← UnJustified
UnJustified
Zero Intelligence
00:59:33
President Trump says he’ll nominate Todd Blanche as Attorney General, and has named Bill Pulte as Acting Director of National Intelligence. A federal judge has re-opened the case that led to the slush fund settlement to investigate possible collusion and a fraud on the court as Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testifies he’ll drop the fund but not the Trump family tax immunity. John Bolton takes a plea deal for one felony count of mishandling national defense information. Amid personnel changes at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, 2020 Election Denier Kurt Olsen joins the US Attorneys Office in the Southern District of Florida. The lead prosecutor in the seashells case leaves. A January 6th rioter gets a sensitive counterterrorism job. Plus listener questions.
Loading summary
Transcript162 lines
- [00:00]
Martin Sheen
Hello, Martin Sheen here. And it seems to me that no day of the week is without its endless barrage of bad news. Even on Sunday. For God's sake, let's change that. What do you say? Together, let's make Sunday immune to bad news. Available now every Sunday, Season three of the Martin Sheen Podcast with yours truly, Martin sheen has begun. Yeah, 10 brand new episodes are already underway. So join me, Martin sheen, for a 20 minute journey as I share my personal stories, a bit of poetry and insightful reflections that will encourage you to take a deep breath and enjoy a relaxing moment. Of course, it's important to know and understand what's happening in the world, but I also believe there's nothing wrong with taking a step back to find strength and clarity. And Lord knows we need that now more than ever. A moment of thoughtfulness and calm may be rare these days, but it doesn't have to be. So what do you say? Say you want to take back your Sundays. So do I. And guess what? I've already done it with the Martin Sheen Podcast, Season three. Available now. Don't mess with my Sunday. And thank you for listening.
- [01:13]
Andy McCabe
MSW Media President Trump says he'll nominate Todd Blanche as Attorney General and has named Bill Pulte as acting Director of National Intelligence.
- [01:26]
Alison Gill
A federal judge has reopened the case that led to the slush fund settlement to investig possible collusion and a fraud on the court. As acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testifies that he'll drop the fund but not the Trump family tax immunity.
- [01:42]
Andy McCabe
John Bolton takes a plea deal for one felony count of mishandling national defense information.
- [01:49]
Alison Gill
And amid personnel changes at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, 2020 election denier Kurt Olson joins the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of Florida. The lead prosecutor in the Seashells case leaves and a January 6th rider gets a sensitive countert terrorism job. This is unjustified. Hey everybody. Welcome to episode 72 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, June 7th, 2026. I'm Alison Gill.
- [02:14]
Andy McCabe
And I am Andy McCabe. I don't know how to how we're going to do this today, Alice, because there's a lot to cover. So let's dive right in. Let's start off with Todd Blanche and Bill Pulte, two of our faves from Ms. Now we get President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he will nominate Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to serve in the role permanently. Quote, we are going to make him permanent Attorney General Trump said during an event in the Rose Garden. A video of the announcement was posted to social media by a White House aide. Msnow reported the planned nomination earlier Wednesday, citing a senior administration official. CNN was first to report the news.
- [02:56]
Alison Gill
Ah, now, Blanche's road to confirmation, according to Ms. Now, could be a rough one following intense bipartisan blowback to Trump's IRS settlement, which I'm putting in air quotes, which initially included a $1.776 billion anti weaponization fund that was expected to compensate participants in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, along with other Trump allies. Now, two senior administration officials told Ms. Now that Blanche has developed good relationships with Republican lawmaker Capitol Hill that might help allay some confirmation issues he will inevitably face. But ultimately, they said, his confirmation may hinge on whether or not the weaponization fund is actually dropped.
- [03:41]
Andy McCabe
Earlier this week, Blanch testified before a House Appropriations Committee panel that the Trump administration is, quote, not moving forward with the fund, Period. Close quote. However, the rest of the Trump IRS settlement remains intact, Blanche said, including the addendum granting Trump his family and his businesses immediately immunity from all existing IRS tax audits.
- [04:04]
Alison Gill
Yeah, and criminal investigations that could arise from tax audits into perpetuity, I believe the order says. At least that's my understanding of the reading that Representative DeLauro gave during that hearing in which, you know, at first, Representative Meng was like, are you. You're going to drop the slush fund? He's like, I'm going to drop the slush fund. She's like, can I get it in writing, a recision? And he's like, no, you don't need it in writing. And then delaro was, all right, what about this tax immunity? He's like, it's not immunity. And she's like, yes, it is. He's like, no, it's not. And then she reads it to him. And then he's like, well, that. That order number two, that we're not. We're just getting rid of the fund. It's so. It's still kind of all up in the air. And today, on Friday, as we record this, Andy, the DOJ has responded to that former January 6th prosecutor's case in Virginia that actually put the fund on hold. And the DOJ is saying this is moot now because Todd Blanch has said the fund isn't going, since there's no actual case or controversy, there's no justiciability under Article 3 of the Constitution, but he won't put it in writing. There was no declaration from Todd. Blanche filed along with that with that brief. And by the way, mootness Requires like a higher standard than just a voluntary walking away. Right. You can't. That's.
- [05:31]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, yeah.
- [05:32]
Alison Gill
Not generally a thing, but it's very interesting to me that the DOJ is fighting against an injunction that. Over a dead fund. Like, why are you fighting to keep it alive if you've killed it? It's just a very weird scenario.
- [05:49]
Andy McCabe
It's super weird. And I can't sit here and say that I have any sort of clarity as to how this is going to play out. But I will tell you this. I don't buy it. I don't buy it for a second. If you think about the statements that he made in the hearing and the things that the administration has said since then, it's always in this wording of not moving forward with the fund. That's not the same as saying, we're never going to do this again. We're not going to repropose it as something else. We're not going to search for some way to try to spend DOJ appropriated funds in, in ways that the President directs that are completely outside the scope of a lawsuit. Like, I don't buy this for one second. I don't think they've abandoned the idea of throwing money at people they like. I just think they're backing away from this way of trying to do it. But we'll see. Maybe I'm just, you know, maybe even I'm just an old curmudgeon trying to see the bad news, but I don't
- [06:48]
Alison Gill
think you are, because Stanley Woodward posted on Twitter, oh, we'll find a way, you know, like. And then deleted that immediately. Which to me, you know, if they come and try to moot my lawsuit against this fund, you can bet that tweet will show up in a response for sure. But, but anyway, we're going to keep an eye on all of that, but Reuters is reporting that Trump appointed federal housing regulator Bill Pulte is going to be the acting Director of National Intelligence. And he did this on Tuesday, elevating a political loyalist with zero national security experience to lead the sprawling U.S. intelligence community at a time of war and global tensions. Pulte, who's 38 years old and no shade to 38 year olds, just seems a little young to run the national intelligence apparatus, has used his position as head of a low profile mortgage regulatory agency to push for investigations of several Trump's perceived enemies for alleged mortgage fraud. None have yet resulted in criminal charges. Now Pulte replaces the departing Tulsi Gabbard in the intelligence post. And again, age really has nothing to do with it, Andy. This guy has zero intelligence background. None.
- [07:58]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. I mean, it's preposterous. First of all, forget about who he is and what he's done to try to advance the president's politicization of government and attacking his enemies and all that kind of stuff. Put all that aside and just look at the experience issue.
- [08:14]
Alison Gill
None.
- [08:14]
Andy McCabe
There isn't any. Zero. I mean, how easy would it be for a guy like Bill Pulte to go in and fire every ascent, every analyst that's essential to US national security? Fire them all, because why not? He doesn't know what they do anyway. He's never had.
- [08:31]
Alison Gill
Well, he has tracked home experience.
- [08:35]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, there you go.
- [08:36]
Alison Gill
That translates, right?
- [08:37]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, there you go. Yeah. So it's. It's amazing. It's just unreal. But Wall Street Journal reports that Trump has asked Pulte to begin firing a large number of employees as part of a shakeup of the US Intelligence community. Of course he has. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday, Trump said he has privately told Pulte that he believes the office of Director of national intelligence, or ODNI, which oversees 18 federal intelligence agencies and units, was, quote, unnecessary and. Or too big. The President named Pulte Director of National Intelligence on an acting basis, a temporary role that does not require Senate confirmation. He can serve in the role for 210 days. That's under the Vacancies act, which puts his time at the ODNI past the midterm elections.
- [09:26]
Alison Gill
Yeah, and that's important because Donald Trump has suggested his controversial ally, Bill Pulte, will investigate, quote, rigged elections while serving as the country's top intelligence official. As the US President continues to make unfounded allegations about voting. He's attacking California right now because, I don't know, we're counting votes. Like this is new. Like this is the first time a Republican election denier has complained about there being some sort of fraud because California takes a long time to count votes. Now, earlier in the day, in a social media post, at 12:48 in the morning, 1am Trump alleged without evidence that Democrats were cheating in the California primaries. And he also claimed the US Attorney's office in Los Angeles is investigating. Now, the US Attorney's office says that it has no comment on that.
- [10:18]
Andy McCabe
That's certainly not saying they're not. But in any case, Pulte's selection for the acting intelligence role has sparked bipartisan criticism in recent days, with John Thune, the Senate's Republican majority leader, saying that, quote, we don't need a weaponized national intelligence director. Adding that Pulte would have, quote, a lengthy road ahead of him if nominated for the role permanently. Thune stated, we need professionals here. Meanwhile, the Republican Senator Mitch McConnell indirectly expressed his disapproval, which, why am I not surprised by that at all? Holy. Does this guy ever do anything? Directly expressed disapproval of Pulte's nomination, saying, anyone performing this role of such immense public trust must have the extensive national security experience required by Stat statute. And no nominee who falls short of this requirement will earn my vote. Even John Fetterman says he would not vote to confirm Pulte if it came to that.
- [11:15]
Alison Gill
Right, but like you said, since he's just the acting dni, he doesn't need Senate confirmation. But there is other leverage out there to prevent him from taking the job. PBS is now reporting that the Senate blocked an extension early Friday of a key surveillance program used by US Intelligence agencies. As concerns mounted over Trump's selection of federal housing finance regul Bill Pulte to SERVE as the DNI, some Republicans joined Democrats in the 47 to 52 vote against a procedural motion that would have set up the final vote on the extension next week. This is FISA section 702, and that's complicating efforts to extend the critical program before it expires June 12th. Now, this vote came after an overnight session on separate legislation, funding for Immigration Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
- [12:10]
Andy McCabe
The vote marked the latest setback for Trump and intelligence officials who have spent months pushing to extend a key provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act that allows agencies such as the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the FBI to collect communications from foreign targets without a warrant. And that is FISA section 702. Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who had worked to negotiate the bill, voted against it. He said earlier Thursday that he and committee chair Senator Tom Cotton had reached what he described as a, quote, compromise on a strong bill, but that the complete irresponsibility of putting forward Pulte had changed the equation.
- [12:54]
Alison Gill
Yeah, yeah, And Marcy Wheeler actually brought that up once we learned about Pulte. Like the day Pulte was named acting dni, Empty wheel is like just withhold the votes on FISA 702.
- [13:07]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [13:08]
Alison Gill
To get him out of there. Now, the Senate is expected to revisit the legislation when they return next week. Any agreement would still need to clear the chamber's 60 vote threshold before heading to the House, where lawmakers have yet to resolve differences over A provision restricting a central bank digital currency that House Republican leaders added to secure support for the bill. So this thing has all kinds of problems and it needs 60 votes.
- [13:34]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. And really with. And I think the Pulte announcement is perfect example of this. This White House does not do the Hill very well. No, they're constantly doing things that. That kneecap their own desires and agenda up on the Hill. So stand by for that one. Meantime, Ryan Goodman posted on social media a reminder that Title 50, U.S. code Section 33 states that, quote, there is a Director of National Intelligence who shall not, might, maybe, would have, could have, but actually shall be appointed by the President. Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security experience. Of course, Bill Pulte has zero. So it is in the law creating the job that you must have extensive experience.
- [14:29]
Alison Gill
Extensive experience, too. So it's not like a little experience.
- [14:33]
Andy McCabe
Not like you went and had the tour one day over at the DNI or somebody brought you to the CIA
- [14:39]
Alison Gill
to buy a hat, have an FBI mug.
- [14:41]
Andy McCabe
Exactly. And on Friday, 28 former service secretaries and retired general and flag officers who collectively served under every President from John F. Kennedy to Joseph R. Biden wrote a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee saying that appointing Bill Pulte is a threat to national security. And I can tell you from having been in that crowd for a long time, they don't make statements like that flippantly.
- [15:07]
Alison Gill
They went to paper, Andy.
- [15:09]
Andy McCabe
They did. They did quote the appointment get.
- [15:11]
Alison Gill
To get a national security person to go to paper is a feat. Quote, the appointment of an ill suited acting Director could materially harm U.S. national security. Any prioritization of political considerations over strategic imperatives cedes advantage to our adversaries. So do errors of judgment arising from insufficient expertise. That's putting it very nicely.
- [15:33]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [15:34]
Alison Gill
Our men and women in uniform rely upon the quality and integrity of intelligence gathered and analyzed by the 18 agencies under the director's jurisdiction. With U.S. forces engaged in active operations abroad, there is no margin for error. That's what they said in their letter. So that's pretty JFK going all the way back to jfk.
- [15:56]
Andy McCabe
It's really kind of interesting. I've been part of the 702 reauthorization fight many times, and I know people have very different opinions about this. But one of the interesting pieces of this is that under the law, the government gets one year from the last certification. So the program has to be certified every year to the FISA court. It was last done in March. So even if this Whole thing. If they fail to renew the authorization because of this, this battle on the Hill, the administration could technically continue collecting intelligence through 702 until March of 2027. So it's possible that they just say, you know, heck with it. We'll, we'll, we'll try this again six months from now.
- [16:47]
Alison Gill
Now, how do you feel about 702? How pivotal was it, for example, in Crossfire Hurricane investigating ties to Russian assets?
- [16:57]
Andy McCabe
Probably not as pivotal to a case like that as it is to cases like your General kind of CT investigations, CT actually, and Cyber are the two places where I feel like it's the most important. And it is absolutely critical to that work because what it enables you to do is collect the metadata or actual content of communications of people who are, who have foreign people who are located in foreign places for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence. So it's the three foreigns. That's what I used to tell my class as the easiest way to remember it. You can do that without a warrant because foreign people overseas don't enjoy the benefits of the Fourth Amendment and the rest of our constitutional protection. So it's not, you know, they don't get the benefit of the warrant requirement. It's highly controversial because in doing that collection, you could incidentally collect the communications of Americans who call those foreign people. And that's really where the controversy rises.
- [17:59]
Alison Gill
Right. And that's where a lot of people are like, oh, it surveils Americans. That's why Trump hated it for a minute. It's why Lindsey Graham hated it for a minute. But of course, continues to vote for, to reauthorize it.
- [18:08]
Andy McCabe
That's right.
- [18:09]
Alison Gill
But that's sort of like that whole unmasking of.
- [18:14]
Andy McCabe
That's right.
- [18:14]
Alison Gill
Americans. Right. Like, for example, Mike Flynn.
- [18:18]
Andy McCabe
Yeah. I have always been a huge proponent of maintaining 702 authority. But here's where it's different this time. It's different now because all of a sudden Trump and of course his entire administration have woken up to, oh, 702 is great. We must have 702. And this is the same administration that is now declaring everyone, they don't like to be a terrorist or a terrorist organization. And so they have really opened up, I think, the distinct possibility that under their very different views of what constitutes a foreign intel, a foreign terrorist organization, they could use those more expansive definitions to start intentionally, not incidentally, but intentionally collecting them, the communications of, let's just say, disfavored Americans and people here in the United States. So it's, I think the concerns about 702 have always been valid. I think they are particularly heightened in this environment.
- [19:15]
Alison Gill
Could it also be abused to, you know, I don't know, look into foreign interference in our elections? Of course, where none might exist, which is why it's, I think, crucial that Bill Pulte, if allowed to stay in this job, would be staying on through the midterm elections. And, you know, Tulsi Gabbard, who was the previous dni, was already in tow down stealing election ballots from Fulton county and investigating in Puerto Rico, saying that Maduro row somehow had Venezuela had interfered in, in our elections. And that kind of intelligence gathering would fall under the purview of 702 as well.
- [19:56]
Andy McCabe
It certainly could under their bizarre and totally expansive definitions of what constitutes a foreign actor. Right. And not Russia, though. Of course. No, we're not interested in the actual enemies. We're only interested in the political enemies. So, yeah, I think it's really. It's really concerning, especially when you look at the way they're trying to criminalize, for instance, groups that support Democratic politicians, groups like ActBlue and others. Like, it's, it's a. I think, you know, they've opened the door to this by making these presidential directives that just declare without any evidence or, or level of proof, that a group you've never heard of before is now. Is now a foreign terrorist organization and an enemy of the United States and their boats can be. Can be nuked in the, in the ocean without any evidence of what's going on. They're like, it's crazy what they've been doing. And I think adding the power of 702 to that kind of approach is really, really concerning. Should be concerning to a lot of people.
- [21:03]
Alison Gill
And, you know, it's long. We've long known that whether you got bad guys in office or good guys in office is how they interpret these laws.
- [21:10]
Andy McCabe
That's right.
- [21:10]
Alison Gill
You know, like, when we look at the interrogation techniques, when you've got stuff like people like Bush interpreting the law versus somebody like Mueller interpreting the law, they, you know, different, different ways of looking at it, of what torture is, for example. And I think.
- [21:29]
Andy McCabe
And, you know, I think there are some Republicans on the Hill who this. This has kind of occurred to them. They're thinking like, well, hold on a second. If we give ourselves or we give the Republican administration this sort of authority, inevitably it could be used against them by the next Democratic administration. So it's, it's something that needs to be. We need to be really careful about. We don't want to kneecap the intelligence community's ability to collect the intelligence. We need to stay safe. But it's very powerful.
- [21:57]
Alison Gill
Regulate how it's used.
- [21:59]
Andy McCabe
It needs to be regulated for sure.
- [22:00]
Alison Gill
Yeah. Define how, where you can go outside of those boundaries. All right, everybody, we are going to be right back. And after this break, we're going to talk about the reanimation of Trump v. The Internal Revenue Service by Judge Williams in Miami, which again, that story dropped the minute we shut off our microphones recording last week's episode. I sent it to Andy and he's like, figures. So we're going to cover that a little bit, but also some additional things that have happened in that vein over the past week. Stick around. We'll be right back.
- [22:39]
Martin Sheen
Hello, Martin Sheen here. And it seems to me that no day of the week is without its endless barrage of bad news. Even on Sunday. For God's sake, let's change that. What do you say together, let's make Sunday immune to bad news. Available now every Sunday, season three of the Martin Sheen Podcast with yours truly, Martin Sheen has begun. Yeah. 10 brand new episodes are already underway. So join me, Martin sheen, for a 20 minute journey as I share my personal stories, a bit of poetry and insightful reflections that will encourage you to take a deep breath and enjoy a relaxing moment. Of course, it's important to know and understand what's happening in the world, but I also believe there's nothing wrong with taking a step back to find strength and clarity. And Lord knows we need that now more than ever. A moment of thoughtfulness and calm may be rare these days, but it doesn't have to be. So what do you say? You want to take back your Sundays? So do I. And guess what? I've already done it with the Martin Sheen Podcast, Season three, available now. Don't mess with my Sunday and thank you for listening.
- [23:55]
Alison Gill
Hey, everybody. Welcome back. So, as I said right as we finished recording last week's show, we got some breaking news from the New York Times that says a federal judge in Miami has reopened President Trump's 10 billion dollar case against the IRS in a striking turnabout, saying she wants to investigate grievous allegations that the hasty deal to resolve it was premised on deception. The ruling is by Judge Kathleen Williams. That was on Friday, as you know, a week ago Friday, to revive the case shortly after closing it. It was a significant blow to Trump, both Trump, who had voluntarily dismissed the suit himself last week, and the Justice Department after the president withdrew the suit. Senior department Officials released a pair of extraordinary agreements that settled the case by establishing the $1.8 billion slush fund to compensate people who claimed they were victims of weaponization by Democrats. But the deal also conferred lucrative tax benefits on Trump, his family and his businesses.
- [24:50]
Andy McCabe
Judge Williams decision came in response to court papers filed on Wednesday by a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges who urged her to bring the case back to life and to dig into the details of the agreement to settle it. Former Judges said that Mr. Trump's settlement agreement raised serious questions about his candor towards the court and manipulation of the judicial system. In her brief but stern order on Friday, Judge Williams said that she wanted to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Trump's efforts to settle the lawsuit in a way that benefited him and his allies. If she succeeds in moving forward with her inquiry, it could ultimately result in questions being asked of the Justice Department leaders who signed the agreements to settle the suit. Chief among them Todd Blanche, the acting Attorney general, and Stanley Woodward, the number three official in the department. In her order, Judge Williams asserted that she was, quote, empowered to investigate serious misconduct in any case before her and ordered Mr. Trump's lawyers to tell her by June 12 whether the lawsuit should be formally reopened because, quote, the court was the victim of fraud.
- [25:59]
Alison Gill
Man empowered to investigate serious misconduct. Seems like a bit of foreshadowing there.
- [26:04]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, go get him.
- [26:06]
Alison Gill
She also wanted Trump's lawyers to respond to the question of whether he had colluded with his own government to settle the case to avoid judicial scrutiny. Judge Williams pointed to reporting by the Times that described how the IRS had prepared a 25 page memorandum outlying defenses against Trump's lawsuit that the Justice Department did not take up in court. Now, in a footnote, Judge Williams questioned The provision granting Mr. Trump his family and their businesses immunity from IRS scrutiny of tax returns they had already filed. She wrote that the audit protection may run afoul of Justice Department rules requiring legal settlements to directly relate to the issues in the suit.
- [26:45]
Andy McCabe
She also noted that only Mr. Blanche signed the audit provision. There you go, Buddy. The separate nine page agreement laying out the $1.8 billion fund signed by Mr. Woodward and Frank Bisignano. Am I saying that correctly?
- [27:00]
Alison Gill
I think so.
- [27:01]
Andy McCabe
Okay. Who is serving as the chief Executive Officer of the irs?
- [27:05]
Alison Gill
The sixth, by the way.
- [27:07]
Andy McCabe
Right. Newly created and newly filled role that is not subject to Senate confirmation.
- [27:13]
Alison Gill
Oh, that's right. He's had six IRS commissioners, so he was like, well, I'm just going to make the IRS czar go. Frank Bazignano.
- [27:20]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, so that was on Friday. Then on Tuesday, Todd Blanche testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee that he abandoning the $1.8 billion slush fund. Not so for the sweeping protections from the IRS audits that Mr. Blanch also ordered up for Mr. Trump and his family. On that front, Republican reaction has been much more muted. Mr. Blanch said the audit shield would stay in place. A Democratic effort to cancel the audit protection failed on a voice vote.
- [27:48]
Alison Gill
And you just know that, like, Thune and the Republicans are going to be like, well, he dropped the fund, so we're satisfied. Even though he's leaving the even more corrupt. I mean, if maybe this whole thing was just a Trojan horse to get tax immunity, maybe that was the end goal in the first place. And the fact that he canceled the fund but kept his tax immunity seems even more corrupt to me.
- [28:12]
Andy McCabe
I mean, first of. First of all, I'd have so much more respect for Todd Blanche if he simply said, I'm sorry, I can't take that away from him. He'll kill me.
- [28:22]
Alison Gill
Yeah.
- [28:22]
Andy McCabe
If you're, like, trying to take a, you know, take a raw steak out of a rabid dog's mouth, like, there's no way he's letting go of that.
- [28:30]
Alison Gill
Yeah. But I would. I would appreciate it if Todd Blanche said, well, that was the whole reason we did this in the first place, so I can't get rid of that.
- [28:36]
Andy McCabe
I'm sorry. I just can't do it. I can't do it.
- [28:38]
Alison Gill
January sixers, by the way, are really, really mad. They're having, like, these live Twitter events, and they are. They are like, I can't believe he abandoned us and got rid of our fund, but he's keeping his tax immunity. They're not.
- [28:51]
Andy McCabe
You can't. You can't believe it. You can't believe this. This guy didn't follow through on something that he said he was going to do for someone else.
- [28:59]
Martin Sheen
Oh, my gosh.
- [29:01]
Alison Gill
Now, the result is that an apparently unprecedented and enormously valuable public benefit for the President has so far flown under the radar in Congress and passed into Trump's hands without much protest from members of his own party. Blanche did not want to directly pay Mr. Trump money out of the treasury, the Times reported. Instead, DOJ created the $1.8 billion fund, now seemingly dead, and offered Trump and his family members and their businesses the sweeping protections from audits of tax returns they've already filed. In return, Trump dropped his suit, an arrangement that the judge who was originally assigned to the case, like we said, is now investigating.
- [29:38]
Andy McCabe
The audit that was potentially worth More than $100 million stemmed from how Mr. Trump claimed losses on his Chicago tower. But there are several other known audits of Mr. Trump that the IRS started in recent years. It's unclear whether any of those are still pending, just as it is uncertain whether the irs has enacted Mr. Blanche's order. The IRS and the treasury have not responded to questions about whether they are doing so. So I've got a question for you, Allison. And I'm thinking of this because as we talked about earlier in the show, he kind of non. Denied, denied that it was an actual grant of immunity, which of course it is. If you read the order, he can't be investigated for anything related to his taxes, nor can his family or any of his businesses. So I, I'm, my question is, doesn't this basically grant him and his family and all of his businesses immunity from ever paying taxes ever again? It's not just getting off the hook of this audit. They could just say, not doing it. I'm not filling out a return. And no one can investigate them for that. And DOJ can never charge them with a crime for that. So this group of political royals has been granted immunity from the tax code entirely for the rest of their lives.
- [30:59]
Alison Gill
Yep. Yeah, that's basically how, how it goes.
- [31:03]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [31:05]
Alison Gill
Well, that's why I couldn't believe people weren't making a bigger deal. I was sitting there screaming at my television and putting it out on the, you know, on social media, making videos. I was like, they're letting him go forward with the, with the tax thing. The day before Todd Blanche testified, Dana and I recorded a show, and I was like, man, what if they get rid of the fund but keep the tax immunity? What they're like, that would be even more corrupt. And we were laughing. We were joking.
- [31:33]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [31:33]
Alison Gill
Mr. Acting Attorney General, we were joking.
- [31:36]
Andy McCabe
Well, we live in the era when jokes are real.
- [31:39]
Alison Gill
Yeah. Nothing is parody anymore. Yep. All right, we've got a lot of comings and goings. People getting hired, people getting moved around, people getting fired, people leaving. And we're going to talk about all of that after we take this quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back.
- [32:02]
Andy McCabe
Welcome back. All right, lots of personnel movement at the Justice Department and the Pentagon this week. So first up from the Post, a convicted January 6 rioter who later said that he regretted his participation in the US Capitol attack has been hired by the Trump administration to work inside a Pentagon office that manages highly classified military operations. According to four people familiar with the matter the appointment of Elias irizarry, who was 19 years old at the time of the riot in 2021, to a post in the Defense Department's Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict office has raised alarm internally among staff who question how anyone convicted in the assault on the American democracy could be trusted for such a sensitive role in the U.S. government. These people said. It all spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing a fear of retaliation. Good, good decision there. Irizarry is assigned to the office's Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism section. The people familiar with the matter said the team comprises about 40 people and its portfolio includes operations such as embassy security, personnel recovery and hostage rescue. Now, two people characterize the work as among the most delicate that the Pentagon performs. All positions, they said, require a top security clearance. I will tell you, Allison, that this is the group that basically oversees how special forces are deployed to do some of the most unique, incredibly sensitive operations in foreign countries when people's lives are
- [33:41]
Alison Gill
at stake, like the rescue of downed pilots or the capture of Osama bin
- [33:45]
Andy McCabe
Laden or the capture of a terrorist in a foreign country for the purpose of bringing them back here to face justice in American courts. All kinds of like, like super high speed, very dangerous and very sensitive operations.
- [34:00]
Alison Gill
That's frightening. All right, next up from Reuters, Kurt Olson. Our good friend Kurt Olson, White House official who aided Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election, has joined the Justice Department as a senior attorney reporting to a prosecutor seeking to build a wide ranging criminal conspiracy case against the president's enemies. Olson joined the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida on Monday, according to a Justice Department spokesperson. Among the matters being overseen by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Redding Quinones. A group of prosecutors is examining whether past investigations of Trump amounted to a criminal conspiracy against him. The effort is being supervised by Joe diGenova, another Trump Co conspirator now serving as a counselor to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch and the leader of a new civil rights unit under Miami office. Olsen has been leading the Trump administration's election integrity effort. Oh, interesting. Including reexamining Trump's 2020 defeat and investigating disproven vote rigging theories. As a special government employee at the White House, Olsen's work has included probing potential foreign intervention in US Elections and seizing voting machines and materials in Puerto Rico, Georgia, Arizona, etc to aid his investigation. He's focused primarily on the disproven theory that the government of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was able to penetrate Dominion voting machines and flip votes to Biden by exploiting Venezuelan origin code. So that guy is now working on that case in Miami which you have some idea about.
- [35:46]
Andy McCabe
I do, I do. This is my case that I very intentionally don't talk about. But yeah. So that's, that's basically all I can say.
- [36:01]
Martin Sheen
Uh huh.
- [36:03]
Alison Gill
And now you got Cracker Jacks like Kurt Olson.
- [36:06]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, I mean, I don't, doesn't seem like the talent level is going up and that side of the sad side of the conflict. But I don't know, we'll see. Who knows, we'll have to, have to just keep following the news. News on that one.
- [36:20]
Alison Gill
Right. For everybody. That's the case against former CIA chief John Brennan and about 40 other people wrapping in the investigation into classified documents at Mar A Lago so that they could overcome the fact that the statute of limitations on Crossfire Hurricane has been expired for a really long time. Not that there were any crimes committed in Crossfire Hurricane and that intensely scrutinized in Trump 1.0 and by the Senate Intelligence Committee and by. Anyway, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [36:48]
Andy McCabe
All that, all that is actually correct. And of course that's the one where I have received two subpoenas now. And so that's why I don't talk about that case because of my potential inclusion in it. It's not a good idea for me to talk about it, but something we'll continue tracking here. In addition to a story we just got from NBC who states a rookie federal prosecutor who brought a case accusing former FBI Director James Comey of threatening President Donald Trump's life by posting a photo of seashells on Instagram. Yep, just read that. It's, that's what the story says. This prosecutor has stepped off the case. Matthew Petraka, who had recently been hired as an Assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina, is no longer on the Comey case, according to a court filing. Petrarcha also dropped off other criminal cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina in recent days, according to court filings. Things Petrarcha is a former Republican county committeeman in New Jersey whom W. Ellis Boyle, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, hired months ago, NBC News has reported. Boyle oversaw the highly criticized case, which will go to trial in October if it manages to survive many legal challenges. Petrarcha had contemplated leaving the Justice Department altogether, according to two people familiar with the matter, but instead remained a Justice Department employee. After taking a week off a little vacation time, he thought better about his Leaving and figured he could just stop working on any cases and continue collecting the salary. Petrarcha had not responded to a previous request for comment on his status at the Justice Department and did not respond to an additional request for comment on Friday. The U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of North Carolina did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Assistant U.S. attorney Timothy Severo is now heading the comey case. Congratulations, Mr. Severo.
- [38:50]
Alison Gill
Congratulations.
- [38:51]
Andy McCabe
You are the winner, sir, of maybe the worst case in the Justice Department. You know, right now it's always possible we get a worse one next week.
- [39:01]
Alison Gill
So enjoyed like an address where we could just send him seashells and beach themed stuff and little plastic buckets and shovels.
- [39:09]
Andy McCabe
You know, my parents went to the beach and all I got with this crappy picture of seashells and letters and
- [39:15]
Alison Gill
numbers, all I got was this lousy indictment.
- [39:18]
Andy McCabe
Exactly.
- [39:19]
Alison Gill
Good luck Severo defending that one. All right. Yeah. And trying to do it without getting hit in the head with a bat, which is what we're going to talk about next.
- [39:28]
Andy McCabe
That is not easy.
- [39:30]
Alison Gill
No, it's not in this particular administration. So we're going to do that. And we've got one other quick story, but we have to take one last quick break. So stick around. We'll be right back. Back. Hey, everybody, welcome back. All right, we've got a quick story before. Hit me in the head with a bat. This is from cnn. John Bolton, President Trump's former national security adviser turned adversary, has reached a plea deal over mishandling sensitive national security information. According to three sources familiar, he intends to plead guilty to one felony count of illegal retention of sensitive national security information, According to one of the sour sources. He has also agreed to pay more than a 2 million dollar fine, according to one of the sources. Now, I just want to remind everyone, illegal retention of sensitive, sensitive national security information. One count. Donald Trump was brought up on over 40 counts of the same felony.
- [40:27]
Andy McCabe
Ah, good point. A conviction on one count of illegal retention could come with a sentence between zero and 60 months in prison. The Justice Department declined to comment and referred CNN to the court docket, which indicates a hearing was set for June 26. I should say I find that the chances that Bolton will actually get jail time for this plea are almost zero. As a guy with no prior criminal history and long distinguished history of serving the country and all that kind of
- [40:57]
Alison Gill
stuff, I think it's like Petraeus, Right?
- [40:59]
Andy McCabe
Exactly.
- [41:01]
Alison Gill
And you know, it's kind of of important to, to remember that when you and I first found out about this case and read the indictment. We're like, this is actually a pretty legitimate indictment for real. And yeah, career prosecutors kept this one. Right. This isn't like a seashells case or a, or a foot long subway guy case or, you know, whatever. Any other number of cases that Janine Pirro doesn't care if she gets a no true bill on. Go back to all locations, bring all the crimes. Thank you. It's not, it wasn't anything close to that. And you. And I said, well, of all these retribution cases, this one might actually stick because it's still being, it's career prosecutors. And, and this indictment actually looks pretty tight. John Bolton could be in some trouble. So I'm not, I'm, I'm actually kind of surprised that Trump's letting his DOJ go with a no jail plea deal for Bolton instead of trying to throw the book at him. But, you know, maybe these are still, again, career prosecutors on this case, not, you know, Petraka or.
- [42:03]
Andy McCabe
Right.
- [42:04]
Alison Gill
Whoever the heck else.
- [42:06]
Andy McCabe
It sounds like a lot of. They're giving it away to him for one felony count. That's not. This is actually a pretty standard resolution to a case like this. Let's remember that he had no documents. I'm not minimizing what he did, but from the legal perspective of how this turns into a prosecution, he didn't actually, they didn't ever accuse him of having documents. What he did was he took notes. Notes. The content of those notes were classified or they were national defense information. And then he emailed himself those notes and used those notes to write his book. So I think all total. This sounds like a pretty reasonable resolution. It's also important to remember that this case started not in this administration, it started under the Biden administration after they spent so much time in the first administration going after Bolton about his book and trying to keep him from publishing it and all that stuff. And they lost all those efforts. The book came out at some point after Bolton was hacked and his lawyers had to notify DOJ that his emails had been stolen by a foreign government, which they believed to be Iran. That's what prompted the investigation. And when they started looking into it, they saw that he had really done some things he should not have done.
- [43:18]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And you got to remember the Biden administration was investigating Trump for retention of national defense information and kind of to clean up everything. They appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Biden for the same thing, to investigate Pence for the same thing. So they were really trying to make sure. That they were not just going after Trump for this particular thing, but to make sure that everyone had their hands clean. And so I think, you know, when we talk about when this case originated, that may have had something to do with it as well. All right, everybody, it's time to hit me in the head with a bat.
- [43:58]
Andy McCabe
Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Nice.
- [44:08]
Alison Gill
Today's rebuke of the DOJ comes from Trump appointed Rhode island Judge Mary McElroy. And we've talked about this case before because of some of the things Judge McElroy has said in the past about this Rhode island case. And it's over transgender medical records in Rhode Island, a case that was filed in Texas, of course.
- [44:26]
Andy McCabe
Of course.
- [44:26]
Alison Gill
CBS reports a federal judge in Rhode Island. She has now referred Justice Department lawyers for possible discipline on Friday over their handling of an investigation into transgender youth care at a hospital in the state after previously finding that the lawyers misled the court and withheld information. So a previous. In a previous episode of Hit Me in the Head with a Bat, we talked about that, you know, misleading the court, withholding information, and acting totally outside the bounds of any kind of presumption of regularity that would normally be afforded. And now what we're reporting today is she's actually filed a referral for discipline. It came after Judge McElroy quashed an administrative subpoena that the Justice Department issued to the hospital, seeking years of sensitive medical information for every minor transgender patient patient who received medical care at a Rhode island hospital as part of a sprawling investigation into gender transition treatments.
- [45:21]
Andy McCabe
McElroy, who was appointed by President Trump in 2019. Sorry. Wrote in a decision last month that the subpoena lacked a congressionally authorized purpose and was issued, quote, for an improper purpose in bad faith.
- [45:39]
Martin Sheen
Wow.
- [45:40]
Andy McCabe
She also lambasted the Justice Department in her ruling, calling the difference between the honorable conduct expected of prosecutors and the department's tactics in the case unsettling. The Justice Department, she wrote in her May 14 opinion, quote, possesses immense prosecutorial authority and discretion. As citizens, we trust that federal prosecutors, when wielding this awesome power against the state, a company, or certainly against vulnerable children, will play fair and be honest with its counterparts and the judiciary. DOJ has proven unworthy of this trust at every point in this case.
- [46:19]
Alison Gill
That's what we had discussed last month here.
- [46:22]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [46:22]
Alison Gill
Now, McElroy went on to accuse Justice Department lawyers of misrepresenting Facts, as we call that lying where I live, under oath and withholding information from her court and a federal court in the Northern District of Texas. She accused government lawyers of doing so in an obvious effort to shield its recent investigative tactics previously rejected by every other court. To review them from this court's review in favor of a distant forum that DOJ deems friendly to its political positions. That's why they file in Texas. The judge was referring to the Justice Department's decision to seek an order from a judge in Fort Worth that would compel Rhode Island, a hospital in Rhode island, to turn over the documents sought by the administrative subpoena.
- [47:05]
Andy McCabe
Last year in its effort to obtain the order from the Texas court, a Justice Department lawyer named Lisa. Help me with this one, Allison. Is it Seattle? Okay. Justice Department lawyer named Lisa Hisau said in a declaration that Rhode Island Hospital failed to comply with the subpoena and stopped communicating with the department in February. But McElroy, the Rhode island judge, said that claim was, quote, clearly misleading, if not utterly false because representatives from Rhode Island Hospital had responded to an email from Justice Department lawyers about state search terms for compliance with the subpoena. Quote, this reckless disregard for the duty of candor owed to a federal court is appalling, McElroy wrote. Ouch. Ouchy.
- [47:52]
Alison Gill
Yes, she had some harsh land. This Trump appointee had some really harsh language for these Department of Justice lawyers and rightfully so. So now she's referred the DOJ lawyers to the disciplinary committee. We'll keep an eye on this referral. We know, we know Pam Bondi, before she was fired, tried to file a memo saying that, you know, state bar associations have no jurisdiction here. The DOJ will investigate itself. Thank you very much.
- [48:17]
Andy McCabe
Last time I checked, DOJ doesn't run their own bar.
- [48:22]
Alison Gill
Well, Janine Pirro does.
- [48:23]
Andy McCabe
Okay,
- [48:28]
Alison Gill
thanks. Couldn't resist. That was a little low hanging fruit there.
- [48:30]
Andy McCabe
But I'm sorry to the audience for setting that up in such an obvious way.
- [48:37]
Alison Gill
I thank you from the bottom of my. But yeah, I bet we're going to see some sort of response to say no. We have a new memo here at the DOJ signed by the Office of legal counsel, who's 19 year old Doge Bro or whatever that says you can't do it. You can't touch us. We do our own investigation. It'll come up in this referral and we'll keep an eye on it for you. All right, we have a couple minutes for some listener questions. If you have a question, we have a link in the show notes that you can click on to fill out a form and submit one to both of us. So. So, Andy, what do we have in the way of listener questions this week?
- [49:13]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, so we have two really good ones. First one is about, you know, the topic we've talked about the most today, which is the slush fund. This one comes to us from Pedro. Pedro says, hi, Allison. I have a question for the unjustified pod regarding an aspect of the slush fund case. If Trump filed the lawsuit in his personal capacity against the IRS and now the judge might reopen the case to check fraud and collusion, doesn't this mean the SCOTUS immunity ruling would not protect Trump from criminal liability if the judge ultimately finds that fraud was committed against the court?
- [49:47]
Alison Gill
That's a really good question. I think that, I don't think that. I mean, I guess when the, when the judicial branch finds some sort of contempt, they do it civilly, not criminally. So it wouldn't even apply. Immunity wouldn't even apply. Right.
- [50:07]
Andy McCabe
Yes. Yeah, I, I agree. I, first of all, I absolutely love that our listeners are, like, going this deep and cross referencing different legal issues and for trying to figure out how, how can we use these things. But you're right. So.
- [50:23]
Alison Gill
But that doesn't mean that a future attorney general appointed by a Democrat couldn't investigate Donald Trump and his personal capacity for some sort of fraud and collusion. I'm not sure what laws that breaks or what that would even look like.
- [50:40]
Andy McCabe
Yeah.
- [50:40]
Alison Gill
But if somebody were to try to bring criminal charges, I'm certain that Donald Trump would assert his immunity and then this question might come up.
- [50:50]
Andy McCabe
Yes, I, I agree. So the question, the interesting thing about the question to me is that it, it really kind of gets at the core of the issue here is like, what is the result of this inquiry? Even if she finds that Justice Department lawyers intentionally misrepresented things to the court in an effort to, to perpetuate a fraud, there's not much she can do with that. Like you said, you could oppose, you could impose sanctions on the lawyers who were engaged in that. But ultimately, to pursue some sort of criminal accountability, the most that the court could do is make a referral to doj, basically, and then DOJ is not going to pick that up. So.
- [51:32]
Alison Gill
And it would usually be against the lawyers and not necessarily the defendant or the parties. But I see where you're going with this, because you'll recall Trump filed to intervene in a 2020 election lawsuit in his personal capacity, and Jack Smith picked that up and said this cannot be an official act because in your personal capacity as a candidate for office, not an occupant of that office. And that had a lot to do with how Jack Smith parsed out official acts that may or may not be covered by the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.
- [52:07]
Andy McCabe
Yeah, I think that's right. I think there's not. I like the idea that. And I wouldn't write off any sort of accountability because through the personal actions sort of theory that's, that could be available. But I'm not sure that this, that there's a potential kind of pathway to criminal accountability here, particularly for the president.
- [52:31]
Alison Gill
President, yeah.
- [52:32]
Andy McCabe
Okay. So thank you, Pedro. That's a great question. So the next one comes to us from Chris C. Who who sends this in from Colchester in the uk he says, dear Allison and Andy, thanks so much for your clear reporting and deep insights into the challenging US Legal landscape. Please, can I ask a simple question? And apologies if you've covered it already. When looking to charge someone, the process of getting an indictment from a grand jury seems somewhat fraught at the moment. Given how well supervised. I would say yes, given how well supervised the rest of the court system seems to be be beyond this point. Why is no judge overseeing the indictment process? Is it down to the old time days when judges only visiting remote settlements occasionally and everything needing to be done in preparation for the visit? Or what would it take to fix this problem going forward? Could the judicial branch unilaterally require judges to be present to observe the indictment process?
- [53:24]
Alison Gill
Well, this is a great question too, and let me give you some examples of how judges have been overseeing the grand jury process that is currently fraught with problems. First, we had Comey 1.0 where the judge in that case asked to see the grand jury transcripts and found out that Lindsey Halligan had done the little grand jury malfeasance, right? She, she had got a no true bill, but then just sort of X'd out one of the three charges and then edited it foreman sign it without taking another vote vote. And had the case gone past the fact that she was simply disqualified, I'm sure that that would have come up again in a vindictive and selective prosecution motion. Then we had the Broadview 6Y where Boutro's underling was doing ex parte communications with grand jury members in the hallway and was one other guy was handing his business cards out to people in a separate case and how they were actually removing no people who voted no on the true bill or no on the indictment Kicked them out and brought people back in. They did that three times until they got a thing and until they got their. Their true bill. And then we had Judge Boasberg in D.C. who's actually put an order into the court saying, you must now tell me when a grand jury returns a no true bill every single time. So he's monitoring it kind of that way. So those are just a couple of ways. And I think we're gonna continue to see it again, especially if we get an indictment of. What's Boutros investigating now? Some, oh, e. Jean Carroll and Reid Hoffman. And if I'm e. Jean Carroll and Robbie Kaplan's lawyer and somehow a true bill comes back, I'm gonna be asking for those grand jury materials because they have shown themselves to be dishonest and disfavorable in front of a grand jury. So I think that's kind of. Of where we're at right now.
- [55:20]
Andy McCabe
So the system works like this. There. There. There's what, about a hundred judicial districts in the country, give or take?
- [55:28]
Alison Gill
I don't.
- [55:28]
Andy McCabe
I don't know what the exact number is. But each one has a federal court for that district, and each federal court has one presiding judge. One of them, maybe there's 5, 10, 15, 20, 50 judges in the. In the district. One of them is. Is appointed the presiding judge. And one of the presiding judges of responsibilities is to oversee, grant the grand process. That's only the part of the process before a case is indicted. Once a case actually gets indicted and it's assigned to a judge for trial and, you know, pre trial and all that other stuff, then that individual judge is responsible for looking into any skull duggery that's alleged to have occurred in the grand jury. So if you have a. If a prosecutor is in front of a grand jury and he's going to grand jury and conducting an investigation and sending out subpoenas. If you get a subpoena and you think that that subpoen is baseless or improper for some reason, you can file to quash it, that would go before the presiding judge because the case has not been indicted yet. If you wanted to challenge something that happened in front of the grand jury after you'd been indicted, you would bring that challenge to the district court judge that's in charge of that case. So Chris goes on to ask like, he's like, isn't it a bad thing that it's easy? You know, it's as easy as indicting bringing criminal cases, like indicting a ham sandwich, which not really, the system is set up that way that at that early juncture, the prosecutors have a very low threshold of what's necessary to get an indictment. It's probable cause. And that is because the indictment is not a conviction, it's not a jail sentence. It's just the next step in the process to holding somebody accountable. So, yeah, we do rely on prosecutors and US Attorneys and their assistant US Attorneys to do the right thing and not to abuse the grand jury process. And up until this point, that's been satisfactory. But now all that has been drawn into question by this failure of the presumption of regularity, which is why we cover it every week.
- [57:32]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And as a matter of fact, we can take someone like Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who, and that office, by the way, prior to Trump 2.0, had enjoyed a 99.6 rate of getting a true bill from a grand jury. That has dropped to 79% under Jeanine Pirro. So even though you can indict a ham sandwich sometimes, you still can't if it's, if it's such a bad case. So the system, you know, this was brought up in the immunity arguments by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan. When asked, like, how come the President can't have immunity, they said there's already checks, you know, because Trump's argument was rogue prosecutors in the future could just come and indict any president. She's like, that's not how our system works. You have to go through the grand jury, you have to go through pre trial motions, you have to go through vindictive and select motions to dismiss and which is, you know, part of pre trial motions. Then you have to get to emotions in lemonade to eliminate evidence from, for certain reasons or whatever because it might violate your constitutional rights. Then you got to face a pet jury, a jury of 12 people who have to unanimously agree to convict you. Then you have the entire appeals process. So to say that the President needs some kind of immunity that he doesn't already enjoy for his official acts is absolutely ridiculous and antithetical to history. That's right. And so that's what we're seeing come to fruition here. When you actually do have rogue prosecutors going after political enemies and they're not being able, they aren't able to get the, these, to get these convictions, let alone sometimes even a true bill from a federal grand jury. So that's why those protections are in place.
- [59:18]
Andy McCabe
We're making fun of it. Because that's what we do here. But, you know, the Lindsay Halligan ness of. Of many assistant U.S. attorneys now, but it's a new thing. This is not, you know, the fact that they're failing to get indictments is just. Is just a evidence of how far far this DOJ has fallen.
- [59:39]
Alison Gill
Agreed. Great questions, everybody. Please continue to send them to us. You can do that by clink, clicking, clinking. I'm already like having a glass of champagne in my head later tonight.
- [59:50]
Andy McCabe
Clink away.
- [59:51]
Alison Gill
You can do that by clicking the link in the show notes and then clinking us. Cheers for sending in your question. So it's a form you fill out. Your question will get to us. And we really appreciate these are such great questions, you guys. Seriously, very in depth, very considerate of all the things we've been reporting going back to the, you know, the Jack podcast.
- [60:10]
Andy McCabe
For real.
- [60:11]
Martin Sheen
Yeah.
- [60:11]
Alison Gill
So thanks for. Thanks for your very thoughtful questions and please continue to send them to us. That is our show. I can't believe we did it in an hour. High five to us. That was a lot of news that we had to get through. I'm just going to check one more time. Oh. Because as we record this on Friday day, the judge in the oath keeper's case, Judge Amit Mehta, had asked the Department of Justice to give him a reason to dismiss the case because Janine Pirro's in the interest of justice was insufficient for him to guard against prosecutorial misconduct.
- [60:51]
Martin Sheen
Nice.
- [60:52]
Alison Gill
And that was due June 5, but it is still not on the docket. So I guess it's going to post on the docket as soon as we stop recording this episode. Andy.
- [61:03]
Andy McCabe
We'll save it like a tasty little treat for next week because she's, you
- [61:08]
Alison Gill
know, I'll bring all the crimes except seditious conspiracy against the oath keepers, which should be dismissed with prejudice for no other reason than I said.
- [61:18]
Andy McCabe
So I'll bring all the crimes except the ones that the president's friends commit, and then I'll let them all off the actual crimes. Yeah.
- [61:25]
Alison Gill
All right, everybody, thank you so much for listening. We'll catch you next week. I'm Alison Gill.
- [61:29]
Andy McCabe
And I'm Andy McCabe.
- [61:31]
Alison Gill
Unjustified is written and executive produced by Alison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hockey with art and web design by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. The theme music for Unjustified is written and performed by Ben Folds. And the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network. A collection of creator owned independent podcasts dedicated to news, politics, politics and justice. For more information please visit mswmedia.com.