Jack - FBI Election Conspiracy Factory

Episode Date: October 11, 2026

With FBI Deputy Director Andrew Bailey gone, agents are raising concerns about what they might be forced to do by Kash Patel on election Day. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is criminally investigating former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson about her testimony to the January 6th Select Committee. An FBI whistleblower says the White House pushed an unconstitutional probe of peaceful protesters in Los Angeles during ICE crackdowns. It appears as though Kurt Olson, who recently left the grand conspiracy investigation, failed his polygraph test required for security clearance. Why FBI Officials Are Worried About the Midterms - The Atlantic Plus listener questions.Do you have questions for the pod or something for HITMEINTHEHEADWITHABAT?  Shop Mint Unlimited Plans at MINTMOBILE.com/UNJUST   Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/ Follow AGMueller, She Wrote SubstackMueller She Wrote on Blueskyhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodMore from Andrew McCabeThe Real McCabe on [e-mail] on BlueskyThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump This Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you Subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

MSW Media. With FBI Deputy Director Andrew Bailey gone, agents are raising concerns about what they might be forced to do by Kash Patel on Election Day, and that's according to sources who spoke with the Atlantic. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is criminally investigating former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson pertaining to the testimony she gave to the January 6th Select Committee. An FBI whistleblower says the White House pushed an unconstitutional probe of peaceful protesters in Los Angeles during ice crackdowns.

And it appears as though Kurt Olson, who recently left the grand conspiracy investigation, failed his polygraph test required for security clearance. This is Unjustified. Hey, everybody, welcome to episode 90 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, October 11th, 2020. You might notice a conspicuous absence.

Andy McCabe is unable to record today, so I'm going to be taking over the show. Appreciate you hanging out with me, My name's Allison Gill in case you didn't know. So Sarah Fitzpatrick, that is the woman who writes for the Atlantic magazine that wrote that piece about Kosh Patel's alleged excessive drinking. And he sued the publication for like $250 million. Well, she has another piece out,

alleging that Patel has effectively turned the FBI into an election conspiracy theory investigation factory. Now, she opens her article saying this. Earlier this year, FBI director Kosh Patel vowed before God Fox Nation and Donald Trump that he would punish the deep state for its manifold transgressions, especially the actually non-existent conspiracy to steal the 2020 election. Quote, I've been with the president nearly since day one on this, he said in an interview with Maria Bartaromo, who by the way has since been fired from Fox. He went on to say, I can announce on your show that we've got all the information we need.

We're working with our prosecutors at the Department of Justice under Attorney General Todd Blanche, and we're going to be making arrests. And it's coming. I promise you. It's coming soon. Now, that was five months ago. And Patel has not yet delivered on his promise, but interviews, in interviews with more than 40 current and former administration officials, FBI employees, and members of Congress and their

staffers, as well as others close to the White House, Sarah Fitzpatrick has learned, that it's not for lack of trying. So, yeah, he's been desperately trying to do this. So I'm going to read a few excerpts from this article, but you really should subscribe to the Atlantic. Read it in its entirety. It paints a very, very huge picture. So Fitzpatrick says, in recent months,

Patel has been briefed on the FBI's election integrity investigations in Arizona, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, and beyond. Officials told Fitzpatrick their understanding is that many of the election-related investigation requests came directly from the White House, many times with the instruction that, quote, this is a big deal for the president, or this is a push from 47. But all of that attention has not yielded results. In meetings, Patel has expressed frustration that there have been no new findings and instructed staff to look harder or look again, according to three people familiar with the conversations.

Now, the FBI's preoccupation with the 2020 election represents a dramatic break with the FBI's past, right? Though the Bureau, one of the world's most famous and most powerful law enforcement agencies, has experienced more than its share of controversies and episodes of overreach, it has also been dedicated to criminal investigation based on evidence, science, and reality. The commitment of personnel, resources, and time to investigate a conspiracy theory, that was manufactured by Trump to explain his electoral defeat marks a decisive pivot away from that historic role.

Now, Patel's predecessors had always sought to demonstrate their independence by creating operational and optical distance from the White House, especially when it came to the sanctity and neutrality of elections. Patel has taken a radically different course, attempting to translate Trump's eternal election-related grievances into a core law enforcement mission of the federal government. Quote, Patel is the only guy who never says no. That's what a Republican operative close to the White House told the Atlantic

and went on to say, and the president likes that. So as an aside from the article here, what we're seeing is not only, you know, the FBI being used, be weaponized against Trump's perceived political enemies and being used to protect his friends, but now it's actually being used to interfere in elections. Now, Andrew Bailey, who recently left the FBI, we're back to the article here, was apparently a guardrail, according to Fitzpatrick,

who assuaged a lot of fears expressed by agents, and Patel's stance is redefining how the Bureau prepares for an election. She says, agents across the country have been seeking counsel in recent weeks about how to respond to FBI directives related to the election. That's according to six current and former FBI and DOJ supervisors and outside defense attorneys who told the Atlantic they've received calls. Quote, agents are nervous talking among themselves. That's what a former DOJ official said,

who has received multiple requests for advice, unlike anything they've ever seen before. And another former senior FBI official told me he'd received calls. from dozens of his former colleagues looking for counsel and describing, quote, a real effort to bend people to the narrative of the president's election conspiracy theories. One agent told the Atlantic

that he contemplates election day and thinks, quote, I'm either going to be sick that day or they're going to have to fire me. So there's no question that people at the FBI are rattled. What is uncertain is the degree to which they should be. Other administration officials and those close to the White House dismissed the idea that Patel would be fired if he ultimately fails to deliver what the president wants. Now, some have speculated that Trump favors reassignments

over firings because he believes that his administration can protect active government officials from complying with subpoenas. See, if you still work for the government, they can say no, right? Now, others told the Atlantic. that Patel remains in his job because confirming a replacement would require near-unanimous support from Senate Republicans, something the president no longer has. So that might be another reason he hasn't been fired. He'd just be too difficult to replace. Some Republicans fear, meanwhile, that overzealous action by Patel could make their problems worse. Quote, it would be an absolute disaster for Republicans in the midterms, especially those invulnerable races if Patel sent FBI

agents to the polls or seized ballots. That's what one Republican staffer told the Atlantic and went on to say people have to trust the government and the integrity of our elections. So again, there is so much more to the breadth and depth of the FBI just pivoting into investigating made-up conspiracy theories of Trump grievances

over the 2020 election. Something that happened six years ago. And that was all in the Atlantic. Again, Sarah Fitzpatrick. But now I have an update on the grand conspiracy case with a few facts from sources, anonymous sources, at least 20 interviews cited from the New York Times. First, we learned that Todd Blanche didn't want DeGeneva to work on the case. And Trump and Mike Davis forced him, like shoehorned DeGeneva into this thing.

Pam Bondi was actually fired. me in part because she vetoed DeGeneva being brought on. Apparently, DeGeneva lashed out at the two D.C. prosecutors that Blanche recently sent to Florida, and Blanche cussed out DeGeneva and ordered him into his office, but DeGeneva quit instead. So we'll get to that. We also learned in this Times article that Kurt Olson, the election denier who also quit, apparently failed his polygraph and couldn't get the clearance necessary to review classified documents. Like, if you want to investigate the classified documents case, you're going to need clearance and apparently he couldn't get it. Now, also, the case has moved back to Maine Justice and has drastically narrowed from grand conspiracy to little parts of it

because no one could connect the Mar-a-Lago search to the Russia inquiry, which you have to do in order to keep the statute of limitations on the Russia inquiry alive. And they were just, they weren't able to do it. In fact, the FBI agent who was recently removed from the case, Eckenrode, who we mentioned last week, he pointed out that Judge Cannon had already ruled that the search of Mar-a-Lago was legal. This has already been challenged and ruled on.

And so this Eckenroad guy was like, we're never going to be able to get that part of the inquiry off the ground. So he was reassigned, taken off the case. We also learned that after the case failed in Pennsylvania, remember it went to Pennsylvania and then, or D.C., Pennsylvania, then down to Miami and then over to Fort Pierce. We learned that after the case failed in Pennsylvania and was moved to Miami, where career prosecutor Maria Medellez-Long was there, she actually determined that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. execute folks like ex-CIA chief John Brennan. And then she was fired after writing that up in a report. And when DeGeneva got there, he actually asked her to come back, but she refused. He then sought to get some cooperating witnesses, but like Comey and Brennan aren't going to help you, bro.

So I guess out of an act of desperation, he brought on the FBI agent that investigated the election hacking Italian satellite conspiracy. He brought in an unknown rando from North Dakota. He brought in his wife, Victoria Tunzing. He brought in the torture memos guy. You from Stanford University. Doesn't even work for the DOJ. He brought in election denier Kurt Olson, who couldn't get clearances now, as we know now.

He brought in a former clerk for Judge Cannon. So this motley crew was trying to actually cobble together a case. And that's about the time Blanche sent down the two guys. from D.C. to tell Degeneva were taken over the case. And here's a quote from the article. Mr. Degeneva infuriated said he would instruct U.S. Marshals to remove the prosecutors from the grand jury room if they showed up there to interfere in his case. Now, Blanche responded with a profanity-laced phone call and summoned Degeneva to D.C.

The Attorney General wanted to recount his grievances in person, but never actually planned to fire DeGeneva. And that's according to a person close to Blanche. Who's leaking this stuff? But he never got the chance. So it seems like the grand conspiracy is wholly unwound. But we'll keep an eye on it for you. All right, everybody, we have to take a quick break,

but we've got some more failed pre-midterm indictments to talk about after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Oh, I remember being a kid in October. reconnecting with friends I lost touch with over the summer, the freedom that I had to choose my very own Halloween costume so long as it wasn't too expensive or difficult or, you know, it was often cold in Cleveland, so it had to be kind of warm. But now you can have that same freedom back, thanks to Mint Mobile sale. All of Mint's plans are only $15 a month, even the unlimited plan,

so you can ditch big wireless and the overpriced gimmicks and switch to Mint for high speed data coverage on the T-Mobile 5G network. Our producer did, and he's loving it, same great service, at less than half the price. He brought over his own phone, got to keep his old number, brought his contacts, said he's never going back to his old carrier again. So please support our show and check out MintMobile. You can make the switch at mintmobile.com slash unjust.

Now, MintMobile fixed what was wrong with wireless, with premium wireless for only $15 a month. You get high-speed data and unlimited talk and text, all delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. You can even bring your current phone and phone number, as I said. It is just that easy. you can choose between a three, six, or 12-month plan, so you could say goodbye to your monthly bill.

Get rid of your overpriced wireless, get MintMobile. Sign up online, get three months of premium wireless for just $15 a month. So to get your new wireless plan for just $15 a month, go to mintmobile.com slash unjust. That's mintmobile.com slash unjust. Cut your wireless bill to $15 a month at mintmobile.com slash unjust.

That's it. There's no catch. Up front payment of $45 for three month, $90 for six month, $180 for 12 month plans required. That's $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra, initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes can slow when the network is busy. Includes up to 20 gigabyte hotspot, capable device required, availability, speed, and coverage varies. See mittmobile.com for details.

All right, everybody, welcome back. Our next story is related to the Kosh Patel story we just discussed and about how he will stop at nothing to get someone indicted by the terms, even though he's not a prosecutor. This one comes from the Washington Post. The Justice Department presented evidence to a federal grand jury this week in a case against Cassidy Hutchinson. She's the former White House aide who was a key witness for a congressional committee investigating January 6th, the attack on the Capitol. And that is according to two people familiar with the matter. Federal officials have accused Hutchinson of lying to lawmakers when she testified about the

events surrounding the Capitol attack. That's what the two people said, who obviously spoke on the condition of anonymity. Now, the active federal grand jury investigation against Hutchinson in D.C. is the latest example of the Justice Department wielding its law enforcement powers against perceived foes of President Trump. The investigation around Hutchinson began under then Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was fired by Trump in April in part because he thought she was moving too slowly in cases against his adversaries. Now, while the grand jury hearing the case is seated in D.C., get this, the people familiar with the investigation says Janine Piro is not involved.

Now, that could be for one of a couple reasons. He's pretty mad at her right now about the reflecting pool case, but it could also be because the Civil Rights Division is doing this case. Her meet Dylan at Maine Justice, which means it has to do with civil rights. We'll get into that in a minute because that's bizarre. but they may have given it to Hermit Dillon because he's lost faith in Jeanine Piro because of the reflecting pool. We don't know any of that. But instead, the investigation, here it is back to the article, is being led by the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department headquarters. The division is led

by Hermit Dillon, the staunch Trump ally who has aligned the Civil Rights Division with Trump administration's political and cultural causes. Under Justice Department regulations, this is what I was talking about, prosecutors in Dillon's division must base their investigation. on civil rights violations. Now, Punchbowl News, by the way, first reported that the grand jury met this week to hear evidence in the case. Now, Trump and his allies, four years have been calling for Hutchinson to face legal consequences. The Justice Department began investigating Hutchinson, who was an aide to the White House

Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, in Trump's first administration. After two of Trump's Republican allies in Congress, Jim Jordan and Barry Loudermilk referred her to the Department of Justice for prosecution over what they, allege was false testimony. In 2022, Hutchinson, who was 25 years old, gave explosive testimony of Trump's behind-the-scenes actions on January 6th to the House Select Committee investigating the attack on the Capitol. Her testimony during the televised hearing garnered 13 million viewers when it aired on June 28, 2022. Now at the hearing, Hutchinson testified that Trump urged his supporters to march on the Capitol despite knowing they were armed. That's something we all saw with

our own eyes. She testified that another White House aide at the time, Anthony Ornato, told her that Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent inside the beast, the presidential SUV, after being told he could not accompany the group from the ellipse to the Capitol. But the Secret Service agent who drove Trump and Engel that day, disputed Hutchinson's testimony in an interview conducted months after her hearing, a transcript of which was released in 2024 by the Department of Homeland Security. The driver testified that he did not see him reach and that Trump never grabbed the steering wheel. Okay. But Ornato told Hutchinson he had. And Hutchinson was testifying about what, what Ornato told her.

She didn't say she was in the SUV. She didn't say she saw it. In fact, she was asked, did you see it? No, I wasn't there. I'm just relaying what Ornato told me. He saw when he was there or heard from Engel. So this could be double hearsay, but this is a congressional hearing.

And no other witnesses corroborated Hutchinson's account of Trump in the limo. And let me just say what it should say here is that no other witnesses corroborated Ornado's account of Trump in the limo. Though several of those interviewed attested, the president was very, very angry, but Hutchinson was clear she wasn't in the vehicle. She's just testifying about what Anthony Ornado told her. Hutchinson also told the January 6th panel she was advised by the first lawyer who represented

her for those proceedings to deliberately withhold information from investigators. Remember she got a whole brand new lawyer? she claimed that her attorney stephen passantino a former ethics lawyer in trump's white house so that means an unethics lawyer tried to woo her with job offers and promises of financial stability in exchange for loyalty to trump in a statement to the washington post at the time passantino denied wrongdoing of course he did now hugo lowell our friend who's now at wired is now reporting on, I think this just came out this past Friday, that federal prosecutors have been weighing a perjury

and an obstruction of justice charge against Cassidy Hutchinson, though prosecutors are not expected to ask a federal grand jury in Washington to return an indictment, at least until after the midterms. Prosecutors have focused on the fact that the former special counsel, Jack Smith, did not corroborate much of Hutchinson's account to the committee. and the Secret Service's denial of any altercation in the presidential limo. And we know that. Jack Smith didn't use her testimony.

Why? Because this is a court of law now. It's not a congressional hearing. You can't have an Engel told Ornado told me. And we talked about that when we heard her testimony. This is great for the January 6th Select Committee. And she's telling the truth about what Ornato told her, about what he knew happened in the SUV,

but you can't use that in a court of law. It's hearsay. So there's no reason for Jack Smith to use it. And also, Hugo says, by comparing the transcript of Hutchinson's interviews with the committee against her testimony to Jack Smith's team, prosecutors have been trying to construct a case

based on how her testimony has changed, looking for inconsistencies. A lot of people are like, oh, the Department of Justice under Merrick Garland waited. They sat on their hands until they could get the information from the January 6th Select Committee. I have been saying, breathlessly, that they weren't waiting for the materials so that they could use them instead of doing the work themselves. They were waiting for the materials so that they could compare testimony from testimony at the January 6th Select Committee and testimony before Jacks. and his investigators and their grand juries.

And if there's an inconsistency, you cannot use that witness. They will be impeached on the stand. And it is by law Jack Smith's duty to hand over and point out those inconsistencies to the defense. Right? We've talked about that a ton of times. But again, Jack Smith couldn't corroborate what Ornato told Hutchinson, but, you know, that's so you just don't use it in your case. It's not a crime. That's what tanked Durham's case. Remember the Durham probe into the oranges of the Russia investigation? One of the witnesses

gave not false or purposefully misleading testimony, but gave kind of differing accounts to Congress and the grand jury. And they were trying to get him on a crime, but they couldn't. And it tanked Durham's case because of the inconsistency in that, in those two different testimonies. But Hugo says they've also taken a special, the prosecutors have taken a special interest in Hutchinson's claim that she had penned a statement on a note card for Trump to release during the Capitol riot. But that claim is disputed by Eric Hirschman, the former Trump White House lawyer. He said he wrote the note. but again in order to bring a perjury charge it has to be willful and it has to be material

and i don't understand what kind of obstruction charge they're trying to bring and i don't understand how perjury or obstruction ties into civil rights are they trying to say that she infringed on donald trump's civil rights by lying to the january sixth select committee and obstructing what, obstructing what? Obstructing this investigation? Like, it's very confusing. But now, even though they've been on this for probably months and months,

I'm sure Trump is very upset that he's not going to get an indictment in this case before the midterms either. So. I don't know. We'll stay on top of this case. It's very interesting. Again, even though I don't think they'll be able to bring, even if they get an indictment, I don't think they'll be successful with it.

But again, it's not the point, right? The point is to put your political enemies through the justice ringer and cost them a lot of money and stress and time. And to throw red meat to the base. We indicted Cassidy Hutchinson. They don't really care about what happens after that. We indicted Jim Comey. That's the headline they want.

You'll recall Donald Trump is like, just say you're investigating, and the Republicans and I'll do the rest. He doesn't care if it's a successful prosecution. He wants the headline, he wants the first impression, and he wants to put his political foes through the financial and mental burdens of a federal criminal prosecution.

And he's being, he's successful at that. But it is destroying their credibility in court, which, as you know, we'll get to later in our hit me in head with a bat segment. But first, I want to discuss another story about the FBI being pushed to investigate peaceful protesters in violation of their constitutional rights and that a whistleblower is standing up and pointing that out. Stick around. We'll be right back.

All right, everybody, welcome back again. Thanks for hanging in with me solo. Andy will be back next week, I promise. Our next story comes from NBC. The Trump administration pushed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to look into Los Angeles protesters in violation of their constitutional rights and in violation of the Bureau's policies.

And that's according to a former FBI supervisor who alleges this in a new whistleblower complaint. Jill Fields, a former supervisory intelligence analyst in the FBI's LA field office, made a formal whistleblower complaint to the Senate Judiciary Committee over the federal response to anti-ice protests activity around federal buildings, as well as in residential areas early last year. Jill Fields asked Congress and the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General to investigate the allegations. That's what her attorney said in a letter to lawmakers. She says they violated the First Amendment rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble.

Now, Field says, get this, good old Emil Beauvais, Beauvais. He sits now on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as a judge. But then, at the time, he was the acting deputy attorney general. He told the head of the LA Field Office to open a criminal investigation, into activities outside the federal building, even though the whistleblower says, the activities were protected free speech. Separately, she says the White House gave a directive to FBI director Kosh Patel to investigate a group of protesters using megaphones during immigration enforcement operations after FBI

agents had conducted a check into the conduct and declined to open an investigation. So people with megaphones saying, ICE is here. ISIS here, these are your rights, know your rights. FBI conducted a check into the conduct, declined to open an investigation. Then the White House gave a directive to Kosh Patel to reopen it. Back to the article, President Donald Trump had viewed a video of people using megaphones to alert residents about immigration activities to advise them of their legal rights and encourage them not to open their doors unless immigration enforcement agents had a signed judicial warrant. Now you'll recall I have a current case to get the, oh, the, I think it's the DHS Office of General Counsel memo,

justifying training ICE agents that they don't have to use a judicial warrant to enter people's homes in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And that came out in May, that memo of 2025. Anyway, the protests were staged across Los Angeles. after Trump and the administration launched an immigration enforcement operation. Field says the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office had pulled agents off active cartel cases to satisfy what a supervisor described as optics designed to make a show for the president. Cartel cases. Pulled agents off of drug trafficking cartel cases to make an optics show for the president.

The area would be the scene. of a major protest later in the year during an immigration surge in cities nationwide. Now, a Justice Department spokesperson called the whistleblower complaint politically motivated and said violence is not protected by the First Amendment. Though I don't think shouting people's rights and telling them not to open a door without a warrant

into a megaphone is violence because the complaint focuses on nonviolent protests. Quote, under President Trump, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously uphold the First Amendment rights of all Americans and restore the rule of law. The DOJ and the FBI have a responsibility to investigate any potential violations of federal law and conspiracies to impede federal law enforcement and assaults on federal officers are against the law. Beba, be, be, that's a spokesperson. Now, the FBI didn't immediately respond to requests for comment to the story.

Justice Department officials have previously said, government workers need to follow the Trump administration's priorities. Last week, DOJ leaders filed an administrative complaint about federal judges in Minnesota, who made remarks to the media about the impact of Operation Metro Search. Jill Fields says supervisors were told not to put things in writing. So many of the directives came in face-to-face meetings. Like, investigate these peaceful protesters. She says she didn't know whether any formal investigation was open

because she was excluded when she refused to participate. Now, Fields consulted with senior FBI officials in charge of privacy and civil liberties matters who expressed dismay about the investigation and subsequently told Fields that she planned to resign. Fields too resigned from the Bureau after she was informed that she would be removed from heading three programs,

a decision she believes constituted retaliation for making protected internal disclosures. The FBI's actions, according to the letter, created a chilling effect within the workforce and signaled to other employees that raising constitutional or legal concerns could carry professional consequences. Kind of like Andrew Bailey.

Kind of like that, what's it, Echle Road, that other FBI agent who said, look, Judge Cannon said the Mar-a-Lago search was legal. Oh, you're pulled off the case. The two guys that were demoted in counterintelligence that we talked about last week for not bringing those charges in one of, you know, against some other Trump perceived political enemies. It happens, it's happening so often in this Bureau. The conduct, quote, had significant consequences for constitutional rights

and the integrity and effective operation of the FBI according to the complaint. Now, hundreds of FBI agents and justice. Department attorneys, as we know, have resigned or been fired since Trump returned to office, particularly those who were involved in investigating him and former Justice Department employees have expressed concerns that the nation's top law enforcement agency is doing the bidding of the president. And I have to say, the people who've been fired specifically because they worked on Trump cases is a little bit of irony for you. In my Freedom of Information Act request and subsequent lawsuit to get the videos that the FBI used to train analysts on how to redact the Epstein

files when they locked them all in the building, a thousand of them in March for 24 and 48 hour shifts and paid a million dollars in overtime to redact the 300,000 or so pages they got an investigative files when they shut down the Southern District of New York investigation and fired the prosecutors. They brought all those documents over. Yeah, locked everybody in. In that case, because they had to create training videos, they had about 1,000 FBI agents. Not all of them were trained in how to redact stuff

for privacy or public release. So they had to make training videos. And I had several sources who confirmed that they did watch training videos on how to redact things, including how to tag Trump's name for supervisory review. So I got finally after a year, year and a half, you know, they finally described nine training videos

to me. And in it, they said, in their denial, they're like, we have nine videos, but we're not, we're withholding them in their entirety. Inferring the reason being that because these are FBI and DOJ employees making the videos, that they can be identified by seeing their faces and hearing their voices, that faces and voices are considered personally identifiable information and therefore exempt from having to be handed over under the Freedom of Information Act request. By the way, not exempt from being handed over in the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but this is a Freedom of Information Act request. So in their defense, the woman who organized that whole lock and everybody in the building for two weeks and ran that whole program called the Epstein

Redaction Transparency Project or some BS like that. that. Her justification for phases and voices of FBI agents being personally identifiable information, her defense is the FBI agents don't get to choose what cases they work on. Yet here we have so many fired for that very reason. Obviously, I sent that that sworn under penalty of perjury affidavit to the lawyers defending some of these not defending but suing on behalf of some of these fired FBI agents by the Trump administration. Back to this article about Los Angeles, Senator Alex Padilla, he's a Democrat here in California, told NBC News that Jill Field's disclosure is another instance of Trump's weaponizing the Justice Department

to go after his perceived political enemies. Padilla, who himself was forcibly removed from a news conference member featuring then Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noam in June of 2025. He's the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship and Border Safety. Quote, how many more of these investigations have been opened up because of political pressure coming from the White House despite the questions and concerns about legality and constitutionality? That's what Padilla said. And he acknowledged that the Trump administration's attacks on civil service protections through

unilateral firings as well as the mass firings of internal government watchdogs have had an impact on the legislative branch's ability to conduct oversight. Quote, that's going to be a significant challenge, but it begins with good, honorable professionals, being willing to come forward and tell us what's going on and what's wrong with what's going on. We're hoping others may be inspired as well. Now, in a letter he sent to Patel and Todd Blanche, Padilla wrote that the allegations in the field's disclosure, quote, raise grave concerns about the rule of law. law under your leadership, the diversion of resources from ongoing criminal investigations, and the testimony you provided under oath to Congress. He asked for the officials to preserve

information about the investigation and send any details to his office. Now, Fields was represented by the nonprofit Government Accountability Project and David Lothman, who was a former top official in the Justice Department's National Security Section. So I have to appreciate and thank all of these whistleblowers, including the multiple anonymous sources who led me to the Epstein file stuff, and that continue to come forward about what they witnessed and what they're continuing to witness in this administration. All right, everybody, it's your favorite time of the show. It's time to hit me in the head with a bat, but we have to take a quick break.

Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. It's time for your favorite part of the show. It's time to hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat.

This week, more court orders to release grand jury materials over to a judge for potential vindictive and selective prosecution consideration. Yay! Now, this one comes in the case of the Harvard Research Scientist indicted for having frog embryos while traveling. Dun, dun, dun, do you remember this case?

The frog embryo. This is Kassania Petrova, U.S. v. Kassania Petrova, right? A Harvard research scientist. And in this case, Judge Sorokin, in the U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts, has upheld a magistrate judge's order for the government to produce certain discovery and grand jury instructions to her, to the defense. Magistrate Judge Dean's determination that Petrova made a sufficient showing to entitle her to certain discovery. That is going to stand. So in order to, you know, get a

vindictive and selective prosecution discovery thing going, you've got to get a judge to determine that there is sufficient evidence that there might be vindictive and selective prosecution. And there's a lot of different factors for that. We've gone over that in earlier episodes on this show. But Petrova believes that she's being vindictively in selective prosecuted because she's works at Harvard. She's on a visa. She's a scientist. And Trump has made public statements about that. And so is the U.S. attorney in this case.

And so she asked for limited discovery and what the grand jury instructions were. Like, what did the prosecutors here tell the grand jury in my case? Now, the magistrate judge ruled that Petrova made that showing and ordered the discovery. And, of course, the Justice Department appealed. And this is the ruling from the district judge on that appeal, denying it. And here's some quotes. Judge Dean, that's

the magistrate judge, Judge Dean's assessment that Petrova is entitled to know the instructions the government provided to the grand jury concerning the smuggling charge is entitled to deference. And the government has shown no reason to disturb it. The attorney had provided a sworn declaration that attested during his 35-year career, he was not aware of any person having been prosecuted for smuggling without having been processed by customs officers for failure to declare, nor could he recall ever seeing smuggling charges brought for failing to declare a research sample regardless of the traveler's willfulness. In the circumstances presented, the foregoing suffices to satisfy Petrov's burden of supplying some evidence of discriminatory effect as relevant

as relevant case law requires. This cited declaration from this attorney comprises a credible showing that Petrova was prosecuted due to her status as a Harvard-affiliated researcher and a J-1 visa holder. Facts which some evidence before the court also shows placed her in the crosshairs of those presently controlling the executive branch. The same declaration also credibly shows that other travelers who have willfully failed to declare research samples or similar items but were not Harvard-affiliated visa holders, were not treated the same way. Thus, the government's challenge to judge Dean's order

compelling it to produce discovery concerning Petrova's selective prosecution defense fails. Right? Because one of the things you have to do to prove that you've been selectively and vindictively prosecuted is to show that others similarly situated were not prosecuted. For example, when I posted a picture of seashells

that spell out 8647, I was not indicted. When Amazon sold thousands and thousands of products that say 8647 or 8646 on them, nobody was indicted. But Comey was. Seems a little selective, right? And what this attorney in a sworn declaration on behalf of Petrova said is, I don't even have any cases to compare this to. Nobody in my 35-year career has faced this kind of.

vendetta. That's just like, like no, like we can't find any similarly situated people. But we have found people who willfully failed to declare research samples that were not treated the same way. And they are not Harvard affiliated visa holders. So here's another quote from the ruling. At the center of the government's argument on this issue is its attempts to separate the motives of the prosecutors in the district from those of immigration officers and other executive branch actors who played a role in the events concerning Petrova. But for present purposes, in this case, the record belies the distinction the government proposes.

In other words, the facts say that what you're contending here government is bullshit for two reasons. First, the close timing of crucial events in this prosecution and proceedings concerning Petrovas' ongoing habeas matter in Vermont. For example, the filing of a criminal complaint charging Petrova's. charging Petrova only two days before a hearing on a dispositive motion in her habeas case? That timing's weird. And the unsealing of the complaint coupled with a public statement by the United States attorney within hours of the habeas hearing ties the evidence concerning motive to the decision

makers here, at least for discovery purposes. Second, and relatedly, the public posting of a videotaped statement by the U.S. Attorney overseeing this prosecution, referencing Petrova's Harvard affiliation and visa, and endorsing the actions of other relevant agency actors, can by itself reasonably be viewed as a meaningful piece of objective evidence tending to show the requisite vindictiveness. You put out a video statement referencing her Harvard affiliation and visa status. That's enough right there.

Now, the judge goes on to say, because the government has identified no legal or factual error in Judge Dean's analysis of Petrova's entitlement to discovery, and because the record and the law plainly support her conclusion in the circumstances presented, the government's third and final Perry fails. And then there's this footnote. Judge Dean is not the only federal judge to have considered the events that led to Petrova's charges and discerned an evidentiary basis suggesting vindictiveness or improper selectivity on the part of the public officials who took action against her. Judge Dean's not the only one. They cite, this judge cites the district judge in her habeas case brought this up. And the district

judge that presided over her mandamus petition brought this up as well. So Judge Dean's not the only judge here. So government, you fail, sit down, bye. Now they have to turn over in the frog embryo case, how they instructed the grand jury. And of course, we're going to cover that here on the show. Now, also, a couple other things going on that I sort of wanted to bring your attention to, just little stories here. The Ninth Circuit has stayed the judge's ruling, temporarily reinstating Roger Rogoff as a U.S. attorney.

Remember, he was court appointed, and then within an hour fired by email, then he sued. Then a lower court judge said he's likely going to win on the merits, so entered a restraining order reinstating him to his job. Last week, we were like, that's going to be a little uncomfortable. Rogoff himself is like, I'm not, you guys go ahead. I'll not work there until the pendency of my case plays out. And the Ninth Circuit also put that stay into effect, the appellate court. So we'll continue to watch that case to see what happens ultimately. But during the pendency of the lawsuit he's not going to be the U.S. attorney, which makes sense. We'll see how that ends up turning out. And then something else kind of along the lines of

hit me in the head with a bat stuff. There's a bunch of stuff right now going on with unsealing documents and prosecutors' names in the Broadview Six case. And once we have a clear picture of all that, and I are going to discuss that in depth on next week's episode. But keep your eye on some of these stories coming out to prep for that. Because there's a lot of back and forth going on there in that case with regard to what's going to be unsealed, what the judge, Judge Perry, April Perry has decided must be or the public has a right to see, must be seen by the public or the public has a right to see.

Including stuff the DOJ is trying to hide, like the names of the prosecutors who were in the grand jury room doing the malfeasance stuff. And as we know, one of those prosecutors, Mecklenburg, has quit and is now working on the side of the Broadview Six defendants, right? So, because she was pushed at every turn by Butros and that U.S. Attorney's Office and, you know, the Trump acolytes to do these things.

And then finally she's like, I'm out. And then they tried to throw her under the bus. And she's like, no, no, no, no. So she's not standing for that. So all of that, I think, is going to come to a head over the course of the next week, and it'll be ripe for us to cover on the next episode of Unjustified. Also, Trump is trying to delay argument in the 11th Circuit for the release of volume two of Jack Smith's final report. You'll remember a couple days after Jack Smith testified,

and that whole Eric Schmidt thing happened with the Hawks and the Hawkeyes, 11th Circuit moved the arguments from January of next year up to the day before the midterm elections, oral arguments, in this case, about whether or not to release volume two of Jack Smith's report, whether canon is the 11th Circuit going to force Judge Cannon to drop her bullshit, you know, order barring its release based on nothing. I don't even think she has the jurisdiction to do it. Anyway, they moved those arguments up. Trump appealed that. And then, of course, The Knight Institute responded to that. And once there's a decision, I think they'll probably keep the arguments for November

2nd, but we'll also bring that to you next week. So all of that coming your way when Andy returns. And now, everyone, it's time for listener questions. And if you have a question, you would like us to answer here on the air, click the link in the show notes and fill out the form. And that is how you submit your questions to Andy and me. mean. All right, first step, a lengthy, legal-ish question for the brilliant minds of AG and AM. I have a question about the language we're using to describe Trump, his administration, and the Republican Party.

We hear a lot about corruption, self-dealing, conflicts of interest, hypocrisy, abuse of power, actions involving Russia, the misuse of public or private funds. But we also hear the word treason used very frequently, particularly by Trump and Republicans, to describe Democrats. So my question is, what's the actual legal and constitutional distinction between corruption and treason and where, if anywhere, do Trump's actions, his family business dealings, or the conduct of people in his political orbit cross from corruption or abusive power into what would legitimately be considered treason? I'm especially interested in separating the legal reality from the political rhetoric, what conduct would actually have to occur for something to meet the definition of treason,

and are we sometimes using that word when what we really mean is corruption, obstruction, self-dealing, abuse of power, et cetera. And then more broadly, if Democrats believe the public is witnessing serious corruption abuse is of power, how can they articulate that case in language that is as clear, emotionally powerful and memorable as the labels and accusations that Trump and his supporters use without simply resorting to the same kind of name calling? Well, to hit that second question first, we can't really, right? We don't, first of all, lie about stuff. mostly on this side. We aren't the best at messaging.

The media isn't the best at carrying that message. I remember covering the Mueller report and being like, I wish you could fit the Mueller report on a bumper sticker. But you can't. And sometimes we're so wonky about stuff that it just doesn't come across. Now, I think a great study in how to get better at it

is to watch the recent debate, at least the clips maybe that Aaron Rupar brought to your blue sky or Twitter, from the recent debate between John Ossoff and his opponent in Georgia, Collins, Mike Collins. He is very good at, you know, attacking complicated questions in simple terms. But he's also using emotionally charged language that is truth-based, like how Mike Collins basically employed half the Third Reich on his staff. or that if John Lewis were marching across the Pettus Bridge today,

Mike Collins would be grabbing a billy club. Those kinds of very short, powerful kind of punch you in the face sentences are the way we counter that. I think Abdul al-Sayed also had some great zingers. Troy Jackson, you can't eat road salt, those kinds of things. I think, or so I study, a study in emotionally powerful, like, one-liners, I think John Ossoff is up at the top of the list right now. And I think that's where we need to look. And I think folks know that. They can see the success of those clips going viral and what they mean to Americans and how it hits with a lot of us. Now, as to your first question about treason, I've talked about this.

a little bit online and some over on some other podcast, Daily Beans Talk. Treason mostly has to do with foreign entities. Aiding and abetting our foreign adversaries or helping our foreign adversaries or taking up arms against the United States yourself, like physical. There has to be like a physical taking up of arms. in an attempt to overthrow the government. Right? Now, Jack Smith didn't bring treason charges,

didn't even bring seditious conspiracy charges against Donald Trump. Those are very, very difficult to prove. And generally, we have to be at war with a foreign invader or a foreign entity, which we are not right now because Congress hasn't declared war in order for Trump to be considered abetting

an enemy to overthrow the government. in the United States. So treason's way out there. And I don't think anything that Donald Trump, he came close when he called for Iran to take out San Diego, take out Los Angeles. But there's an argument to be made that he's demented and that what he meant was something different.

Wouldn't it be bad if? But let them take out. Then he did it again. He doubled down, doubled down on it. in a subsequent rally, right? Is that aiding and abetting a country we are at declared war with? It comes real close, but then you have to figure out, you have to think about are we, you know, in a technical war.

So anyway, great questions. I'm not a lawyer, though, but, you know, really great questions. I've contemplated this myself. and it's just so hard to use hyperbolic untrue language. Now, you know, for pundits or protesters or on your signs and stuff, sure, man, use it. It's colloquial. Then it becomes a colloquial term and not a legal term, right? And so that's a little bit different.

But anyway, thank you so much for that question. And we've got time for one other quick one. Hey, y'all, love your podcast. Now that we see what can happen when a rogue president has control of law enforcement, can we amend the Constitution? So can we amend the Constitution? Before I read the rest of it, the answer is probably not easily. So that the Attorney General is elected instead of being appointed or something.

Right now, the courts are trying to stop Trump, but without law enforcement to back them up, their rulings have no teeth. This is such a good point. Personally, I would not want the Attorney General to be elected because we could elect a bad one, right, to check a good president. You know how people split tickets a lot? And I don't mean like a bad one, but like a more conservative one. Right. And I think that the president we elect should have that power. And a constitutional amendment is kind of out of the question right now because Congress is so split.

And then you have to have states ratify. And it's we still, we could spend 100 years. We couldn't get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. So it's a pretty big stretch, but there's other things we can do, right? You talk about the courts trying to stop Trump but without law enforcement to back them up. Something we can do and something the judicial branch has asked for is to move the United States Marshal Service from the executive branch under Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice into the judicial branch so that the judicial branch controls the U.S. Marshal Service.

So if somebody needs to be arrested for contempt or if a judge, like what Boseberg might do if he's greenlit here in his contempt proceeding in the Alien Enemies Act case, if he goes ahead and appoints a independent prosecutor for criminal contempt against the Department of Justice and decides that, yes, they did, you know, participate in criminal contempt. They did commit criminal contempt against this court. Todd Blanche isn't going to do anything. Nobody can be arrested. Nothing can be enforced. But if we have a little law enforcement arm so that the court can enforce its inherent power granted to it in Article 3 of the Constitution, things might change a little. That's something smaller we can do that would make a big difference and is very achievable, by the way.

Simply moving the U.S. Marshals into the judicial branch would just take a act of Congress. So something else to think about in 2029 when we can't. get the White House back. All right, everybody, thank you again for hanging out with me, Solo. Thank you again for submitting your questions. Always thoughtful, always incredible. Send them to us by clicking on the link in the show notes and filling out the form. Again, I promise Andy will be back next week. I appreciate your patience. And man, just what a week. And as usual, we have to wonder what's going to happen between now and then. But we already know a couple things we'll be updating you on when Andy returns.

Thank you so much for listening. I'm Allison Gill. and this is Unjustified. Unjustified is written and executive produced by Alison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hawke, with art and web design by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. The theme music for Unjustified is written and performed by Ben Folds, and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network,

a collection of creator-owned independent podcast dedicated to news, politics, and justice. For more information, please visit MSWMedia.com.