggesting, Mr. Deputy Director, that you think there is some public corruption behind the fact that the FBI has not solved the pipe bomb case. Like there are FBI people who know who did this but are covering it up for some reason? I mean, that is, that is absolutely ridiculous. If that's the case, I think it's probably more likely that Dan Bongino just doesn't really know what public corruption is. Right. He doesn't understand that under the law, public corruption is someone in a position of trust, takes something of value in return for the execution of an official act. The other two cases have nothing to do with the FBI. The FBI didn't, didn't investigate the leak of the Dobbs decision. It's not even a violation of law. No, it's maybe a violation of Supreme Court policy or practice, but that's a matter for the Supreme Court to investigate, which they did, and they ultimately determined that they couldn't figure it out. And then finally the cocaine case, I mean, honestly, what's the, if they're, you know, that's a Supreme, that's a Secret Service matter, not an FBI matter.

Allison Gill (48:27)

So maybe it wasn't even an eight.

Andy McCabe (48:28)

Ball, it was like a bag of cocaine, some idiot. I mean, there's a couple thousand people that roll through the White House every week, visitors who were there for one reason or another. And somebody probably realized they had something that they were afraid of getting caught with and so they just dropped it in the little cubbyhole or wherever it was found. So, yeah, this whole thing is ridiculous, bizarre.

Allison Gill (48:53)

All right, we have one more quick story here for this segment. This is from the Times, and this is about judicial threats. And this is from Matthias Schwartz. He writes threats against federal judges have risen drastically since President Trump took office, according to internal data compiled by the U.S. marshals Service. And we've known that the threat to judges has increased. But Schwartz here comes with the numbers. He says in just a five month period leading up to March 1st of this year, 80 judges have received threats, according to the data. And then over the next six weeks, an additional 162 judges received threats, a dramatic increase. That spike in threats coincided with a flood of harsh rhetoric from Trump himself, sometimes criticizing judges who have ruled against the administration and in some cases calling on Congress to impeach them. Many judges have already spoken out, worrying about the possibility of violence and urging political leaders to tone things down. We've covered this a little bit on the Daily Beans. We've talked about the pizzas showing up people's houses and the judges saying, you know, I, it seems, you know, silly, oh, you got pizzas delivered to your house. But that is a we know where you live message, is what exactly that is. And it's very frightening. There's a lot of swatting. There's a lot of terrible things going on. So much so that when the judicial conference met recently, they actually talked about the Possibility of having the U. S. Marshals come up under the judiciary or at least have the judicial branch appoint the head of the U.S. marshal Service because they needed a better protection, and they're afraid that under Pam Bondi's tutelage, that they won't get it and that they might actually be called to do nothing in the cases, you know, in. If, if the threats increase, they might be asked. Pam Bondi could ask them to stand down. And as we also know, marshals are in charge of carrying out contempt orders, so that's another issue. Now, it is very important to note that the judicial branch can't just claim this. This has to be something that's passed by Congress. But that they, but that they were having those discussions.

Andy McCabe (50:59)

Yeah.

Allison Gill (51:00)

And bringing their. Yeah. And that they were bringing their concerns to Chief Justice John Roberts at a breakfast is like, wow, I never thought I would hear the very conservative Judicial Conference saying they need more police protection and that they're very interested in having control over maybe at least the head of the US Marshal Service.

Andy McCabe (51:19)

Yeah. I mean, the numbers are, Are, Are really concerning. And, you know, Pam Bondi goes on Fox News and reiterates Trump's attacks on judges. Every time a, you know, ruling comes out that goes against the administration, which I saw some data on that just recently that there it was 182 times judge courts have ruled against the government in all these cases since the inauguration. And that's a number that just keeps climbing every day. So. Yeah, I mean, I, it doesn't surprise me that they're, they have, they are losing faith in the Attorney General of the United States to do what is necessary to protect them, which is. That's stark staggering.

Allison Gill (52:02)

Yeah. That they think that the Attorney General would ask the marshals to stand down in their protection of judges.

Andy McCabe (52:09)

Yeah. Like, wow, she has it. She invites that speculation by her own conduct and by her own state, public statements. So.

Allison Gill (52:18)

But these sound like things I would come up with in my head in 2016, not something that they would be discussing at a judicial conference, you know.

Andy McCabe (52:25)

Yeah, sure, yeah.

Allison Gill (52:26)

The threat is real, and the threat is here also. I don't know if you saw Bongino's sad, very sad day on, on Fox News complaining about how he, he's basically divorced from his wife and he has to sit and stare at four government walls all day. Government walls. You know, you could get up out of your office and go do some work, I guess.

Andy McCabe (52:49)

Yeah. But go talk to actual government people.

Allison Gill (52:52)

Yeah, Go meet the people. Do that. Try that. But he was very, very sad, almost in tears about how hard this job is. I guess podcasting and no shade to podcasters, doesn't prepare you for the awesome responsibility of the Deputy Director of the FBI. But I will say being the Deputy Director of the FBI does prepare you for the awesome responsibility of podcasting.

Andy McCabe (53:20)

Yeah. Yes, it does. Thank you for that turnaround. I was like, man, where's this going? Oh, man, I saw it. I was actually, I've been. I've been talking about that since yesterday. That bizarre interview. Like, I thought the. The interviewers. Now, these are Fox sitting on the morning show couch people. I don't know who they are, but that's where they seem to work. And they're looking at him during, when he's saying all these things and they're like, you could tell, they're just kind of like, oh, my God. When he wanted to start talking about getting divorced from his wife, he's like, but we're not actually divorced.

Allison Gill (53:56)

You know, it's not very alpha.

Andy McCabe (53:58)

I don't know. I feel like his wife learned about the impending divorce yesterday on television, which seems really weird, but nevertheless. You mean Dan? Yeah, it's a hard job, dude. I don't know who told you that it was going to be easy. It's maybe it's the hardest job I've ever had in my life.

Allison Gill (54:17)

Maybe send him a little sympathy card or something.

Andy McCabe (54:19)

Maybe. Maybe. Yeah. I mean, it's pathetic the things he said. And then it was kind of funny. He was like, sometimes we're here until 7 o' clock at night. I'm like, oh, dude, that's an early night home.

Allison Gill (54:30)

That's. That's when I was there. To the va. Come on.

Andy McCabe (54:35)

These. These guys are just not. Well, whatever.

Allison Gill (54:38)

I don't ask him to work that overtime. Kash Patel, he.

Andy McCabe (54:42)

He talked a lot about how he doesn't like the job. And you know, when people ask him if he likes it, he says he doesn't.

Allison Gill (54:48)

He's only doing it to sacrifice for the greatness of America or whatever.

Andy McCabe (54:53)

In this whole diatribe, he didn't manage to say one good thing about the FBI or FBI people or this opportunity.

Allison Gill (55:01)

I sure they not.

Andy McCabe (55:02)

That is so sad. I mean, like, yes, it's a super hard job and it wrecks your personal life. And anyone who's done it. I'm not the only one who had experience. Everyone else has done it, has experienced that as well. But it's also one of the most unique positions, certainly in the federal government, to participate in the greatest Some of the greatest work that's done in the United States of America. That organization accomplishes miracles every day that no one will know about except the people who are involved and the deputy director.

Allison Gill (55:34)

Thankless, thankless job.

Andy McCabe (55:36)

Yeah. And I mean, you get to work with the greatest people on earth. The mission is so righteous. The capabilities of the organization, the dedication of its people. Like when they asked him about it, none of those things came to his mind. It was just all about how long the hours are. And I don't like the office. I mean, it's just, it's sad. It's a sad day for the men and women of the FBI that that's how their leadership talks about the experience of leading them.

Allison Gill (56:08)

Yeah. Morale has to, I can't, I can't even imagine what the morale must be like.

Andy McCabe (56:12)

Yeah, that interview didn't help it. I could tell you that.

Allison Gill (56:15)

Oh, for sure. All right, we have one more quick story we need to get to and some listener questions, but we have to take one last quick break. Everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Foreign everybody, welcome back. One more quick story before we get to listener questions. And if you have a question, there's a link in the show notes that you click on and you can fill out the form. Send Andy and me your questions and we'll try our best to answer them. But we have this one quick story from Reuters. Trump said on Wednesday that he's going to nominate Justice Department official Emil Bovey, a lawyer who defended him when he was convicted of criminal charges a year ago today over hush money paid to a porn star to interfere in an election. He's going to nominate that guy to serve as a federal appeals court judge. Trump announced in a post on social media, Truth Social, that he named Bovey the principal associate deputy attorney general. I'm sorry, I think I called him the DAG in the intro. He's the pay dag. He was the acting deputy attorney general to serve as a life tenure judge on the Philadelphia based 3rd Circuit U.S. court of Appeals. To Bovey represented Trump, like I said, at his criminal trial in Manhattan last year alongside Todd Blanche, who is the dag, the deputy attorney general. In a confrontation to remind you that sent shockwaves through the legal profession, Bovee in February instructed prosecutors within the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office where Bovey used to work to drop a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Bovey's order to dismiss the Adams case prompted 11 prosecutors in Washington and New York to resign. A lot of them very conservative the 3rd Circuit, which hears appeals from courts in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, has six active judges appointed by Republicans, six appointed by Democrats, and two vacancies. And this is the one where Joe Biden tried to appoint someone and that appointment got tanked because the appointee was Muslim. So the other one, the other vacancy is one of the four that Chuck Schumer dealt away in order to have the Republicans stop blocking his federal district court bench nominees, which is what allowed Biden to make a record 234 appointed judges on the federal bench during his term. So this should be a huge red line on judicial appointments. In my personal opinion, Emil Bovey should not be appointed as a, as a judge on any court, let alone a circuit court. And to, to throw kind of gas on this fire. Trump actually posted, I think it was today or last night that he really is mad at the Federalist Society. And Leonard Leo said it, that, that, you know, that he did him dirty. The Federalist Society did him dirty. I don't. I also don't like the Federalist Society, but for different reasons. Trump and Stephen Miller feel that the Federalist Society is too woke. I think they're probably particularly mad at, like, Amy Coney Barrett, for example, and any of the other Trump judges who have ruled against him that are, have been receiving threats and would like to have the marshals up under the judiciary. Yeah, but just wild that Emil Bove. Ugh.

Andy McCabe (59:46)

It really shows you, especially with that whole attack on the Federalist Society, which, hey, good for them. But it shows you a little bit of the mentality between, like, Trump and really, more realistically, Stephen Miller. They expect what they expect from, like, if Leonard Leo or anyone comes to them and says, hey, here's a good person to put in this judgeship. They expect. They expect that if they put someone into it, into, onto the bench, that person will rule with them every single chance they get that it is. That's what's required. The payback for the job is you must support us and our positions, no matter how they end up in front of you for the remainder of your life term. It is like an absolute quid pro quo kind of organized crime approach to, like, what you owe me. It's really remarkable. Every president has ever served has put people on the bench who then turned around and disappointed him. Who was it that said Warren Berger was the biggest damn full mistake of my presence is that Eisenhower put him on the Mitch, I think. But yeah, it happens. You pick a guy because you think he's good for it, and then he does something that disappoints you and you just kind of shrug your shoulders, maybe you're angry for five minutes and walk away. Eisenhower didn't turn around and attack the federal bench and get on social media and get all of his supporters to go out and start threatening judges. I mean, but, you know, that's where we are now, I guess.

Allison Gill (61:22)

Yeah, reality is pretty different now than, than what it was. All right, let's, let's take a listener question. I know we've been here past your, your hour, past your bedtimes. Everybody listening. Sorry about that. We had a lot to cover this week, but, and I'm getting noticed that in the Tacoma, D.C. area, there's a tornado watch. Are you anywhere near Tacoma?

Andy McCabe (61:45)

No. I mean, Tacoma park is like D.C. maryland side of Maryland side of D.C. so although my dog is freaking out a little bit here, he's on high alert expecting, you know, a thunderclap at any moment. So if you hear safe out there panting crazily in the background, that's what it is.

Allison Gill (62:01)

But what do we have? What do we have for listener questions? Maybe we can answer some, you know, thundershirt questions for dogs or something.

Andy McCabe (62:09)

I can definitely answer those. So this one comes to us from RM And RM really packs two questions in here, so we'll go through this pretty quick. Dear Allison and Andy, thank you for your dogged analysis and reporting of the truth in our collective battle to uphold the rule of law. Given that we now seem to be entering the pardon spree portion of this administration, can people who have been pardoned under Trump be unpardoned when a new president comes into office who actually believes in using the pardon power appropriately and believes in the rule of law, or is a pardon forever? Well, this is an easy one. RM the pardon is forever.

Allison Gill (62:46)

Yeah, it is. It's forever. And it's really. I know there was a lot of chatter from some folks on the Internet back in the 20, you know, 2020ish timeframe, 20, 21 timeframe about corrupt pardons. We even talked about it early in the Mueller investigation with the pardon dangling for Cohen and Manafort and all that, and people wondering, well, we haven't ever litigated before whether or not a president is disallowed or if it's illegal to issue a corrupt pardon. And we won't. Because, first of all, even with a normal Supreme Court, the pardon power is so broad. It's like one of the broadest things that an executive can do. It's right there in the Constitution. And this Supreme Court especially that says that the president isn't above the law anyway, is definitely not going to entertain a case about whether or not a corrupt pardon can be overturned. But I don't see that any pardon ever being able to be overturned.

Andy McCabe (63:52)

This is the court that said you can't prosecute a corrupt governor.

Allison Gill (63:55)

Yeah.

Andy McCabe (63:56)

Okay, so this is the court that's bribery gutted the public corruption statutes in this country. It's almost impossible. You have to like, have it on video, audio, witness in the room when one person says, I am giving you this money in return for the following quid pro quo.

Allison Gill (64:13)

And I have to do the following thing and complete it and then, I don't know, make a letter about it and stamp that. I've.

Andy McCabe (64:20)

Let me make it clear I would not do this without your money.

Allison Gill (64:23)

Right.

Andy McCabe (64:24)

Yeah. Now this group. No, not a chance. That's not a chance they would ever consider a limitation on the President's ability to pardon. And pardon. That's just, you know, you cannot be prosecuted again for any conduct that was related to what you were pardoned for. It's, it's very, very complete and everlasting. Unfortunately, when it's used improperly. Okay, second part of the question. Also, as a part of this, of his DOJ weaponization campaign, do you predict that Ed Martin will take extreme measures to get, to get the individuals he feels may have relevant information for his sham investigations into the alleged politicization of the department? So will he go to extreme measures to get them to talk, even if they do not desire or not required to be forthcoming? I expect that Ed Martin will do anything that crosses his mind, whether it's lawful, ethical or not. If he thinks he can strong, strong arm witnesses into appearing in front of the grand jury and testifying, whatever else, I have no doubt that he will use every tool in his toolkit. And the government can be really onerous when it comes to pressuring people to provide information. Now, at the end of the day, everyone has the opportunity to take the Fifth Amendment if they believe that that testimony could be incriminating for them. Of course, if the government turns around and gives you immunity, then you cannot refuse to testify. So, yeah, I think we need to keep a close eye on this because I think if Ed Martin has. Has proved anything so far, it's that the guy. There's nothing this guy won't do.

Allison Gill (66:13)

Yeah. And the rules don't matter. Even if he can't get a conviction, he'll come out and say, we investigated so and so for this and we're pretty sure he did it. Even though the grand jury didn't return an indictment, they will name and shame, quote, unquote.

Andy McCabe (66:25)

Yeah.

Allison Gill (66:25)

Just like he said he would, which is very against DOJ policy. You can ask, just ask individual one in the Michael Cohen prosecution, who also known as Donald Trump, why he was referred to as individual one. That's why they do that, that the, you know, country A. Individual 3 lawyer 6. That's why you see that and, and that's even indicted co conspirator, whatever. You, yeah, you never name them. But that Ed Martin will. So he, I don't even think he needs to, much like the Trump administration has always done, need to rely on actual convictions or investigations. Just the announcement of them is enough for them to go on and to create their conspiracy theories and rile up their base. So we're going to see a lot of it.

Andy McCabe (67:08)

Heck, yeah.

Allison Gill (67:10)

All right, everybody, thank you. Sorry we kept you for a little bit over the hour, but we appreciate you sticking around with us. And we'll have probably just as much, if not more news to report next week in the ongoing Bozberg, Abrego Garcia, OCG South Sudan cases, Alien Enemies act, etc. We're going to have a lot to talk about, plus anything else that crops up from good old, you know, Dan Bongino and Kash Patel about where they're focusing their resources of the, you know, great. One of the greatest law enforcement, the.

Andy McCabe (67:43)

Greatest law enforcement agency on the planet.

Allison Gill (67:45)

Sorry. The greatest. I'm going to tell Harry you said that.

Andy McCabe (67:49)

You can tell him. I'll fight him over that one. I mean, I might take a swing and then run away fast.

Allison Gill (67:55)

You're much quicker, I bet. Right.

Andy McCabe (67:57)

Because of your. I gotta dodge him.

Allison Gill (67:59)

Right. Because he's so tall. All right. And you run marathons, which just blows my mind.

Andy McCabe (68:05)

But I'm trying, trying to stay alive.

Allison Gill (68:08)

Thank you, everybody. Take some time for yourself this week. Whatever you're, whatever you're doing, take some time. Just, you know, I don't know, pet cat, pet your dog, go out for a walk, try to enjoy some alone time. I think we all need it. We all need a little bit of downtime. And I know I appreciate mine when I get it, so I hope you do, too.

Andy McCabe (68:32)

Absolutely. Very, very wise words.

Allison Gill (68:35)

Thank you from a not so wise person. Everybody will. We'll see you next week. I'm Alison Gill.

Andy McCabe (68:43)

And I'm Andy McCabe.

Allison Gill (68:45)

Unjustified is written and executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McKinney 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.