Jack - Episode 106 | Check Kiting

Episode Date: December 8, 2024

This week; Jack Smith files a second motion to dismiss the coup case in DC to be extra thorough; Fani Willis is ordered to release any communications she had with Jack Smith after Judicial Watch wins a default judgment; in light of Chinese hacking, the FBI urges people to use encrypted communications; Andy has thoughts about Kash Patel; plus listener questions. Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to knowRule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C.  § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew 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 I signed an order appointing Jack Smith. And nobody knows you. And those who say Jack is a fanatic. Mr. Smith is a veteran career prosecutor. Wait, what law have I broken? The events leading up to and on January 6th. Classified documents and other presidential records.

You understand what prison is? Send me to jail. Welcome to episode 106 of Jack, the podcast about all things special counsel. It's Sunday, December 8th. Oh my gosh, December 8th, 2024. I'm Alison Gill. December 8th. Oh my gosh, December 8th 2024. I'm Alison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Okay, while we wait for Jack Smith's report on both federal cases against Donald Trump, we have a few reports to cover this week, including a second motion for

dismissal from Jack Smith and the 2020 election subversion case because if one motion to dismiss didn't satisfy you, now we have another one. As well as a Georgia judge ordering Fonny Willis to release all her communications with Jack Smith. And I should apologize right off the top because for some reason my voice is ragged right now. I can't even hear it, but we'll just have to soldier on. Well, we'll muddle through. And I just want to also say, and we'll talk about this when we talk about Fonny Willis, release all our communications with Jack Smith if they

exist, right? It hasn't been proven that they exist or there is that quite substantial. Yeah, exactly. It was kind of like when Donald Trump said you must hand over all the deleted January six files and all the judges are like, that doesn't exist. That's none. You've asked for nothing. Okay. Yes, you're welcome. Here it is. And they, you know, hand him air. All right. And Andy, we have a warning from the FBI to start encrypting our calls and text messages, which is interesting, given the fact that encrypted communications really slowed down some of the investigations into Trump allies.

And speaking of the FBI, we want to talk about Kash Patel being named to potentially replace Christopher Wray atop the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Plus, we have a lot of listener questions we're going to get to answer. And if you have a question for us, there is a link in the show notes. You can click on that link and use it to submit your questions to Andy and I. Andy and and I Andy and me Andy and me. I always get that wrong. Same. Yeah. But first it's time for another installment of good week, bad week, or should we retire this segment Andy? Cause it's kind of bad weeks from here on out. I really feel like we should. It never even occurred to me until,

you know, I was thinking about this earlier today and thought maybe it's time to let the good week, bad week go. But let's say as the last one, I'll throw you out a bad week. It's a bad week for the future of the American presidency if we're judging that by the quality of intended cabinet members. Yeah, we've been calling it the junk drawer over on the instead of the cabinet. And, you know, we're going to talk about Kash Patel. Hegseth is still in the running. What a nightmare that is. He's lost his DEA pick after three days. But Andy, that was because he enforced lockdowns during COVID.

So he was, I guess, somehow ineligible to hold federal office because he felt that people should probably follow what was the law at the time, which is insane. Or we have Tulsi Gabbard, right? What does it say about the cabinet that like one of the most kind of respected picks so far has been John Ratcliffe, who couldn't get confirmed as DNI in Trump's first term. But now he's like, oh, thank God he's you know, he's not Pete Hegseth or Matt Gaetz or Cash Patel. It's just really remarkable. Yeah. When I'm wiping the sweat off my brow over Marco Rubio as secretary of state, we have an issue. We have an issue.

Yeah, exactly. I mean, Rubio was the guy who came in. A lot of people forget, but alongside the Mueller investigation, the Senate, which was, I think that committee was headed up by Burr at the time, actually did a really in depth five part, five volume report on, on Russian interference in the 2016 election. And just as Burr was about to put out his final findings, like a summary, executive summary of the findings, Trump's DOJ started targeting him for insider trading, you know, cause he's the only one in Congress that does that. Uh, not, not insider trading, but you know, using this knowledge.

Trading on privileged information that he got through his role in the Senate. And so he stepped down from the committee right before that report was released. So guess who got to write the report? Yeah, your future Secretary of State Marco Rubio who whitewashed the entire thing. So there you go. Yeah. Well, anyway, yeah, bad, bad week for for for the executive branch in general, for sure, for sure. We'll see how it goes. This has become kind of the selection of intended cabinet members in which expertise is a disqualifying factor. So like, yeah, we're gonna find out how that goes. Felony indictments, I think, are a requirement now. You think, you know, with Pete Navarro going over to trade or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Crazy.

Yeah. And, uh, you know, we'll continue to keep an eye on it, especially over at, uh, main justice as you know, like we said, when the, when the report comes out, uh, and, uh, fingers crossed Merrick Garland releases it. I can't see why he wouldn't, uh, but, uh, we're going to go over that report and then we're going to be pivoting to follow and report on what's happening at the Department of Justice so that we can make sure everybody knows the facts and can understand the gravity of what's about to go on in the department. Yeah, I think DOJ is really going to be ground zero for a lot

of things in this administration. It will be kind of the brain. That's probably a bad analogy. It'll be the Ops Center for the Revenge Tour, right? And a lot of what goes on over there under Pam Bondi's leadership, if she's confirmed, will be really interesting and important to follow closely. So that's what we're going to try to do. Yep.

Knowledge is power. All right. First up in today's show, Jack Smith has submitted a second motion to dismiss to Judge Chutkin in DC. As we know, last week we talked about he had submitted a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment in DC for the election subversion case, the coup. And he had also submitted a motion to dismiss as to Donald Trump, not his co-defendants or co-conspirators, to the 11th Circuit on appeal with the case that Judge Cannon had dismissed,

which is the espionage and obstruction of justice case, the classified documents cases, as many people refer to it. Well, now he filed another motion to dismiss, and this is on top of the motion he filed to dismiss the January 6th charges against Donald Trump. And here's what it says. It's very short. Government's supplement to its motion to dismiss. On November 25th, on the government's motion, the court dismissed the operative superseding indictment without prejudice.

The clerk acted on the court's order and the docket now reflects the absence of any pending charges against the defendant and classifies this case as closed. Nonetheless, because certain out of circuit-circuit case law indicates that a superseding indictment does not void the original indictment, see for example, states v. Vavlaitis from 1993, the government now supplements its dismissal motion to avoid any doubt that for all of the reasons set forth in our other motion to dismiss, the

original indictment is also dismissed without prejudice. The government is conferred with out that for all of the reasons set forth in our other motion to dismiss, the original indictment is also dismissed without prejudice. The government is conferred with defense counsel who does not object to the relief requested. So Andy, I looked up the Vivalytis case. Of course you did. I don't know if I'm saying that right. It sounds like, I think that's what's wrong with my throat. Yeah. I've got Vivalde.

I've got Vivalde in my spleen. It sounds like, yeah, it sounds like something. We actually, when I was in the Navy, we had a guy in our brother company whose last name was Petritus and we always used to joke about, you know, oh, my Petritus is killing me. Okay. On February 19th, 1991, I was a junior in high school, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Vovlitis with one count of bank fraud.

The indictment alleged that between January and May of 1990, Vovlitis orchestrated a check-kiting scheme by depositing checks written on insufficient funds into the accounts he controlled at Atlantic Bank and Bank of New England. The charging paragraph of the indictment, paragraph seven, alleged that this scheme allowed Vivaldi to obtain $1,615,968 more or less owned by and under the custody and control of Atlantic Bank and Bank of New England.

So he's floating checks. On March 12th, 1991, and it wasn't like when I floated a check for groceries for $14 when I was in college. This is 1.6 million. This is different. Although kind of the same in principle, but different in size. Same in principle. On March 12th, 1991, which was like a month later, less than a month later,

a grand jury returned a superseding indictment, identical in all respects to the original indictment except for paragraph nine. Paragraph nine of the superseding indictment, the new one, stated that as a result of the check kiting scheme, Atlantic Bank suffered a loss of $1.62 million more or less. The superseding indictment thus alleged the total loss resulting from the scheme, but did not describe the net ultimate loss. Because of an oversight by the prosecutor, Vovlitis was never arraigned on the superseding indictment. So after the first day of trial, they wanted to have a mistrial. The ruling here says the court found that Vovlitis had not been arraigned on the superseding

indictment. The court granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment and allowed the trial to continue on the original indictment. Now Vivaldis argued in an appeal that the mid-trial dismissal of the superseding indictment prevented any further prosecution on the original indictment. It's like if you're dismissing the superseding indictment, that's it, game over. Yes. And that the continuation of the trial on the original indictment violated the double

jeopardy clause. The court disagreed. This is the First Circuit Court. Breyer was on this, by the way. It is clear that the grand jury's return of a superseding indictment does not void the original indictment. So wow, because of a first circuit appeals ruling in 1991 that the dismissal of a superseding indictment does not void the original indictment, Jack Smith went back to clean this up. I can't quite figure out why. I mean, I guess. I want to know the story about how they found this out. Like, why did they even look for this? Did Trump's lawyers come up and say, well, we're going to file a speedy trial motion.

You guys didn't cover your Vivalidas exposure here. It's remarkable. And I have to say, like, if I were Vivalidas, I'd be kind of angry about this because what does superseding mean? Right. I mean, I've been involved in many, many cases with superseding indictments, and I always just assumed that the superseding indictment knocked out the first one because it's a superseding indictment, that's what we call it.

But hey, there you go. This is Jack covering down, making sure he's got everything tied up nice and tight. Makes me wonder if we're going to see a motion from Vavleitis to vacate his charges. Or maybe that's why Jack Smith did this. Like, I'm going to go ahead and, you know, submit that we dismiss the original indictment so that Vovleitis isn't mad. You know, honestly, the more I think about it, I think he's probably was just like, oh my God, this is a one in 10 million chance that this ever comes back. But I don't ever

want to hear from these people again. I'm going to knock this thing out because it's easier to just do it now. And then I can just ignore the phone calls 10 years from now or whatever it is. Yeah. I'm going to double dismiss it. And then maybe he'll file another one. Like anything else ever, just make sure that everything is dismissed. Yes. Kill it. Kill it where it sleeps. Yeah. And I wonder if we'll see one in the documents case. That was a superseding indictment, but actually the case was dismissed. It was already dismissed.

By the judge and he was only pulling it out of appeals. That's right. That's right. Right. All right. Well, interesting. I learned a little bit about check kiting and the Vlitas and things that were happening while I was in high school that Jack Smith somehow.

Yeah, I'm with you. Did somebody like knock on the door and say, Hey boss, uh, like I'm a huge like case law nerd and you forgot about this first circuit thing from 33 years ago. I mean, Jimmy, what do you want now? Really? I've got all these things to do here. This is Jack Smith talking in his office. He's trying to figure out this report Do I get this out? Does the world end? Do I have to leave the country? I don't know and then it's the Yeah boss. I found this Lightest guy, do you know if I've lied us? Oh, I usually see Jack Smith going

Okay, what right it up Jimmy right it up Jimmy right it up crazy. I'll submit it Alright everybody. We have more news to get to. I think in the next segment, we're going to talk a little bit about a story that sort of flew under the radar about Fonny Willis and Judicial Watch, who we all know and love. That's our buddy Tom Fitton. I think that's him. I'll have to look that up. I think that's him. I'll have to look that up. I think it is. I think it's the, yeah, my shirt doesn't fit my arms guy. But we'll tell you about that story.

Kind of like I said, flew under the radar with all of the cabinet picks this week, but we have to take a quick break first. So stick around, we'll be right back. Bum bum bum, ba da da da da da da. Ba da da da da da da da. Bum. Welcome back. OK, we have a story for you that, as we just said, we think kind of slipped on by this week, slipped under the radar, you know, with all the cabinet picks and palace intrigue

that's going on down at Mar-a-illago. So this week, a court in Georgia found Fulton County District Attorney Fonny Willis in violation of Georgia's open records law. Now this comes from Judge McBurney's ruling on the matter. And in his ruling he said, on 22 August 2023, Plaintiff Judicial Watch Inc. submitted an open records request

to defendant district attorney, Fonny Willis, seeking, quote, all documents and communications sent to, received from, or relating to Special Counsel Jack Smith, and, quote, all documents and communications sent to or received from the United States House January 6th Committee. Now, plaintiff received a response the next day

from Kay Burwell, open records custodian in the office of the county attorney, stating that defendant, quote, did not have the response of records. Plaintiff subsequently brought this action on 5 March, 2024, alleging that defendant violated the Open Records Act because the defendant in fact does have responsive records that should have been produced.

Plaintiff seeks the requested records and attorney's fees. Hmm. So what happened here is that Judicial Watch served Fannie Willis, but because the service wasn't docketed, she never responded. So here's more from the ruling, and I'm gonna replace plaintiff with Judicial Watch and defendant with Fonny Willis,

so we don't get confused. Judicial Watch moved for default judgment on April 30th, 2024. Fonny Willis made her first appearance in the case on May 15th, 15 days later, with an answer and a response opposing the judicial watch motion. Fonny Willis concedes that she was served on March 11th, but reasonably claims that she was unaware that judicial watch had filed the affidavit of service on March 13th, since it didn't appear in the public docket

for this case. So that's kind of the setup here. Yes, yeah. So the ruling goes on to say, the court finds Fonny Willis is in default and has been since 11 April, 2024. As already mentioned, it is undisputed that the defendant was served on 11 March and that plaintiff filed the return of service on 13 March.

While it is true that the return did not immediately appear on the court's electronic docket, this delay does not change the fact that plaintiff filed it and that it was stamped as received by the clerk on 13 March. Because the return was filed within five days of the service, the defendant was required to answer within 30 days of service, which would have been

10 April 2024. Fonny Willis could have opened her default as a matter of right on 15 April or soon thereafter, as she remained well within the 15-day grace period established by law. Moreover, even had she delayed and filed her motion to open default outside the 15 day statutory grace period, Fonny would have had a compelling case for opening her default on any of the three statutory grounds. Yep. And it goes on to say, but Fonny Willis did none of that. She never moved to open default on any basis, not even during the period when she could have opened default as a matter of right. She never paid costs and she never offered up a meritorious defense. Judicial Watch is thus entitled to judgment by default as if every item and paragraph

of the complaint were supported by proper and sufficient evidence. So that's kind of a little hint there. Like I don don't necessarily think judicial watch's stuff is supported by proper evidence, but because Fonny Willis didn't do anything, there's a default judgment here. So we have to grant that judgment as if every item and paragraph of judicial watch's complaint were supported by proper and sufficient evidence.

Correct. The court also hereby orders Fonny Willis to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials within five business days of the entry of this order. Within that same five day period, Fonny Willis is ordered to provide judicial watch with copies of any and all responsive records

that are not legally exempted or accepted from disclosure. A hearing on the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs will be set for 20 December 2024, 10 a.m. courtroom eight D as in David. So here we are, he gets the default judgment, right? But you know, I want to be clear, because some on the right are insinuating that, you know, the headlines at Fox News are like, Jack Smith and Fonny Willis canoodling on the docket or whatever, you know. And you know, I just want to be clear that the judge said, I have to take, because you didn't do anything, Fonny Willis, I have to take everything judicial watch says at face

value. Right. And so you got to go and check your stuff and then come back and either confirm that you don't have anything with the court. If you do, you got to hand it over if it's responsive. If you have it and he's not allowed to have it, you have to explain why he's not allowed to have it. And so this is a lot like what we were going through, Andy, with the discovery motions from Donald Trump, right? Like, I want this, I want the last 20 years of happy emails about Donald Trump from the Department of Energy.

I want, you know, like just super broad stuff. And Judge Chuckin's like, you can have these three things. And Jack Smith, you need to let us know in a week. If you don't have any of it, it doesn't exist. Or you do have some and hand it over. Right? Like that's kind of what we're looking at here. This is like hyper technical. And I honestly, this thing is a hot mess. I mean, he served she acknowledges that she was served, but because the service was never docketed, she didn't respond. Like, that's not great lawyering right there.

Right. And that's basically... Just come back and say, I don't have anything and the things I do have are accepted under these rules of Georgia law, the end. Exactly. But she didn't do that. So she kind of set herself up for this default judgment. And then, right, in default judgments, like, you never responded, therefore, we take everything the other side says at face

value. Which brings me to my biggest question. When I'll go back and reread this part just to set it up. So plaintiff subsequently brought this action on 5 March alleging that defendant violated the open records act, because defendant in fact does have responsive records that should have been produced. Now again, that's the plaintiff saying that. So I've got two really interesting questions here. One, if, how does judicial watch know that she has records when she never even replied to this thing. Like there's gotta be, they must be holding onto a leak. And they want it revealed by her. Or they have no evidence, which is why the judge said,

hey, at a default judgment, I have to act like he's got evidence. That's the other thing. Like why, I guess this is what they're referring to. This is what they're having to accept at face value with absolutely no evidence. He's just saying in the pleading, she does have it, not providing any evidence of that fact, but the judge is obligated to take him at his word, which kind of sucks to be honest. Well, it's kind of like how the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and any appellate court has to take what's in an indictment

as fact. That's right. That's right. That's just the rules. And that's what these sort of default judgments are all about. This is the court enforcing the rules. If you let lawyers get away with things like getting served and not responding, then the whole system falls apart. So that's why the rules are enforced pretty strictly. But yeah, a bit of a mess here that she kind of walked herself into, it seems like maybe there's more to the story that we don't know, but. There might be, but I'm also interested to see how she responds because should she respond, yeah, we've got stuff, but you can't have it. Or yeah,

we have three things here. They are, or no, we have nothing. I'm really interested to see what the answer is. So sure. All right. So next up, we have a story from Kevin Collier at NBC News. And Kevin says, federal officials warned on Tuesday that a massive Chinese hacking operation against American telecommunications companies hasn't yet been fully expelled. and that the best way to hide communications from Beijing spies is to use encryption. I feel like this should say and the best way to hide communications from Kash Patel and Pam body is to use encryption.

Wink wink nod nod. Don't be heard by the wink wink nod nod Chinese wink wink, nod, nod. Don't be heard by the wink, wink, nod, nod. Chinese, wink, wink, nod, nod. I mean, when does the FBI ever come out and say, hey, make our job harder, everyone? Yeah. It's just interesting. It is.

It is. OK. Kevin goes on to say, encryption is a technology that scrambles messages and requires a, quote, key to be able to see or hear it. Different app makers and platforms have used the technology in various forms for more than a decade. So governments and hackers that intercept them as they pass through telecommunications infrastructure will see only gibberish. While adopting the technology has historically prompted complaints from law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.

It's also a way people can communicate more privately. Side note, this is what the, when I was in the FBI, we've cried and moaned about for years and referred to as going dark, the going dark problem, right? Our access, our lawful access to the content of communications was shrinking with every development in encryption technology. Okay. Telecommunications companies tend to temporarily store call and SMS records,

which phone number called or texted which and when, and they briefly store the contents of SMS texts. Audio, however, is generally not recorded. That means it's easier for hackers like those in the Chinese campaign, which Microsoft has nicknamed Salt Typhoon, to get massive amounts of data on phone records and some stored text messages.

But they have to be targeted in listening to specific phone calls as they happen. Yeah, and the article continues, for everyday consumers, the simplest way to send encrypted messages or make encrypted calls is to use communications apps like Signal or WhatsApp that have implemented end-to-end encryption

between other Signal and WhatsApp users. With end-to-end encryption, every user of an encrypted chat app holds the unique code to unscramble a message sent to that account. Importantly, the corporate owner and the operator of the app, they don't have access to that key. So they won't be able to unscramble an encrypted message,

even if a court demands it or it is hacked. Signal and WhatsApp automatically protect their messages that way with signals encryption which cryptographers find among the best that are commercially available. Both apps allow users to make encrypted phone calls with other users through the internet. But even without apps like Signal and WhatsApp, many Americans frequently text with end-to-end encryption turned on, even if they don't know it. That's right.

If iMessage users text other iMessage users or Google Message users text other Google Message users, those chats are automatically encrypted with the signal protocol. But when Google and iMessage users text users who use different texting applications, such as when an iMessage user texts a Google message user, the messages are encrypted only with rich communication services, which in the U S are all decrypted by Google. While that means they are in theory hidden from telecommunications companies, they're not encrypted end to end and they can be seen under court orders to Google or by hackers who might break into some of these companies.

For phone calls, Google and Apple offer encryption if the calls are made through their internet-connected calling apps like Google Fi and FaceTime. While the controversial app Telegram does offer what it claims is an option to message users with end-to-end encryption, some leading cryptographers are wary of endorsing it, noting that some of its code is not open to the public to test and that it doesn't encrypt conversations by default. It goes on to say here that the FBI began investigating salt typhoon in late spring or early summer. US believes Chinese intelligence hacked into AT&T, Verizon and Lumen and gained

significant access, including records of phone calls and text messages for many people, particularly in the DC area. In some circumstances, affecting members of both the Trump and Harris campaigns, as well as the office of the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, they were able to listen to some of the phone calls. China denied this accusation, as it routinely does when a Western company or government accuses it of deploying a vast cyber espionage capability. A spokesperson for China's embassy in Washington said in an emailed statement that, quote, China firmly opposes the US's smear attacks against China without any factual basis. And Andy, I wanted to share this story because we have, like I said, long covered the FBI

trying to access communications and investigations. And every time, going all the way back to the Mueller investigation, when I would read like the Mueller report or some of these court filings, they always have WhatsApp and signal communications, not so much signal, but they certainly had Telegram and WhatsApp. But I think that's because they got it from one end of the conversation, right? Not because it's easy to break into these apps and get these messages back and forth. Yeah, it's impossible to break into them. I mean, maybe scientifically, there is it there is some mathematical equation that

would enable you to defeat the encryption, but that's like, you know, so so so many years away. They are essentially impossible. If you can if you serve a warrant on or court order on, let's say, WhatsApp for communications between two different identified parties, they have to comply with that court order. They provide you a recording of those calls and you play it and it just sounds like fuzz and static. There's no discernible content there. They can't decrypt it themselves. They can't decrypt it.

But the text messages, again, same thing, are encrypted on either end of the communication. So each person's phone maintains the key to decrypt that communication. But if you really want those texts to be private, you have to also delete them from your phone because they reside on your phone in a decrypted form so you can read them. Oh, so like if you're the US Secret Service after January 6th, you just make sure you delete those messages.

That's how it works. If you delete them adequately, you know, you have to not, you know, you have to be pretty careful about how you do that. Then they're gone for good. And they can't be recovered. But that's how you know, you you'll remember the beginning of the Jack Smith case, you had agents out there taking the telephones out of the hands of people whose communications they were seeking as part of the investigation because and then they would have they would have

the owner unlock the phone. And then that's how you get those communications. Yeah. Exactly. Give them their phone back. Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Scott Perry. Uh, hi, we're the post office cops. Yeah. So you're going to great, you go to great lengths to like using cryptid apps so that no one can see what you're writing or hear what you're saying. But if you keep all those writings on your phone, they can still be found. This is such a fascinating warning from the FBI to me. We've got Kash Patel coming in. We've got Pam Bondi coming in. We've got Donald Trump coming in. We've got the FBI saying,

hey, everybody start using Signal. Peace. You know, like, I know, I understand, salt typhoon, the Chinese hack into AT&T, Lumen, Verizon, et cetera. But I've never seen a warning. I've never thought I'd see the day where the FBI came out and told the American people to start using encrypted apps. Blows my mind. We spent so much time and effort talking about this conference after conference after conference.

Comey gave speeches about it all the time. Chris Ray came in, he continued the exact same march. And, you know, the, the, we were constantly complaining about encryption for good reason. And it's really, it's made investigations much harder, particularly for local police who don't have this sort of technology and resources that the FBI has to try to work around some of these things. Yeah, so to hear them kind of advocating it, it's, I mean, if that's where we are, if that's what the threat from China really looks like on a day to day basis, like we're in a bad spot. And I think that's how that's how I take this warning. This is the bureau saying in a kind of oblique way how serious the threat from China really is. Yeah, agreed. And I advocate everyone

start using Signal. And if you're iMessaging, go iMessage to iMessage. If you're Google Messaging, go Google Message to Google Message. And that's just because of the incoming administration. But also cell typhoon. All right. We have another story to get to before we get to listener questions. We're going to talk a little bit about Kash Patel, but we have to take one more quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Hey everybody welcome back. Alright before we get to listener questions I wanted to talk to you Andy about Trump's pick to head up your former agency. Yes. This reporting comes from your colleagues Evan Perez and Zachary Cohen at CNN and you

actually headed up this agency as the acting director for a time. I did for a brief shining moment in 2017. The months of my life I can never forget. Never get back. But anyway, yes, I did. I have a unique perspective on this one and I can't wait to hear it because you've been listening to CNN at all in the last week. You've probably heard my rant already, but I'm teeing it up. Yeah, we want to hear it again. Here's what here's what your folks your colleagues over at CNN have to say President Elect Trump plans to nominate firebrand and I wish they would stop using that. Let's just call them loyalists column loyalist, Kash Patel, to serve as FBI director. An extraordinary move that would put a self-described enemy

of the so-called deep state as the head of the nation's top law enforcement agency, a role that would give Patel power to carry out Trump's threats to go after his political opponents. Trump's interest in Patel speaks to his urge to fill top law enforcement and intelligence positions with supporters. And I'm gonna add absolutely wholly unqualified,

ridiculous supporters. He may be open to carrying out his demands for specific investigations, as well as inoculating Trump against possible future probes. Quote, I'm proud to announce that, uh, Kash Patel will serve as the next director of the federal Bureau of Investigation. Kash is a brilliant lawyer, investigator, America first fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending justice, protecting the American people. That's what Trump posted on Truth Social on

Saturday evening. Yeah. So the article continues, even among Trump loyalists, Patel is widely viewed as a controversial figure and relentless self-promoter whose value to the president-elect largely derives from a shared disdain for established power in Washington. Putting him in charge of the FBI would require forcing out current director Christopher Wray, who was appointed by Trump before his term expires, prompting bipartisan criticism. Former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton compared Patel to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's leader of the secret police, the NKVD, telling CNN, quote, the Senate should reject this nomination 100 to 0. I don't usually agree with John Bolton, but here you know, here we are. Yeah, half man, half

mustache coming through. That's right. White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan cautioned Sunday that the FBI director should not be subject to the whims of politics, but declined to weigh in directly on Patel. Quote, what makes the FBI director different from most other nominees? Is there not just appointed for one term of a president? They're appointed for enough time, just 10 years, to last past two terms of a president because they're supposed to be insulated from politics. Sullivan told CNN's Casey Hunt on State of the Union. Now wasn't Mueller actually extended to like 12 years?

He was but it took an act of Congress to do it. Took an act of Congress to extend it. That's interesting because there will be no acts of Congress this time around to get rid of or install people. Patel has heavily criticized the FBI, as we know, in a podcast interview in September, he called for the agency's headquarters in DC to be dismantled and turned into a museum of the deep state. The FBI's footprint has gotten so freaking big.

That's his official assessment to the Bureau. That's what he said on the Sean Ryan show, whoever that is, criticizing the agency's intelligence gathering operation. During the interview, Patel also ridiculed the FBI for its 2022 search warrant of Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, which led to charges being brought against the former president for retaining classified documents. Does he know that the FBI actually didn't want to do that? And they pushed back on Garland and said, let's just do a subpoena instead. And Garland was like, man, I really want to search that place. And so they did a subpoena and then they got more evidence. And finally, a month later, Garland was like, we're going in. And the FBI was

still like, we don't want to look in that one closet. I mean, I don't think he knows that. And despite all that, their application for the search warrant was dead on right. Yeah. They went in and convinced the judge. We, we think we have probable cause to believe there's evidence of a crime in there and sure enough, there was a ton of it. There was.

So, okay. Yeah. And in fact, it wasn't dismissed because there was no evidence of a crime. It was dismissed because they don't think Jack Smith was appointed properly. Right. The judge overseeing that case eventually dismissed the charges. In 2023, in an interview with Steve Bannon, the former Trump advisor,

Patel said the Justice Department under Trump would go after members of the media. We're gonna come after you. Quote, we've gotta put in all American patriots. We've gotta put in all American patriots top to bottom. What does that even mean? You can't try to make that into something better. It just is what it is. We've got to put in all. Oh, we have to put in into the DOJ. We have to put all American

patriots top to bottom. These jobs, we need to put in all American patriots, dude. Adding that. Yeah, because, you know, notoriously democratic and liberal. Do not be not all American and not patriotic in any way, right? The current people who work in the FBI are not American and patriotic. Okay. Thanks. Definitely not. Uh, and he also added that the department under Trump will go and find the conspirators,

not just in the government, but in the media. Yes, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections, plural. We're gonna come after you, he said. Patel rose to prominence within Trump's orbit in 2018 when he served as an aide to Representative Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee at the time.

I mean, okay. I still can't believe he was the, he was on the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Midnight Uber to the White House, Mr. 65 square foot farm in Fresno to be able to put farmer on the ballot. Mr. you know, I mean, there's a 9 million things that we could talk about with and now the CEO of Truth Social has presided over the loss of revenue. Billions. Anyway, Patel played a key role in Nunes' efforts to discredit the FBI's Russia investigation into the Trump campaign, including a controversial classified memo that alleged FBI abuses of

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants on Trump advisors. In his 2023 book, government gangsters, the deep state, the truth and the battle for our democracy. That is too long a title. I'm sorry. Patel lambasted, quote, crazed partisans for hijacking the law enforcement apparatus against Trump. Do you ever just think like, man, I could make so much money if I pretended to be a Trump supporter and built these guys? Can you imagine like just the songs you could write or the books you could write, how easy it would be? More often I just think, how did I get here? How did we get here? What has happened? Okay,

Patel's book heavily criticizes what he refers to as the deep state. An amorphous term, he says, includes elected leaders, journalists, big tech tycoons, and quote, members of the unelected bureaucracy, calling it quote, the most dangerous threat to our democracy. Patel in his book also calls for a comprehensive house cleaning of the Justice Department, arguing it has protected high ranking members of the Democratic Party, failed to prosecute individuals who leaked information during the first Trump administration, and unjustly targeted Republicans and their allies.

Wow. So the number one leaker of information during the Trump administration was the Trump administration. I just want to let everybody know. It goes on to say FBI directors, as you know, serve tenure terms in part to shield the Bureau's leader from political pressure. FBI directors serve a decade long terms as a result of a post Watergate law passed in response to J Edgar Hoover's controversial 48 year leadership at the agency. Disastrous. I would have called it, but okay, controversial works. It's, you know, it's legacy media here.

The breaking of its norm is not new for Trump, who fired Comey shortly after taking office in 2017. Comey, who helmed the FBI during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, as well as the Hillary Clinton email Controversy was fired by Trump in May 2017 after serving in the position for just over three years So I think at the end I think I think doesn't Ray have three more years left in in his term I think so. I think he's about seven

Alright, so you're teed up go rant. Yeah Patel there's so many directions to go with this, but I think you're going to start with the basics. Number one, the guy is profoundly unqualified for this job. If you look at his experience, he has almost none. He has very little basic legal experience. He was a defense attorney. I think he worked for the federal Defender's Office in Miami for a couple years. And then he actually did a very brief tour through DOJ as a as a kind of line level attorney in the National Security Division. But that is like a drop in the bucket compared to basically

anyone else who has ever served in the role, period. This is not my opinion on him as a good guy or not a good guy. This is just the fact that guy is wholly unqualified. He's got zero experience running any organization of any size. So he's going to step into an organization, 37,000 people all over the globe, 11,000 of them carrying guns every day, a budget of 10 billion plus dollars a year. And, by the way, a pretty important mission to protect our nation. And you can just just kind of step into that as your, you know, first, you know, you had your lemonade stand as a kid and now you're

going to do that is basically the stretch that he's trying to make. Now you're into my opinion part of the rant. Cash Patel is not a serious person. Forget about the fact that he's targeting me and people in the media and whoever else for whatever reason, put that aside for a minute this guy is a clown. He says ridiculous things all the time that betray the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He says he's gonna close fbi headquarters and force the seven thousand employees to go out across the country and work as cops. Your cops go be cops. No idea that 6000 of those 7000 people are not even law

enforcement officers. They are professional support staff, scientists, forensic analysts, forensic scientists, computer scientists, people who who contribute in meaningful ways to this massive accomplishment every day of being the FBI. He has no idea who they are, what the FBI does, what it involves to direct an organization like that. I could not have survived for five minutes in that acting role had I not spent the previous 20 years serving in every single level that an agent can serve. And the FBI came in as a field agent, walked in the door,

didn't know a single human being in the place, and served in every single role up to director. The only way I could get it, I could hold it together for as briefly as I did, was because I knew the organization, I'd seen it, I'd done it, I lived my adult life in and around FBI people as one of them. This guy will fail and he will take the organization backwards.

And finally, the most dangerous part of this is the only thing he cares about is doing whatever Donald Trump wants. It has been the keystone of the FBI in the last 50 years in the post-J. Edgar Hoover era. Right? So you had Hoover for 40, I didn't think it was 48, but anyway, 40 something years, complete disaster. Hoover did the bidding of every president he worked for. He used the awesome powers of the FBI, its intelligence collection powers, its investigative authority, its legal authority, to terrorize American citizens

at the direction of American presidents, to collect political intelligence, to seek revenge against enemies, political enemies. Hoover did all of that. And it wasn't until like 1975, and you had the Church Committee and the Pike Committee, those two committees in Congress that unearthed all these problems, all these things that had gone on under Hoover. Illegal surveillance of Martin Luther King, which by the way was approved by Robert Kennedy as attorney general. So this is not a Democrat or Republican thing. This went both ways.

We got past those disgraces by committing ourselves to being independent of the political side of the White House. Yes, the FBI works with the National Security Council to protect the country as an intelligence agency, domestic intelligence agency, but they don't interact with people on the political side. You're not even allowed to talk to people on the political side of the White House. It all has to go through DOJ. That's been how we got away from that

disgraceful past and actually turned into a credible domestic intelligence and criminal investigative agency that prioritizes protecting people and upholding the Constitution. Cash Patel is right out there in the things he says, telling you he's going to take the FBI backwards, back to a Hoover-esque model where he just sits and waits for Donald Trump to tell him what to do, and then goes out and does that without any regard for the Constitution, legality, morality, ethics, or anything else. So I think it's a disastrous appointment. If it ends up being a recess appointment, because I know that's something that they're talking about with problematic jobs they need to fill,

that's probably less than two years. That'll be a big problem. But people will hunker down and ride it out because FBI people are really good at ignoring leaders don't like. They've had a lot of them and they have perfected that art. But if he gets approved, you're going to have this guy for maybe 10 years.

I mean, it's possible. I think it's unlikely. But you can do a lot of damage to an institution, to a great institution over the course of 10 years and I really hope that doesn't happen. Yeah, agreed. And you know, as far as the experience necessary, right? Like you said, you came in as a field agent, did every job all the way to director.

I was at the VA for half as long, 10 years, and I made it halfway up, right? GS 14, I was still on the general schedule as a junior executive. My other 10 years, if I hadn't been removed, would have gone to, you know, hospital director or working in DC to undersecretary to a secretary of a department underneath the VHA or VBA or something like that and so on and so forth up into and including a director of a medical sharing office or some sort of SES executive level job. And then I might be ready to be the secretary of the VA. Maybe with my PhD and 20 years of experience, because you know, when I came into the VA, I started as a GS five, right, and worked my all the

way up through the GS through the general schedule. But that's halfway. And with a PhD, I'm still more qualified than Doug Collins is to run the Department of Veterans Affairs. But this Yeah, this is just absolutely unbelievable guy, I mean, I think he had a role as a deputy over at the NSA for a minute or the DNI. I think the CIA, Gina Haspel were threatened to resign if you came within 10 feet of her building so that didn't happen. But he can't pass the background check that will be conducted by the agency he wants to lead. He wouldn't be able to, but his background checks

aren't gonna matter. Trump is just gonna ignore him like he did in his first term. We have had a series of, we have had, to my count, two former FBI agents who served as director. Clarence Kelly, who was career FBI agent, ran multiple field offices as a special agent in charge, ultimately came in as an agent walk work all the way up same as me then he retired and he was the chief of police in kansas city. Missouri i think before he was pulled in after hoover and of course louis free who was an agent and then assistant us attorney and then a federal judge we got a lot of other federal judges then we've had some super heavy hitters from DOJ, like Robert Mueller, right, who was a US attorney, I think in two places,

and a high level, a bunch of high level jobs at DOJ. You know, so these are people who came to the job with careers, entire careers in law enforcement, leadership and the law. That's what they don't want. Yeah, it's a disqualifying factor for this, for this administration. But anyway, I, well, my friend, I, I given you a virtual hug about this appointment because I know it's, I know it's, you know, it's, you know, joking aside, it's, I can't imagine how personal this is for you. Yeah, it sucks. Given your entire career at the FBI.

These people deserve better. The men and women of the FBI deserve better. I'm not saying, look, we elected a Republican president, you're going to get a Republican president's pick for FBI director. Chris Ray was his pick for FBI. Exactly. That's the way it works. Everybody understands that.

Those are the rules and we play by the rules. I don't think we way it works. Everybody understands that. Those are the rules and we play by the rules. I don't think we've ever had a Democrat FBI director. Yeah. And you don't get to as a, you know, whatever you are in the FBI, you don't pick your director. You just serve the director that's confirmed. Everybody's good at that. But this is just a bridge too far. They deserve better and the American people deserve better. We do. And I'm worried for our safety because of all the, you know, I don't think a lot of Americans understand how much safer we are because of the FBI. Yeah, for sure.

All right. We're going to take some listener questions and see what you sent in. If you have a question, there's a link in the show notes. You click on it, you can send a question to Andy and me and we'll answer it as best We can we do have a lot of questions and and we will continue answering a lot of these questions as we wait Patiently. Yes, or Jack's report watch final report which we are on now because you remember Andy We were talking about like is this it the November 25th dismissal of the case Is this what he was giving himself to December 2nd to do? Yeah, because nothing else came in on December 2nd. Exactly.

That was it. Exactly. So we aren't expecting anything else from Jack Smith's office outside of a report. At least, I don't know, we might keep an eye on the 11th Circuit because the Nauta and the appeal is to the co-conspirators, Nauda and Dale O'Vara-Stellar. Yep. All right. We'll take a break and we'll come back with your questions. Stick around.

We'll be right back. All right, everybody. Welcome back. It's time for listener questions. Andy, what do we have this week from our intrepid, intelligent, brilliant, handsome, good-looking, smart, wonderful listeners? Andy That was such a great intro. I wish I was included in it. But anyway, okay, so staying with the report topic, we have a question from Curtis. Curtis writes in, I was listening to the interview

with Dan Goldman on the Daily Beans, and he said he did not think a report from Jack Smith would be completed before January 3. I think this is the day the new Congress is seated. How will that affect the fate of his report? I'm so worried that the report will be buried by Trump. Thanks for all you are doing. So I guess generally, what's your thoughts on the timing? Like, when do you think it drops? I know predictions are terrible, but let's try. Well, yeah, the new Congress comes in after the third of January. That's when they're sworn in. But it's up to Merrick Garland what part of this report gets released. Now I do

think he has to deliver it to Congress as well. And you know, having currently a majority in the Senate that could release the report, if it's not released by Merrick Garland but given to the Senate. I don't see there being a problem. I don't see this Congress being in charge of releasing the report. I think I am 98% sure Merrick Garland will release this thing mostly unredacted except for the things that you have to redact, like grand jury materials, names of people that aren't charged and handoffs to other agencies if there are any, and PII and PPI and all that stuff. The stuff that, again, Garland has no control

over whether or not he releases that stuff. He has to redact that stuff by law. Right, right. I think we'll get it, and I don't think it matters if we get it before or after the third, because it and I don't think it matters if we get it before or after the third because again, I don't think Congress has a role in releasing the report. I think what's interesting though, and I think you and I talked about this last week is what if we can't get him in for, because I talked to Rep Goldman about this too, are you going

to bring him in and have him questioned before January 3rd. And he's like, probably not. I don't know that we have time to do that. But you know, I agreed and I think I brought this point up to you last week. I don't think it really matters that the margins are so close. And we're going to have Democrats and Republicans in each of these committees. And you know, I think you talked about like maybe he wouldn't be brought in by Republicans right away. Maybe they'd want to investigate first, but he I think they'll bring them in at least to Republicans to just beat them up. But that's my that's my take on this.

Yeah, I agree. I still think that's right. I think they'll definitely bring him in. They may try to time they might try to even delay it. Maybe they want maybe they think there's some, you know think there's some benefit to doing it right before the midterms or something to get everybody fired up. But they'll bring them in. But I think they're going to want to do some work first. They're going to pester DOJ with all kinds of requests for records and things like that. But I think we'll see him testify for sure.

Yeah. And you think the report will come out before after January 3rd? Yeah, I think after January 3rd. I don't think there's going to be quite enough time to get things completely packaged up by then. Because you remember, it's got to go from Jack to DOJ, and then they have to review it and figure out what the redactions will be. That takes some time. Doesn't he also have to bring in the intelligence agencies for redactions? He does. Both of these have classified information involved. Presumably, he's done some of that already in the course of preparing the case for trial. So I don't think that would be a huge hurdle at this point. I

think a lot of that groundwork has already been laid. And he probably was staying away from evidence that was problematic for them to begin with. So I don't see, I mean, it's another thing to do, no question, it's another thing on the to-do list, which takes a little bit more time. But that's why I feel like it's after January 3rd, but it's definitely before the 20th. Right, period.

All right, so here we go. Here's another question, this one from Mike. And this is like totally off the wall, but I thought it was kind of cool. Mike says, I have a non-Jack related question. How does one become a member of the FBI? In TV shows, it's always the best cop in New York City being recruited to the big show,

like getting called up from AAA. And I'm sure the real process is very different. Can you share your personal story of joining the FBI? Mike, you nailed it buddy. It's very different than that. It's not like getting called up to the big leagues. Oh, it kind of felt that way. You're going to the show Andy. That's right. So yeah, they, they're, they, uh, as the budget allows and they have space at Quantico to bring in classes of new agents, they take applications as an application posted on, you know,

FBI jobs, USA jobs, FBI jobs. It takes months and months and months. You have to have the exact right resume. There are bonus points. If you're a veteran, there are bonus points if you're a veteran. There are bonus points if you're a disabled veteran. If you're a service connected disabled veteran, your stuff goes to the top of the pile and then you wait and you wait and you wait and then you take tests and a lie detector test and then you have to take another test. They start the background and wait another year.

It's like getting on Jeopardy. Yeah, it's hard. It took me two years to get through the application process. That was a long time ago. I don't think it's much better now. When I came in, the Bureau was recruiting from four different categories. Lawyers was one. Accountants was another. People with foreign language capability was third. And then they had a last kind of a catch-all category

that they called diversity. You had to have a college degree, and you had to have significant work experience after college. Graduate degree is not required, but it was it's obviously a plus. Historically, the pure has always been a ton of lawyers and accountants because originally, you had to be a lawyer or an accountant to get hired. So now it's much different. The recruiting is much more targeted

and specific. So they know from the cases that we're working and the strategy for those operations, the operational divisions where they think, you know, the threats are going in the future. They know we need more people who can speak Arabic or Mandarin or Russian or whatever. or Mandarin or Russian or whatever. So they'll look for that. Or they know, for instance, we need more people who can analyze data and structure data for analysis and review complicated cyber infrastructure and things like that. So we start recruiting for more people with cyber skills

or actual computer scientists, things along those lines. So they're constantly adjusting the dials to look for the people that we need now and in the future. I keep saying we, I can't stop doing that. So sorry. No, it's okay. I've been divorced for years and I still say, oh, we're down the street on the left, you know, oh, me and my cats is what I'm saying. And I'm kind of divorced from the FBI, it's sad, but that's just the way it goes.

Good question though. I mean, it is a long process. I mean, just to get into the Department of Veterans Affairs as a file clerk took me six months. Yeah, it's a long haul. The FBI background investigation itself took a month and a half for onboarding. I mean, it took after I was hired, it was another three or four months before I even started. Yeah, it's tough. It's months before I even started. Yeah. It's tough. It's tough.

You got to get a top, everyone in the bureau has a top secret clearance. So that's all big background. It takes a while to go through, especially if you have like relatives living overseas. Not anymore. You can, you know, apparently it doesn't matter. No, no, it's still a requirement for people who actually do the work. It's the heads of the agencies that aren't going to have to get any kind of clearance anymore. Anyway, that's how it works. Anyone can apply. It's very hard. There's

thousands and thousands of applications every year, a very small percentage of those actually get offers of employment, but the best day in your life when it happens. So give it a shot. What year was it? For me 96. Yeah. And I was working, I was in my second private law firm and I was finally making like just about enough money that I could pay my student loans. And I took a 50% pay cut to go with the bureau.

I made three times less, a third of what I made when I got my job at the VA. But that's what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. You're not going to get rich doing it. You're hopefully not going to get famous doing it. There's no money in it at all. I mean, but it's the best. Yeah, but totally unpatriotic. Okay, so why don't we take one more question? This next one comes to us from Rafa.

And Rafa says, okay, first he says, I have two questions and a pod name suggestion. He said a couple of episodes ago, Alison suggested that you might also track Trump shenanigans at CIA, for example. I like the name tracking Trump, as it describes hopefully the larger scope of your podcast beyond the Justice Department. So, okay, Rafa, we will put that on the list of items to consider. All right. First question. Donald Trump is one thing, but what to do about Trumpism? There is this regressive cultural movement full of xenophobia, misogyny, racism, Christian nationalism. What do we do about that separate from the guy with the name?

Okay, I've got it all figured out. I hit it. Okay. No, but I do have an idea. I've started to notice, since 2016, a real big growth in populism, right? Anti-billionaire sentiment. Yeah. growth in populism, right? Anti-billionaire sentiment.

We're seeing it a lot, especially in light of recent events. With this administration, I think he's got 14 billionaires coming into his cabinet. And I think it's going to start, if anything dawns on Trumpism, on Trumpers, on MAGA, I think it's going to dawn on them that they aren't, and I'm going to quote George Carlin here, and there's an F-bomb in it, so earmuffs if you're not into it, but it's a big club, it's a big club and you're not in the fucking club. Yeah. And, and these are all billionaires, Kelly Loeffler, Elon, Vivek, Trump himself, who's actually

probably not got any money. He just thinks he has money. That is becoming and has been becoming a huge problem, our wealth gap. And so I think that if we message around populism, we message around workers' rights, we message against billionaires, I think that that might be the answer. And I think politicians like Ocasio-Cortez, for example, gave a brilliant speech at the DNC and who took the time to answer questions and ask questions about voters who voted for her, but also voted for Trump, split their ticket.

Right. It was all about populism and they had been misinformed. So I think we have to get the message on the populist track, which it has been. I mean, Biden is the most progressive president that we've had ever. But also, and Harris was an extremely progressive candidate too. I'm not saying they weren't progressive enough. I'm saying we need to focus on that. But we also have to focus on misinformation and disinformation. That is killing us. Yeah. It's killing us. Before I comment on that, I'm going to read his second question because I think it dovetails into that well. He says, what do you see as the possibilities for the incentives and disincentives to change

so that quality people, people with integrity, courage and character actually run for office? Do you see any pathway towards changing conditions in this positive direction? Well, I do actually. And I think that I've said this many times in different like speaking engagements and things I think leadership is the first thing that has to change and unfortunately we have what we have for the next couple of years but you cannot overstate the impact. Donald Trump didn't create the conditions that led to his presidency in 2016 or in 2024. But he has undeniably altered what politics looks like

in the United States of America in the way that politicians talk, the things that they say, those elements of xenophobia, misogyny, racism that are almost acceptable now because he has somehow punctured this veneer of I don't know civility that we had had for the last 240 years whatever and now it's just kind of it's taking us to a different

place. We need a change in leadership, not just him, but the people around him who support him and mimic the way that he talks and the way that he conducts himself. And to elevate our expectations about what we should want in people in positions of trust. And I think that can happen. We need the right candidates, we need

to get them elected. And there's there's always the ability to get better the ability to turn this situation around. I really do think I don't know what's gonna happen like the next time. I hope it does. Well, that's what we need to work for. We picked up a couple of house seats. And this was by no means a mandate or a landslide. He won by fewer than 250,000 votes. He didn't get half the votes. He didn't get a majority of the votes in this country. His margin of victory is smaller than the amount of votes that Clinton got over Trump.

It was very, very close. Fewer than 7,000 votes lost us the House this time around. So like, we are getting these really great candidates, these young candidates, these more progressive candidates that actually can speak to a larger group of people than what we used to think of as middle of the road or moderate Democrats versus progressive Democrats. And we're seeing that and it's coming together. I have great hope for 2026. I have great hope for our midterms. I do as well. And I'm not trying to say like, oh, we got to go back to like politicians who look like

Whoever fill in the blank. I'm not saying that I think We need younger people with different ideas and a different way of conducting themselves. I was a little bummed out when Schumer Got a unanimous nod for the yeah minority leader again. I'm like, I'm doing I think some of the There are some different candidates and different leaders out there that I think show real promise and show that there is a path forward that's different than what we did in the past, but it's also not what we're doing right now.

I think there's echoes of 2004. Pete Buttigieg, Jason Crowe. Yes. Even like John Fetterman. Awesome. Really like, I was not a big John Fetterman fan. I've been listening to more of his interviews lately. The guy's got a really unique perspective on things. There is a place for change and we need it.

Nicole Forleo No, yeah, I agree. I see that we can get there, but we have to, we can't give up. That's it. You know, we have to keep working and we have to keep pushing and doing the right thing. But we really got to, we really got to beat back this disinformation stuff, man. There are countries around the world looking at us like, what are, are you new? Like, how do you not see this coming? How are you falling for this? It's the messaging because Trump messaged as a populist, as a man of the people, as a workers president. Such a joke.

And it's, he's so the opposite of that. We have to figure out how to combat that. Great question. I could talk forever on that, but thank you for sending in your questions. Again, there's a link in the show notes. You can click on send us your questions. We'd love to answer them. We might have a lot of free time over the next couple of episodes waiting for the report to come out. So we're happy to always, always answer your questions. Andy, do you have any final thoughts before we get out of here this weekend? I do.

One very quick thing I wanted to say, your sub stack this week was awesome. Oh, thank you. I loved it. Are you talking about the starfish one? Yes. Yeah, it was so great. And then I have a friend, a really, really good friend who is a loyal listener of the pod. I'm just going to call him Jim P. And he sent it to me, not

know, thinking that I, he's like, you should, you should read this. He didn't know I had already, I had already read it, but yeah, that was great. I really enjoyed it. So well done. Thank you so much. Yeah. That was a chapter in a book that I pitched a year ago. And it was, you know, it's part of a chap, a book about the perils of corporate media. And everybody was like, nobody cares about the perils of corporate media. Nobody cares about Donald Trump and the perils of corporate media. And I'm'm like, oh okay. And they're like, you got anything else? I'm like, well not today. But now I'm just gonna be publishing my unpublished book one chapter at a time on Substack. So

thank you. I'm glad. Thank you for saying that. I appreciate that. Yeah and everyone, I'm sure everyone who's listening to this is already reading you on Substack. But if you're not, you should subscribe and check it out. It's the best. Thank you so much. And my final thought is for you again, virtual hugs for what's happening to the agency there where you spent your life, dedicated your life and your work to protecting the American people. I can't like I'm, my heart sinks for you in these moments and all my friends who have worked at the agency. They're going to get through it. They're going to get through it and hopefully this Cajpatelle thing doesn't happen.

If anybody can, it's you or your former colleagues. That's right. That's right. All right, everybody. We'll be back in your ears next week. Again, click on that link if you want to submit a question. Thanks so much for listening. I've been Alison Gill.

And I'm Andy McCabe.