Jack - Cumulative Irritation

Episode Date: July 13, 2025

 President Bukele of El Salvador told the United Nations that the United States has constructive custody of the prisoners sent to CECOT. Former F.B.I. Director, James Comey, and the former C.I.A. Director, John Brennan, are under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice for their roles in the Russia investigation.Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have demanded Attorney General Pam Bondi release Special Counsel Jack Smith’s full report as well as any mention of Donald Trump in the Epstein Files.Judge Xinis becomes frustrated with the Department of Justice’s failure to produce a witness with knowledge of the next steps for Mr. Abrego in a series of hearings.Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod? Thank you ,CB Distillery!Use promo code UNJUST at CBDistillery.com for 25% off your purchase. Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations.Thank you, Mint Mobile!Get this new customer offer and your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at  MINTMOBILE.com/UNJUST Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn’t on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

MSW Media. President Bukele of El Salvador told the United Nations that the United States has constructive custody of the prisoners sent to SICA. Former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan are under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice for their roles in the Russia investigation. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have demanded Attorney General Pam Bondi release Special Counsel Jack Smith's full report as well as any mention of Donald Trump in the Epstein files. And Judge Sinise becomes frustrated with the Department

of Justice's failure to produce a witness with knowledge of the next steps for Mr. Abrego in a series of hearings. This is Unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 25 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, July 13th, 2025. I'm Allison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. All right, I'm not gonna say it, Alison, because I've been getting chirped at by some of our listeners on the question. So I'm not gonna say what I usually say.

Instead, I'm gonna say it's a standard day here on the podcast. It's a regular week, the kind we get every week, which as you know, is always chock full of news. So got a standard week here for us. So much to talk about. Yeah, the concept of what is standard has changed dramatically in the past few years. We've got a lot, there's a lot more, I feel that we have to cover than what was just in those headlines. I feel like there's more.

We have to cover them what was just in those headlines. I feel like there's more. Yeah, the challenge, here's a little, I mean, you will understand this, but a little behind the scenes here. The challenge is always like, what do we cram into this show? How do we cover things in the amount of detail with the facts that we know our audience really enjoys?

But if you go a mile deep, then you can only go a couple inches wide. So can we go wider, but less deep? So it's a battle because there's just so much stuff to pick from. Anything related to DOJ and the characters therein is kind of fair game. And so, yeah, there's a lot to work with.

Yeah, big balance between frequency and amplitude. And we're going to try to walk that line. Where do you think we should start? I mean, there's so much. Yeah, well, I mean, I feel like since we got a shout out to our old bestie, Jack Smith, maybe we start there. Yeah, all right. All right, let's start there.

His name was invoked in a letter from House Judiciary Democrats to Attorney General Pam Bondi this week. So let's get into this. The letter is addressed, like I said, to Pam Bondi. It's dated July 8th. And it says, five months ago, the Department of Justice dismissed the pending case against Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, depriving the American public

of an opportunity to hear the evidence of how they conspired with Donald Trump to help him stash hundreds of highly classified records at his Mar-a-Lago club, defy subpoenas, obstruct law enforcement, hide evidence, and lie about his continuing retention of those records. Since then, you've continued to conceal the evidence against Donald Trump and his co-conspirators by refusing to release the report of Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into this matter. You have done so even as House Judiciary Committee Republicans continue to make baseless claims of bias and misconduct on the part of Special Counsel Smith and compel testimony from members

of his team, all without a shred of evidence. Your conduct is particularly worrisome as it appears to be part of a pattern of using the DOJ to cover up evidence of criminal wrongdoing by President Trump, including information allegedly contained in the Epstein files. We write today to demand that you release the Smith Report immediately, as well as any evidence mentioning or referencing Donald Trump in the Epstein files. Wow, that's a lot.

And it goes on to say, Attorney General Merrick Garland publicly released volume one of Mr. Smith's report in January, consistent with DOJ regulations, longstanding precedent, and the orders of both Judge Eileen Cannon and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. At that time, the DOJ did not publicly release Volume 2 of Special Counsel Smith's report regarding his investigation into Mr. Trump's retention of classified documents

at his Mar-a-Lago club after his first term in office to avoid any prejudice to President Trump's co-defendants, Walt Notta and Carlos de Oliveira, while the criminal case against them was still ongoing. That's a long sentence. The DOJ has since dropped the case against Mr. Notta and Mr. de Oliveira, and their case was dismissed on February 11th, 2025. Yet, according to DOJ's court filing in March of 2025, you have sought to indefinitely block

the disclosure of the remainder of the report. This position is plainly impossible to reconcile with the Department's regulations and long-standing practice of publicly releasing reports by special counsels. Your predecessor, Attorney General Garland, released in full and without any redactions three special counsel reports written during his tenure. Special counsel Robert Herr's report on President Joseph Biden's possession of classified documents, special counsel David Weiss's report on Hunter Biden's tax and gun offenses, and volume one of special counsel Jack Smith's report

on President Trump's efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election. Attorney General Garland also released special counsel John Durham's report on the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's investigation of links between Russian officials and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Yeah, I think it's interesting though, trying to tell Pam Bondi what DOJ policy

is and what longstanding norms are. I mean, yeah, you know, it goes on to say your approach is also at odds with your decision to cooperate with House Republicans continued probe of special counsel Smith's investigation and prosecution of Trump in their failed effort to find any evidence of bias or misconduct. Thus far, Chairman Jordan has taken the deposition of Jay Bratt, counselor to special counsel Smith, who asserted his fifth amendment privileges

due to reasonable concerns that he was being targeted by the Trump administration for doing his duty as a prosecutor. Committee Republicans have also requested and obtained the testimony of two additional former line level prosecutors in special counsel Smith's office, who Chairman Jordan baselessly accused of having orchestrated a partisan and politically motivated prosecution of President Donald J. Trump and his co-defendants. Your Department of Justice has acquiesced to these requests without objections or restrictions, taking a highly unusual position at odds with decades of long-standing DOJ

policy to protect line prosecutors and prosecutorial deliberations. There we go with the decades long-standing DOJ policy again. It is particularly instructive that you have apparently decided to allow prosecutors to testify about their years-long investigation of Trump, even as you refuse to release the fruit of that investigation, forcing the prosecutors to defend themselves essentially with hands tied behind their backs. DOJ officials have also repeatedly sought to disparage and discredit Special Counsel Smith's investigation.

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bovi, in his confirmation hearing for his nomination by Trump to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, attacked Mr. Smith's office as weaponized and falsely claimed that members of Mr. Smith's team, quote, acted based on their political beliefs as opposed to the law. Just as revealing, Chairman Jordan has refused

to join our calls for the release of the Fullsmith Report, presumably a key piece of evidence in his investigation, although he professed in his March 17th, 2025 letter to you to quote, share your commitment to restoring accountability and transparency at the department. This administration has repeatedly claimed that President Trump is quote, the most transparent and accessible president

in American history. Wow, so far, your DOJ has not only failed to live up to this promise, but you have also consistently hidden from the American public materials and information that may be damaging to President Trump. Earlier last month, Elon Musk, the former senior advisor to President Trump and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, posted on his social media website X that President Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.

At his confirmation hearing, Director Patel vowed to release the Epstein files, stating that he would, quote, make sure the American public knows the full weight of what happened. In February of 2025, you came under intense public criticism after releasing the first phase of roughly 200 pages

of the Epstein files that consisted largely of information that was already public. Subsequently, you reportedly ordered hundreds of FBI agents, many of whom are usually focusing on national security matters, to review the Epstein files. Agents that were assigned for this review reportedly, quote, clocked more than 100 hours of work over the most recent two-week pay period, including a marathon session last weekend during which they slept on desks while waiting for new batches of Epstein records to process.

In April, you claim the FBI was reviewing, quote, tens of thousands of videos of Mr. Epstein with children or child porn. Despite this immense effort, no additional Epstein records have been released, and just this week, the FBI stated that it has determined, quote, no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted. This raises the question of whether the White House has moved to prevent the declassification and public release of the full Epstein files because they implicate President Trump and whether these massive redaction efforts and the withholding of the files were intended to shield your boss from embarrassing revelations within

those files. If I were a betting woman, yeah. It goes on to say, it is not a coincidence that Trump installed his personal legal team to top positions at the Department of Justice, appointing you, Todd Blanche, Emile Bovi, who all served as his defense counsel at one time or another, to the three most senior positions at DOJ, and Stanley Woodward, defense counsel for Trump's co-defendant, Walt Notta, in the classified documents case, as the associate attorney general, another top position at DOJ. By doing so, DOJ has

all but turned into President Trump's personal law firm, ensuring that damaging information about him would remain hidden from public view. The American people deserve uncensored answers and authentic transparency from this administration and a full understanding of Mr. Trump's actions. We call on you to stop protecting your boss and former client, release the Smith report in full without redactions immediately and publicly release all documents in the Epstein files that mention or reference Donald Trump."

And of course that was signed by all of the members, the democratic members of the house judiciary the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. Yeah. So I guess my first thought is I'm absolutely with you that the argument you're violating norms and procedures is likely to have about as much weight as my argument daily to my golden retriever that the policy is he gets dinner and breakfast, but not lunch. And he looks at me like, what does policy mean? I don't care. Where's the kibble? So yeah, I don't

think that's going to hold a lot of weight or be very persuasive. In fact, I don't think much will come of this, but it might have the effect of continuing to fan these flames of outraged conspiracy theorists, which seems to be causing the Republicans quite a bit of angst right now. Oh, it's definitely already fanning the flames. I mean, if you think about, you know, the fact that DOJ said it released the full raw files of the Epstein jail video, but then a minute was missing and now Wired magazine, of course, everybody ran with the minute missing and now Wired magazine is reporting that the metadata on those files shows that they were manipulated and not necessarily for bad purposes

or anything, but they weren't the raw full files. They had been, I think, reprocessed using Adobe and the metadata shows that. So they aren't the full raw files. So a lot is coming out around this. It's a very big issue, especially with the MAGA base. They're tearing each other apart about this right now. And I mean, so much so that didn't Deputy Director of the FBI, Dan Bongino, like storm out of Washington, DC? That's what CNN is reporting. Like as we record this on Friday afternoon, he apparently had

some sort of a meltdown yesterday, left, and did not come to work today and has reported as having said to people that he's considering resigning, which, you know, let's not forget that Dan Bongino was one of the primary guys fanning the flames of these conspiracy theories for years before he became deputy director. And you know, you, you, um, you like that bonfire on your front yard because you think it looks cool and it attracts all your friends. Well, you can't complain when the bonfire consumes your house. Like he did this and now he's apparently getting, um, pilloried by his former, I guess, podcast listeners and followers and things like that, who are, who are pretty upset about the fact

that he's come out and said, a guy killed himself, there's nothing else to see here. He signed the statement that was released, allegedly, he signed it as did Patel and Bondi and maybe Blanche. Although the media reports that the statement itself that they put out, you know, what on the Sunday night of 4th of July weekend, classic Washington move about trying to hide something. The statement itself came out unsigned, but there are, there are, there is reporting that he was on board with it, but now apparently he's got some huge problem with the attorney general about it and he's thinking about quitting. So all this just really casts, I mean, in my perspective, it's always a little bit jaundiced here. I'm always most concerned about what's happening at the FBI and what's happening

to FBI people. Threatening to quit over some beef with DOJ that's really about public relations more than it is about substance. Not a good look for the men and women you have to lead into really dangerous and demanding situations every day. Really awful. And it's yet another kind of arrow that the Bureau has had to sustain along with the revelations yesterday from the New York Times about Cash Patel's wave of required polygraphs for everybody he thinks doesn't like him or something. I don't know what standard he's using but the questions include things like have you ever said anything bad about the director Patel?

Good luck finding someone who hasn't. Did you put director Patel in your burn book? It's high school. Yeah. It's high school. What I imagine, kind of knowing this administration a little bit, at least kind of the way that they act about certain things, I just imagine Bongino, Patel, Bondi in an office trying to make someone besides them take the blame. I think Patel and Bongino want Bondi to take the blame for

the Epstein files. I think Bondi wants them to take the blame. They're just trying to figure out. Because honestly, I think Dan Bongino's number one priority is himself and his followers and his podcast people. And he wants to be able to turn to them and say, hey, this wasn't me. This was Pam Bondi in the deep state or something. You know what I mean? They all kind of want to dump the blame.

They want a fall guy for this because it is upsetting the MAGA base this much. You know? Yeah. And come on, no coincidence that when this conspiracy theory that's been peddled by Dan Bongino, by Cash Patel, by Donald Trump on the campaign trail is completely collapsing in a flame of glory, the same time, all of a sudden now, we're opening cases on Jim Comey and John Brennan. I know we're going to talk about that later in the show, but like the timing here is so

obvious. Oh yeah. It's just patently evasive from the most transparent administration in the history of administrations. The MAGA base is angry about the Epstein files. We need some red meat for them. Let's throw them Comey and Brennan. I mean, that's something else that Bongino and Patel talked about endlessly, and Donald Trump prosecuting the people who put together the, you know, crossfire hurricane, the Russia investigation. And continuing to, like, and the thing, you know, Donald Trump at a cabinet meeting was asked about the missing minute, or Pam Bondi

was asked about the missing minute in the Epstein tape, the jail tape, and Donald Trump jumped in and said, why are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This is so old. This is, he's a creep. It's over. This was years ago. why are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This is so old. He's a creep. It's over. This was years ago. Why are you still talking? The guy who is still talking about Crossfire Hurricane, the guy who's still talking about 2020, the guy who's still talking about Jim Comey, that guy

is wanting to know why people are still talking about Jeffrey Epstein. And it's like that combined with the lack of transparency. And honestly, I thought it was very interesting that it was put in a letter from House Judiciary Democrats alongside Jack Smith's report. We also want the Epstein files where Donald Trump is mentioned and to go as far as alleging that the House judiciary dems think that the reason that they aren't being forthcoming is because they are protecting Donald Trump. And they quoted Elon Musk.

I've never seen that in a congressional letter before. Never thought I'd see House Democrats relying on Elon Musk to prove their point, but here we are. It's upside down world. It is. Well, that letter also mentioned the current pay dag and nominee to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Emil Bovi, who has handed in his answers to the Senate confirmation questionnaire while having to confront text and email evidence that he did, in fact, instruct DOJ lawyers to tell the court to fuck off. And we're going to go over his answers and those emails and texts after this quick break.

So stick around. We'll be right back. Hey everybody, if you're still tossing and turning all night or feeling edgy during the day, it's time to talk about CBD from CB Distillery. Millions of people are turning to CB Distillery for relief because it works. In fact, over 90% of customers report better sleep. But it's not just about sleep. CB Distillery offers targeted CBD formulations for everything including stress, mood, focus, even recovery after exercise. They even make CBD products for pets, all with clean high quality ingredients and no unnecessary fillers. So I want to thank CB Distillery for sponsoring this episode. You can get 25% off your entire purchase at cbdistillery.com

and use promo code unjust. I first tried CB Distillery a long time ago. I was dealing with some post-workout soreness and then also I couldn't sleep at night. Their sleep gummies are amazing. And the pain stick was a total game changer. It's like a solid lotion bar you rub directly where it hurts. And within minutes, the tension eases.

I keep one in my gym bag now because I never want to be without it again. And then those sleep gummies I was talking about, those knocked my bedtime routine into a new gear. No fog, no grogginess, just a calm slide into real restful deep sleep. And I wake up feeling rested and ready to take on my day instead of dragging myself through the morning. With over 2 million satisfied customers and 100% money back guarantee, there's no risk. CB Distillery is the source I trust. So if you've been struggling with sleep stress or recovery and you haven't found relief, this might be the move for you. Millions have

made the switch. So maybe it's time for you to join them. So for a limited time, you can save 25% on your entire purchase. Just visit cbdistillery.com and use promo code unjust. That's cbdistillery.com promo code unjust. One more time, cbdistillery.com promo code unjust. Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. All right, everybody. Welcome back. All right, let's turn to Emile Bovi. Now this reporting comes from CBS. Emile Bovi, top Justice Department official who previously served as Trump's criminal defense attorney, declined to rule out the possibility of the president running for a third term and did not denounce the January 6th attack on the Capitol in a questionnaire

submitted to a Senate panel considering his nomination for a lifetime appointment as a Third Circuit judge. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote this week on whether to advance Boevey's nomination to serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. CBS News obtained the 165 page questionnaire that Boevey submitted to senators in response to their written questions. I have to say, Godspeed to anybody who has to read 165 pages of Boevi responses. Yeah. I bet there are a lot of them that are pretty short. In his answers, Boevi also wrote that he does not recall which January 6th criminal cases he helped supervise when he served in the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Boy, that's

convenient. I'm sure there's probably places you could go to figure that out, but anyway. In response to the question, quote, do you denounce the January 6th insurrection, Bovi wrote, the characterization of the events on January 6th is a matter of significant political debate. And he said it would be inappropriate to address this question, giving ongoing litigation over pardons of January 6th defendants. Oh, please. Please. What, somebody's trying to have the pardons thrown out? It's not a thing. In the Senate questionnaire, Bovi argued his role in shuttering the corruption prosecution of

New York Mayor Eric Adams earlier this year has been mischaracterized. Bovi was accused of pushing a quid pro quo in which the Justice Department would drop its criminal case against Adams in return for the mayor supporting Mr. Trump's immigration policies. Several prosecutors and Justice Department officials resigned in the fallout of Bovi's order to drop the case. Boevi was also accused of pressuring Justice Department employees to support the effort or face possible employment actions, an accusation he disputed in the questionnaire saying,

it was never my intention to coerce, pressure, or induce any DOJ attorney through adverse employment actions, threats, rewards, or otherwise to sign the motion to dismiss the charges against Mayor Adams. Wow. No wonder we didn't get those meeting notes. Multiple Democratic senators pressed Bovi and their questionnaire to clarify if Bovi believes the constitution permits Trump to run for a third term, despite the restrictions of the 22nd Amendment, which states that no person shall be elected to the office of president more than twice. Quote, as nominee to the Third Circuit, it would be inappropriate for me to address how this amendment would apply in an abstract hypothetical scenario. It's a pretty specific hypothetical. I don't know about the abstract part.

Unless he's going to argue that a third term is technically not more than twice. Right. He goes on to say, to the extent this question seeks to elicit an answer that could be taken as opining on the broader policy or policy debate regarding term limits, is there a debate regarding term or on statements by any political figure, my response consistent with the positions of prior judicial nominees is that it would be improper to offer any such comment as a judicial nominee. That is just BS. Now, if you ask a judge how they would rule if something

came, if a specific case came to them, sure, they'll say, I'm not going to opine on that. But can you tell me if the Constitution says a thing? You can't talk about the law at all now if you're being nominated to be a judge? I mean, what are they going to talk about? What are they going to talk about like, Mr. Boevey, what was your favorite movie that you've recently seen? Are you an F1 guy? Did you like the F1, the movie? Is the sky blue? Well, considering that Rayleigh scattering is up for debate, I can't opine on the color of the politically motivated color of the sky. Yes.

When asked whether President Biden was duly elected in the 2020 election, Boevey responded, quote, President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th president of the United States, adding that it would be improper for him to opine on the broader political or policy debate regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election or on statements by any political figure or on any statements that might offend a particular political figure, or on any statements that might offend a particular political figure who he hopes to work for as a judge on the Third Circuit.

Okay, I added that part. Yeah, fair. Bovi wrote that he does not recall where he was on January 6th, 2021, and he declined to answer if he would characterize the Capitol siege as an insurrection. He also acknowledged that he provided Mr. Trump with legal advice about his pardons of those involved in the attack.

When asked if he supported the pardons of violent January 6 attackers, Boevey wrote, As I explained in my confirmation hearing, it would not be appropriate for me as a nominee to comment on President Trump's use of the pardon authority. Actually, I don't feel like there's any conflict there at all. As a judge, he would never be called upon to weigh in on the pardon. The pardon power is absolute and it's not the source of... I suppose somebody could challenge one of the pardons and he might have to rule that the pardon power is broad and absolute.

But I don't know. Yeah. But I mean, that's pretty far out there. That's a pretty abstract hypothetical. Yeah. Oh, and by the way, in addition to the answers to these questions and the upcoming vote, it seems as though Orez-Riveni, the protected whistleblower who wrote the 27 page letter that we read and we did an audio version of here on this podcast feed, Orez-Riveni sent all of his texts and emails that back up his 27 page whistleblower letter to the Senate Judiciary Democrats who then released them to the public ahead of this hearing or ahead of the vote. And it's, I mean, you know, that letter was

a banger, right? But these texts and emails prove everything that's in the letter. So all of the, you know, all of the Republicans, including Chuck Grassley, who's a big whistleblower supporter, is like, this is an attack. We have the text and emails now to show that it wasn't. There's texts between Orez-Ruveni and another colleague when Drew Ensign was in court saying that he didn't know if more planes were taking off or planes were in the air and the text messages with the timestamps on them. So he just lied to the court. Oh my God. Yeah, he did. Whoa. It's going to be fuck around and find out time. I mean, this is like their texts. And the other guys like, it's been nice working with you. And like, just

absolutely bonkers. And then they reference when they said, Emil Bovi told a bunch of people to tell the courts to fuck you. That came up in a couple of text exchanges, like, Oh, I guess this is the fuck you part. And you know, like, yeah, kind of supporting and backing up everything that a res revani put in that letter. So all of that has now come out. Yeah. He's got the receipts for real. And, and, you know, this reminds me of like, because some people will look at these messages and be like, well, he didn't exactly say in the message that, oh, do you remember the time when Todd Blanch said, we're going to have to tell the courts of all call? No, that never happens. Like, this is like reading, this is like reading

transcripts of a cooperator calling the subject of your case. And you say like, listen, you got to get them to talk about the homicide you guys did a year ago. The conversation is never, hey, remember when you and I got in the red car, drove to Brooklyn and killed Joe? It's not like that. It's like, this is kind of like a Joe moment. You know what

I'm saying? Like it's always vague, but it is what it is. And these things really, I think, stand on their own. The messages that I've seen so far. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, there's tons of them. And the emails. I remember how he said, I kept sending emails to tell everybody and they kept telling me, And the emails. Remember how he said, I kept sending emails to tell everybody and they kept telling me, stop sending emails. Quit calling me. Mostly to avoid FOIA, but for other purposes too. And so it's not a political attack. Yeah. Is Ravenny going after Bovi? Yes, he is. Because I assume he believes he would be a terrible candidate to become a circuit court judge. But he's got the reasons why he believes that. He's not saying you

shouldn't approve this guy because he's a Republican. He's saying this guy doesn't have the temperament or the ethics or the respect for the court and the rule of law that is absolutely essential to a circuit court judge. And he did these things. And oh, here's now all my messages to prove the things that he said and the impact that he had on the people he was leading, the sort of misdirection he was giving them. Yeah, I think it's pretty persuasive. I think so too. I think so too. And it'll be interesting to see what Chuck Grassley says about the, well, that's not, yeah, who knows what he'll say? They might not say anything. They might just go full steam ahead and vote.

Who knows? Also in that whistleblower letter, Rivani talked about multiple cases as we know, three major ones, including the Abrego case, the JGG case, right? That one's before Judge Boesberg, Abrego's before Judge Sinis. Both are related to the removal of people to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act without due process. Now the government's been arguing this whole time that we can't return these men from El Salvador because we don't have constructive custody of them. Once they got off the plane, whoops, they're in Salvadoran custody. And President Bukele is, well, El Salvador is a sovereign foreign nation.

We can't tell him what to do. Sure. Yeah. And El Salvador is a sovereign foreign nation. We can't tell him what to do. Right? Sure. Yeah. But then this week, President Bukele contradicted that in a statement he made to United Nations Committee that was investigating the removals of people to El Salvador. He said, in this context, the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities. He's talking about the United States.

By virtue- I object to the use of the word competent in that sentence, but anyway, go ahead. That's nice. By the beautiful, fantastic foreign authorities, by virtue of international agreements signed and in accordance with the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation in criminal matters. This is Bukele saying, we signed an agreement that says that the US has constructive custody. No wonder he hasn't been cooperative or the government hasn't been cooperative in the

discovery process in Judge Sinise's courtroom because we've been saying he doesn't want anybody to see that agreement with El Salvador. And here is Bukele saying saying in the agreement, it says that the United States maintains custody. And additionally, we found out this week from a New York Times report, Trump tried to use those 250 men in Seacoat as bargaining chips for a prisoner swap with Venezuela as recently as May. Which means you can't use a prisoner as a bargaining chip in a swap if you don't have custody over them.

Exactly. Exactly. To be clear, the legal concept of constructive custody means you don't hold the key to the door that they're locked behind, but you have the ability, the authority to say whether those people are detained or released. And that is abundantly clear. It's been clear from the beginning. The administration has been saying patently ridiculous things like, oh, we can't possibly tell our colleague, Mr. Bukele, what to do,

when we all know that this is the same administration that's literally trying to extort the country of Brazil to drop a criminal case against Bolsonaro saying that if you don't drop the case, we're going to raise tariffs on Brazilian goods by 50%. And Israel to drop the case against Netanyahu. Exactly. So this is not an administration is afraid of telling other countries what to do. And certainly they could have done it here. But now these statements, like officially, this is the the Salvadoran government officially acknowledging that like, hey, we're getting paid to hold these people.

We don't decide where they go or when they go there. And then, of course, your point is spot on. If you're thinking about moving those people one more time to Venezuela in return for getting some Americans and political prisoners back, whether you agree with those kinds of bargains or not, clearly the administration was confident that they had the ability to swoop those 250 people out of sea coat anytime they wanted. Yeah. And right now at this moment, Mr. Obrego is in criminal custody in Tennessee and his legal

team was in court three times this week trying to get a guarantee that if he's released on bail from his criminal stuff, that he would not be disappeared to a third country without due process by ICE. And we're going to discuss those hearings after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Wireless service should be dependable and budget friendly. Mint Mobile understands that and they've built their plans around exactly those principles.

So if you're spending the summer traveling, hosting, or just managing your everyday routine, Mint makes staying connected easy and affordable. Mint Mobile offers high speed data with unlimited talk and text all on the nation's largest 5G network. That means excellent coverage without the bloated costs or confusing contracts. So please join me in thanking Mint Mobile for sponsoring Unjustified. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at MintMobile.com slash unjust. There's no reason to keep overpaying for wireless and Mint Mobile offers high speed data, unlimited talk and text and top tier coverage.

You don't need a new phone and you can keep your phone number and your contacts. It's refreshingly simple to switch. And the best part is that right now you can get three months of unlimited service for just 15 bucks a month. That's real savings without giving up performance. So if your wireless bill has been out of control, Mint Mobile is your way out. One of our show producers signed up with an old Android phone he had lying around and within days he had a second number set up and running thanks to Mint's quick SIM delivery

and simple instructions. For 15 bucks a month, he says he's never had a more budget-friendly plan. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer for your three-month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com slash unjust. That's mintmobile.com slash unjust. Upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month. Limited time new customer offer for three months only. Speeds may slow Welcome back. There was one hearing this week in the Abrego case that stretched over three days regarding what might happen to Mr. Abrego should he be released on bail from custody in his criminal case in Tennessee on July 16th. happen to Mr. Abrego should he be released on bail from custody in his criminal case

in Tennessee on July 16th. So during the first hearing, Judge Sinise could not get a straight answer from the DOJ lawyers. I'm sure you're all shocked. So she ordered the government to produce a witness with knowledge to answer her very basic questions. Would ICE remove Mr. Abrego to a third country if he's released from criminal custody? And if so, which country and would he be given notice to oppose his removal?

The witness, Mr. Giles, didn't have the answers to her questions and that hearing spilled over into the next day with arguments from both parties. Yeah. And the New York Times reports on this saying a frustrated federal judge, that's putting it mildly, signaled on Friday, she would probably issue an order protecting Kilmar Armando Abrego, the immigrant who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador, from being hastily expelled from the United States again after he was brought back last month to face those criminal charges. The suggestion by Judge Polisseni, who's handling the original civil case emerging from the

wrongful deportation, came during a hearing in Federal District Court in Maryland, where she exploded at the Justice Department for having badly damaged the bonds of trust that are normally afforded by the courts to lawyers for the government. Quote, this has been the process from day one, she said, who in the past several months has chided the administration over and over for how it's handled Mr. Abrego's case. Quote, you have taken the presumption of regularity and you've destroyed it in my view. Wow.

Yeah, that's heavy. That's not good. Expressing their own frustrations, Mr. Abrego's lawyers have asked Judge Sinise at a series of hearings this week to give them the chance to challenge any efforts by the Trump administration to re-deport their client if he's released from custody in his criminal case and handed over to immigration officials. Now the lawyers want Judge Sinise to bar the administration from beginning removal proceedings for two to three business days if Mr. Abrego is freed from criminal custody, which could happen as early as Wednesday when there is a separate hearing in his criminal

case in Nashville. Yeah. And while the Justice Department initially vowed to take Mr. Abrego to trial on these charges of smuggling that were filed against him in Nashville from a traffic stop in 2022 from which he was let go. Department lawyers have more recently indicated that the Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security, excuse me, would seek to re-deport him before trial took place, perhaps to a third country where he's never lived. Judge Seeney said some legal safeguard was needed because the administration has already shown in this and other deportation cases that it could not be trusted. She said,

I am deeply concerned that if there's no restraint on you, Mr. Abrego will be on another plane to another country because that's what you've done in other cases. Her vexation reflected a widespread disillusionment with the government that has been expressed by federal judges handling other deportation cases. At least three judges in recent months have accused Justice Department lawyers of flouting their orders or acting in bad faith and have considered opening contempt proceedings to punish them and other Trump officials. Now, Judge Sinise's frustration on Friday was prompted by the failure of the Justice Department to give her a clear picture of what the administration plans to do with Mr. Abrego if he's released

on his criminal charges and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On Thursday, the judge had a top ICE official, Mr. Thomas Giles, testify in court for nearly four hours about the administration's plans. But in court on Friday, she described the information he provided as insufficient and incredible. That is not good. Not enough information and what you did say, I don't believe it. You have no credibility.

That's rough. In the court and regular orders, you've destroyed it. These are harsh words. Mr. Giles told her, had told her that there was no way to know what ICE would do with Mr. Abrego until he was taken into custody. And at that point, Mr. Giles said the administration would either seek to send Mr. Abrego to a third country like South Sudan, or try to return him to El Salvador, his homeland, after seeking to undo the initial order from 2019 that expressly prohibits him from being sent there. Moreover, Mr. Giles said the final decision would be made by an ice field officer.

Not a chance in hell. None of that sat well with Judge Seedies. There's no way that's accurate. In court on Friday, she took out her annoyance on Sarmad, I think it's Kojasta. He's a lawyer for the Justice Department. And she told Mr. Kojasta that it defies reality that such a high profile matter would be handled by a low level official in an ice field office. Thank you. She also pressed him repeatedly about which course of action the government intended to

take, raising her voice at one point asking, what are you going to do? Judge Sinise had little patience for Mr. Kojaste's protestations that the administration had made a mistake with Mr. Abrego the first time, but this time intended to scrupulously follow procedures. What? This is a group? You violated the law undisputedly, she told him, but now you promise that you won't do it again without showing how you aren't going to do it again. These strong words seemed driven by her cumulative irritation. That's a good one. I'm going to use that around the house.

I mean, cumulative irritation is high. Her cumulative irritation at the Justice Department's efforts reaching back over many months to sidestep her orders and obfuscate even her best attempts to get straight answers. Yeah. Cumulative irritation is the legal term for I've had it up to here. That's the legal for I've got a chapped, you know what. Yep. Yep. Now, Judge Sinise expressed skepticism about Mr. Abrego's indictment at the July 7th hearing, asking the Justice Department lawyer whether it had merely been a pretext to comply with her orders.

The lawyer, Bridget O'Hickey, maintained that the indictment has been obtained in good faith and had emerged from a legitimate criminal investigation. Wow. good faith and had emerged from a legitimate criminal investigation. At the same time, at the same hearing though, a different Justice Department lawyer cast serious doubt on whether Mr. Abrego could ever actually stand trial. That lawyer, Jonathan Gwyn, admitted that if the defendant was released from custody next week, the Justice Department would effectively set the charges aside and hand them over to Homeland Security for immediate removal. Of course they will because they've done that with a lot of people lately, but I digress. That plan contradicted both top Justice Department and White House officials and

prompted Judge Sinise to exclaim that getting answers out of the administration was, quote, like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. Judge Sinise did not specify when she would issue the order protecting Mr. Abrego, but she said she wanted to address the question before the judge in the criminal case, Waverly Crenshaw Jr. holds a hearing on Wednesday to consider whether to release Mr. Abrego. So stand by, because we could be getting that.

Any moment. Any moment. Any moment really between now and next Wednesday. Yeah. This, yeah, this Wednesday. Just a few days from now. So I followed this along by the way, by following Anna Bauer and Roger Parloff at law fair. Really great accounts to follow on Blue Sky if you want to get the play by play from inside the courtroom. Also Adam Classfeld at All Rise News does a really good job at this too. So I would definitely make sure you're following all of them. Lawfare, All Rise News, Abrago, excuse me, not Abrago,

Adam Classfeld, and of course, Roger Parloff and Anna Bauer. Just really great reporting from the court. All right. We've got just a couple more quick stories and the listener questions. And we're going to do that right after this last break. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody. Welcome back. Before we get to a listener question, we do have some stories on the weaponization of the Department of Justice, not the weaponization task force that is looking back at the- The current weaponization. Right, the current weaponization.

First, from the Times, the Trump administration appears to be targeting officials who oversaw the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign's connections to Russia, examining the actions of the former FBI director, Jim Comey, and former CIA CIA director John Brennan. That's according to people familiar. John Ratcliffe, the CIA director and harsh critic of his Democratic appointed predecessors, has made a criminal referral of Mr. Brennan to the FBI of something he did seven years ago, by the way, accusing him of lying to Congress. The testimony was seven years ago. He didn't lie to Congress. Now, the Bureau is also scrutinizing Jim Comey for his role in the Russia investigation, according to other officials, although the exact basis for an inquiry remains

unclear because that's also way outside the statute of limitations. And he did nothing wrong. Here we go again. Okay. So that goes on to say the Brennan referral stems from the CIA's recent review of its 2016 intelligence assessment on Russian interference in that year's presidential election. Aside, that document is referred to as the ICA. Okay. While the new review did not undercut the findings of the earlier assessment, it was deeply critical of Mr. Brennan and his oversight of the analytic work. The recent review criticized the agency's top leadership, including Mr. Brennan, for

rushing the Trump-Russia inquiry, but did not dispute the core conclusion that Russia favored Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 election. The review reflected Mr. Radcliffe's longtime criticism of his predecessor, but also the discomfort some longtime analysts felt about Mr. Brennan's unusual hands-on role in producing the assessment. Hmm. Okay. Sure. I think they just had to whip up something, a redo of a really damning report so that they could make this criminal referral to Pam Bondi. The report is really, it's a big nothing. Unless you're an analyst, they make criticisms.

They basically took the report and compared it up against the standard rules of analysis and the tradecraft that all source analysts use to create finished intelligence products. And they found some ways that the report could have been better. They said it was produced too quickly. Of course, the answer to that criticism is we were given a time deadline by the president of the United States. We would have loved to have had six more months to do it, which is what the review suggested, but the President of the United States didn't give us six more months to do it. He said, get it done by the end of December.

They also said there was too much senior management involvement in the piece, and that could have caused the analysts to become, nervous about their work and subjected to influence. Okay, so these are all like, I guess, good to know things, but yeah, there's nothing in it that says, this was a political hit job produced to attack Republicans, which is I'm sure what Mr. Radcliffe was hoping for. Right. Or that the crossfire hurricane was opened because of the FISA warrant and to

Carter Page and the dossier, which it wasn't. So anyway, back at it again. I knew if I kept the name Mueller, she wrote, at some point it would come back in fashion. I knew it. I'm just vintage now. That's what I'm saying. All right. What do we have next? Our final story today is from the Washington Post.

The special team created by director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, still hard to say even all these months in, has expressed the desire to gain access to emails and chat logs of the largest US spy agencies with the aim of using artificial intelligence tools to ferret out what the administration deems as efforts to undermine its agenda, according to several people familiar with the matter. The mission of the Directors Initiative Group, or DIG, isn't that cute, is to enforce President Donald Trump's executive orders and to end, quote, weaponization of the federal government, declassify documents, halt diversity, equity, and inclusion programs according to Gabbard's office. So far, none of the US spy agencies approached

has transferred the data, several people said. Let's be real. This is Donald Trump wanting to Google himself within the spy agency documents. Yeah. It's the loyalty purges round two, beyond DOJ and the FBI. Now we're going IC wide, intelligence community wide. Let's start- He's just searching for negative nicknames of himself. Exactly. All right. Who in the NSA has used the term yam tits? Like, that's like, that's what he's doing. Who makes fun of my makeup? Yeah, totally.

I mean, who doesn't? But... Yeah, this goes on to say that the unprecedented interest in data by officials at the DNI startled some senior agency officials who have expressed concerns about the counterintelligence and privacy risks of aggregating what could be a large amount of sensitive information that may include references to intercepts of electronic communications on overseas targets. Maybe this is Lindsey Graham finally going to find out whether or not he's been on phone calls with Russia. Remember when he had a fit during a committee hearing? He's like, you just need to tell me if you've been listening to my phone calls.

Take it easy, Francis. One of these men might save your life someday. Now, like most people interviewed for this article, these people who are saying this spoke on the condition of anonymity, but I have to say, it feels like there's more adults in the room at these spy agencies than maybe some other agencies out there. Even though we've got Tulsi Gabbard at the top of it. Yeah. This is ridiculous. And her efforts aren't shrouded in successful glory at this point. Her big effort to move the production of the President's Daily Brief out of CIA headquarters and down the road to her headquarters apparently got completely shut down by the administration. They said, knock it off. Her great No More Nukes video that she put up on her social media or something

provoked not happiness, let's just say, on part of the president. So she's kind of, I feel like she's maybe one more mistake away from being asked to leave, but we'll see. She's kind of, I feel like she's maybe one more mistake away from being asked to leave, but we'll see. She's, she's, she's pretty aggressive out there. Well, I mean, Trump likes rotating people in and out of these positions. Yeah. I'm not surprised. I think we'll see some pretty major firings within the next three months.

It's about time. I mean, like, yeah, the clock has been ticking and I think early on- Not that whoever's going to replace him is going to be any good, but you know, I just- Right, right. But early on, I think there's significant reluctance, as you saw with Signal Gate. He doesn't want to fire anyone, especially who the media is saying you should fire this person for being incompetent. He sees it as some sort of capitulation. That's going to wear off. And he will start firing people who anger him personally. Right? So, you know, let's count up all the long term relationships that Trump is known to have with friends and close associates. I'm waiting. Okay, it's none. I got none.

I got like one. Weisselberg? Yeah. I mean, we had to go to jail for him. He might have even made him angry. I don't know. Who knows? You know, he's just not a guy who keeps people around. No, he certainly doesn't. But I think Ymiel Bovee will be around for a while. See. All right. That is the news.

Let's get to our listener. I think we have time for one listener question today. If you have a question, there's a link in the show notes. You can click on and submit a question and Andy and me will try to answer it. Andy and I. All right. So here's the first one. This is the, or I should say the one we're going

to do today comes from Gail. And I put this one in there because there's a lot of questions along this, along these lines. And I think there's some confusion over some of these basic kind of immigration issues. And since it's such a common topic for us, it's a good one to hit on. So Gail says, please explain the legal classifications of those who are undocumented. And then in Peren, she says, I thought that's a misdemeanor. Being deported, I thought deportation meant

you were sent to your home country, leading to incarceration. How can you be incarcerated without trial? And how can you be incarcerated for a misdemeanor offense? And what process sets that sentencing and who is paying for all this? Okay, so there's a lot packed in there, but there's a couple of basics.

So technically, when people are detained on immigration grounds, they're not being incarcerated. They're not serving a sentence. They have not been convicted of a crime. It simply reflects the fact that if you are here in the country without authorization, meaning you don't have any official immigration status, then you don't have the right to be here. And you can be taken into custody and held until the government goes through the process, gives you due process and deports you. Like that's the way the law is supposed to work. As a practical matter, in our recent past, in the last couple of

decades, we've never really enforced that. We didn't habitually go around looking for people who did nothing other than, didn't do anything wrong other than being here without legal status and then throw them in jail. It's not the kind of thing that we detained people for. It's more common that we focused on people who were here illegally and then committed some sort of crime, ended up in the criminal justice system, and then we typically waited until they served a sentence there if they were convicted. And even if they weren't convicted, they could then get deported. And ICE focused their deportation efforts on those people.

That's not the case anymore. They're showing up at parks, they're showing up at Home Depot parking lots and at workplaces, schools and churches. Yeah, rounding people up simply for being out of status. So you can, under the law, take people who are out of status and detain them until they're deported. But again, it's not how things were done here for a very long time.

Yeah. And as far as the third country goes, yes, normally, you would deport someone back to their country of origin. Yes. Sometimes, through the due process, Yes, normally you would deport someone back to their country of origin. Yes. Yeah. Sometimes through the due process, you find out that maybe somebody has fear of going back to their country of origin and then they might be deported to a third country. And generally third country deportations happen about, from my understanding, about 1.6% of

the time. So very rarely, but now with this administration, that's all they want to do is to send folks to third countries as kind of, and it seems like allegedly as punitive as a punishment. Right? Like, oh, like in that courtroom where the judge was talking about, oh, are you going to send somebody who is from a tropical climate to somewhere in the Arctic Circle, right? Just to make their life miserable. So that's, again, something that is not normally the way we do things, but that is something they want to make a normal occurrence here. Yeah. Immigration law gives the government the ability to deport

you to your country of origin, the place you were born and are a citizen of, or to the country you entered the United States from. Oh, that too, right. If you're from somewhere else and you went to Canada and then you came in here through Canada, we could send you back to Canada. The Canadians couldn't really object to that. A trick that countries have played in the past, and I saw this doing my organized crime work in New York, we would maybe investigate someone and arrest them, and they would get sentenced, and they would serve a sentence.

And at the end of that, we would want to make sure that they got deported. And if they were, let's say they came to the United States from Russia during the Soviet era, you have to go back to Russia and say, we are going to send you your person back. And they have to accept that person. They have to acknowledge that that person is their citizen. And oftentimes, the Russians would say, no, sorry, we have no record of that person. Or they would say, no, that person left here when it was the Soviet Union. They never perfected their Russian

citizenship and therefore we won't take them. So in those cases, we would kind of get stuck with people. There's only a certain amount of time that they could be held in immigration detention. And then we had to basically let them go in the United States without any status. So there's all kinds of complexity. And then they all ended up working for the Trump campaign. Well, that kind of happened. So anyway, it's not quite as simple as it seems. You can't always compare what you're seeing in these immigration issues

to how the legality of detention and incarceration works in the criminal system because it's fundamentally different. Yeah, and sending people to El Salvador to see code and the Alien Enemies Act, the utilization of the Alien Enemies Act is still being litigated, but the due process part has been litigated and the Supreme Court says you have to give due process. Yeah. But they said the opposite without saying anything at all in the third country's case. In the third country case, exactly.

So anyway, everything seems very up in the air. A lot of these cases are winding their way through the courts. Even when they hit the Supreme Court, sometimes we still don't get a final answer, which allows this administration to basically interpret the laws however they want until someone tells them not to. That's right. That's right. Yeah. Anyway, good question. until someone tells them not to. That's right. That's right.

Anyway, good question. And I don't even think it's a misdemeanor. I think it's just a civil problem to be here without status. To be here without status. I think that's right. I'm not an expert on immigration stuff, so I don't want to... I'm not 100% sure, but it's not a, it's not the sort of criminal defense that you hear the administration talking about.

Oh, we're going after the murderers and the rapists. Like no, it's not what's happening. Well, thank you so much for that question, Gail. Please send your questions to us. Again, there's a link in the show notes for you to do that. And thanks for hanging in with us. I know this was a little bit of a long show. We did have a lot to get to. We warned you. We warned you upfront that we had a lot of

needs to get to. But we really, really appreciate you listening. We appreciate your thoughtful questions. We look forward to reading them every week. So thank you very much for that. And we will see you next week. Do you have any final thoughts today, my friend? I'm going to give one final little self-prom promotion here because I've been asked to by my friends who put together a documentary called String Theory, Guitar Obsessed. This was like a year ago and they asked me to be interviewed for it, which I did because I am a guitar obsessed. And lo and behold, the little team that could has gotten this thing accepted in the Music Documentary Film Festival, which is held on Long Island, New York on August 8th through

10th. So if you're in Long Island, go check it out. I've seen the doc and it's really fun. It's well put together. There's a lot of interesting people in there. Harry Lippman, who I know is a friend of yours, AG. I think Harry's also in the doc and some other folks that you might recognize. So, yeah. Check it out. Is this like former DOJ officials that play guitar? Because I think they were just thinking about like weird people who you wouldn't expect are

into guitar and let's find out why they care about it. Oh yeah, because after you quit being for the drummer for Ben Folds 5, you picked up the guitar. Exactly. I picked up the guitar. Yeah, I switched instruments. Amazing. I think it's also on Amazon, but I can't confirm that.

I'll give you an update on that next week. All right, cool. Yeah, I hope it's somewhere besides Amazon, but very, very awesome. String Theory. I'm going to check it out for sure. And that's Long Island, the 8th through the 10th. Yes. Yes. Yes. Good time. August. All right. Everybody, we will be back next week and I don't really have anything

to shamelessly promote. I haven't been asked to be in any documentaries about the guitar. But once I am, I will tell you about it here on Unjustified. We'll see you next week. I'm Alison Gill. 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 Hockey with art and web design by Joel Reeder 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.