Jack - Blocked Indefinitely

Episode Date: June 14, 2026

A federal judge has indefinitely blocked the $1.776B slush fund and has given Todd Blanche and the Treasury Secretary one week to rescind the fund in writing Todd Blanche petitioned the courts to release Epstein grand jury material as a diversion tactic after meeting with White House officials in the Situation Room to discuss how to protect Donald Trump. President Trump has nominated Jay Clayton, a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, to be the next Director of National Intelligence. Newly released transcripts reveal improprieties during the Broadview Six grand jury proceedings. Plus listener questions. Do you have questions for the pod or something for HITMEINTHEHEADWITHABAT?  Go to HomeServe.com to find the plan that’s right for you. Not available everywhere. Most plans range between $4.99 to $11.99 a month your first year. Terms apply on covered repairs. Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/ Follow AGMueller, She Wrote SubstackMueller She Wrote on Blueskyhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodMore from Andrew McCabeThe Real McCabe on [e-mail] on BlueskyThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump This Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you Subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

MSW Media. A federal judge has indefinitely blocked the $1.776 billion slush fund and is given Todd Blanche and the Treasury Secretary one week to rescind the fund in writing. Todd Blanche petitioned the courts to release Epstein Grand Jury materials as a diversion tactic after meeting with White House officials in the Situation Room to discuss how to protect Donald Trump. President Trump has nominated Jay Clayton, a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, to be the next director of national intelligence. And a newly released transcripts reveal improprieties during the Broadview Six grand jury proceedings. This is unjustified.

Hey, everybody, welcome to episode 73 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, June 14th, 2026. We are just a little under a week away from our Chicago gala for patrons, which I'm looking very much forward to. So we're glad you're here today. I'm Allison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Also looking forward to that wonderful event. But let's jump in because once again, Allison, we've got a heavy stack to get through today.

So just this past week, President Trump formally nominated Todd Blanche to be the Attorney General. Surprise. Not really. a position that he's been occupying in an acting capacity since Pam Bondi was fired. Now, there was bipartisan pushback until Blanche testified that the Justice Department would not move forward with the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, despite Blanche's refusal to commit to rescind it in writing. And despite the additional facts that he's leaving in place the blanket tax immunity for Trump, his family, and his businesses. Which I think is the whole point of. that whole thing, honestly. I mean, yeah, for sure. So on Friday, following a brief but brutal hearing

before Judge Brinkuma in Virginia, she issued an indefinite preliminary injunction against the fund, despite Judge Leon refusing to issue a temporary restraining order just two days earlier in a different case against the fund. So a lot of legal wrangling going on here. Yeah, meanwhile, my lawsuit, we're just sort of sitting there waiting to see how this all plays out. Well, you know, because we certainly weren't going to drop our case because he refused to put it in writing. So it's very interesting what Judge Brinkama had to say today. NBC reports a federal judge Friday extended her block on the Trump administration's quote anti-weaponization fund, frustrated that the DOJ has not said under penalty of perjury whether the fund is truly dead.

Judge Brinkima of the Eastern District of Virginia said, quote, none of those statements from acting attorney general Todd Blanche or the president, quote, have been made under the penalty of perjury. It's fascinating that that has become the new standard, but rightly so. Earlier this month, Blanche told House lawmakers, we're not moving forward with the fund, period. But the next day, President Donald Trump told reporters, I don't know when asked whether the fund was on hold or illimilar. Brinkama also drilled down on Justice Department attorney Andrew Block, who has not answered why the DOJ has not formally rescinded its memo related to the creation of the anti-weaponization fund.

Quote, I don't have the ability to speak directly to the attorney general block said. I think you do, actually, but okay. Judge Brinkum has shot back on that one. She said, I cannot believe, given the significance, you don't have an answer. there's a huge gap in the record if we don't have an answer to that question. And it's interesting because just two days earlier in Judge Leon's court, the same guy, Andrew Block, was asked twice why it wasn't in writing. And he said, I don't know, I don't know, both times.

So the judge was like, well, you didn't go and figure this out before you came and talk to me. It was bizarre. Now, this ongoing lawsuit stems from Trump's announcement last month that it planned to set up that $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund aimed at paying people. who have, quote, suffered weaponization and lawfare at the hands of the federal government. If allowed to go forward, the fund could be used to pay those who were charged and later pardoned by Trump for their actions at the Capitol on January 6th.

In an interview last week with NBC, the president did not rule out paying January 6th attendees who were later charged with assaulting law enforcement. Brinkima on Friday said she's concerned that if the fund isn't really dead, it might come back in a different form. Quote, I think the weaponization fund is a great idea. And so do many other Republicans, Trump told NBC News as Kristen Welker last week. Trump said, you have to get it approved. If they get it approved, that's great.

If they don't get it approved, I'll be disappointed. Brinkama said, quote, when the president of the United States says he's going to be pretty upset if something doesn't happen, well, that's a pretty good incentive for those working for him to do something. Now, Brinkama also said the public doesn't have a real sense that the fund is dead. The federal court in Alexandria actually received an application to the fund, she said, that wasn't me, adding that it was returned to send her. Quote, we're not accepting applications, she said dryly. But she did say she believes the public is largely against the idea of the $1.8 billion taxpayer fund and how those taxpayer dollars are being diverted to people who committed crimes against law enforcement. She said it's problematic. Brinkum granted a preliminary injunction blocking the fund until further notice.

which means indefinitely, but added another requirement. Quote, if the government truly means what it means, she says, she's giving the government a week to come up with a declaration from Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Besant stating under penalty of perjury that the fund is really dead. Following Friday's injunction, plaintiffs in the case applauded Brinkham's decision. Sky Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward and former guest on this show, said in a statement, despite the administration's shifting explanations about the future of the slush fund, the court's order ensures that taxpayer dollars cannot be distributed through this unlawful scheme,

while the courts fully consider the serious constitutional issues at stake. We look forward to continuing this challenge on behalf of our clients. Now, Omar Neuraldine, Common Causes Senior Vice President for Policy and Litigation, said, today's ruling is a massive win, ensuring hard-earned tax dollars stay out of the hands of the president's cronies and people who violently assaulted law enforcement on January 6th, while we're securing justice for American taxpayers in court. We've successfully locked the president's personal slush fund for now, and we'll keep the pressure on until it's shut down for good. Yeah, and former federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, who's part of this lawsuit to block the fund,

said, I'm heartened that the injunction continues to prevent 1.776 billion in taxpayer money from being used to pay off those who attacked our democracy. I will continue this litigation to ensure that this unconstitutional fund does not erase the accountability imposed by judges and impartial jurors and the hard-earned work of the victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers, and prosecutors who delivered it. So it was a less than 30-minute hearing on Friday, by the way. And I spoke to Adam Klassfeld about it who was there. And she just opened the whole hearing by saying, you know, I feel really sorry for you, Mr. Andrew. You know, she was like, you're in a really terrible position here. But I really like the idea that she's like, because we kept asking

if the fund is really dead and if the DOJ in court filings is saying that the fund is dead, but refusing to attach a declaration from Todd Blanche, then it's meaningless. Absolutely. And so bringing up the fact that none of this is under penalty of perjury, I think is a super important point. And my other question, Andy, is why are you fighting so hard against us if you truly say the fund is dead? Why don't you just sign the rescission and hand it in?

So we'll see what he does. He's got a week. Yeah. And a week? Really? She could have said to him, have it in by close the business today. That's how it takes an hour to draft a one-page affidavit or statement and get the signatures on it. Look, let's go basic here.

This is a matter under litigation. It is in the federal courts that they filed this bogus settlement. The way you do business in federal court is, you don't just like, you know, talk about it in an oblique way and that's good enough. You confirm your assertions, your promises, your contracts, whatever, on paper. and then that paper is filed on the docket and whatever court the matter is in front of. So Todd Blanche knows that. There's only one reason he hasn't done that so far.

He's leaving himself to wiggle room to try to rebirth this thing with a different source of funding or in a different way. Some of the things that I have heard are being considered right now are like taking some of these cases that are currently proceeding against

banks who have closed the accounts of people convicted in the January 6 crimes, there are now federal cases against those banks for doing that. You can imagine like alleging constitutional violations, that sort of thing, and settling those cases for monetary amounts to be get to, you know, penalties that the banks presumably would pay, and then corraling all that money together in a fund that they would distribute to the January 6 people. Now, I don't know if that's going to happen or not. It's something people are, are talking about. They're saying that apparently Jeannie Piro is involved in this somehow, so we'd have a DC U.S. Attorney's Office connection to it. But we'll see. I mean, that's just one example.

This thing is far from dead as we discussed last week, so we'll keep a close eye on it. Yeah, we will. And, by the way, a day before that, before the hearing on Friday, Sarah Fitzpatrick, she's the person at the Atlantic who did all the reporting. Kash Patel is suing her because she did all the reporting on his alleged drinking and hangover episodes and things like that. She reported in the Atlantic, and she's got some, man, she's got some well-placed sources. Yeah, for sure. For sure, she does, yeah. She says, behind the scenes, DOJ and other Trump administration officials have quietly assured allies

that plans for some form of payout remain on track. She says, I spoke with eight people, eight people familiar with the so-called anti-weaponization fund, including current and former Justice Department officials, current and former members Congress, a defense attorney, and political operatives close to the administration. All said that the Justice Department and the Justice Department officials, and also people close to the White House, have indicated that the payout idea has not been scrapped. Rather, they say, officials are exploring whether elements of the fund can be reactivated, while also examining alternative arrangements to make sure loyalists get compensated. Across the administration, even within the

Justice Department, officials have been having differing perspectives. on whether the fund itself will ultimately be restored. But either way, officials see a path forward for the government to pay those who they say are the victims of supposed government weaponization. Yeah, she goes on to say, those familiar with the internal conversations, all of whom spoke with me on the condition of anonymity because they feared possible retaliation, pretty good fear, told me that the work is being kept quiet while the Trump administration waits for the opposition to the fund blow over. Crucially, the administration is also trying to avoid a fight over the payout plan, which has been deemed a political slush fund by critics,

while the Senate considers Blanche's nomination for Attorney General. And I think that this was him saying that the slush fund was dead is his way of getting, you know, confirmed by the Senate. Yeah, it's his way of trying. Because, like, all the Republicans were way against this weaponization fund. And so he was like, okay, we won't do it, but he refused to put it in writing. But that apparently is good enough for these Republicans. So I think that's why they're going to move forward with that. Well, you know, he,

it's going to be a political albatross for them if it comes forward in any form. But he's got to maintain this facade of ending the thing if he has any hope of getting confirmed. Yeah, I wish they were more angry about the tax immunity. Like what the, and, you know, that, you know, that. isn't really part of any of the five lawsuits brought against the slush fund, but it is part of the judge, Judge Williams in Miami, reopening the original Trump lawsuit against the IRS for $10 billion because purportedly that tax immunity is number two of the things that were promised in a settlement that shouldn't exist because there was no adversarial parties in that suit. So we're going to see that play out as well.

Now, funny side note, this week from Politico, a top Justice Department staffer, responsible for liaising to Congress, actually planned to make a claim with the anti-weaponization fund and asked to recuse himself from any work related to it. His name is Patrick Davis. And he raised his plan to file a claim with others at the DOJ in May because he viewed it as a conflict. Like, I might be conflicted here because I'm responsible for communicating the fund. fund. DOJ officials were concerned by Davis's recusal request, in part because, again, he's responsible for communicating the department's reasons for setting up the fund in the first place.

And he's responsible to describe that to lawmakers because he's the Congress liaison, right? Right. So, but here's the thing. He was retaliated against during the Trump administration, the first one. When Bill Barr went looking for leaks about connections between Trump and Russia, Davis was a senior aide to Chuck Grassley, back then when Trump's DOJ collected non-content communication records for 43 congressional staffers. Kosh Patel was among them. He was a congressional staffer at the time, I think, on the oversight committee, and he sued over it because Trump's DOJ went through his emails. I don't know how much success you're going to have filing a claim about weaponization that happened

under the Trump administration, which is why I'm suing as an interested party who didn't get a chance to comment. There was no notice and comment period, which is required by the Administrative Procedure Act. So I just think it's funny that this DOJ guy was like, I want to file a claim too. I love this claim. And he works currently for the Trump administration, but he would be filing it for weaponization that occurred during the Trump administration. I mean, how successful will you be in the Trump administration would you sue them? for weaponizing you. Yeah, that's crazy.

Yeah. Well, if he gets it, I'm going to sue. For real. Again. All right, so we have some, I will. I've only got six or seven lawsuits going right now for FOIA stuff and whatnot, and against the weaponization fund, and, gosh, against the VA from years and years ago when they wrongfully terminated me in the first.

place, allegedly. All right, we have a bombshell story, and it comes from a forthcoming book, I believe, from Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, about what happened in the situation room, because we knew they met in the situation room to discuss what to do about the Epstein stuff, but now we've got, like, hardcore details about what went down in those meetings, and it's, it's, well, I'll let it speak for itself. We'll be right back. Thanks to HomeServe for sponsoring this episode. Owning a home is great until it turns on you. One minute you're having coffee, and the next you're confronted with a burst pipe

or a dead water heater or a furnace that suddenly decided to quit. Repairs do not care about your schedule or your bank account. They definitely don't care about how much money you have just lying around for discretional purposes. But this is exactly why HomeServe is such a great idea. A lot of homeowners assume regular insurance covers whatever goes wrong with your house. Frequently, it does not. Plumbing failures, HVAC, electrical issues, and other expensive repairs can happen at literally any time,

and homeserv will be ready to have your back. It works like a subscription for your home. For as little as $4.99 a month, you can choose a plan that fits your needs and your budget. And then when something covered breaks, you call their 24-7 hotline and get their repair process moving immediately, instead of having to scramble and panic. A broken light switch or a small leak can turn serious quickly. And something like a septic line repair or a furnace breakdown can blow up. an entire budget in a hurry. HomeServe has been helping homeowners for over 20 years, and they have a trusted national network of over 2,600 local contractors so you can trust they'll have experts on standby.

I've had enough home repair scares to know how helpful this can be and why I have homeserve. So I believe it's better to have a plan in place before the crisis happens than to try and vent one while the water is spreading across your living room floor. So join the millions of customers who trust homeserve for 50% less your first year. go to homeserve.com slash unjust. That's homeserve.com slash unjust for just 50% less, savings compared to renewal price void in Florida. All right, everybody, welcome back. The president's top advisors gathered in a series of situation room meetings as they struggled

to contain a scandal engulfing Donald Trump himself. And we have some excerpts from this reporting in the New York Times. On July 17th, 2025, and that was a hectic month, that's when the Kosh Patel and Pam Bondi memo went out saying we don't have any investigations. There was no blackmail. Nothing to see here. No client list. It was also when Todd Blanche met with Gilling, Maxwell. And then a couple weeks later, she was moved to the lower security prison at Bryan, Texas.

So prison is a strong word. Facility. Lower security camp. Spahn, whatever. In Bryan, Texas. There was a lot that was going on in that month. but at around 6 o'clock on July 17th. In the evening, Trump's top officials filed into the White House situation room.

Trump's most senior advisors had gathered without him to figure out how to gain some measure of control over the Epstein file crisis. Ten days earlier, the Justice Department and the FBI had jointly released a memo that bluntly stated that their review had found no, quote, client list of powerful men for whom the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein had allegedly, procured underage girls and young women. Intended to put to rest years of speculation and end the pressure campaign to release the voluminous material in the department's possession, the memo instead had the opposite effect, setting off a backlash that was notably loud among the MAGA base. And it was about to get worse.

The Wall Street Journal was preparing a damaging article about Trump's relationship with Epstein. The president's desperate attempts to kill that story had failed. He had called Murdoch. and like yelled at him. His team now had to get everyone on the same page about how to counter the growing swarm of attention. They needed a gesture of transparency to appease an increasingly angry base,

but also a way to convey the message that the president was sympathetic to his supporters' concerns, which itself was a problem because he clearly wasn't. So they needed a gesture of transparency and to make it look like Trump cared, pretty tall order. But Todd Blanche had a couple of ideas. And I want to preface this by saying J.D. Vance's idea was to release all the files, rip the bandaid off.

There's bad stuff in there, but just get it over with. And everyone's like, no, are you crazy? That was also Dan Bonjino and Kosh Patel's desire, right? And so there was a lot of infighting, and we'll get more into that. But Todd Blanche had two other ideas. Yeah. Can I just say gesture of transparency is like, that's like pointing out. that you obeyed the traffic laws on your way to commit a murder.

Like, it doesn't, it doesn't work. It's just a gesture of transparency. It's not real transparency. It's just a gesture of following the law until I didn't actually follow it anymore. Okay. Vice President J.D. Vance took a seat at the head of the table in the John F. Kennedy conference room of the Situation Room complex. Is it not the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Conference Room?

It will be after this Yeah, they're going to take the letters that they were pulling down off the Kennedy Center on Friday and stick them on. Monday morning, they'd be like, oh, my God, I can't believe none of us thought of that. Who can take credit for it? Who can take credit for putting the boss's name on another thing? Oh, my God. Okay. Sorry.

So, Vice President Vance said, this is a huge problem, he told the crew. A raid around him were the White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, the White House Counsel David Warrington, the press secretary, Caroline Levitt, the Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, the communications director, Steve Chung, the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Associate Attorney General, Stanley Woodward, thank God he was there, and the Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair, Attorney General Pam Bondi and the FBI Director Cash Patel joined on speakerphone. Because Cash Patel was at what, Boondoggle Ranch? He was busy working out with UFC fighters at Quantico. They couldn't get him up out of bed or... Guzzling brown liquid. Yes. Yes.

All right. So here were Blanche's two ideas. Option one was to petition federal district courts in Florida and New York to unseal grand jury testimonies. Those are the secret transcripts of prosecutors, prison. of witnesses and evidence in their efforts to obtain indictments and passed Epstein-related cases, Epstein and Maxwell. And those were almost certain to contain no significant new information. Everyone agreed that this option was a good idea, and not only because a release was unlikely to damage the president, but because under the federal rules of criminal procedure, the secrecy of

grand jury materials is regarded by most federal judges as almost always impenetrable, and the bar for any release is exceptionally high. So if the courts refused to unseal them, as Blanche predicted they would, they could then shift the blame for withholding the Epstein files away from the Trump administration and on to the judges. And all the better if the judges had been appointed by Democratic presidents. Blanche's suggestion would make it appear that the White House wanted the Epstein files released, even though all of those files also exist at the DOJ and could be released at any time. It would look like the White House wanted to release that stuff when it did not want that to happen. So it was a ruse on the courts.

It was absolutely that. But can we also point out the – and this is an allegation in a forthcoming book. So if you believe it, it was a pretty good piece of evidence about the duplicity of Todd Blanche, right? This is the guy who now judges are saying, we want it in writing and under oath before we'll take any representation by you seriously. And can you blame them? A guy who engages in the gesture of transparency when he knows very well, it's not going to lead to any transparency?

I mean, come on. Andy, on November 23rd, when it was reported that the DOJ is now going to try to make an attempt to unseal Epstein grand jury records in Florida and New York, saying the newly signed law by Trump overrides, grand jury secrecy. I said, I wonder if the DOJ is going to try to pass this office, having tried to release the Epstein files and then blame the courts when they say no. This represents about 76 pages of testimony from one FBI official. There's nothing significant in these files. And, you know, I have to say, Annie Farmer actually wrote a letter to one of the judges.

And she said, Ms. Farmer, therefore, respectfully requested any decision as to the instant motions makes abundantly clear that the court's ruling does not affect the Department of Justice's ability to release documents subject to the Transparency Act. For the avoidance of doubt, this would mean that nothing in the court's rulings affect the Department of Justice's ability to release other materials, including those contained in the more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence in the government's possession. And it says there, modify the protective order, the government styled its motions as one to modify a protective order, and it reinforces Ms. farmers concerned that the government will use orders issued by this court as a public excuse to

continue to withhold crucial information. You think? Yeah. So we all kind of suspected, and now we know that that was the actual plan. Of course. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So that was plan one. Apparently option two was to have the Justice Department lawyers question Maxwell and publicly released the transcript, a twist on the idea proposed earlier by Vance. Now, Blanche offered. offered to interview Maxwell himself. Quote, what if we got her to talk to Congress, Vance suggested? Blanche raised the possibility that Maxwell's lawyer might expect something in return for her candor. Warrington, the White House counsel, responded by laying out the available choices without advocating any of them.

Maxwell could be given a pardon, he said, or she could have her sentence reduced. Interesting. Well, I will say this. There was a lot of push back in the room for pardoning Gellane Maxwell. And that came, it's pretty adamant. But there's also reporting in here. And, well, I mean, that's what ended up happening. He went and he interviewed her.

They released the transcript. She said Trump didn't do anything wrong. And then all of a sudden she's in Brian, Texas. Right. With her own puppy. That's what they gave her instead of a pardoned. But she's, I think, still pushing for one. There's also reporting in here about Dan Bongino's freak out.

Okay. Bonino hated the Justice Department's nothing to see here memo being drawn up for public release. That's that July memo that we mentioned. He told Kash Patel, this would in no way align with their promise of transparency after taking over the FBI. And he objected to putting the FBI seal on the letterhead. But he was overruled. Patel privately shared Bongino's concerns. But in an internal email on July 2nd, he gave his support for the memo. inside the White House, Trump had no interest in releasing anything, and senior officials, including Wiles and Blair, were initially unconvinced about the reach of the Epstein crisis. They told colleagues that Republican voters didn't care, and they had early data from Trump's chief pollster, Tony Fabrizio, to demonstrate it. Wow. You know how many times that guy's mentioned in the Mueller report? A lot. He's in there a lot.

You might want to rerun those numbers, dude, because it's the... It seems to be the only thing that anyone cares about. The Epstein Bruhaha, in their view, was driven by fringe conspiracy theorists and amplified by noisy online influencers who didn't represent a meaningful block of voters. If the White House engaged, it would only pump it up, putting an official stamp on the matter. Wiles, Blair, and others around Trump had seen him weather every storm imaginable for years, and in their view, this wasn't a storm. It was a passing cloud burst at most.

Bonino told anyone who would listen that this was a grave miscalculation. Quote, it's not an online story, he told White House advisors. You don't understand. It's hard to imagine that getting rid of Dan Bonino was a part of a brain drain, that he actually was correct and was fired for it. But it seems like that's what the case was here. The day the memo was released, Bonino showed up to a daily Justice Department meeting with the FBI staff and the Attorney General.

And he was in a volcanic mood. As soon as he entered the room, he erupted at Pam Bondi, shouting at her. You fucked this thing up from the start, he yelled. The way you've been talking about this, that dumb fucking charade with the Epstein files, the they're on my desk nonsense, all the promises to the folks out there. Patel and Bongino both subsequently told a White House official that Bondi needed to resign over this. Okay, time out. How Pam Bondi, as Attorney General of the United,

the United States of America, didn't fire both of them in that moment. I will never know. And we said this at the time because it was reported that they had some massive blowout in the situation room and that he spoke impertinently to her. We didn't have these details. But man, alive, I don't, I did not work for a single attorney general. I worked for many. And not one of them would have put up with being treated like this by a subordinate. I don't care what the matter was or how wrong they might have been. There's no way. But two days later, on July 9, the two men were summoned to a meeting with Wiles and Bondi in the Situation Room complex. They were the last to enter the small wood-paneled room. Seated around the table were Bondi, Wiles, Blanche,

and Taylor Budowicz, one of Wiles' deputies. The moment Bongino sat down, Wiles told him that she had been informed that he leaked a sensitive story about Epstein and Trump to ABC News. The circular firing squad begins. Quote, I'll tell you what, Bongino replied, I'll give you $100,000 cash right now. I'm not kidding. Walk out to West Exx, put that reporter on a speaker, and get him to admit that I leaked it. I'll give you $100,000. Susie Wiles snapped back. Well, we all got ourselves into this. And Bonino said, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, we didn't get ourselves into anything.

I warned you guys about this the whole time, and you ignored me. And exactly what I said was going to happen, happened. And now you're pretending I was in on this? I was never in on this. Now, Bonchino's aggressive response startled the others in the room. She's a White House chief of staff, essentially a stand-in for the president when he's not there. Wiles put Bonino on the spot. Going forward, she said, we're all in.

We're all going to agree to move forward. Are you in or not? And Bongino said, no, I'm not. This is not my plan. I'm not part of this going forward. Forget it. I'm out of here. And Andy, apparently, according to the article,

Bongino thought about resigning, but people said, no, no, no, don't resign. You don't need to resign. And so he stayed on a bit longer. But I think that's right around the time they brought in Andrew Bailey to be the co-debtee director of the FBI. I right? And eventually he left.

But he was, seems like he was pretty mad. And we, like you said, we knew that they were having a lot of disagreements, but we didn't know what was actually said in those meetings. And so it's very interesting. I'm wondering,

it must be Susie Wiles, who's talking to Maggie Haberman, but I'm just guessing. You know, well, that wouldn't be surprising because she spoke so candidly in that, was it an Atlantic article? Mm-hmm.

I think so. a couple months ago and she was kind of the primary source for that as well. You know, the thing that kind of stands out to me in this whole exchange is like they are the, they're the lamest organized crime group ever, right? This whole like Bongino erupting on his boss and then Susie Wiles trying to bring, you know, impose some discipline here. This is why organized crime groups every once in a while they got to kill someone, just to instill some discipline.

And here it's like, we're all going to be in. If you're in from this point, you're all. in and he's like no no I'm not in I mean at that point you'd be dead if this was the street but you know it's not it's the White House I guess that's a good thing that they're just that they're not killing each other but yeah what bringing in Andrew Bailey instead right yeah right exactly he's the he's the backup which actually makes more sense now in retrospect because at the time we were like what the the job is that terrible for him that they he needs an extra pair of hands which was also believable on some level apparently he was there to pick up the

pieces when this dude walked out. Yeah, and every time Bonino complained to the staff around him, we knew this from previous reporting, and it's also reiterated in this new reporting, that he just kept bringing up how he's lost millions of dollars and fans and his podcast listeners, like, no longer trust him because he's part of the Epstein cover-up now. So anyway, just really interesting stuff. And somebody else who was involved in... Maybe that memo, maybe not, you know, the July 7th memo, but certainly involved in the Southern District of New York and whether or not any investigations were opened or which investigations were closed is somebody named Jay Clayton.

And he was just nominated to replace Tulsi Gabbard after the Bill Pulte issue. And we're going to talk about all that after this next break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. Okay. Next up from the Times, President Trump said on Thursday that he would nominate Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, to be the next director of national intelligence after the president faced a revolt from lawmakers over his choice for an interim director without any relevant experience. Now, Mr. Trump had been under pressure to move on from his decision to appoint

Bill Pulte, a top housing official as the acting director of national intelligence replacing Delci Gabbard, who announced last month that she would step down from the post. Yeah, Mr. Palti, who has used his current job to attack Trump's enemies, had come under withering criticism from Capitol Hill. Both Republicans and Democrats argued that he was unqualified to lead the nation's intelligence agencies. Mr. Clayton, whose 59, was recommended for the post by John Ratcliffe, the CIA director. Both of them are just still woefully unqualified, but, you know, whatever, I digress. That's according to a person familiar. The current plan is for Pulte to take over for Ms. Gabbard on June 19th

and serve as acting director until Clayton's nomination is reviewed by the Senate. Mr. Pulte, the person said, will seek to shrink the office beyond the cuts that Ms. Gabbard had made. Mr. Trump wants Mr. Clayton to lead a smaller office, more narrowly focused on coordination among the 18 intelligence agencies.

Senator John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, got no warning about the announcement, but spoke positively about Mr. Clayton, Layton's nomination. Quote, I think he's considered to be a... Hold on a second. I think he's considered to be a very qualified professional. But you don't know?

I mean, okay. I think he's considered to be a very qualified professional with a great skill set for managing complex problems, Mr. Thune said. We will try to get him up and considered as soon as possible. That blows my mind. Pulte was so bad that they're actually thinking Jay Clayton. has really good intelligence experience.

That's right. Thune's quote should have been, you're telling me he's not Pulte? Then he's got my vote. Like, he doesn't know anything about this guy. Yeah. This goes on to say the Senate Intelligence Committee scheduled a hearing with Mr. Clayton for June 17th

signaling a desire for Congress to move quickly to approve his nomination because people are really mad about Pulte, right? Because Senate Democrats may also support a speedy confirmation of Clayton, if only to push Pulte out. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, top Democrat on Senate intelligence,

said he needed a guarantee that Pulte would not serve as the acting director, a sentiment echoed by Chuck Schumer, the minority leader. The appointment of Pulte derailed the congressional reauthorization of one of the government's most powerful surveillance authorities,

as we talked about, FISA Section 702. That's right. But the announcement of Mr. Clayton, who is also a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, okay, note, not an intelligence agency,

to be nominated for Senate confirmation seemed unlikely to immediately solve Mr. Trump's problems with reauthorizing the law. The House on Thursday rejected a three-week extension of the law, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which will expire

at midnight on Friday. With Congress now out of town and some lawmakers headed overseas, it would be difficult to schedule another vote before the deadline. Yeah, and I want to just make something clear here because the expiration of this without reauthorization isn't actually what you think it is. It's not like they will just stop the program Friday at midnight.

This thing is actually reauthorized because of this kind of issue through March of 27. That's right. And so when Republicans are like, Democrats are holding our national security hostage, letting this expire, they're not being. fully truthful with you because a lot of folks want to reform Section 702 and it does need some reform. And this, I think, would be a great time to do it, you know, because Pulte is a good leverage point. But for Democrats to be like, Clayton's pretty good, he's not, I don't understand

how, I don't think he has any relevant intelligence experience. And the law requires extensive intelligence experience. And so, I mean, you might be like, it's not as bad as palti, but is that the bar you want to set for leading all of the alphabet intel agencies? It just seems like, God, have we sunk so low where we're like, well, it's not Satan, so hey, you know, it blows my mind. Yeah, and it also raises the question of like, is this a strategy now? Let's put up the worst possible person.

the person's going to who's going to create massive blowback. And then the kind of half as bad person we actually want, we'll put that guy in and it'll sail right through. I mean, I don't know. I wouldn't put it past them. The strategy. Matt Gates for Attorney General? There you go.

Perfect example. Perfect example. Oh, hey, it's just Pam Bondi. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And the other thing is Pulte's the axe guy, right? He's going to go in there. He'll be in there for months. And he will gleefully ran,

randomly fire many, many career professionals who work in the DNI and whose work helps protect the country. Now, could the DNI, the Directorate of National Intelligence, use some reform itself? Is it maybe a little bit bloated? Could you seek some efficiencies? Of course. You can say that about any government agency. There's no harm about somebody coming in there looking to change things up and maybe look at things differently. But Pulte's not what's going on here.

He doesn't know who to fire. He doesn't know any, he's never read a piece of intelligence. He specifically wants to fire people who have intelligence competent. Of course. So that they can't go against him or Jay Clayton when they do stuff that is untoward. Really important for Democrats to stand up here and say, no, this is this Clayton's, you know, nomination is not going to do it for us. We want Pulte nowhere near that joint. So we'll see what happens.

Yeah. It's like, well, you know, we were going to nominate John Wayne Gasey, but we're going to go with a helter-skelter guy instead because he didn't actually kill anybody. Like, I just, Charles Manson, right? Sorry, Helter-skelter guy. You know, Helter-Skelter guy. I was with you. I know who the Helter-Skelter guy was.

All right. We have an interesting update on the Broadview Six. And in our latest installment of Hit Me in the Head with a Bat. followed by a listener question or two, but we've got to take one last quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. It's time to 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. This is the part of the show when we discussed the downfall of the presumption of regularity,

which is the trust that the DOJ has generally enjoyed from the courts until recently. Today's installment involves the Broadview Six case. We've talked about this in the past, but this week the grand jury transcripts were released. And who boy? Now, the Broadview Six case revolved around a September 26 protest outside the immigration facility in Broadview, where a crowd surrounded, pushed, scratched, and otherwise damaged a federal agent's SUV. From that crowd, prosecutors charged only six people, all largely involved in local democratic politics, raising questions about selective prosecution and freedom of expression.

The Chicago Sun Times reports, while they're meant to be a check against overzealous prosecutors, grand juries have long been viewed cynically. There's even a famous saying that prosecutors can convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. That didn't seem to be the case when Mecklenburg and assistant U.S. attorney Matthew Skeba brought the Broadview Six case to grand jurors on October 9th, October 16th, and October 23rd. Mecklenburg began on October 9th by telling Grand Jurers, quote, this is a very interesting case. It's a little different.

Then she told the panel that Skeba, an expert witness, quote, will vouch for me. However, it's considered improper for prosecutors to use their personal credibility in such a way. Quote, I would never ask you to charge someone if I didn't think there was probable cause. And you know, you've asked me before, well, what about this person? Mecklenburg told the panel. And I said, I don't charge people unless I'm absolutely sure. Wow. Later in the presentation, Grand juror asked whether it was appropriate for the immigration agent to drive his SUV into the crowd of protesters on September 26. No.

Touching off the confrontation outside the Broadway facility. Quote, the testimony was that he had said he was concerned about stopping for his own safety. and he was concerned about the safety in the front. That's what Mecklenburg told the grand juror. So he had to balance it. And this isn't, and this is not testimony now, but I would argue he did a pretty good job of balancing it because nobody got hurt.

Now, I don't know if you know how amazing it is to say that about a witness that's not on the stand. Oh, my God, this is just bonkers. I mean, when she says in that statement, and this is not testimony now. Like, she's acknowledging we're not in the process of hearing testimony, but I am going to now provide testimony to you. It's outrageous.

You cannot do this. Only witnesses can provide fact testimony, right? I mean, that's pretty basic. The prosecutor, not so much. All right. So the grand jury apparently rejected the case. case on October night, prompting Mecklenburg and Skeba to try again on October 16th. Grand jurors actually walked out of the proceedings that day, the court records show.

That's also when a grand juror asked Mecklenburg whether the feds get, quote, unlimited tries. Quote, I hope you don't have your mind made up already that I'm going to need more tries, Mecklenberg said. But a member of the panel soon asked, quote, are you actually presenting any new actual facts or just a different viewpoint on your side. Wow. These were feisty grand jurors and for good reason. Yeah. And that's when Mecklenburg asked if the grand juror would be able to listen with an open mind and the grand juror retorted, I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of shit then and I still think it is. Then Mecklenberg told the grand juror to excuse themselves.

Federal rules of criminal procedure only empower courts to excuse. accuse grand jurors. Mecklenburg began to count the number of remaining grand jurors. That's always a bad sign. The hearing continued and a grand juror told her, quote, I don't think I can vote. So the grand jury four person told her that they were down to 16. Meanwhile, the agent who drove the SUV was expected to testify.

Quote, I will say I'm a little disappointed that there are people who didn't want to hear the agent, Mecklenberg said, disappointed. The proceedings were called. called off early that day without any attempt to present an indictment, court record show. So Mecklenberg and Skeba wound up appearing a third time on October 23rd. That's the day the grand jury finally handed up the indictment against the Broadview Six. Wow. Now, Boutros, who had also appeared before the grand jurors earlier that day, asking them to raise their hands if they were struggling with a certain type of case, such as immigration cases.

However, the presentation of evidence began with a revelation from Mechlech's. Mecklenburg. According to the transcript, she told the group, quote, I had conversations with two grand jurors outside the grand jury room, so I need to put that on the record. Mecklenberg says she ran into a grand juror in an elevator who apologized to her and said he shouldn't have walked out the way he did. The second told her, I understand that people have feelings, but we have to apply the facts to the law. That's what the grand juror told the prosecutor. Wow. Still, Mecklenburg called the revelation a mea culpa on her part, and she told the panel, I did something today I wasn't supposed to do.

But all of that was redacted in the grand jury materials that they gave to the judge. That is unbelievable. Yeah. And then the redaction, like everything that comes before the redaction is bad, and then the redaction makes it 100 times worse. Yeah, and then we're just a whole page is missing. And so they didn't go forward with the conspiracy charge, the felony charge. So they dropped that. But then the defense attorneys were like, we think the whole case is messed up.

And we need to see those grand jury transcripts. And so they gave some of them over and redacted some. And the judge was like, what the heck? And that probably added fuel to the fire where the judge was like, what? And it was then that the DOJ said, all right, we'll just dismiss all the charges. So, holy moly. Wow. We've got to have some Rule 11 sanctions. We make Rule 11 sanctions great again, as Anna Bauer says.

Yeah, for sure. And I hope all the attorney's fees for these six folks, who include Kat Ibe Gazzale, who ran for Congress. Yeah. Like the story said, they were all in democratic politics, but they were the only six charged. And I hope they get their attorney's fees paid. Yeah, for real, for real. It's the only thing to do. All right. It is time for listener questions. So what do we have? You have a question. by the way, there's a link in the show notes where you can submit one. So what do we have today, Andy? Yeah, so we have one today that's actually a lot of people wrote in questions that touched on the themes in this one.

But this one included kind of a bit of a correction. So I definitely wanted to address it. And it gives us an opportunity to go a little deep on the great tax giveaway to our now president. So this one comes into someone from someone who wanted to remain anonymous, which is cool. They say, hello. A question that may be a correction. Andy asked on this week's episode of the tax immunity agreement, if the tax immunity agreement means Donald and his kin never need to pay taxes again. I believe the immunity is only for tax investigations and charges for stuff up to the date of the agreement. So any taxes already filed are off limits, but any taxes filed or not filed going forward are still, at least at this point, subject to scrutiny. Can you please confirm? which is correct. Okay, so I think from a very basic reading of the language of the tax agreement, I'll call it, you could draw that conclusion. My concern is there are some ambiguities in here

that I think Trump or his family members could use to claim a sort of immunity, a forward-looking immunity. So you've heard of tax loopholes. These are tax immunity loopholes. Exactly. What do you expect from it? tax document. So, all right, here is the actual, this is the actual language from the agreement. And I'm, there's a lot of lawyerly repetition in here where they say things like any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, requests for all that kind. So I've, I've, I've cut this down a little bit to make it a little more understanding. So it basically says the United States is hereby forever barred from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims.

whether presently known or unknown, that as of the effective date of the settlement agreement, have been or could have been asserted by the defendants, and in this case the defendants is the federal government, against any of the plaintiffs, that's the Trump's, or related or affiliated individuals, or which arise out of one, any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the case or the pending agency claims, or two, arise out of lawfare and or weaponization, or three, arise out of any matters currently pending or that could be pending, including tax returns filed before the effective date, before defendants or other agencies or departments.

Yeah, so it says including tax returns filed before the effective date, not only tax returns filed before the effective date. Right. And it's basically, it says any, if you take out the perens part there, any matters currently pending or that could be pending before defendants or other agencies or departments. That is very broad. It's incredibly poorly written, likely on purpose. And I think could be manipulated to provide some sort of prospective immunity.

Also, the middle one, number two, which would be claims which arise out of, quote, lawfare and or weaponization. What's that? You could any time the IRS opens an investigation, let's say a Democratic president is in office and the IRS opens an investigation against Trump for his return that he filed, you know, in 2030, he could just claim lawfare and refuse to participate in the investigation

and claim that he's immune, right? Yeah, and these are. Ors, not ANS. Right. So lawfare under weaponization could be a future tax audit. Right. So, I mean, I get it. There is definitely language in this thing that talks about claims up that could have

or would have or should have been filed on or before the date of the agreement. But there's also other language in here that I think is very suspiciously vague. as my daughter would say, suss. There's suss language in here for sure. Yeah, I agree. Because this is written, in my view, to make us think it's just current tax stuff. Not future tax stuff.

But hopefully, the whole thing goes away with what's going on down in Florida. with Judge Williams looking at this. I think there's a good possibility that if the judge in Florida determines that the government actually engaged in fraud, essentially, or made fraudulent representations of the court, they could just obliterate everything related to this quote-unquote settlement. But we'll, you know, as I said earlier,

we're going to have to really keep an eye on that going forward. And the judge has already said, in an order when she closed the case, when Trump asked her to, she said, just so you know, there's no settlement of record here. That's right. Which means that this settlement that gives him this tax immunity technically legally doesn't exist. Yeah. Doesn't settle whatever was filed here.

Right. Yeah. Okay. I think we've got time for one more. One more. All right, here we go. This one comes from retired but not done in Boston. That was a long name, but I like it.

All right. Retired but not done in Boston says, Hi, Allison and Andy, this question may be too late. But how is it possible for Todd Blanche to be the U.S. Attorney General, given that he was, or should we say, is the president's defense lawyer? What continuing duties does he still owe Trump, a former client? Can those obligations be waived? And do we think that Trump understands this and has waived them? Personally, I think this fact alone should disqualify Blanche, love your insightful analysis every week. So retired, you're right. You're hitting Right on the dead of the issue here.

Politically, it should disqualify him, but it doesn't legally. Well, and technically, you always, your duty to your former client exists forever. You can never represent any party who is against your former client. That's the basic rule, unless your client waives that conflict. And typically you have to waive it in court in front of a judge. It's like part of a proceeding. Has Trump done that here? Well, we have no idea.

If he really wanted Todd Blanche and wanted to put the sheen of legitimacy over this, he would have waived it publicly and released that. But he, of course, has not done that so we don't know. I would guess he probably hasn't. Do you want to be Todd Blanche and have to go into Trump and explain this and then ask him to give you a waiver? I mean, like, I don't think that's the kind of thing people who work for Donald Trump do. But nevertheless, I'm going to guess he hasn't waived it. And yeah, many, many, many lawyers would never engage in doing what Todd Blanche is doing

because they would perceive it to be a conflict of interest. And they might be right. I don't have anything to add to that. I could see Trump being like, I waved it with my hand. I waved it with my mind. It's waived. For sure. Maybe Cash Patel will claim it after the fact.

No, he waived it. Because I could see Todd Blanche saying, if you want me to be Attorney General, you've got to sign this waiver. You know, okay, but never happened. And at least not that I know of. Yeah. Just this thing that we've been talking about, the claim to settlement of the tax case. The idea that Todd Blanche signed, I think this is why he didn't sign the settlement paper, but he then signed this IRS immunity statement, whatever it is.

for, you know, forfeit of claims on part of the federal government. I mean, that's absurd. He was Donald Trump's lawyer in multiple matters, not that long ago, and he shouldn't have been involved in any of this. But, hey, that's not how you keep the job and get the bigger job in the Trump's second term. Mm-hmm. He got $10 million from a pack to represent Donald Trump in all those cases. And he did a very poor job.

Were it not for the corrupt Supreme Court, many of his filings would have been laughed out of the building. But here we are. Here we are. So here we are, ladies and gentlemen. And of course, I'm sure we'll have more to discuss next week, not the least of which what I'm looking forward to is seeing if Todd Blanche and Besant are going to put in writing under penalty of perjury that the slush fund is dead. and if they do what that wording will look like. Well, here to four, perhaps if and or, you know, it's good. I'll bet you $1 that they don't even do it.

Yeah, I bet you too. That's my guess. I bet you as well. All right, if you have a question, there's a link in the show notes. You can submit it to us and we'll see if we can answer it for you. So thank you, everybody for submitting your questions. There's so many really, really well thought out, intelligent questions. We really appreciate it. And we'll be back in your ears next week with

whatever happens in the next seven days. There's never any lack of material, thank God. So, yeah, all good. No, there is never a lack of material. All right, thanks so much for listening everybody. We'll see you next week. I'm Alison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Unjustified is written and executive produced by Alison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design. and editing is by Molly Hawke 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.