Jack - In Re Flynn

Episode Date: February 23, 2025

Emil Bove has filed his rule 48(a) motion to dismiss the bribery and fraud charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams.The judge in the Adams case held a hearing with Eric Adams, his attorneys, and Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove.As in the case of Mike Flynn, the judge has adjourned Adams’ trial and appointed an amicus curiae to oppose the dismissal of the charges.The weaponization of the Justice Department is in full swing causing the resignation of the chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., plus Ed Martin opens operation “whirlwind” to investigate Trump’s political enemies.A Lone Bove in Federal Court | Lawfare Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod herettps://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn’t on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

MSW Media. Emile Beauvais has filed his Rule 48A motion to dismiss the bribery and fraud charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The judge in the Adams case held a hearing with Eric Adams, his attorneys Alex Sparrow and William Burke, acting deputy attorney general Emil Bovet. As in the case of Mike Flynn, the judges adjourned Adams' trial and appointed an amicus curate to oppose the dismissal of the charges. And the weaponization of the Justice Department is in full swing, causing the resignation of the chief of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C. Plus, Ed Martin opens

Operation Whirlwind to investigate Trump's political enemies. This is unjustified. Hey everybody, it is Sunday, February 23rd, 2025. I'm Alison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. How's it going, Andy? I mean, besides, we have so much to talk about today that we aren't even going to get to really go over the fact that Cash Patel was confirmed as the director of the FBI. Yes, he was. That happened yesterday afternoon. Well, we're recording on Friday. So it's Thursday afternoon.

And honestly, so today is day one under the Cash Patel regime at the FBI. I'm getting so many messages from people, AG, from FBI people or people who know FBI people. There's so much conflicting reporting and rumint, as we like to say, about all these people getting kicked out of headquarters and getting reassigned or relocated to other offices. And it's really hard to sort through what part of it is accurate and what is just kind of a little bit of the telephone game. So I think it's better actually that we hold off and really maybe go deep

on that stuff next week when we'll have a somewhat better own game. So I think it's better actually that we hold off and really maybe go deep on that stuff next week when we'll have a somewhat better view as to what's actually occurred in the first few days. Yeah, agreed. Because some of the stuff that's going on with the Adams case, we're going to have a little bit of a break because things aren't going to be due this week in that case. So that's right. We'll be able to dive deeper into what's going on at the bureau. And we can focus today on what's going on at main justice. But before we get back into the eric adams saga let's talk about another resignation in protest.

From the department of justice this is from abc news the chief of the criminal division at the US attorney's office for DC. That's a big job. Oh yeah. Very big job. That's the person who basically is the day to day kind of a chief overseeing the entirety of the, of the criminal prosecutions brought in that district. Well, she abruptly resigned Tuesday amid pressure from Trump justice department appointees, namely, Emil Beauvais, to freeze assets, stemming from a Biden administration era environmental initiative,

the Inflation Reduction Act, by the way. And that's according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to ABC News. A resignation letter sent to the office's employees by prosecutor, Denise Chung, did not detail the specific reasons for her sudden departure from the office, but encouraged prosecutors to continue adhering to the Constitution.

Quote, please continue to support one another, to fulfill your commitment to pursuing justice without fear or prejudice, and to be kind to and take care of yourselves, Chung said. You are the resource our nation has. Yeah, and sources familiar with the matter told ABC that Chung was under pressure from DOJ leadership, including acting Deputy Attorney General Elmil Bové and interim US attorney Ed Martin, who has now officially been nominated to head that office, to launch a formal criminal investigation into an environmental protection agency funding initiative pursued under the Biden administration, a request that Chung believed lacked the proper predication to initiate a grand jury investigation. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has previously

addressed with DOJ their effort to rescind contracts tied to the so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. DOJ's intervention in the process can only come when prosecutors can credibly allege that the funds are tied to a crime. Now, I know somebody who wrote a book about predication for opening investigations. Do you? Who might that have been? The book is called The Threat. It's written by Andrew McCabe if you don't have it you need it

Order it now, but let's tell I'm so lucky like every day I'm lucky that I get to work with you Andy, but especially when questions like this come up like talking about What's necessary to open a federal grand jury investigation? Yeah, so we talk about predication in different contexts. In the FBI context, predication is what we mean when we say what facts do we have to justify opening a case. And that's just the internal FBI investigation. In the Bureau, it's pretty low. The level of predication necessary, which is laid out to us by the attorney general and the attorney general guidelines, and then explained to FBI agents in something called the DIOG.

It's pretty low. There's a few different types of investigations, but for a full field investigation, you just have to have information that establishes that a violation of federal criminal law has occurred or that a threat to national security exists. So on the US attorney side, they need the same thing. They need some facts and information to be the basis of a federal grand jury investigation. And that is something in the neighborhood of basically probable cause.

You have to be able to have enough facts that establish probable cause. That's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just kind of enough information to give you cause to believe that a violation of the federal criminal laws of this country has occurred. And so in this example, apparently what the reporting indicates is that Ms. Chung was not convinced that the facts provided to her about this underlying situation were enough to justify the opening of a federal grand jury investigation. Hmm, I see. The article concludes by saying that Chung's resignation letter comes just

one day after Trump announced to Ed Martin as his nominee for US attorney for DC, amid a wave of controversial actions and statements by Martin in his weeks leading the office, actions that have led to growing consternation among career prosecutors. And there's no source for that. It's just written here. As ABC News has, I mean, they may have a source they just didn't say according to sources. As ABC News has previously reported, Martin has represented defendants charged in connection with January 6th and was on Capitol grounds himself on January 6th. So it's unclear whether he ever entered areas officially designated as restricted. So we'll talk a little bit more about Ed Martin toward the end of the show before we take listener questions because we do have a quick story about him opening Operation

Whirlwind, an investigation into, so far it's just Democrats. Shocking. Yeah I know and it's about, I think at some point Rep Garcia said something like we're bringing, we need to bring weapons to a bar fight instead of the old saying, you're bringing a knife to a gunfight. Whatever. In some cases, we're bringing bananas to a gunfight. But in any case-

Banana in the tailpipe, you never know. It worked for Eddie Murphy, I'm just saying. That's a very good point. I'm sorry. Banana is lethal. And it has potassium in it. It's radioactive. Anyway, which we referred to as banana radiation when I was in nuclear power school. We talked about potassium as a, what was it? It was like a side effect

of the fission of uranium-238. Anyway, we'll talk, Ed Martin, he's just, he's going after these politicos for saying stuff that doesn't amount really to anything. I mean, Rudy said trial by combat. Trump said fight or you won't have a country left. He just pardoned a bunch of people who said, hang Mike Pence. Like, I don't know. It's, it's obviously one sided here, but we'll talk about that a little bit later in the show. So anyway, that's what's going on with Denise Chung, but she's been there for

24 years and yeah, yeah, she's incredibly respected. Um, DOJ person. I'm, I, uh, have memories of interacting with Ms. Chung when I was working the last few years. I was working in the positions of leadership in the bureau and somebody just universally respected by the people that she worked with. Of course, I have no idea what her politics are. Never was an issue, never came up. She just was the consummate professional, apolitical, smart attorney dedicated to her job. So it's a shame

and it's a loss for us all that she's no longer in that significant position of a criminal chief over in DC. Yeah. And I wanted to ask you, because I've seen a lot of folks, I guess, being upset that these people are resigning rather than being fired. Can you maybe explain the difference there? Yeah, sure. We got so many questions about this this week, really. It's something that's resonating with a lot of folks.

I think there's a tendency to view the resignation as an act of protest and therefore in your mind you think of that as something as like this is an act of protest that might have the effect of like overturning the current situation or or I know drawing attention to it in such a way that ultimately what's happening that you object to stops. I don't really, I think that's overthinking it a bit. As you know, AGI teach students at George Mason University, they're all pursuing master's degrees in public policy or public administration. So many of them are seeking positions in government and government related jobs. And several have talked to me in the last few months about whether or not they should still consider working for the federal government in light of the change in administration and

the fear that things like we're frankly seeing today, you know, every day since President Trump was inaugurated, they're worried about getting caught up in those sorts of things and being put in positions that they might feel like compromise their ethics. So we talk about this issue of resigning with them or getting fired. And honestly, to me, the difference is you resign when you're being asked to do something that is inconsistent with your ethics, your morals, and the way that you see your job and the oath that you have taken to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing immoral or wrong about taking a job in the current administration and going

into that government job and trying to do it as well and diligently and as you possibly can, you swear an oath to the Constitution, not to President Trump. You pledge to follow the laws of the country and the policies of the executive branch agency you work for. But I tell them, if you're going to do that, you should know going in where your red lines are. And when that happens, you should be prepared to walk away. I think that's really what you're seeing in these resignations of people of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in New York last week, and now of course Denise Chung in D.C. this week. You're seeing people who have been asked to do

things that they believe are unlawful or inconsistent with their role as prosecutors, inconsistent with the law or with DOJ policies, and they are resigning as an act of saying, I will not be a part of this. I get it. You think like, well, they're good people. They should stay and do good work. But good people don't stay if the requirement to staying means compromising your ethics, your principles, and your understanding of the law.

So that's what you're seeing here. It's not really an effort to overturn the government. It's simply saying, I'm out. I'm not going to be a part of this illegitimate thing. Yeah. And that seems to be the difference to me between someone like Danielle Sassoon or Denise Chung and say Chris Ray who resigned weeks before the inauguration and wasn't asked to do anything on law. Right. Right. He just left. He just peaced out. And for me

it's almost a semantics argument. Resignation, firing firing because in those letters we see I will not do this right and So I'll offer my resignation if that's not acceptable. It's the same thing as being fired Of course, you know forced out you're being told and had she was told to resign by by Ed Martin Right. She told him she would not do what Bovay and Martin were telling her to do because she didn't think there was enough legal predication to go forward with this investigation. And he said, well, you should submit your resignation then. She did. Yeah. Okay. Which is basically being fired.

Of course. And then, you know, if you are someone like Denise Chung and you hadn't yet been asked to do something untoward and they just fire you, I mean, that's different, you know, but I think that the defining factor here is like you said, they have been ordered to do something that they find to be unlawful, unethical, untoward. It's a red line for them and they say, I'm not going to do that. And that basically ends their job, whether it's through a resignation or firing. And that's what those letters say. Like the Danielle Sassoon letter was like, I'm not going to do this. I'm not going to file your motion to dismiss Eric Adams's case.

And if you don't like that, consider this. I'll gladly hand in my resignation. And so it's kind of, I don't know, it feels without that thing that you're being asked to do, like with Ray, that's where I'm like, dude, just stay. Yeah. You know, if Chris Ray had been asked to do something that he fundamentally and profoundly disagreed with, at any point during his reign as his I shouldn't say rain run as Tenure as director and then he quit over that that would be the same thing, right? It's helpful to if you resigning in protest or because you're refusing to go along with what you consider to be an illegitimate demand

Right. It's helpful to say what that is so that the public understands why you're going. What Chris Wray did was he knew he was probably going to get fired. And so he preempted it and quit, I guess, because he didn't want to get fired. He said he did. Which doesn't make any sense to me because... It made no sense. And I think it was a terrible thing for the men and women of the FBI. We've talked about this before.

I won't belabor it, but he should, he was entitled to stay in that job for what, three more years? And he should have said, I haven't done anything wrong, I haven't been asked to leave, I'm going to stay for the remainder of my term and if the president chooses to fire me, then so be it. Then it's on him, you know? Or if the president asks me to do something unlawful or unethical, then so be it, then it's on him. Or if the president asks me to do something unlawful or unethical, then I'll say I'm leaving because I refuse to do what the president asked me to do. Those are principled stands that communicate, I think, a very important message. I think

what Chris Wray did was probably confusing and unsettling to the workforce and really lacked that kind of spine. You know, on the way out to say, committed to the rule of law, doing our job, keeping our heads down and I'm out by. It was just really odd, an odd way to make an exit. All right, everybody, speaking of Eric Adams and that case, we're going to go over what has happened since last we met, since the last episode of Days of Our Lives. We're going to talk about that after this break.

Stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. So as when last we spoke, Emile Bovet had locked all the public integrity section lawyers in a room and told them they had an hour to choose who would file his motion to dismiss the charges against Eric Adams or they'd all be fired and to spare his fellow colleagues, Edward Sullivan volunteered. That's right. And within a few hours of recording last week's podcast episode, Ed Sullivan and Antoinette Bacon filed the motion to dismiss. And it says, the United States respectfully submits this motion seeking dismissal without

prejudice of the charges in this case with leave of court pursuant to Rule 48A of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Through counsel, defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this motion and agreed that he is not a quote, prevailing party for purposes of the Hyde Amendment. The acting Deputy Attorney General has determined pursuant to an authorization by the Attorney General that dismissal is necessary and appropriate and has directed the same based on the unique facts and circumstances of this case. It's funny they mentioned that Eric Adams consented in writing, but they didn't attach

that consent in writing and the judge had to go and get it. I thought that was weird too, yeah. And it was weird that Adams' lawyer provided it, not the Department of Justice. Like did they ever have it? That's weird. Anyway, it goes on to say, in connection with that determination and directive, the acting Deputy Attorney General

concluded that dismissal is necessary because of the appearances of impropriety and risks of interference with the 2025 elections in New York City. And I'm going to break in here, because as we know, the appearances of impropriety, according to Danielle Sassoon's letter, there were none because in a memo that he sent to her, which they don't want, by the way, to be brought into consideration in this case, that memo

he said, no, that everything was great. The case was great. I didn't even look at the facts of this case and the evidence of this case. Right. You didn't look at the facts or the law. So, and she went on to say, okay, appearance of impropriety from Damien Williams, but I was about to go get a superseding indictment

for conspiracy to obstruct justice. And you know that, and you knew that. So that's interesting. We'll talk about that a little bit later. But it goes on to say, in connection with that determination and directive, the Deputy Attorney General acting also concluded that continuing these proceedings would interfere But it goes on to say, in connection with that determination and directive, the deputy attorney general acting also concluded that continuing these proceedings would interfere

with the defendant's ability to govern in New York City. So we shouldn't indict someone if they have a job, I understand, which poses unacceptable threats to public safety, national security and related federal immigration initiatives and policies. Hey, that theory worked for Trump. So they figured just let's overlay it onto the mayor of New York City now, the immunity from all prosecution because you have a big job with important things to do. Oh, right.

Article two of the Constitution gives the president and the mayor of New York City. Exactly. Exactly. Those two and anyone else in which it's convenient for. Okay. So that motion was filed February 14th and Judge Dale Ho said a hearing on the matter for February 19th. And in those five days, a lot of things happened.

On February 17th, the good government advocacy group Common Cause asked the judge to deny the motion and asked the judge to consider appointing a special prosecutor to continue the case. So FYI, according to Steve Vladek, the request for a special prosecutor is a nowhere road. And Alison, you had posted on social media that the case Common Cause cited was Young versus United States. And in that case, the court used its inherent power to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the contempt of the court's orders. You noted that this is not a contempt case,

and you wondered if Young would even apply. I was sad too, because I was real excited. I was like, oh yeah, special prosecutor to finish the case. Because I was like, what happens if the judge denies this motion to dismiss? Nobody at the DOJ is going to take the case because the DOJ wants it dismissed. I was like, yeah, yeah, special prosecutor. And I went and I looked up Young and I was like, oh, womp, womp. In your, in your near attorney's mind, you saw the distinction between the case law and the current circumstances

and you knew that there was there was no support there. So back to reality, Steve Vladeck quoted you saying federal courts are authorized to appoint private special prosecutors only to try criminal contempt of court offenses that DOJ declines to prosecute. And even then the rule that authorizes such appointments, which is Rule 42A2, for those of you following at home, is almost certainly unconstitutional. He then cited a recent Supreme Court ruling in Donsinger, who Vladeck represented on his appeal, challenging the constitutionality of Rule 42A2.

Yeah. So Professor Vladek knows a thing or two. A couple, just a couple. And he didn't quote me, he quote posted me, I don't know what you call it on Blue Sky, like quote tweeting. Because I had asked the question, I was like, look, this is what I got from Young, it says this is only for contempt stuff,

and this isn't a contempt thing, it seems like a pretty narrow thing that can happen. I'm not real sure. I'm not a lawyer, you know. And then Steve Vladeck was like, no, yeah, no, this is a nowhere road. And I was like, all right. I was bummed. I would love to have a special counsel appointed by the courts. I didn't start thinking about it until Common Cause made that final act. I thought, this can't possibly work because the special counsel that we think of, Jack Smith, Robert Mueller, on and on and on. It's executive branch.

They're just an extension of DOJ. They live and die based on the delegation of the authority of the attorney general. So that's not going to happen in this case. No. And you can't do a court appointed special prosecutor because you can only do that in contempt and probably not even anymore after what happened in the Donzinger. So anyway, it's like, so I've, I was sad to find that out, but I didn't want to like run around jumping and say, everybody, we can get a special prosecutor.

Cause I don't think it's going to happen. It is kind of cool that you can get Steve Vladeck to answer your legal questions. That, I am, again, I'm so lucky. I get to you to answer my FBI predication questions and anything else, DOJ FBI, I got Steve Vladeck. And also, by the way, he can answer all of your questions. He's got an incredible substat called one first,

and he breaks everything down. The reason I'm able to make jokes about article two of the constitution is cause I read Steve Vladeck. So I highly recommend checking out his, his substack there. One first it's called. So we have the common cause guys asking the judge to deny the motion on Monday. That's the 17th of February. The same day, three former U S attorneys from New York, New Jersey, and

Connecticut filed a brief, asking the judge to conduct an extensive inquiry into whether the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the case was in the public interest or merely a pretext ding ding ding for securing the mayor's cooperation with the Trump administration's anti-immigration policies. Now, the former top prosecutors who filed the brief were John S. Martin Jr., who served in the Southern District, Robert J. Cleary, who served in New Jersey, and Deirdre M. Daly, I hope I'm pronouncing that right, who served in Connecticut. They included a list of more than a dozen questions about

this motion, which was signed by Beauvais himself. Why did he put the lawyers in a room and force them to pick someone to file the thing. If he was just going to sign it himself, I don't get it. But they had like over a dozen questions, these three former prosecutors and the lawyers who filed the brief on their behalf, Palmerantz and Dunn. Palmerantz, as we know, former chief of Southern District's criminal division. And I think both worked with the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg or it might have actually been the previous Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, or it might have actually been the previous Manhattan District Attorney named Vance. Sy Vance, yeah, Cyrus Vance.

Who was working on the Donald Trump case. So they say, what's at stake here is far more than an internal prosecutorial dispute about an individual case. The public furor that has arisen during the past week raises concerns about respect for the rule of law and the division of power between the executive and judicial branches of government in our nation. That's right. And the New York City Bar Association with more than 20,000 lawyers as

members said in a statement that the order by a top Justice Department official, Emile Beauvais, cuts to the heart of the rule of law and asked for a searching inquiry into the facts. They said that Mr. Bovet's request, which would allow the Trump administration to reinstate the charges against Mr. Adams, was, quote, expressly political. They went on to say, the policy choices of the government of New York City cannot be dependent on or appear to be dependent on the decision of the Justice Department to prosecute or withhold prosecution of the corruption charges against the mayor.

Then on Tuesday morning, the day before the hearing, Adams' lawyer, Alex Spiro, wrote a letter to the court disputing Danielle Sassoon's suggestion that there had been a deal between the government and Mr. Adams. Quote, there was no quid pro quo period, Mr. Spiro wrote. That's not true. It really doesn't sound like it could possibly be true. Yeah. It just doesn't ring true on any level, especially compared with the statements that Sassoon made in her letter, which were

definitive and based on her actual observations of the conversation between Spiro and the DOJ prosecutors at Maine Justice. And the fact that they destroyed the notes of everyone from Sassoon's team over there. It's just, I'm sorry, Mr. Spiro, but I'm throwing a flag on that one. Yeah. And I was really interested in what was going to go down at that hearing because I was dying to find out how they were going to answer the stuff that Daniel Sassoon said, Emil Beauvais sent to her in that memo that he sent in January, ordering her to file a dismissal of the charges because it's in there that he admits that there's a quid pro quo and all this other stuff.

So I'm like, how are they going to square Alex Spiro saying there's no quid pro quo and this memo sent from Bovet to Sassoon that said there was? And I was really waiting for that and they did touch on it. We're going to talk about that hearing, but we have to take another quick break. Everyone stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. All right. Let's talk about the hearing. Anna Bauer at law fair has what I think is the best coverage of what happened in the courtroom. You can check her out at law fair, subscribe, donate if you can. They do so much good work. She writes, it's a few minutes before two o'clock in the

afternoon on Wednesday, February 19th in courtroom 318 at the Thurgood Marshall courthouse where Judge Dale E. Ho is set to hold a hearing on the Justice Department's motion to dismiss a federal corruption case against the Mayor of New York City. In a packed gallery, spectators turn to watch as the defendant, Mayor Eric Adams, enters the courtroom and nonchalantly strolls down the center of the aisle, both hands buried in the pockets of his crisp blue suit. When he arrives at the defense table, he seats himself between his attorneys, Alex Spiro and William Burke. On the other side of the room,

a man named Emil Beauvais is seated alone at the council's table. It's a sight that seemed unremarkable just a few weeks ago when a lone Beauvais sat at the council's table in New York State Court during the criminal sentencing of his client, Donald Trump. Back then, Trump was still a private citizen and Boves was still a personal defense counsel. Now, Trump is the President of the United States and Boves is the acting Deputy Attorney General. And the administration's extraordinary decision to abandon the criminal case against Eric Adams has roiled the ranks of the Justice Department and caused a mass resignation of at least seven career officials and one acting US attorney. Last week, Bovet personally signed

the Justice Department's motion to dismiss Adams' charges, which requires leave of court under Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Though Adams consented to the motion, two groups of litigants moved to file, quote, friend of the court briefs, arguing that the judge should deny the motion to dismiss or at minimum conduct a further factual inquiry into the basis for the dismissal. Judge Ho, for his part, scheduled today's hearing to determine how to proceed.

All of which is why, as the clock ticks toward the scheduled 2 p.m. start time, Bove's solitary presence at the prosecution table is both conspicuous and telling. Is he really going to do this alone? I hear someone in the gallery wonder aloud. He is, as it turns out. She's such a good writer. She needs to write everything that I read. She's terrific. So Judge Ho begins with, I called this conference because I have a few questions. But before turning to those questions, Judge Ho acknowledges that he has very little discretion

to deny a Rule 48 motion to which both parties have consented. And by the way, he did eventually get that consent letter, like I said, from Eric Adams's attorney. Still, he continues,, from Eric Adams as attorney. Still, he continues, district courts have some limited authority. Otherwise, the language in Rule 48 requiring leave of court would serve no purpose. For that reason, Judge Ho thinks it's appropriate to ask some questions about the motion in order to properly discharge his duty. And when I heard that, you know, when he, his opening line was, I don't

have a lot of discretion here. My first thought, my heart sank. Okay, he's going to let this one go. He's going to dismiss these charges. But I was also heard you, Andrew, in the back of my head talking about Flynn. That's disturbing. I'm sorry. Yeah, it was creepy. No. Talking about Flynn, right? And how a special master, not a special master, but an amicus curio was appointed in that case. Yeah. So I was like, let's just wait and see what happens.

So first he had questions for Eric Adams who got sworn in, raised his hand. And this was like the, are you competent? Is your mind clear? Do you understand what's happening? What day is it? Are you seeing a psychiatrist? Is your mind clear? Do you understand what's happening? What day is it? Are you seeing a psychiatrist? Have you been hospitalized? Have you taken any drugs? Or consumed any substances today?

Yeah, the past two days it would interfere. And so the judge determined that Eric Adams is competent to consent to the motion and to speak today. So that was like the first thing to get out of the way. And anyone who's been deposed has to go through that. Oh yeah. It's also a standard part of like arraignments, people who've been brought into court because they were arrested that day, or more importantly, sentencing.

When someone's going to plead guilty and be sentenced, the judges put all that stuff on the record. So next, the judge probes whether Adams read and understood the motion to dismiss filed by the justice apart. Adams replied that his attorneys explained the motion to dismiss filed by the Justice Department. Adams replied that his attorneys explained the motion to him and that he, quote, fully understood it at the time. He authorized them to consent to it on his behalf. Do you understand that you are consenting to dismissal without prejudice?

Adams says he understands that too. Before continuing further with his examination of Adams, Judge Ho turns to Beauvais. He wants to know more about the effect of dismissing the charges without prejudice. Can these charges be brought again, he asks. It would be within the Justice Department's discretion to bring the charges again, Beauvais acknowledged. Judge Ho wonders aloud whether there are any limits to the department's ability to re-indict Adams later on. In reply, Bovet mentioned some standard limitations on the Justice Department's discretion.

For example, he says, there could be time limits related to the statute of limitations or the Speedy Trial Act. The Justice Department may or may not revisit the case at another time, he adds, but there aren't any plans for that at this time. Huh. So then Judge Ho follows up by asking whether the Justice Department is contemplating any additional investigative steps. And Boves says no. And then turning back to Eric Adams,

the judge asks whether he understands all of that. And he says, I have not committed a crime. I don't see them bringing it back. I'm not afraid of that. That's what the mayor replied. And that's when Judge Ho reminded Adams that he can consult with his attorney at any point during this hearing. And he says, I appreciate that because I failed my law class. And then Judge Ho presses on. No one told you that the government will not indict you in the future. And Adam said, no, no one told you that the government will not indict you in the future. And Adam said, no, no one told him that. You understand that you can ask the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, the judge

asked. And if the court were to dismiss with prejudice, that would mean that the government cannot reindite you on these charges. Adam says he understands. Judge Ho continues, are there any other agreements written or otherwise that you've entered into with the government? No, the mayor replies. Did the government promise anything to induce you to agree to its motion? Were there any threats made to induce you?

No and no. You know, as an aside, Allison, I really wonder if that could cause problems for the department and specifically in Mill Beauvais later. I mean, if a witness emerges or multiple witnesses emerge at some point with a factual showing that they were present when a deal was discussed, which could have happened. We don't know that, but there was the meeting at DOJ Maine with Adams' attorneys. One where the notes were confiscated.

That's right. And I just wonder, it could be problematic for Bovet, it could be problematic for Adams. But we'll have to see. We'll have to see how that plays out. Yeah, especially if he's saying, here, no, I wasn't made that promise. When it seems like Danielle Sassoon is saying, yeah, it was made. Yeah, you were. And there were notes taken and those notes were confiscated.

That's right. That's right. So, yeah, that's now not only am I focused on that memo that Beauvais sent to Danielle Sassoun, but I'm thinking about that meeting where the notes were confiscated. So redirecting his attention to Beauvais, Judge Ho asks about the basis for the motion itself. Can you give a high altitude overview on the grounds for dismissal that you articulated in the motion? And Beauvais explains that there are two key reasons set forth in the motion. The first reason articulated in paragraph five implicates an executive order issued by Trump last

month. That order, titled Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government, directs the Justice Department and other federal agencies to take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the federal government related to the weaponization of law enforcement. Pursuant to that order, Beauvais says, he determined that this case should not proceed because there's an appearance of impropriety surrounding the charges and that determination is essentially unreviewable by this court. Now, Beauvais, because it's a presidential declaration, right? And a new immunity law. They read the, he's saying, we read that presidential declaration and then in our lawful, exclusive

prosecutorial discretion, we decided we needed to dismiss this because it's, you know, part of the weaponization necessary to right past wrongs, essentially. Yeah, and you can't review that executive order because Trump's the president and the Supreme Court says no. Everything he does is unreviewable if it's an official act. Now Beauvais further contends that the second reason articulated in the motion, similarly unreviewable, is because it implicates the president's Article 2 powers. As explanation in paragraph six of the motion, the idea is that prosecution interferes with Adam's ability to govern in which,

which in turn poses unacceptable threats to public safety, national security, and federal immigration policies. So he's actually trying to attach immunity, Article Two power to Eric Adams. It's not a thing. This is a made up BS argument. That's all it is.

This is just infuriating. So Judge Ho focuses first on the appearance of impropriety rationale set forth in paragraph five of the government's motion. Are you saying that the prosecution was actually motivated by improper purposes? I use the phrase appearance of impropriety because I believe that's sufficient to warrant dismissal, Beauvais replies.

The actual purpose of the prosecution is the subject of several ongoing investigations by the department. But I use the term appearance because that is why I felt it was appropriate to dismiss the case, he reiterates. Pivoting next to the, quote, ability to govern rationale, Judge Ho asks about Boves claim in the motion that Adams lost his security clearance as a result of the prosecution, which has purportedly hindered his ability to protect the city from public safety and national security threats. Spiro pipes up, that's right Mayor, Adams lost his clearance because of this case. As a result, Adams isn't fully able to deal with or interact with federal partners in

the normal course of his duties. Judge Ho queries whether Adams is in the process of re-obtaining his security clearance. How quickly can that be restored, he says, and does it hinge on the resolution of this motion? Bovey. Yeah, like why don't you just give him his security clearance back? If your declaration under the executive order of weaponization of the government is a thing and Donald Trump is all-powerful just give him his clearance back.

And by the way the granting of a security clearance is not a shield against criminal charges. There's no thing in the law that says because I have a security clearance I can't be prosecuted because it would interfere with my ability to do important work, whether you're the mayor or the whatever, an FBI employee or whoever you are. This is all fiction. This is legal fiction that they're making up for the purpose of this ridiculous motion. Agreed. Beauvais, in reply, admits that the president has authority to grant security clearance

to Adams. So there you go. You could have it tomorrow. If it's that important to the Trump administration, Donald Trump could just say, I hereby make you cleared. But separate from that, he insists these proceedings hinder his ability to communicate with federal authorities. Well, then stop breaking the law so much. Judge Ho clarifies. So it's possible that Mayor Eric Adam's security clearance could be restored independent of the resolution of this motion? I believe so, Boves says, but the rationale articulated in paragraph six

of the government's motion is not limited to the security clearance issue. OK, moving on, Judge Ho wonders aloud whether the department's inability to govern rationale would apply to the other public figures with significant public safety responsibilities. What about New York City Police Commissioner, for example, or someone like the mayor of a city near the border? Yeah, so the judge brings up

that one of the briefs he received included the February 10th memo Boves sent to Danielle Sassoon. This is what I'm interested in. Yes, in which he directed her to dismiss the prosecution. And he asks Bovet if he should consider that memo. Bovet says, OK, guess, what does he say? Bovet says, no, no, no, no.

Don't look at it, throw it away, burn it, give it to your assistant to shred. Bovet says, no, the, no, don't look at it, throw it away, burn it, give it to your assistant to shred. Bovese says, no, the record the court ought to consider is the government's motion to dismiss, that's it. What's more, he reminds the judge, that the court has very limited discretion to deny the motion. Essentially boils down to the question

of whether the motion was made in bad faith. And I'm here as an officer of the court telling you that I'm making these representations in good faith, he says, and I'm entitled to presumption of regularity. I said it's good, therefore you must agree that it's good. Yeah, and don't look at any of the evidence that shows that this is in bad faith. Don't consider any of that.

Don't look at anything anyone else sends you. I'm the only person you can listen to. Further, Bove stresses that the record developed during today's hearing conclusively established that there was no quid pro quo. Does it really? If you discount the meeting and the notes and the memo I wrote and all that, all that you have here today and in this motion to dismiss that and from the letter from Adams's lawyer, if you just look at that, there's no quid pro

quo. I mean, well, so he goes on to say, but I don't concede that even if there were a quid pro quo, that there would be an issue with this motion. So Beauvais is saying both, by the way, no quid pro quo, and also, but if you think there was a quid pro quo, it still doesn't call for the denial of our motion. Honestly, with these somewhat maximalist arguments that Beauvais is throwing out here, if I were Ho, I'd have a hearing.

Bring me the prosecutors, all of them are probably fired now, who were in that meeting. Put them under oath in the witness booth and have them say, let them talk about what they heard at the meeting. And let them say, ask them based on what you heard and what you saw and the conversations that took place at the meeting and let them ask them based on what you heard and what you saw and the conversations that took place at the meeting were you under the impression that there was

a quid pro quo or an implied quid pro quo or an understood quid pro quo. Let's see. Bring it out. If they all say no, fine. And we might get to that point. We might in these proceedings. And we're going to talk about how the judge wrapped up the hearing, but we have to take another quick break.

Stick around. We'll be right back. All right. Welcome back. So, toward the end of the hearing, Judge Ho asked about the amicus briefs, right? The ones that we talked about earlier from the three former prosecutors and from Common Cause and whether the parties opposed them. And Anna Bauer says, Bovet, for his part, replies that he doesn't oppose consideration of the brief filed by Common

Cause, but he does object to the submission of the proposed brief filed on behalf of a group of former US attorneys. Spiro, meanwhile, announces he takes no position on the common cause motion and, like Beauvais, opposes the brief of the former US attorneys. He also objects to any further involvement of Amici beyond the filing of their respective friend of the court briefs because I think he knows what's coming. Yes, it's the ghost of Mike Flynn. It's the ghost of Mike Flynn. Rearing its ugly head. come in. Yes, it's the ghost of Mike Flynn. It's the ghost of Mike Flynn.

Rearing its ugly head. And it's, I think it's funny. They're like, we don't have any problem with the common cause one. It's because they're, they know that they can't get a special prosecutor. Um, cause there's no contempt here, but they all, they all have a problem with the Pomeran's done filing on behalf of those three former U S attorneys. That's right. Okay.

So judge Ho is ready to wrap up. I'm gonna take everything you said under careful consideration, he says. It's not in anyone's interest for this to drag on. But in order to exercise my discretion properly, I'm not gonna shoot from the hip by ruling from the bench, he said. He announced that he'll take the matter

under advisement and rule in due course. And with that, the hearing is done. The mayor and his attorneys hang back as spectators stream out of the gallery and Beauvais walks out of the courtroom as he entered alone. Thank you Anna Bauer for that amazing replay of what happened. I felt like I was there. She's so great and And you know, I always wait for her retelling of these things. I remember, gosh, when Donald Trump was arraigned in Manhattan and pled not guilty. And I think it was Ken Delaney and comes sprinting out of the courthouse to the camera out on the street to tell Andrea Mitchell, who was carrying it live, he's out of breath.

He's like, he pled not guilty. And Andrea Mitchell's like, what about, oh, this was in the documents case. Cause he, she goes, what about Nauta and Dale Lavera? Oh, I don't know. I left as soon as he bled not guilty to come out here and tell you about it. Okay. What about bail conditions? Oh, I don't know. I left to see. Come on, Ken. And we all knew he was going to plead not guilty. That wasn't the story. There were really important bail considerations and Anna Bauer wrote it all up for lawfare, maybe about an hour later,

but you know, he wanted to be first and Anna just does it better. So that hearing was February 19th and by February 21st, Judge Ho issued his order and it reads, on February 19th, the court held a conference on the government's motion to dismiss the indictment in this matter under Rule 48A. In light of the government's motion to dismiss the indictment in this matter under Rule 48A. In light of the government's motion and the representations of the parties during the conference, it is clear that trial in this matter will not go forward on April 21st. Accordingly, the trial is adjourned Sina Dei. Some people say sine die, I say Sina Dei.

The order setting a pretrial schedule is hereby vacated and all the deadlines set forth therein are also adjourned Sina De A. And what that means is without a new date. Right. Right, so it's just adjourned indefinitely. And before we get to the rest of the order, I wanna play a clip from last week's episode of you, Andy,

from Unjustified. Uh-oh, here we go. Shoving it right in my face. In which we discuss what happened in the Flynn case. Let's hear that clip. It's remarkable. And even in the Flynn case, it was the wrong thing for Bill Barr to do.

No, no question. But they backed themselves up more effectively in that case than they have here. Bill Barr, while as corrupt, it's just way smarter than Emile Beauvais. Just way smarter, way better than Emile Beauvais. But even in that case, you'll remember that when the government came in and made the motion, it wasn't a fait accompli. The judge still dug in and he actually commissioned retired federal judge, John Gleason, to come in, review the case and write a memo like an amicus brief to the court as to whether he thought the

case should be dismissed or not. Gleason wrote a scathing memo about the government's conduct in the case and recommended that the motion not be granted. And then of course, that was the status it was in when Barr then realized this is not, the plane is heading for the ground here and we're all gonna be on it when it crashes. And so he pulled the rip cord by getting Trump to then pardon Flynn. So the issue was never resolved in the Flynn case

because Trump swooped in with the pardon power and stopped the whole thing. Well, with that in mind, here's what the judge in this case says. Normally courts are aided in their decision making through our system of adversarial testing, which can be particularly helpful in cases presenting unusual fact patterns or in cases of great public importance. Our legal system assumes that adversarial testing will ultimately advance the public interest in truth and fairness.

That's a great reference because that's the standard, right? And this motion is like in the public interest. Okay, so he goes on, for example, in the context of a Rule 48A motion, the government's request for dismissal without prejudice is often contested by the defendant and then adjudicated by the court with the benefit of an adversarial briefing. Here the recent conference helped clarify the party's respective positions, but there has been no adversarial testing of the government's position generally or the form of its requested relief specifically.

Where as here nominal adversaries are aligned in their positions, precedent and experience have recognized the authority of courts to appoint an amicus to assist their decision making, including in the criminal cases and even when the movement is the government. Flynn denying mandamus for the court. The district court appointed amicus counsel on unopposed rule 48A motion. Some of the headlines that came out about this are weird. Trial vacated, you know, whatever. But they missed the whole point of this. Like when I first read the motion from the hearing when the judge was like,

I don't want this to drag out, I was like, I do. I really do. I want to see a big old long litigation about this, judge. And so today's ruling, appointing an amicus curae like they did in the Flynn case and citing Flynn just a little twisty twist of the knife there Fantastic. I'm all for this and I love this now Accordingly, this is what the ruling goes on to say to assist with its decision-making via an adversarial process the court exercises its inherent authority to appoint Paul Clement of Clement and Murphy PLLC as amicus curi to present arguments on the government's motion to dismiss. It is hereby ordered that the parties and amicus curi shall address

one, the legal standard for leave to dismiss under rule 48A. Number two, whether and to what extent a court may consider materials other than the Rule 48A motion itself. That's a big ding ding ding to the notes from the meeting and the memo that he sent to Daniel Sassoon. So you need to tell me if I can do that. Number three, under what circumstances, if any, additional procedural steps and or further inquiry would be appropriate before resolving this motion. Full hearing, baby. Yeah, hearing. Come on, bring it. Bring it. Now another Anna Bowers retelling.

Yes, yes. Now number four, under what circumstances, if leave is granted, if I dismiss this case, under what circumstances dismissal should be with or without prejudice? If leave were denied under rule 48, this is number five, what practical consequences would follow, including whether dismissal would nevertheless be appropriate or necessary under other rules or legal principles. For example, unnecessary delay under Rule

48B or under speedy trial principles. See, USV, Nederland, Combinate, Buhr Chemisch Industry. I think that's probably a German company. Yes. Number six, any of these other issues, the parties, any other issues the parties or amicus consider relevant to the court's resolution of the government's motion. Brief shall be due no later than March 7, 2025. If necessary, the court will hold oral argument at 2 PM on March 14th. Let's get it on. Yeah, that's what I want. That's right. With oral arguments on March 14th.

Buy my popcorn and get my seat. Okay. The court notes that it has considered the party's views with respect to the appointment of amicus and concludes that an appointment is appropriate here to assist the court's decision-making. That is particularly so in light of the public importance of this case, which calls for careful deliberation. The court reiterates that it understands the importance of prompt resolution of the pending motion and will endeavor to rule expeditiously after briefing and, if necessary, oral argument is complete. The adjournment of the trial and all related deadlines alleviates any prejudice resulting from a short delay.

Moreover, in light of the concerns raised by the parties regarding the mayor's responsibilities and the burden of continued court appearances, the court notes that while Mayor Adams has the right to appear at any future proceedings, he need not do so given the current procedural posture. In other words, absent an order of this court stating otherwise, Mayor Adams need not appear and need not file a notice voluntarily waiving his appearance at future proceedings, if any, on the government's motion to dismiss. And finally, in light of Mr. Clements' appointment as amicus, the court does not believe there's

a need for additional amicus participation at this stage. Nevertheless, to ensure that the parties and appointed amicus have an opportunity to respond to arguments made by other amici, if any motion for leave to participate as amicus must be filed with the proposed amicus brief by February 28th. The court will not consider any motions for amicus participation after that date. Any opposition to such a motion by a party shall be filed by March 5th. So a couple things about Mr. Clement here. Is that his name? Paul Clement. Yes. Professor of law at the University of Texas named Lee Kvorsky reminds us on Blue Sky quote, for those unfamiliar, Paul Clement probably has more credibility with the conservative wing of the Supreme Court than any other litigator alive. And Adam Clasfeld pointed out, Emil

Boves scorned two lawyers for one of the proposed amici, that's Pomerance and Dunn, as offering partisan noise because of their association with the Trump probe. Paul Clement, a conservative star lawyer, cannot be accused of that. Yeah, that was a solid pick, I think, by Judge Howe. I mean, it's, you know, I don't know. It's hard to imagine. Judges don't think of things politically. They're not really there to serve any political master. But choosing a guy with impeccable conservative Republican credentials, and of course, just a few people, you could argue he's the most qualified person in the country

to do this. He's certainly one of the most successful and experienced Supreme Court litigators that we have still practicing today. So yeah, it was a very deft pick, I think, by Judge Ho. Yeah. And without political considerations though, right? But Dave Knoll says a smart play to line up an appellate counsel for when this goes up. And also Clement is a unitary executive fellow, right? So he's really well respected by the conservative wing, quote unquote, of the Supreme Court. Yeah. Now there's other considerations too,

like they put in the questions there that Clement is supposed to answer about whether or not the judge could actually dismiss the charges, but do it with prejudice, so that that sword of Damocles isn't hanging over the head. So they can't use it, weaponize it.

I mean, this is supposed to be anti-weaponization of government, but they wanna leave the ability to charge him again in place. That's weaponization of the law. Yeah, I think that's such an important point. I was gonna mention that when we got to, towards the end of this. The fact that they are requesting a dismissal

without prejudice is inherently coercive. That's the point of it. And they're like, we admit we have no intention of doing any further investigating, but we just wanna hold on to that one last card in case Adams gives us any trouble in some way. It's something that we can play in the future. That was, I think, exposed as one of the many things that exposes the just blatant political operation that's going on here.

Mm-hmm. Yeah. And like I said, if he denies this motion, then there won't be anybody to prosecute the case. So, you know, I'm not sure. I'm not sure that'll happen. I think he I think if I had to guess he would probably didn't go ahead and deny in part and grant in part the motion and dismiss the charges but do it with prejudice. But we'll see what Paul Clement says. Sean Morota says I haven't seen a cross party amicus appointment like But we'll see what Paul Clement says. Sean Morota says, I haven't seen a cross party amicus appointment like this since Chex Notes. Paul Clement was appointed to argue for the constitutionality

of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau structure. So. It's a pretty good one. He's been here, but I appreciated that they quoted Flynn in there. I was like, yes. Yeah, for sure. And I also wanna give a brief shout out to Danielle Sassoon

who in her resignation letter basically predicted exactly this outcome. She mentioned in her letter that Judge Ho was, if they went forward with this motion to dismiss, Judge Ho was likely to take a very hard look at it. It's not. She basically, didn't say in these words, but basically was saying, this may not get passed. And on the way to it, it's going to be looked at very, very closely. And that's exactly what the judge is

doing. Yeah, exactly. All right. We have to take one more quick break. Then we're going to get to some listener questions. I know we're already in an hour, but we just got a couple quick stories to get out, so stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. All right, just a couple quick stories before we get to listener questions. First from the post, in an all-staff email to prosecutors, interim DC U.S. attorney Ed Martin on Wednesday announced Operation Whirlwind, a new initiative to prosecute

threats against public officials. I mean, count me as unimpressed by the name, but okay, I'm getting distracted. The email was obtained by the Post as well as additional letters of inquiry sent by Martin to Representative Robert Garcia, Democrat of California, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. Martin requested Garcia clarify statements regarding Musk on CNN last week and stepped up a previously reported demand that Schumer explained statements about two conservative Supreme Court justices in 2020. In the letter to Garcia sent Monday, Martin requested that he, quote, clarify an incendiary

statement on CNN, quote, what the American public wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight, Garcia said. This is an actual fight for democracy. Martin's letter to Garcia said the comment quote sounds like, sounds to some like a threat to Mr. Musk and government staff who work for him. Martin has written three letters to Schumer about his quickly walked back statement in a March 4, 2020 rally

that two of Trump's recently nominated Supreme Court justices, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, quote, have released the whirlwind and will pay the price for a decision against abortion rights. Well, that's where they get the operation whirlwind from. I guess so. I guess so. Well, how clever. Yeah. So this is, I mean, there's so many, there's first amendment, there's speech or debate. There's a new in 2023, Supreme Court set a higher standards for these kinds of threats. They have to be true threats. That was a seven to two decision. So I don't think this is going anywhere. Plus the statute of limitations is almost up on those Schumer

remarks on March 4th. It's not actually. This is not an investigation. It's just a threat. It's a brush back pitch. It's Ed Martin flexing his muscles, is not quite confirmed muscles, but the ones he expects to receive

and trying to threaten people to stop speaking out aggressively in public. Yeah. Think of this as like those really lame investigations from Jim Comer and Jim Jordan in the house, right? That's just this, but now they have the DOJ doing it for them. Yeah. That's all this is. And watchdog group American Oversight wants to intervene in Trump's classified documents case, hoping to intervene in Trump's classified documents

case hoping to dissolve Judge Cannon's order blocking the release of Jack Smith's report volume two. Basically, they argue that since the case was dismissed in the 11th circuit, Cannon's order blocking the release of volume two should be considered dissolved. And they wrote in and said, is it, can we consider it dissolved? And they asked for expedited consideration. Of course, Judge Cannon responded in a minute order, reminding American Oversight that the court's January 20th order remains in effect, per the clear terms of the order, which says, this order

remains in effect pending for a further court order, limited as follows. No later than 30 days after a full conclusion of all appellate proceedings in this action and or any continued proceedings in this court, whichever comes later, the parties shall submit a joint status report advising of their position on this order consistent with any remaining rule six challenges or other claims or rights concerning volume two as permitted by law. The court awaits briefing on American Oversight's motion in the normal course. The court awaits briefing on American Oversight's motion in the normal course. So basically, you can brief me, but I'm not going to do it in an expedited manner. And she says this is according to the standard deadline set forth in local rules. To the extent American Oversight seeks what amounts to an emergency ruling on its motion this week, the court sees an insufficient basis to warrant expedited or emergency treatment of the motion.

The status report deadline remains in effect as previously dictated. So the parties have 30 days after the dismissal to file a joint status report. And the parties are now Nauta de Oliveira and Trump's Department of Justice. She says they shall. So they'll probably file something saying we think it should continue to be blocked because, you know, probably they'll use the thing like we weren't charged so you can't release that report, right? Because it says bad things about uncharged or non convicted people or whatever. Yeah. Anyway.

Yeah, they're all going to be together lined up the three of them on one side. They'll submit one basic position and she's going to accept it. And I love common cause, but this is barking up a tree. I'm afraid it's not going anywhere. This is American oversight. But yeah, American oversight. Yes. There's a bunch of people too.

There's a lot of huge press coalition still trying to get this. They'll keep chipping away at it, hammering away at it. Maybe we'll get it someday. All right. We have time for probably a listener question or two. If you have questions, you can send them to us by clicking on the link in the show notes and filling out the form. You can ask us anything. So what do we have this weekend? So I picked two. One of them was from Brad and basically we don't need to answer it because we covered this pretty extensively in the beginning of the show from Brad and basically we don't need to answer because we covered this pretty extensively in the beginning of the show.

Brad basically said, love the show. I've heard previously how it's the honorable and dutiful thing for attorneys to resign and protest like we saw last week with the Adams case. Isn't this just opening up prime real estate for the AG and Trump to fill those slots with more loyalist cronies? Yeah, as we discussed before, it is, but they have that power anyway. They're already firing people. They don't need to open slots to bring in more people.

I saw some reporting just today that Ed Martin has already announced he's hiring a whole bunch of new attorneys in DC. So that's happening anyway. The resignations are really different. They're really about a personal statement about like, I will not go along with your illegitimate demands. And they're essentially fired if they don't. That's right. That's right. This is taking a principled position when you know you're getting pushed over the cliff anyway.

Yeah. So I would say it's a semantics thing. You can say that they're fired. I mean, they are because they are going to refuse an order. And then, you know, but if you insist I do this, I tender my resignation anyway. That's right. That's how that works. All right. So the other question comes from Mark and Mark says, first off, thank you for many weeks of informative podcasts.

You too set the standard for informative media. Yes. He says with all the resignations and layoffs, tons of expertise is leaving the U S government. Wait, we said something nice about our hair. I think you skipped right over it. That was my masterful editing right there in the mid sentence. All right. So after thanking us and, and stating that we set the standard for informative media, he also says, I also appreciate your stunning coiffures, which I'm not even really sure what that means. I think it means our hairdos, right? That's what I think.

I mean, yours is certainly stunning. Mine is like, you know, mid fifties dude who just has a little bit of hair. So I feel like there's nothing stunning about it. My hair is like just all one length like COVID hair. But you know, anyway. All right. You know what? Thanks, Mark. I appreciate it. Everybody needs a little lift. Yeah. That's why I was like, don't skip. Don't just skip right over that. All right. You're right. All right. Okay. So he says, with all the resignations and layoffs, tons of expertise is leaving the US government.

We can anticipate four years of rolling chaos and crises. Where do you think the biggest and earliest hits will occur in the area of the Justice Department, FBI, and CIA, et cetera, particularly those that grabbed the attention of Joe and Jane Sixpack? I think he means like, how, at what point are people, regular people around the country gonna start worrying that we're losing a lot of capability across the institutions that we rely on?

That's a great question. I don't know when that's gonna happen. I think getting the attention of the public is much more likely to happen to something like the price of eggs continuing to rise or inflation. Or seven plane crashes in the last three weeks after, you know, cutting a bunch of people back and preventing hiring, getting hiring freezes put in at the FAA, stuff like that. Like real world consequences that get news coverage, I guess, or bad things that have

to actually happen to people. But certainly, the forced resignations, firings, whatever you want to call them, of massive groups of people, let's take the FBI as an example, always my favorite example, is you are going to feel that in ways that you don't realize. And we'll talk more about how many people are actually getting pushed out now that that Cash Patel is sitting in the chair. But you know, even just taking all these agents from around the country, we don't know how

many but it's got to be at least in the hundreds who were assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces and who are now providing security at immigration raids, watching the perimeter for their colleagues at ICE. By the way, deportations are down. Yeah. For last year. You know, terrorism threats are up and that's less people keeping track of those threat streams, developing sources of information in communities,

developing proactive operations to neutralize threats and to understand more about how people out there may be looking to do us harm. So, you know, that is happening already. I really hope that none of that comes home to roost on anyone's doorstep. But the chances of that happening go up every day. As we continue to divert resources and take experienced capable people away from those jobs, we are steering the country into a place

that is less safe. Yeah, there does seem to be a little bit of delay, at least. I think a judge has stopped probationary firings at in the intelligence community. And I'm not sure which of the alphabet agencies they're talking about. But because I think it's, I think it's under seal. I have to look into that. But I have read and I'm sorry, if I'm giving incorrect information, but I do know that a judge is temporarily blocking I'm giving incorrect information, but I do know that a judge is temporarily blocking some cuts from the intelligence community, ODNI. So we'll see how that ends up working out. But thank you so much for your questions. Again, if you have a question, there's a link in the show notes. You can click on, fill out a form, send us a question, ask us anything,

tell us about our hair, how lovely it is, whatever you want. For sure. anything, tell us about our hair, how lovely it is, whatever you want. We'll be here to read it. And I'm so glad that we get to do this show together. So thanks so much. You always have so much really important information. So we're going to be back in your ears next week. Do you have any final thoughts? No, just that none of us would be here enjoying this show if it wasn't for you. So thank you for everything you do and putting it together. And I thank you and our entire audience does as well. Thanks. We're five episodes in with just about 200 to go.

Just keep your head down and keep marching. It's February 94th and it's going to be a while. Anyway, we'll see you next week. Thanks for listening to Unjustified. I'm Alison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Unjustified is written and executive produced by Alison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe.

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