Jack - FBI Ices Out Minnesota

Episode Date: January 11, 2026

Minnesota leaders push for the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to be included in the FBI's investigation into the killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis.DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s federal indictment of the alleged pipe bomber may have come too late to be within the federal statute of limitations.As expected, a federal judge has ruled that the Trump-appointed US Attorney in the Northern District of New York was unlawfully appointed, and a separate judge has ordered Lindsey Halligan to address why her name is still appearing on indictments in the Eastern District of Virginia.Congressional Representatives are asking a judge to appoint a special master and an independent monitor to compel the Department of Justice to release the Epstein Files pursuant to the law.Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod? Thank you CB Distillery!Use promo code UNJUST at CBDistillery.com for 25% off your purchase. Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn’t on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

MSW Media. Minnesota leaders push for the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to be included in the FBI's investigation into the killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis. DC U.S. Attorney Janine Piro's federal indictment of the alleged pipe bomber may have come too late to be within the federal statute of limitations. As expected, a federal judge has ruled

that the Trump appointed U.S. attorney in the Northern District of New York was unlawfully appointed. And a separate judge has ordered Lindsay Halligan to address why her name is still appearing on indictments in the Eastern District of Virginia. And congressional representatives are asking a judge to appoint a special master and or an independent monitor to compel the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files pursuant to the law. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 51. of Unjustified. It is Sunday, January 11th. It is 2026. I'm Alison Gill. And I am Andy McCabe.

Hey, Andy. In case Andy's sound is a little different. He's not in his studio. He is, we could play Where in the World is Andrew McCabe? And he's somewhere out in the world, globe hopping. So, just wanted everybody to have a heads up for that. I'm so glad you're back, Andy. I mean, I know you're not back here, but you know, you're back on the show. I'm grateful you were able to take a well-earned vacation there. But I'm glad you're back this week with everything that's happening because last week we had a bonus Q&A episode here and on Unjustified. So please continue to send in your thoughtful questions by clicking the link in the show notes. And then, of course, this past week, a 10-year veteran of ICE shot and killed a motorist that was clearly fleeing from the scene. However, the FBI is refusing to share evidence with Minnesota state authorities, whether it's the BCA, which is the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, or the Hennepin County District Attorney, who has also said that she's opened an investigation into this matter and is looking for more evidence.

But before we get to that, let's give a little background here. Yeah, definitely. So, okay, CBS News reports that Minneapolis is really. reeling after an ice agent fatally shot a woman on the city's south side on Wednesday morning. The victim, 37-year-old Renee Good, described herself as a, quote, poet and writer and wife and mom, who had recently moved from Kansas City, Missouri. The agent who shot Goode was a member of a specially trained tactical unit within the ICE enforcement and removal operations, a senior department of Homeland Security official confirmed to CBS News. He was previously dragged by a car when trying to arrest a man in Bloomington, Minnesota six months ago.

Court records from that incident indicate that the officer, the DHS, says shot good was Jonathan Ross. Yes, and according to CBS News, Minneapolis leaders, along with Governor Tim Walls, are pushing for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to be part of a joint investigation with the FBI. While they were originally slated to work together, the BCA accused the federal. federal agency of cutting off their access to case materials such as seen evidence and interviews forcing them to withdraw from the probe. The case will now be investigated exclusively by the FBI. And Andy, correctly, if I'm wrong, usually the FBI partners with local law enforcement to conduct investigations like this. I mean, they did so in the investigation of the school shooting that killed Charlie Kirk. They did so for the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. They did so in the

murder of George Floyd in 2020, which happened, by the way, just eight blocks from this shooting that happened last week. But this time, the FBI is icing out local investigators. How difficult is that going to make it for BCA to conduct their investigation? I mean, they've completely withdrawn. Yeah, it's not just difficult. It's almost impossible. And I should start this by saying that this is something that the FBI in the modern era, so the post-Hover era, would never even consider doing under any circumstances. And as you've cited those recent examples, the FBI has a long history of cooperating with local police on these sorts of investigations. I should also point out that the state has a distinctive and independent interest to investigate a killing that takes place

within state jurisdiction. So completely independent of the federal government, the state has a compelling state interest to run an investigation here and find out if somebody might be guilty of homicide. But as a practical matter, they can't do that if they don't have access to the evidence. The most crucial piece of that evidence being, of course, interviews and post-incident statements made by the people involved. So the people who may have fired their weapons or the other agents who were there on the scene and didn't fire their weapons, but may have been involved in it. And, of course, like witnesses who were there and saw what happened. So without access to that sort of evidence, without access to those post-incident statements, things like ballistics, all that sort of stuff,

it's going to be basically impossible for the state to conduct a thorough and complete investigation. Yeah. And some updated news, like from the Associated Press, for example, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriart. said that federal investigators immediately took possession of the vehicle, goods vehicle after she was fatally shot. And since then, Minnesota investigators have had no access to the vehicle or any forensic evaluations conducted on the vehicle by the FBI. She emphasized she wasn't criticizing the FBI's ability to investigate,

but was concerned her office wouldn't be able to follow proper protocols for fatal shootings that happened in their jurisdiction. There's also crucial evidence including bullet shell casings, witness interviews, and videos. And that sort of answers a part of a question that I was going to ask you about. When the FBI comes on the scene, generally they collect all the physical evidence. I was wondering, are you saying that it's pretty much impossible for the local authorities to do this without the FBI? Because the FBI has collected all the physical evidence? Well, it's basically impossible for them to run their own investigation without access to that stuff.

it's not uncommon for the FBI to maybe take the lead on the evidence collection, especially if it's a smaller police department, which may not be the case here, but in other cases it is. But that's always done after there's an agreement by both sides, both the FBI and the relevant department, to work together. And so if you know that you're going to get access to everything the FBI collects, then you'd be okay with them actually collecting it, maintaining custody, having their experts evaluated, things like that. So the FBI scooping it all up is not new, but typically they only do that after there's been an explicit agreement that they will share the results of that evidence collection. Yeah, and they did have an explicit agreement to do so, but then the Trump appointed U.S. attorney in Minnesota stepped in and said that that was going, that evidence sharing was not going to happen. And apart from that, for a state to prosecute a federal officer, there's some legal evaluation that has to be done there. And the Hennepin County DA has done that and says that they do have jurisdiction to investigate a federal officer in this particular instance, this federal officer, and has now asked for more evidence from the public. But, you know, a lot of folks are saying you should be able to arrest this guy based on the video evidence alone.

But I wanted to ask you, don't you generally need the vehicle and the ballistics and the shell casings and the physical evidence to put into evidence in a court case, for example, if you were going to bring somebody to trial or prosecute them, don't you generally need that physical evidence to make a case? Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, the video is extraordinary. It's graphic. It definitely tells us a lot. But it's not the entire story of what happened there. To present an effective case to a grand jury or later to a trial jury, you really need access to all of this stuff. The ballistics, the physical evidence collected at the scenes. I said before, the witness statements and all that kind of thing. Now, there's a lot of states in the country that actually require in every law enforcement shooting that the facts and details of that shooting be presented to a grand jury. So that was the case in New York City where I was a, where I was a street agent, when any time anyone in our office was involved in a shooting incident, the case would be presented to a grand jury. They're typically not indicted because the prosecutor will go in front of that grand jury and say, this is what happened. This is the agent who, you know,

who fired their weapon. They'll call the agent in and examine them under oath. And then they may even recommended the jury not indicting if it's a pretty clearly authorized law enforcement action. But nevertheless, there's a process that has to go forward and you need access to the people and the evidence in order to do that. So this is a really unprecedented and bold and I think very destructive thing here. Not that this is in any way the most important aspect of this, But there is a relationship that the FBI depends upon with their local partners. And this is the kind of thing that could drive a rift between this police department and the FBI for years and years to come. Could be the kind of thing that causes them to pull all their officers off of FBI task force, things like that.

We've seen that in other cities. So, yeah, the impact of this is massive on this case, but could include other things as well. And one last question that I have. If the FBI in any way mishandles the evidence, chain of custody, things like that, can that taint the evidence for the state case as well? If it is eventually shared, you know what I'm getting at here? Yeah. So what you would need in that situation, if the evidence is eventually shared with them and they're able to cooperate, the FBI people, whether they're agents or evidence technicians or what have you, who took. custody that evidence or conducted specific examinations on it, things like that, would actually

appear in the state process. They'd appear in front of the grand jury or in a trial or what have you to testify as to the results of their examinations, that sort of thing. So, yeah, you need FBI people supporting that state effort in the same way that you might need state people supporting any federal prosecution that could potentially go forward. Well, like you said, we've all seen these videos. A new piece of video evidence came out today. It was released to a right-wing media outlet, and it's the cell phone footage that the shooter himself, his name, by the way, is Jonathan Ross, was taking when this happened. New York Times has done. Oh, and by the way, I don't know if you saw this piece of news, Andy, because I know you were on a plane. But as he's taking that video, he keeps his phone in his left hand. He has it in his right hand. He has it in his right. hand, he puts it in his left hand, draws his pistol, fires the shots, doesn't drop his phone, and then you can hear him say, fucking bitch, as she slams into the pole down the street.

So I, and they released that because they thought it was going to be exculpatory because they think that it showed that he was somehow actually hit by this vehicle. But the New York Times analysis of the video that slows it down show that both of his feet were planted on the side of the vehicle when he fired the first shot. So what kind of evidence is it, is that, I mean, I know that that might sway a jury, but legally speaking, is that muttering the phrase fucking bitch under your breath after you shoot somebody? Does that come into play in evidence at all? Well, first of all, that if there's a trial at whatever level, that statement by the, by the defendant, absolutely comes in. And although it might not be technically evidence of guilt or, you know,

go to the proof of any element of the offense is a horrible thing to put in front of a jury. I mean, it makes the defendant look terrible, right? In that moment, you know, imagine the difference if he's caught on tape saying something like, oh, my God, oh, my God, what just happened? That would support the, you know, an inference on the part of the jury that, might maybe he didn't really intend to do this but to say something like fucking bitch as she you know she's dying behind the wheel of her car is uh it it it it could be interpreted by the jury as being a really callous um you know intentional statement that shows a level of malicious intent yeah i have to say too looking at that video i mean it is just it's horrific from a law enforcement

kind of tactics point of view like that guy, what if he thought he was in danger from that vehicle, all he had to do is take one step to the side to get out of the way. Like that doesn't, you know, you, we, I, you know, in the FBI, our rules of engagement and, and rules about use of force specifically explicitly forbid firing at a vehicle for the purpose of stopping. The other thing I noticed was if you see any of the photographs of the windshield of the vehicle, that shot that goes in the windshield so that would likely be the first shot is very in the bottom right corner of the windshield as you look at it, and very close to the driver's side mirror. Just a couple of inches in from the side, the A pillar of the car, the piece of metal that goes down alongside of that windshield. If you look at the video, his partner, the guy who had his hands in the car, his face was right there.

So had he missed that first shot, he could have very easily killed his partner. I mean, he literally fired right into the face, you know, inches away from the face of one of his team members. There's nothing about that, about where he was positioned in, what he did that was tactically sound, in my view. my opinion. It's just wrong on on so many levels. And I think even though these use of force cases are very, very hard to convict on generally because the standard for police use of force is incredibly low. It's basically if the officer with the facts known by him at that moment from his unique individual point of view believed that he was in danger, you know, in some sort of lethal danger of danger of death or serious bodily injury, then the shooting is justified. And that fits to almost every scenario because the court has to analyze that from the perspective, not from the perspective of like a reasonable person, but from the perspective of the officer involved.

even with that low standard, this is an ugly case. This is a really ugly case. So, yeah, if it was being handled normally, I'd say that this agent could be in a lot of trouble. But, you know, the way it's being handled enters a whole new level of mischief into this thing. Yeah, it seems like an easy case to bring unless you don't have any physical evidence because the FBI is hoarding it, which like you said, unprecedented, since who, That's not the way that's not the way you do things. That and also

if you fear that somebody's going to weaponize a vehicle against you, you don't walk in front of it with your cell phone filming. You just don't approach a vehicle because he was at the side, at the passenger side, and then walked around the front of the vehicle

twice actually, if you watch the long video, he's looped around that vehicle twice with his cell phone out recording. And that doesn't scream to me fear of, you know, imminent danger. Yeah. Certainly doesn't comport with anything that the government put out. The three statements from Trump, Noem and Tricia McLaughlin at DHS.

First of all, they contradict each other. And second of all, Christy Noams especially, to call this woman a domestic terrorist. And then to say, her account of the facts, Andy, if you watch the video, is that the agents had gotten stuck in the snow because of the inclement weather in Minnesota and they were out of their car trying to push their car, free their car from the snow when she drove at them to try to kill them. That's her account of what happened. So we've, we've seen a lot of, from DHS and Tricia McLaughlin, you know, incidents where they claim that people are weaponizing their vehicles against ICE agents. Most of these have been thrown out of court or disproven with video body cam evidence. But without the FBI handing over this evidence to the

DA in Hennepin County or to the BCA in Minnesota, I'm not very hopeful that they will be able to continue a prosecution without that evidence. Yeah, I agree. I think there's great, great concerns. I'm deeply concerned about whether or not the state will even have the opportunity to do what they are required to do here. And I think the way that the FBI is handling this so far, so far, is it's it's disgraceful. Yeah, straight up. All right. Well, I mean, not that you have as much experience as someone like, say, Dan Bonjino,

on these matters. But he's gone now. He has left the FBI back to his private life. But it is very disappointing to see the FBI refusing to cooperate in this investigation. We'll keep an eye on this story. We've got more news to get to. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody. It's AG. If you want a simple 2026 resolution, start with sleep. When your sleep is better, you show up with more energy and handle stress like a functional adult, which makes every other goal easier. This is why I'm reaching for CBD from CB Distillery. Over 90% of CBD customers say CBD helps them sleep better. CB Distillery also offers support for stress, mood, and post-workout pain, and you can shop by benefit to find the right fit. I want to thank CB Distillery for sponsoring

this episode, and they're offering a deal for you. Get 25% off your entire purchase at cbdistillery.com and use promo code unjust. Now, I started using CB Distillery because I wanted something that supported recovery and sleep without making my routine complicated, without making me groggy. Now, the first product I fell in love with was the relief stick. After a workout or after a long day hunched over the keyboard, I swipe it on tight calves or shoulders and the cooling effect hits right away. It's amazing. I also keep their CBD sleep gummies for nights where I can't sleep.

They help me transition into bedtime instead of staying trapped in that half a week state for hours where my mind won't stop rushing. We're like racing. So I fall asleep more easily. I wake up feeling rested and ready to go. Better sleep. means I handle stress better during the day, and it also boosts my immune system during this flu and cold season.

Everything from CB Distillery is premium quality, third party tested, free of artificial dyes and fillers. They have over 2 million happy customers and a 100% money-back guarantee, so you're not taking any risk. So if you want better support for sleep, stress, mood, or post-workout pain, CB Distillery makes it easy to choose what fits. So if you're ready to start the year off, right, go to CBdistillery.com and use our code unjust for 25% off.

That's cbdistillery.com code unjust. One last time, cbdistillery.com. Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. All right, everybody, welcome back. This week we saw the fifth Trump appointed U.S. attorney disqualified by a judge because they were unlawfully appointed. And we knew this was going to happen. Andy, you and I talked about this guy, Sarkone, who was just going to be a matter of time.

This is the guy in upstate New York who appointed himself his own deputy so that Trump could elevate him to. interim U.S. attorney circumventing the law. He's also the U.S. attorney criminally investigating the New York Attorney General Letitia James, not over mortgage fraud, but for her fraud investigation into the Trump Organization, which ended in a $480 million fine that has since been reduced. But he had a bunch of subpoenas out for the New York Attorney General investigating her investigation. Yeah, that's absolutely right. So let's dive into this one. Jacob Newton writes for democracy docket. He says, a federal judge Thursday ruled that John Sarkone, President Donald

Trump's temporary pick as acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York, has been serving unlawfully in his post for months. The decision from U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield, appointed by former President Barack Obama, makes Sarkone the fifth Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorney deemed illegitimate by federal courts during the president's second term. Like many of Trump's other temporary U.S. attorneys, Sarkone has used his post to target Trump's political enemies. In August, as I said, he attempted to serve subpoenas against New York Attorney General Lettisha James's office that were in part retaliation for its successful civil fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization for fraudulent business practices. Lettia James, one of Trump's foremost adversaries, challenged Sarkone's subpoenas, arguing that they could not be executed because he was serving unlawfully. as the acting U.S. attorney when he sought them. In her order Thursday,

Schofield agreed with the argument from James's office, ruling that, quote, Sarkone's service was and is unlawful because it bypassed the statutory requirements that govern who may exercise the powers of a U.S. attorney. The judge noted that U.S. attorneys must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

When a vacancy occurs, federal law allows the president to fill the position but only for a limited amount of time. If a U.S. attorney is not officially confirmed to fill the vacancy before the end of that time limit, federal law then gives judges in the federal district the authority to appoint a permanent attorney. Yeah, it's that whole checks and balances,

balance of power thing that we talk about so much in the Constitution. Now, in July, judges in the Northern District of New York refused to extend Sarkone's tenure. However, that same day, the DOJ shifted titles and made personnel changes. within the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York to keep Sarkone in power. Quote, federal law does not permit such a workaround. That's what Judge Schofield wrote. She went on to say, when the executive branch of government skirts restraints put in place by Congress

and then uses that power to subject political adversaries to criminal investigations, it acts without lawful authorities. So not only did this judge determine that this vacancy appointment, an interim appointment was unlawful. The judge went to on, like, to say that when you're the executive branch skirts restraints from Congress and then subjects adversaries to criminal investigations, like she goes all out on this one. I love that. I mean, that is what's known as a side swipe.

Like, she didn't have to hit that car driving down the street, but she just swung over and tagged it on her way by declaring the investigation to be. politically motivated, essentially. The judge added that a growing body of persuasive authority reinforced her conclusion against Sarkone, noting that several other judges have also rejected the DOJ's attempt

to circumvent the confirmation process to keep loyalists atop key U.S. attorney offices. Shofield cited the Third Circuit Court of Appeals disqualification of Alina Haba, one of Trump's former lawyers, as temporary U.S. attorney, for New Jersey. After the appeals court ruling, Haba resigned. She resigned from a job that she never had. I just

resigned as the prime minister from Australia, myself, Andy. I'm so sorry to hear that. I thought you would have done a great job. That's okay. It was fun while it lasted. The judge also noted that a federal judge recently ruled that Trump attorney Pam Bondi, General Attorney General Pam Bondi, had violated the constitutional and federal vacancy laws to appoint Lindsay Halligan, who also formerly worked as one of Trump's personal attorneys as acting U.S. attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, however, has continued to lay claim to her job, even dropping acting or interim from her title in court filings, though she was never confirmed by the Senate or federal judges in the Eastern District of Virginia. Earlier this week, a federal judge ordered Halligan to explain how,

in light of her disqualification, her continued claim to the position he didn't constitute making a false or misleading statement to the court. In addition to Halligan and Haba, courts have also ruled that Sigal Chata and Bill Assaley were illegally serving as the acting U.S. attorneys for the District of Nevada and the Central District of California, respectively. However, both remain at their posts. Right. Sarkona also sought to subpoena James's office for its long-running case against the National Rifle Association. The subpoenas were part of investigations into whether James's office violated constitutional or legal rights through its civil suits against Trump and the NRA. Before he tried to bring the subpoenas against James, Sarkone appeared to violate internal DOJ policies

around commenting on ongoing investigations by publicly confirming the department's investigation into James over mortgage fraud allegation. Yeah, so let's talk a little bit more about the order issued to Lindsay Halligan. So NBC reports that U.S. District Judge David Novak of Richmond issued a three-page order demanding to know why Halligan is still serving in the post. Howigan, who unsuccessfully prosecuted former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, is also referred to as U.S. attorney by the Justice Department in official documents. The judge's order is unusual because he issued it on his own, not at the request of defense attorneys. It came in a case involving a carjacking and attempted bank

robbery suspect who was indicted last month. This is, this below is my mind that he did this sua sponte on his own. Nobody asked him to. And I, I want to let you know. I don't know if NBC is going to get into this, but this is a Trump appointed judge. Now, Judge Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond in writing, quote, explaining the basis for identification of herself as the United state's attorney, notwithstanding Judge Curry's contrary ruling. She shall also set forth the reasons why this court should not strike Ms. Halligan's identification of herself as a U.S. attorney from the indictment in this matter. The judge's order goes on to say that Halligan, quote, shall further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement.

And that's a big deal, because that's something you can be disbarred for, or at least referred to the bar for. Novak also alluded to potential disciplinary action and demanded that Hallecon sign her response herself. So in other words, don't slough this off on some assistant. You are going to have to make your own statement to the court about this. Novak acknowledged Tuesday that the November ruling regarding Halligan's appointment had been appealed, but said that since the order had not been paused, it remains the, quote, binding precedent of the district and is not subject to being ignored. Algin's response is due this Tuesday, January 13th. I am so glad he ended on that note because this feels like an issue that's constantly blown off by this administration. You might disagree with

the judge's ruling. You might disagree on legal grounds. You might disagree with their reasoning, whatever. It doesn't matter. It's still binding precedent. It's law until you appeal it and it gets overturned. Like, you don't have the right to just ignore the judicial rulings that you don't like or disagree with. Yeah. And again, for the Trump appointed judge to just on his own say, explain to me how this isn't lying and sign your name to it and tell me what you're going to do about this because again, it has been appealed, but it's the order that says that you were unlawfully appointed has not been overturned, nor has it been stayed. There's nothing that's staying that order. It's binding precedent right now. So very interesting. That's due. What did you, when did you say?

Oh, January 13th, that's this Tuesday. So we'll keep an eye on this for you. I know a lot of other court watchers are going to keep an eye on this as well. Because this, the way that, the way that that the judge says this, the words that he uses make it feel like he wants to make a referral to the disciplinary bar. You know, the disciplinary bar association of her district, of her state, false and misleading statements in a, you know, that verbiage makes me think that he wants to put an end to this charade that she shouldn't be there. Yeah, I mean, let's hope so, right? You and I have been saying this from the very beginning, the way that Halligan has conducted herself since being thrown into this role, she is on her way to disbarment proceedings. And so this might

be the shortest circuit there. Yeah, we'll see. All right, everybody, we've got more news to get too, but we have to take another quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. Okay, this past Thursday, representatives Roe-Connor and Thomas Massey, the leaders of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, sent a letter to Judge Paul Engelmeyer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York requesting the appointment of a special master to compel the Department of Justice to release the full Epstein Files as required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Yeah, another special master.

I mean, how many special masters have you and I been through on our various podcasts, my friend? We had a special master for the classified documents case, but that's... got shut down by the 11th Circuit. We had a special master for Michael Cohen's search. We had a special master for Rudy Giuliani's. We had a special master for Letitia, James, who needed to appoint somebody to oversee the, you know, be the financial babysitter, basically,

of the Trump organization pending the fraud, the outcome of the fraud case. And I think in every instance, the special master has been retired Judge Barbara Jones. So it would be interesting to see if she's tapped here again, if the judge decides to do this. So let's read some excerpts from Kana and Massey's letter to Judge Engelmeyer. They say we write jointly as members of the U.S. House of Representatives and as amici

curi in the above caption matter. We respectfully request permission to file this brief as amici curi, given our unique expertise as the leads of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. We're writing to suggest the appointment of a special master and independent monitor to compel the Department of Justice to make mandatory production under the Act. As the leads of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, we have urgent and grave concerns about the Department of Justice's failure to comply with the Act, as well as the Department's violations of this court's order. On December 19, 2025, the Department of Justice released only a portion of the responsive materials.

That release, however, did not comply with the statute as written. The department failed to meet the act's requirements in multiple respects, including missing the statutory deadline, asserting common law privileges that the act does not permit, and applying extensive redactions that appear inconsistent with the act's express prohibition on withholding or redacting records to protect politically exposed persons. DOJ has acknowledged that,

despite tens of thousands of manual redactions and quality control checks, information that victims believe should have been redacted was nonetheless posted publicly. DOJ also represented to the court that it interprets the Act to require publication of grand jury and discovery materials unless a statutory basis for withholding applies, with victim privacy protected through the appropriate redactions rather than categorical withholding. Consistent with those representations and with the court's order directing DOJ to certify that victim identifying information has been protected, the Act allows narrowly tailored and consistently applied redactions, not the wholesale removal of records after release, or assertions of privilege and consistent with the Act.

Whether the Department's actions complied with those limits is a fact-specific question that would benefit from a neutral independent review. In addition, the DOJ has not complied with Section 3 of the Act, which requires the Attorney General within 15 days of the deadly death. for release to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, identifying the categories of records released and withheld, and summarizing all redactions and their legal basis. To date, no such report has been provided. Without it, there is no authoritative accounting of what records exist, what has been withheld, or why, making effective oversight and judicial review

far more difficult. Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act. Thus, in our capacity as amici curi, we suggest pursuant to its inherent authority and federal rule of civil procedure 53, this court appoint a special master and or independent monitor for the purpose of ensuring all the documents and electronically stored information are immediately made public to be in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. We also suggest the independent monitor be given authority to notify and prepare reports to this court about the true nature and extent of the document production and if improper redactions or other improper conduct is taking place. We also suggest this court compel testimony from the person or persons most knowledgeable from

the DOJ, Southern District of New York office, about the production that has been made, the pending productions, and the representations that have previously been made to this court. Absent and independent process, as outlined above, we do not believe the DOJ will produce the records that are required by the act and what it has represented to this court. We appreciate the court's attention to this letter. We can make ourselves available to the court at a future hearing or participate in a briefing on the need for a special master or independent monitor or any topic this court deems helpful for the full and fair administration of justice. So, Andy, I like this idea. I think writing to Judge Engelmeyer in his capacity as one of the judges, one of the courts that had to release grand jury information, one of the three courts that had to release grand jury information, trying to tack this special master monitoring onto the full Department of Justice release pursuant to the act. It'll be interesting to see if Judge Engelmeyer believes that he has jurisdiction to have the special master look after that.

law as well as what was supposed to be released in his courtroom specifically. It'll be interesting to see if he agrees. I went through the letter. I didn't see any citations of other similar cases where a special master was appointed by a judge to oversee a law and something that was going on in his courtroom. So I'm very interested to see if Engelmeier has jurisdiction to appoint a special master to oversee the release the Epstein files pursuant to the Act. I think I think it's an interesting legal question. It definitely is. And it's an open question, right? It's not, it's not an easy one to kind of pick from this perspective. But it's clear what Congress is trying to do here. They, the problem with the act is they don't really have a clear venue to enforce the law against the

department, right? What would Congress normally do if they're concerned that DOJ is not following the law, any, you know, any given law. Well, typically it's you would hold hearings, you would demand people come up and testify, and then, you know, maybe if they said things that weren't true, then maybe you could try to refer contempt proceedings, but that's not going anywhere here because the referral would go to DOJ. So, you know, these guys understand that they don't have a lot of options. So they are trying to put this under the purview of a court to see if the court can actually hold DOJ accountable. I'm not convinced that this is going to work because I think the court might see this as like kind of an encouragement into what is essentially a political process.

But yeah, we'll have to see how it goes. Yeah. I think the idea here is to get a court order that has to be followed. So we'll see what happens. That's right. That's right. All right, everybody. We've got a couple more quick stories plus listener questions.

Again, if you have a question, you'd like to submit to us. There's a link in the show notes to do that. And we'll be right back. Stick around. All right, everybody, welcome back. Before we get to listener questions, as I said, which we'll do in a moment. We have another couple of quick stories for you. From Politico, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan said in an interview Friday,

he's going to invite former Special Counsel Jack Smith to testify in an open hearing, in public, as soon as this month in what would potentially be a high-stakes event for members of both parties and the White House. Although, you know, Andy, while you were gone, I did a clip by clip. of some of the, I think, 34 most important exchanges in the behind closed doors, Jack Smith testimony. And he kind of wiped the floor with everyone. So I'm not sure how this is high stakes for Democrats. But, you know, obviously we'll see.

Here's a quote. He's coming in. That's what Ohio Republican said of Jack Smith, who led the federal criminal cases against President Donald Trump. Smith sat for over eight hours with breaks before Judiciary Committee members and staff investigators last month behind closed doors, while his legal team has repeatedly requested a public forum for their client to argue his case. Jordan released a transcript at a video record on New Year's Eve,

always a big news night in this country, and said Friday he now wants Smith to stand before the public and defend his claims of misconduct against the president. Yeah, here's a quote. One of the key takeaways in the transcript is we said, Did you have any evidence that President Trump was responsible for the violence that took place at the Capitol? He had no evidence of that whatsoever. That's what Jordan said of the committee's December interview with Smith behind closed doors.

But I just kind of want to reiterate here, Donald Trump wasn't charged with inciting an insurrection or the violence at the Capitol. So why would he have evidence developed to that end? Now, obviously, you and I all saw it. He did incite the violence at the Capitol. But Jim Jordan says he's eager for Jack Smith to answer that question. and others, specifically the thing I noticed, Andy, when I covered this here going solo last week on Unjustified, was that the number one concern, the number one thing on the forefront of Republicans' minds wasn't the safety of the American people. It wasn't the officers at the

Capitol on January 6th. It wasn't even the pardoned criminals from January 6th. Their number one concern was whether or not it was legal for Jack Smith to get their phone records, which it clearly was. Yeah, because it's all about the phone records, right? It doesn't matter about what actually happened, who was the architect behind the assault on the Capitol. No, no, it's all about the phone records, who looked at our phone records, who's going to hold the bag. Yeah, so I'm not surprised by his focus at all. And can I also add to this, I mean, mad props to you for doing that massive episode of going through all of Jack Smith's testimony. I mean, I feel terrible because I was a gallivanting around the globe and not able to help, but seriously, well done. That's a hell of a piece of work.

Thank you. I appreciate that. But talking again about, you know, the phone records, I think one of my favorite clips, and it was included in last week's episode, is one of Jim Jordan staffers is like, who's going to be held responsible? Who do we hold criminally liable for if it was illegal to subpoena, you know, the phone records of members of Congress? And Jack Smith was like, you would hold Trump responsible. He chose those Republican senators, not me. If he had called Democrats, I would have subpoenaed Democrats phone records and just sort of dropped the hammer on him. It is very, in his own sort of succinct, stoic, kind, understated manner, but he dropped the hammer on it. Yeah, I can't wait to see this thing.

Okay, Smith defended his work last month to House judiciary members and staff, but his testimony was hamstrung in part by a federal court order that has kept the second volume of his reports surrounding the classified documents case under seal. He has maintained that he's interested in sharing the results of this investigation, but the Justice Department has interpreted that the order precludes him from discussing details with Congress. Now, these potential restrictions on his testimony back in December will likely be the same for any public hearing in the near future. Yeah, unless for some reason that report comes out, but I don't think there's time to even get that to the Supreme Court from the 11th Circuit if they lifted their abeyance on a mandamus order for Canon anyway. And we haven't heard about that.

It was supposed to expire a week ago, but we still haven't heard about that. Canon has said it expires February 24th. I think what was interesting, an interesting part of the testimony, Andy, and I was just really curious about your thoughts on it, when he was asked, when Jack Smith was asked if he got a copy of Volume 2,

because, you know, he asked for all of his files and he got all of his files. Jack Smith said, yeah, I think that the DOJ sent me a copy of Volume 2. By the way, which would violate Judge Cannon's order. But sent me a copy of volume two, but I didn't open it and I didn't look at it because I don't want to go anywhere near violating the injunction that prevents it from coming out. So he actually was sent it and didn't even open it. Yeah. Dude is very careful.

And for good reason. They would love to be able to trip him up on some sort of technical foul and then open a whole can of worms of an investigation. So good for him. For sure. So I look forward to that part. I'm actually surprised Jim Jordan's letting the, happen because I was like no wonder he wanted this behind closed doors it was pretty devastating to to the republicans conspiracy theories that he just debunked one after the other yeah i'm stunned

they're doing this this there's no upside for them here uh i was surprised they released the transcripts as quickly as they did and this is a real shocker so uh but definitely worth tuning into yeah we'll be keeping an eye on it for you uh one other quick story um the alleged pipe bomber brian cole has pled not guilty in federal court. After it took U.S. Attorney Jenny and Piro nearly a month to get a federal grand jury to return their two-count indictment, having first gone to the Superior Court to get an indictment from a local grand jury. However, in a footnote, in a pleading by the defense in federal court, alleged pipe bomber Brian Cole's attorney writes, quote, even if the release issue were moot and it's not, the court nonetheless will have to determine the validity of the purported indictment obtained

in the D.C. Superior Court at some point in this litigation. This is true because the January 6th indictment contains at least one charge that has a five-year statute of limitations, and that period expired before the indictment was obtained from the federal grand jury. We will keep you posted on this case as it moves forward. So the Superior Court got their indictment in under the wire, but the federal grand jury, it appears one of the counts had their statute of limitations. expire. So now we've got potentially wonky half a superior court indictment, half a federal court indictment. The superior court indictment came in in time. The federal court indictment didn't.

This is what happens when you put Fox News anchors in charge of U.S. attorney's offices. Yeah, exactly. How many times did you hear cases where multiple U.S. attorney's offices had massive problems getting anything through a grand jury before this administration took over. Never. And in fact, going back to the Jack Smith testimony, Jasmine Crockett just sort of sidled in and said, hey, have you ever had to go back to a grand jury three times because you couldn't get an indictment? And Jack Smith just looked at her and goes, never. No. No. No. And it wasn't just like a no, like a straight, laised answer. He looked at her and was like, never. It was pretty amazing.

That was a little, you know, tip of the hat to the triple time trying to indict Letitia James. That's right. The distinguished Miss Halligan. Man. Anyway, who's not even lawfully appointed but keeps calling herself the attorney and U.S. attorney. All right. Time for a listener question. I think we have time for one.

We did a full Q&A bonus while you were out, Andy. We were going to run that on Sunday, but then the Jacksmith testimony happens. So we actually had all sorts of extra content for people who like to listen to Unjustified. Nice. So I think we've got time for one question. Keep sending your questions in because like, you know, like we say, we're going to do on a more frequent basis those full Q&A episodes. So what do we have this weekend? Sure.

So this is a, I thought this is a really interesting one. It's something that we haven't really discussed much recently. So I thought I'd throw it in there. This one, I do not have a identity for the person, for whoever sent it in. So whoever sent this one in, thank you very much. They say, your podcast is like a lifeline to all the political uncertainty. Both of you are doing a service to our democracy. The question is, is it possible for Trump to stop midterm elections by possibly getting

enough votes in Congress to change the election date or to stall them by force somehow now that he is starting a war. It seems certain that the midterms, if overwhelmingly voted to put power in the Dem's hands, could unravel his presidency to impeach and release files and expose everything. So that's a good question. I think the overall premise there that the administration and the president have faced some serious headwins if Congress flips. over in the midterms. As for using Congress to change the date, I don't see that happening because, first of all, let's remember it's the states that run these elections.

And I don't know that Congress can even legislate that. And even if they could, the Republicans majority in a house is just shrunk by another couple of votes. And I find it, you know, now they're having, at least in the last few days, has been a couple many more departures of Republicans voting with Democrats on these various assundry bills that are making their way through the House. So I think they'd have a really hard time getting it. They're going to have a really hard time getting anything done and I don't see them getting this done. I don't know. How do you see it, E.G.? Yeah. And as far as these departures,

you're talking about, 17 Republicans voted with all Democrats to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years in the House. Five Republicans. in the Senate voted with all Democrats to on a war powers resolution to prevent more attacks, military tax on Venezuela. There have been a lot of defections happening. And like you said, the margin in the House is razor thin. But you would also need if you, and I don't know that you could even pass a law to change the election date, but if they tried, this isn't something that could go through with budget reconciliation. You'd need 60 votes in the Senate and you're just not going to get. That's right. So, and again, if that law were somehow passed,

I'm sure that it would be struck down. So, yeah, I think the important thing to remember here is, like you said, Andy, elections are administered by the states, not by the federal government. And even the most conservative courts in the country have agreed on this point. I remember Judge Pryor, the chief judge of the 11th Circuit, when Mark Meadows was trying to remove his Georgia-Fulton County case to federal court, he said no first of all it's only for current officers the united states and second of all that is not your job elections are not your job it's not your job it's not the president's job so you can't say

as the chief of staff to the president it's your job because it's not his job either no no no that's ridiculous so yeah i i know that he's going to i know that he's going to do everything he can to disrupt the midterm elections, absolutely everything he can to do so. And I can't know what he's got up his sleeve. You know, I mean, on our Daily Bean's podcast that aired on January 5th, 2021, Dana said, I don't know what he's up to, but how many more impeachable things can you do between now and January 20th? And we saw what happened the next day. Yeah. So, you know, it's very hard to know. but I think, you know, some of the, at least the legal avenues we can guess. And I'm glad we've got folks like Mark Elias and Democracy Docket and huge teams of lawyers that are working on it.

Currently right now, preventing the Trump administration from getting voter role information in certain states, for example. So we'll keep litigating it and see what happens. But I want everybody to remember, we just pulled off 52,000 elections in November a month and a half ago. and we shall act the Republicans in those elections. So I have more confidence in the midterms than maybe I did in November of 2024 because they are at our back door right now. We're starting the primaries here in a couple months. So we'll obviously keep an eye on it for you.

But yeah, as far as passing a law, I don't think they have the votes in Congress. And I don't think Congress can make a federal law instructing states what to do in their elections. Yeah, totally agree. And whether or not he could do it by force, that would also be super tough because you're talking about you have to make a pretty significant application of force in every state. So again, wouldn't rule anything out at this point. But I think the elections, my strong sense is they go forward on schedule. What the result is, nobody knows. But I'm going to, I share your positive outlook on it based on, you know, what we saw in results. last November. So yeah, we'll see. Yeah. We'll be talking about it a lot as we roll closer to that date. Yeah. And I, you know, of course he's going to target certain

areas of certain cities. If he, if he sends troops and or National Guard and or ICE to the polls or poll watchers, it's going to target very specific groups of people. Yeah.

That they've been, that, you know, we saw that happened in 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, like just targeting our Jacob Wohl and Berkman getting arrested for making calls in certain areas of Ohio and Michigan, which was also, by the way, to Title 18 United States Code Section 241 violation of rights, which is one of the charges that Jack Smith brought against Donald Trump. So looking forward to the Jack Smith public testimony. We'll talk about it here. Looking forward to more of your questions. Click on the link in the show notes and send them in. And I'm glad you're back, Andy, and I hope you had a wonderful time on vacay.

It is good to be back and a lot of stuff coming down the pike, as you just mentioned. So be looking forward to getting through all that with you in the next couple weeks. All right, everybody. We'll see you next time on Unjustified. I'm Allison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Unjustified is written and executive produced by Alison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe.

Sound design and editing is by Molly Hawke with art and web design by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. The theme music for Unjustified is written and performed by Ben Folds, and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator-owned independent podcasts dedicated to news, politics, and justice. For more information, please visit MSWMedia.com.