Jack - Substantive Vindictiveness

Episode Date: May 31, 2026

The justice department is defending the fact that it deleted January 6th press releases from its website.  The Southern Poverty Law Center has filed a motion to dismiss its fraud charges on vindictive prosecution grounds. President Biden is suing the Department of Justice over audio recordings from his memoir project. The US Attorney in DC quietly shutters the autopen investigation into the former president. The DoJ has opened a criminal investigation into a non profit tied to writer E. Jean Carroll. Plus listener questions. Do you have questions for the pod or something for HITMEINTHEHEADWITHABAT?  Get this new customer offer and your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at  MINTMOBILE.com/UNJUST Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/ Follow AGMueller, She Wrote SubstackMueller She Wrote on Blueskyhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodMore from Andrew McCabeThe Real McCabe on [e-mail] on BlueskyThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump This Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you Subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

MSW Media. The Justice Department is defending the fact that it deleted January 6 press releases from its website. The Southern Poverty Law Center has filed a motion to dismiss its fraud charges on vindictive prosecution grounds. President Biden is suing the Department of Justice over audio recordings from his memoir project as the U.S. Attorney in D.C. quietly shudders the autopen investigation into the former president. And the Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation. into a nonprofit tied to writer E. Jean Carroll. This is Unjustified.

Hey, everybody. Welcome to episode 71 of Unjustified. It is Sunday, May 31st. I think that's right. Yeah, May 31st, 2026. I've lost all track of time at this point. But hello, I'm Allison Gill. And I am Andy McCabe with no better sense of time

than my co-host because I am on the other side of the earth, but more on that later. Allison, another week of news. If there was ever any doubt, we have had yet another week of news and even more attempts by DOJ to rewrite the history of the January 6 attack on the Capitol. So let's dive right in. CBS News reports that the Department of Justice is acknowledging it has removed from its website news releases about criminal cases related to the January 6, 2021. on riot calling the information about the prosecutions, quote,

A some partisan propaganda. The purge of news releases documenting criminal charges, convictions, and sentencings is the latest step by the Trump administration to revise the history of the assault on the Capitol when hundreds of supporters of Republican President Donald Trump stormed the building in an effort to halt the congressional certification of his 2020 election loss. If anybody's forgotten, he lost that one. to Democrat Joe Biden. Hmm.

I mean, that's quite a statement to consider the work of the judiciary and grand juries and pet it juries and convictions and prosecutions as propaganda. Yeah. I mean. Your own people doing your work that you or your predecessors in any case supervised and constantly tell the public is done only with the closest adherence to the law and the facts. but yet now I guess it's propaganda because it doesn't tell the story that you prefer, maybe. Yeah, and it's so bizarre to me that before Donald Trump came, you know,

onto the stage here in American politics in his first term, that the Justice Department and its elements like the FBI, et cetera, were always very, very, like, reticent to give the institution a black eye. Like Merrick Garland wouldn't come out and say what Bill Barr did was stupid. We're not doing it, right? Because that would mean what the DOJ did was stupid. And he didn't want to give a black eye to the Department of Justice. That is just all out the window now because they consider everything that happened under the previous Department of Justice as political propaganda.

And Obama's Department of Justice, too, for that matter. So the article continues, Mr. Trump on his first day back, as we know, pardoned or commuted the prison sentences or vowed to dismiss the cases of all of the 1,500-plus people charged with crimes during the capital assault, including those convicted of attacking officers with makeshift weapons such as flagpoles, a hockey stick, a crutch. I think there was a fire extinguisher that was used chemical weapons as well. Bear spray. On Monday, the Justice Department announced a creation of a $1.776 billion fund

meant to compensate Trump's allies who felt they were unjustly investigated and prosecuted. under the Biden administration. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not ruled out that rioters convicted of violence will be eligible for payouts, prompting bipartisan anger in Congress. After a journalist on Friday observed on the social media platform X that the Justice Department was quietly removing news releases on its website that were related to the January 6 attack, including about a Texas man who pled guilty to assault and also faced separate state charges of soliciting a minor, the department responded through its, quote, rapid response team,

that there was nothing quiet about it at all. Quote, we are proud to reverse the DOJ's weaponization under the Biden administration. We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes, the post said. This includes stripping DOJ's website of partisan propaganda. Wow. Now, among the releases removed from the site, were those concerning seditious conspiracy cases

against the members of the proud boys and the oathkeepers, which are far-right extremist groups. What the FBI has dubbed the past several years as the most, the biggest terror threat to the United States. It's coming from inside the house as domestic violent extremists. And the Justice Department in an unopposed motion last month

asked the federal appeals court in D.C. to vacate those seditious conspiracy convictions, a request that was granted Thursday. The department on Friday moved to dismiss the cases against the group members. And that's kind of a little bit confusing. What the Jeanine Piro did, even though she'll bring all the crimes,

she wanted to vacate these. She went to the appellate court. And the reason that the case was still alive is because Donald Trump only commuted the sentences of the Oathkeepers and the proud boys. He didn't pardon them. So their appeal was still alive. So she jumped in and asked the appeals court to vacate and remand.

Well, she said vacate and then. dismiss with prejudice, right? Right. But, you know, they also wanted to strike an amicus brief that Jamie Raskin filed. Jamie Raskin was like, there's no opposition here, allow me to be that. And the appeals court actually granted Jamie Raskin that. So basically, they vacated the charges, sent it back down for consideration for dismissal to the district courts, which is Judge Kelly for the proud boys and Judge Amit Mehta for the Oathkeepers,

where Ginny Imperial Fierro filed in those individual respective courts to dismiss the charges, giving no reason whatsoever. At least, and we've talked about this before, Andy, at least in the Flynn case, they pretended they had a reason, which was that Flynn's lies weren't material. And so it didn't rise to the level of 1001 charges, so he can't have pled guilty and all that other stuff. here, she's just saying it's in the interest of justice.

That's it because I say so. So we'll see what the judge, the judges, I should say, Amit Metta and Judge Kelly do. You know, and a lot of folks are worried that Judge Kelly is a Trump appointee, but Judge Kelly sentenced the proud boys to actually longer prison terms than Obama appointee meta sentenced the oathkeepers to. Interesting. And both judges approved Merrick Garland's request to add to me. terror enhancements.

But Jamie Raskin was allowed to file his brief. His brief has now been lodged in the district courts, and we'll see what the judges have to say about whether or not they're going to dismiss these cases. I think their hands are pretty much tied, but they may be able to get information as to why. I think that might be the best we can do. What do you think? Yeah, I think you're right. They don't have a lot of room to move here because of the concept of prosecutorial

discretion. So these questions about who to charge, when to charge, and of course, when to dismiss a charge have always been looked at as the exclusive province of the prosecutors, even though under some circumstances the prosecutors have to seek leave of court to do a dismissal or something like that. As we saw in the Flynn case, that leave of court doesn't really amount to very much. So I think what we'll get here is some very strident comments about their displeasure about having to do this. I think Judge Meta has shown in many other cases his concerns about the current state of affairs and how the justice system is being undermined and used politically. So I think we'll hear some more of that, but I don't know that they'll really be in a strong position to oppose it or to refuse to allow it to happen. Because then, of course, what do you do?

And that's, you know, judges are always thinking ahead, like, okay, if I say, no, I will not accept this dismissal, then what? Now, in these cases, these guys have already been prosecuted and then I guess the appeals would just go forward. But, yeah, it'll be an interesting one to watch. Yeah. Maybe Judge Meadow will be like, okay, I've read the amicus brief filed by Representative Jamie Raskin. And I agree there's no opposition here. So I need briefs from the government as to, I need more information as to. I need more information as to why you think it's in the interest of justice.

But like you said, broad prosecutorial discretion. That's the problem with elections having consequences. And they're not really being anything you can do about which cases this Department of Justice decides to bring and which cases this Department of Justice decides to throw out. That's right. That's right. So also last week, you'll recall, we discussed the creation of the $1.8 billion slush fund meant to issue monetary damages to the pardoned capital rioters. And in addition to the

fund being so wildly unpopular with Senate Republicans that they couldn't get their bill to fund ICE and customs and border protection passed before they went on a week long break. Several legal challenges have been brought now to stop the fund. So a couple worth noting here, citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington have filed suit. That's, of course, the group we always refer to as crew, along with former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and MPD officer Daniel Hodges. And Allison, I know that you have also filed a lawsuit with public citizen and a former federal prosecutor named Andrew Floyd who led the Capitol Sege Task Force under Merrick Garland and who also has filed a lawsuit with our friends at Democracy Forward.

Right. So I think that the count is up to four lawsuits, a couple, I think at least one strong legislation written by Jamie Raskin, a couple of amicus briefs. There's a lot going on, right? So Andrew Floyd, Andrew Floyd at all, this is the former prosecutor. They're arguing that the fund is not equitable. It will only be paid to those who suffered lawfare under the Biden and Obama administrations. But what about those people who suffered lawfare at the hands of Trump administrations? Now, Don and Hodges argue that they'll be harmed by threats from an emboldened and now funded group of capital rioters who should be barred from payments, by the way, under Section 4 of the 14th Amendment because they participated in an insurrection. And 35 former judges,

including Judge Ludig, are questioning, they filed to reopen the case under Rule 60, the old IRS lawsuit. Yeah. Because they're questioning whether the establishment of this fund was a fraud on the court. Now, other firms, including Democracy Forward and Public Citizen, have filed Freedom of Information Act requests, asking how the government even arrived at the 1776 figure, right? Because Todd Blanche is saying, oh, it's just a valuation of potential future claims.

Okay, sure. Others. Yeah, I know. Oh, my God. I know. I know. Now, others have argued the commissioners, the five-panel commission,

they cannot be appointed by Todd Blanche as outlaid in the quote-unquote settlement because, you know, section two clause two, Article 2, Section 2 clause 2 of the Constitution, says that only the president can appoint officers. And that's what they would be. And the Senate would have to confirm them. So the whole thing's built on a legal house of cards anyway.

And all of those are questions that I would have asked, as an interested party, a potential claimant to this fund because of the weaponization that I went through. These are questions I would have asked. had the government published this rule establishing the fund on the federal register as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, they didn't do that. They circumvented the law because it doesn't fit with their goal of diverting $1.8 billion of taxpayer money into the pockets of Trump's criminal co-conspirators and political allies. They didn't follow the APA. That's what my lawsuit is about.

Oh, my gosh. Are you suggesting that this administration didn't actually want real, red-blooded patriotic Americans to make to comment on what they were planning on doing. Wow, what a concept. So a justice department that ignores the law and makes a mockery of transparency. Yeah. Yeah, that sounds about right for what we've been seeing lately. Well, all right.

So that end, also this past Friday, NBC reports that a federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund. Woo-whoop. Yeah. So, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkima of the Eastern District of Virginia, entered the order Friday after a January 6th prosecutor and others sued to block the fund last week. Ah, okay. So this is the Andrew one, one of the four lawsuits.

Now, the fund is being operated out of the Justice Department. Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the fund. Opponents have labeled it a massive slush fund for Trump's allies. That's because that's what it is. That's what it is. I don't know if we're opponents labeling at that. I think we're just calling it what it is. Its existence has alarmed some legal experts in part because there will be very little public oversight.

There will be zero public oversight on how it is managed. Senate Republican leaders last week punted a vote like we said like you talked about, Andy, on the Republican package to fund ICE and Border Patrol until June, in part because of concerns over the fund. That was from an NBC News report. Now, the Trump administration cannot. take any further action on the fund while the legal motions are pending, quote, which includes the transferring of money to the fund, the consideration of any claims submitted to the fund, I guess

my $8.647 million claim is on hold. And the dispersing of any funds from the fund, and that's according to the orders. That gives all the people who are suing a little breathing room, because now, even before Donald Trump, I think, could answer, or the DOJ could answer any of these lawsuits, the judge stepped in and said, we're going to maintain the status quo and we're going to stay any operation of this fund while we decide. For sure. For sure. The judge said the order was necessary to, quote, ensure that no funds are irreversibly dispersed from the anti-weaponization fund while there are motions pending to block the distribution of funds. She set a hearing for June 12. Quote, the department remains extremely confident in the legality of the anti-weaponization fund,

which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements, a Justice Department. Spokesperson said in a statement. Okay. That is not true. Can we pause? Because that settlement was an actual settlement. Of an actual conflict, a legal conflict, a case in which, like, Native American farmers had been discriminated against by the agriculture department, I think, if I have the facts right.

And that's the whole thing. That's why my very first thing, when the story came out, what, two weeks ago when they were talking about, they're talking about a settlement. I was like, there's no settlement. There can't be a settlement. There's no adversary in this lawsuit. And even when the judge dismissed the case because Trump asked her to close it, unilaterally, which he can do, she's made a note saying, by the way, no one might. mentioned any settlement terms. There is no settlement of record. This is not a settlement. That's why I was like harping on that so bigly at the time is because without that legal construct of a settlement, you are now establishing a fund that needs to have a rule put on the federal register that has to have

officers appointed by Congress that has nothing to do with the settlement of a legitimate lawsuit, which is what they're one example of Obama that they keep comparing it to. And you're right. It's not, It's not, they're apples and oranges. It does not fit. And let's go one step further back, only because I know that our listeners like this stuff as much as we do. The only reason he was able to just withdraw his suit is because the IRS never answered the complaint. So there was never actually a, you know, two conflicting adverse parties in an open lawsuit. He filed his complaint.

When you file a complaint, you know, you're the plaintiff and you name the defendants. In this case, the defendant was the IRS. Once you file that complaint, the IRS has a short period of time to file an answer. And answers usually refute all the claims in the complaint. The IRS never did that, which kept this as a totally one-sided, half-birth nightmare, which gave him the opportunity to withdraw it and kill it at any time. And, gee, do you think maybe the IRS never, ever answered the complaint because the White House didn't want it to answer? I mean, I don't know

that for a fact. I'm speculating that. That's something that can be uncovered, which is why these 35 judges have filed to reopen the case to examine whether or not that was a fraud on the court. This judge could then maybe order. Let's see all your emails back and forth with the IRS pertaining to this lawsuit. Let's see this. Let's see that. You know, show it to me in chamber. One of the most powerful arguments they make in that brief, which I highly recommend if anybody out there hasn't read it is that what happened in this case for Trump is not consistent with the position that DOJ took on behalf of in all of the cases that were filed on behalf of the other people whose information was leaked by the same contractor so the guy

the contractor who leaked the information about Trump also leaked information about a bunch of other people tens of thousands of people I think right several of those people filed federal lawsuits. And in those suits, the department filed an answer on behalf of the IRS, first of all. And then they went in and defended the cases. They're still defending them. They're filing motions or motions to dismiss, things like that, the normal course of business. But in this one, not so much. No answer ever filed. And then the thing was allowed to go away. And now we have this fund. So, yeah, I feel like there's a very legitimate fraud inquiry that needs to take place here. Yeah, and I love this motion to reopen the case under Rule 60 to do just that.

Court can do it, Suisbante, but these 35 former federal judges from, gosh, going all the way, I mean, to both sides, right, all over the country. That's right. I think it's a very powerful argument. We'll see what the judge has to say. So to cap this off, we can't do that without, including this quote from Todd Blanche. He said, quote, the department remains extremely confident in the legality of the end. anti-weaponization fund, which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements, a Justice Department spokesperson said in his statement,

we will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare. Okay. We'll see about that. Yeah. Now, Andrew Floyd, like you said, he was the one who headed the task force in the now-closed capital siege section of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia before he was dismissed in July. He filed a declaration in connection with the lawsuit on Thursday, and Floyd

prosecuted cases related to January 6th. The Trump administration, quote, is gifting people I helped investigate and prosecute after January 6th, access to what he described as, quote, an illegally created process designed to rush money out the door to perceive political allies while treating me and people like me as disfavored enemies, unquote. So we'll keep an eye on all of these lawsuits, as they go forward. But as for now, the fund is on pause. It's blocked temporarily. Yeah.

It'll be interesting to see if they appeal that and what happens. You know, we've seen that time and time again when any time injunctions have been issued in these cases that are where people are standing up to what's happening here. And, you know, that has not gone well for the plaintiffs. It hasn't. And it's so bizarre because generally you can't appeal

a temporary or injunction or a temporary restraining or you can only appeal a more permanent injunction or a preliminary injunction. So it was just very, it's very odd that they do that. But yeah, I can't, I can see Donald Trump going to the Supreme Court. Hey, guys, they want to take away my fund. And like, you know, we have to see what they. Another shadow docket. Yeah, exactly. Well, we'll see. There's no way they're going to let this just wither away. Yeah, no, agreed. All right, shenanigans going on with the writer E. Jean Carroll, Donald Trump's still real mad that she has basically extracted $90 million out of him, which seems like a drop in the well when he's considering giving $300 billion to Iran right now. But that's for a different show and another time.

And we're going to talk about what's going on with the EGene case after we take this quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Hey, everyone, I got real tired of treating an overpriced wireless bill like it was just part of it. everyday adulting. My old carrier kept charging too much, layering on bogus fees, sometimes hidden fees, dressing it all up with free perks that were not saving me anything. But switching to Mint Mobile fixed all my complaints. Compared to my previous provider, I'm spending a lot less money and the services every bit is good. So please support our show and check out Mint Mobile. Make the switch at mintmobile.com slash unjust. Now, Mint Mobile is built around a very simple idea.

Wireless should not cost this much. The premium plan started just 15 bucks a month. You still get high-speed data and unlimited talk and text on the nation's largest 5G network. They also make switching super easy. You can bring your phone, keep your phone number, keep your contacts, activate with an ESIM in just a couple minutes, and start saving money immediately. No long-term contracts, no hoops to jump through, and no reason to keep overpaying. Now, I use Mint Mobile and I can't recommend it enough. I have measured it against my old provider in every way ever since I switched, and Mint has been everything they promised. Their service is reliable. The coverage is great. giving so much money. I wish I had done this a really long time ago. So if you like your money,

Mintmobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash unjust. That's mintmobile.com slash unjust. Up front payment of $45 for three-month five-gigabyte plan required equivalent to $15 a month. New customer offer for three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra, see Mintmobile for details. All right, everybody, welcome back. This week, news broke that the Department of Justice had opened a criminal investigation into writer E. Jean Carroll for perjury during a deposition. But Andrew Boutros put out a statement saying, quote, the Chicago U.S. Attorney's Office can confirm that it has not opened and has never opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll. Any claim to the contrary is categorically false.

Well, I guess that's technically true because they're actually investigating around E. Jean Carroll. The post reports that the Justice Department has actually launched a criminal probe into Chicago-based non-profit, owned by Reid Hoffman, over its payment of legal bills for E. Jean Carroll. That's the advice columnist who accused Trump. And you know what? I'm going to reword this because, you know, she accused President Trump. No, President Trump sexually assaulted her and defamed her. We can say that. It's been adjudicated.

We don't have to say she accused him of these things. And that's according to two people familiar. So while Boutros says, we didn't open an investigation to E. Jean Carroll, we did open an investigation because of E. Jean Carroll. And we're investigating E. Jean Carroll through a criminal investigation. We opened into Reed Hoffman's nonprofit. That's what they should have said. Not the first time Boutros' office has been associated with some shenanigans that are deceptive. But I, I'll get there.

We'll get there. But the investigation, which is expected to look at statements E. Jean Carroll made during a deposition, could also morph into a criminal burjury probe against the 82-year-old columnists, said people familiar with the matter. Huh, weird. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation. The nascent investigation follows years of Trump publicly deriding Carol, his accuser. Actually, I'm striking that word again, deriding Carol and Reid Hoffman, a major Democratic Party donor. So that's what's going on. Yes. Yeah. So this investigation stems from Carol's civil lawsuit against Trump in which a jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted and defamed her, delivering her a $5 million verdict. Now, Carol also won a second defamation trial against Trump with the jury awarding her an $83.3 million civil judgment. Trump, who denies the allegations, has so far been unsuccessful in his appeals of the verdicts. In a 2022 deposition, Carol testified that outside funders were not helping her to bring the lawsuit. Later became public that Hoffman's nonprofit, the American Future Republic, had paid some of her legal bills.

Yeah, and the investigation is centered on this statement and whether American Future Republic, which largely gives grants to left-leaning causes, could have directed Carol to lie during her deposition, according to the people familiar, which is, dumb because it's a nonprofit, it has to divulge where it puts its money. The investigation is examining potential money laundering, conspiracy, obstruction charges, according to the people. Any conspiracy investigation probably would extend to E. Jean Carroll. The Justice Department declined to comment saying it doesn't discuss ongoing investigations. What? Unless they decide they will. Yeah. The probe, which is based in Chicago, marks the Justice Department's latest attempt to wield its powers to investigate and embroil Trump's foes in potentially costly legal investigations. I would add to that their current practice of attacking non-profits that

support liberal causes simply for the purpose of terrorizing nonprofits and trying to get them out of the game. Okay. Some investigations into these adversaries have done little more than Garner headlines with the efforts gaining little legal momentum within the Justice Department and the FBI. Others, including cases against former director, FBI director James B. Comey, have resulted in indictments. One case against him was dismissed after a judge determined that the U.S. attorney who brought the case was unlawfully appointed. A second indictment is also expected to face significant legal hurdles. The Seashells indictment. Yeah, I'll say.

CNN first reported on the investigation tied to Carroll's case. The investigation became public on the same day that the Supreme Court again postponed deciding whether it would take up Trump's appeal of the $5 million verdict. They've postponed that 12 times now. Yeah. 12. Dodging the bullet, as it were. And like, really, dude, $5 million?

According to the New York Times, he made $1.4 billion off of the presidency in his first year. Made $700 million off stock trades alone. Pay the woman and let her go away. I mean, geez. Yeah, no. Not when you've got a free entire Department of Justice as your personal attorneys. Yeah, I guess. So now, Trump's personal defense attorneys have previously brought up Carol's statement during the

deposition and how the trial judge handled the evidence around the payment of her legal fees as a potential reason to overturn the verdict. But a panel of federal appeals judges ruled in 2024 that it's plausible that she had simply forgotten about the funding when she testified and had not intended to mislead the defense. According to court records, Carol's legal team said they would be paid on contingency, meaning her attorneys would only get paid if and when she prevailed a jury or reached a monetary settlement. In 2020, her defense team informed her that they had secured outside funding for some legal fees, according to the court records.

Carol said that she did not speak with her counsel again about this until 2023, and that when she testified in 2022, she'd forgotten about it, according to court records. Quote, there was no evidence to suggest that Ms. Carroll was personally involved in securing the funding, interacted with the funder, received an invoice showing the arrest. arrangement before or after her counsel received the outside funding, or had discussed the arrangement with anyone between learning of it in September 2020 and being deposed in October 2022, the panel of appeals court judges found. Now, Todd Blanche, of course, the acting attorney general, was part of Trump's legal team that brought the appeal of the Carroll verdict. He's recused

from the investigation into the nonprofit, according to one of the people familiar with the matter. Why would you accuse yourself? accused. Yeah, right? Why would you recuse yourself if it's not got anything to do with the Eugene's case? And if he did acknowledge with this recusal the need to recuse from anything having to do with his representation of Donald Trump as a client, doesn't that seem like there'd be more recusals out there? I mean, come on, dude. Seems like it.

All right, so let's remind everybody who Andrew Boutros is. Yes. He recently got in trouble. Did we talk about the Broadview Six last week here on this show? Last week. Yes, we did. Yeah. So you remember the Broadview Six, including congressional candidate, previous congressional candidate, Kat Abogazale.

They were charged with a felony of conspiracy to obstruct an ICE officer and then a handful of misdemeanors. There was some grand jury issues. So Butros dropped the felony charge and said, we're going to go to trial. A rare trial, federal trial on misdemeanor charges. They're big on that in the Trump administration because they can't get grand juries to indict people. And we found out there was a bunch of grand jury malfeasance. We talked about how the AUSA who presented the case to the grand jury was talking to the grand jurors out in the hall, ex parte, how they vouched for the evidence saying,

trust us. It's really, you know, we got really good evidence that we're going to bring in at trial, which is the same thing they did in the Comey case. And then they actually got a no true bill, kicked out the jurors that voted no, replaced them,

voted again, got a second no true bill, kicked those jurors out that voted no, brought in more people until they got, they kept doing that until the third time when they got an indictment. And then they hid that information from the judge. Yeah, the judge suspected nonsense, with the grand jury. So she requested the transcript. They gave her the transcript and not only was

most of it redacted, but it was missing several pages. So they like held back the pages of the bad stuff instead of turning it over to the judge as they had been ordered to do. It's the most wildly obscene grand jury practice I've ever heard of in my since Lindsay Halligan. Yeah, it's even worse. I think it's worse than how old again. Yeah. It is. It's way worse. Yeah. It is. It's crazy. Absolutely crazy. That's his office. That's the office that now is not investigating E. Jean Carroll, but is actually investigating E.G.

Carol. What? Right. So now we know E. Jean Carroll's attorney, Robbie Kaplan, one of the most badass attorneys in the country. Yeah. First of all, if they get in it, well, I don't know what grand jury is going to indict E. Jean Carroll. But let's say they get an indictment somehow.

You can guarantee that Robbie Kaplan's going to be asking for these. grand jury records based on the history of this. In fact, and here's the problem with this lack of confidence in the Department of Justice. Going forward, it's always going to be a question about what's going on in the grand jury rooms, you know? This is a door that has never been open before. Like, there's plenty of people caught up in the criminal justice system who do not like the outcome of their cases, who end up in jail or they lose their property or whatever.

and they have since time immemorial filed appeals you know whatever made put their defenses on in court but this this idea that the entire functioning of DOJ and its representative in any given case might actually be politically motivated vindictive selective or just wildly incompetent those sorts of challenges were not made because there was no basis for them not anymore Now there's plenty of basis for them. We see them. We talk about them every week. So, yeah, this is a permanent scar on the department. Yeah. And, you know, and also not to mention, E.G. and Carol said, I forgot. There's something else that wasn't in the article.

But two weeks after that deposition where E. Jean said, I haven't gotten any outside funding, they re-deposed her, presumably to cure that defect. But the DOJ side has never released. least that information in that deposition. They haven't touched. They haven't brought that up at all. So I'm sure what happened is that she forgot or she wasn't notified because two weeks prior to that deposition, E. Jean Carroll's legal team notified the court. Hey, we're getting some outside funding from Reid Hoffman and a couple others, I think. So it wasn't like anyone was trying to hide anything. And when we talk about the first Comey case and the Bronston literal

truth defense, which we never had to get to because Lindsay Halligan was disqualified. Right. It's up to the questioner to ask precise questions. The burden is on the questioner. And 1001 charges are extremely hard to bring. So if this gets past a grand jury, it's never going to get past probably a motion for vindictive prosecution. And if it does, it's never going to get past a pettit jury. In my opinion. Tough case under any circumstances. are about the worst circumstances. So I don't see this ultimately landing anywhere in a bad place for her. But it'll take a while. Let's take a lot of money. It'll take a lot of Kaplan's time and effort. That Reid Hoffman will pay it.

Apparently. Well, I would. If I was Reid Hoffman. All right. We've got President Biden back in the news. We're going to talk about the couple of stories that came up about the former Jabiden right after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Come on, man. It's malarkey. Welcome back. President Biden is back in the news this week. Okay, this is from ABC. Former President Joe Biden filed suit against the Justice Department on Tuesday in an effort to block the release of recordings and transcripts from interviews that he gave for his memoir that were central to a special counsel probe regarding his handling of classified materials after his time as vice president. Now, the lawsuit follows an intervention by Biden in a seven. separate lawsuit brought by the conservative heritage foundation over a FOIA request that sought the records from the investigation by former special counsel Rob Herr. So let me just make sure I got

this, AG. So Biden is interviewed by his co-author for his own memoir, an entirely private affair, something that's not even public until the book comes out, presumably. And then later, Rob Hur comes in to investigate the handling of documents. And he gets access to the of those recordings, the work behind the memoir, essentially. And now the Heritage Foundation steps in years later to sue the Justice Department to force the release of those materials from the potentially criminal investigation. But we can't get volume two of Jack Smith's final report.

Of course, no. No, of course not. And it took 50 years to get the underlying evidence from Watergate, which was just a break-in. But watch Todd Blanche released these here. Now, the audio recordings and transcripts, like you said, stem from what Biden did with Ghostwriter Mark, I think it's Wannitzer. That's right.

That's for his 2017 memoir, Promise Me, Dad, a Year of Hope, hardship, and Purpose. The materials, like you said, were obtained by the DOJ as part of Special Counsel's probe, which ended in February 2024, finding that Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials, but there was no recommendation for criminal charges. Now, Biden's lawsuit wants to further bolster his demands that the materials not be shared with the conservative think tank or congressional Republicans citing his right to privacy, as well as allegations against DOJ that it's acting unlawfully in seeking an avenue to release the records. Quote, President Biden, like every American, has a right to privacy and personal conversations he had within his own home, the lawsuit said. That is particularly true here where the department obtained this information through a criminal investigation. Biden's lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said the DOJ has indicated it will release the audio recordings and transcripts to both the Heritage Foundation and the House Judiciary Committee on June 15th unless a court order blocks the release.

Yeah, funny how that FOIA request is going to be honored, but... Right away, yeah. Yeah. Now, the lawsuit details a frenzied effort and communications between Biden's counsel and the DOJ in recent weeks to walk through potential redactions and other. issues surrounding releasing the audio transcripts. While the DOJ and career attorneys during the Biden administration had taken the position that the release of the materials was a clear departure from department norms, Biden's attorneys said the current DOJ reversed its position without any formal explanation beginning in February.

So I don't know, man. I think if Todd Blanche wants to release these, he's going to release them. Absolutely. He's not going to let any of this slow him down. But good for Biden for standing up to it. And pointing it out, that's what you've got to do, right? Yeah, agreed. All right, but wait, there's more Biden news.

And this is a good one because I think it sets up nicely for the hit me in the head with the bat segment, which is coming up next. All right, so NBC reports that the Justice Department shelved an investigation into former President Joe Biden's use of the auto pen, a person briefed on the matter, told NBC News on Wednesday. Wop, Wop, Wamp, Wom. Oh, I'm going to bring all the crimes,

but not that one. Bring them all. Except the auto pen. Okay, Justice Department Attorney, Ed Martin, the former weaponization czar, opened the probe while he was interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

It wound down recently, or failed miserably, you could also say, under Janine Piro, the current U.S. attorney, who was a longtime Trump ally and former Fox News host, the New York Times first reported this news.

Get this. She never brought the auto pen case to a grand jury. That might cost her her job. On a bad day in the White House where the cheeseburgers are hitting the walls and stuff, he could be that, where it's my auto pen case. She brought the case against six members of Congress who participated in the video about unlawful orders. She brought the sandwich case.

She brought the, you know, no, the Seashells case is in a different North Carolina. North Carolina is in a different jurisdiction. But this is the woman who has proudly said it's the main part of my impersonation of Janine Piro. I'll bring all the crimes. I don't care if it's a no bill. I don't care if there's a not guilty verdict. I'll bring all the crimes. Thank you.

Who's Bill anyway? Except the auto pen, I guess. She said that one she didn't even bother to present to a grand jury. And like you said, her job could be in trouble. It is difficult, they say here in this story, to bring a. criminal case when there's not even a readily identifiable and applicable criminal statute. There is that, yeah. The person briefed on the matter. And also, the presidents are immune now. I don't know if you knew

that. The White House referred an inquiry about the matter to the Justice Department, as spokesmen for Piro's office, citing Justice Department policy, said the office does not confirm or deny the existence of criminal probes unless it's a sandwich guy. And then I don't care. But all of them are getting brought. Oh, my God. What is this? What is this? We don't confirm or deny the existence of criminal probes.

What? Have you been to Kash Patel's Twitter account? Yeah. And technically this one, not a criminal probe because, as you mentioned, no criminal law. No law to criminalize the use of an auto pen. By the way, I know they would prefer a country in which they could just say, I hereby declare the a criminal. But we don't actually live there yet, yet, yet.

So hold on. That's, that's, that, that, that's, uh, that, that, that damn hasn't broken. Coming attractions. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. President Donald Trump in June demanded a wide ranging investigation into Biden and officials in his administration after he claimed that Biden's AIDS,

aides used auto pen signatures to hide Biden's cognitive decline. Hmm. Pot. Kettle. Black? never mind. Republican-led House Oversight Committee investigated Biden's use of an auto pen, writing in a report in October that some executive actions he signed with an

auto pen were, quote, illegitimate because he suffered from mental decline and could have been unaware of the contents. That's according to all of the physicians on the House committee. Oh, wait a minute. There weren't any. Right. And they didn't examine him and have no basis upon which to make that conclusion. But nevertheless.

us. Right. But Donald Trump's sitting in the Oval Office at the Resolute desk signing things going, what's this one? Yeah. Sure. Got it. All right. Now that we've got the Joe Biden and the Joe Biden out of the way, we've come to that point in the show where it's time to hit me in the head with a bat, but we have to take a quick break first. So hang on. Hang on, Slugger. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. It's time to hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with a bat. Hit me in the head with the bat. Now, this one has to do with more potential grand jury malfeasance.

We know about what Lindsay Halligan did with the grand jury in the first Comey case, the one about him lying, not the seashals, telling them that she had a really great evidence that they'd bring out later at trial, trust me, then getting a no true bill, and then trying to fix it by removing one of the three charges, and then just having the jury four person sign it again without another vote. and then hiding that, hiding those pages of when that happened from the court, all of which might have gotten her in a heap of trouble if she hadn't been disqualified for being unlawfully appointed in the first place.

Then we had the grand jury malfeasance you and I talked about in the Broadview Six case where Andrew Boutros had to dismiss the rest of the misdemeanor charges on the eve of trial because the judge learned the DOJ had hidden grand jury transcripts from her that showed more vouching ex parte communications with grand jurors outside the grand jury room two no true bills followed by the replacement of grand jurors who voted no all of that. And this week, that misconduct, the Broadview Six misconduct found its way into a footnote, footnote 29, in a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution from the Southern Poverty Law Center. CBS reports that the Southern Poverty Law Center on Tuesday asked a federal judge to dismiss the criminal charges filed against it by the Justice Department,

saying the indictment represents a, quote, top-down retributive campaign directed by President Trump to target his enemies. The 47-page filing in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama documents a series of public statements by the president and other top administration officials targeting the center, including one in which Mr. Trump called it, quote, one of the greatest political scams in American history, close quote. Was that him talking about himself or someone else? I'm having a hard time sorting that out. He's mad about how people got mad at him when he said there's good people on both sides at the Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally. That's what this is about.

He's trying to say that the Southern Poverty Law Center started and caused and funded and fueled the Unite the Right rally, that it was them. Got it. Now, Nazi Richard Spencer is mad about that. He's like, no, that was us. Come on, man. He's mad.

But anyway, quote, this is the very definition of a vindictive prosecution. That's what lawyers for the SPLC wrote. And the court should dismiss this indictment as a violation of due process. The Justice Department secured an 11-count indictment in April, charging the civil rights nonprofit with wire fraud and bank fraud, saying they deceived their donors by, you know, saying that they were trying to take apart white supremacist groups when they were actually trying to fund them, which is banana pants. And the indictment alleges the group, which is best known for its work,

to oppose the Ku Klux Klan, like I said, lied to donors about paying confidential informants to infiltrate hate groups and deceived banks about the bank accounts used to make those payments. Now, the SPLC has pled not guilty to these charges and vowed to fight them. It is generally difficult to prevail in getting charges dismissed on the grounds of vindictive prosecution, but such requests have become increasingly common amid rising concerns about current and former Justice Department officials about cases being driven by political retribution. Now, just last week, a federal judge dismissed

smuggling charges against Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia, a Salvadoran-born Maryland resident, who was mistakenly deported by the Trump administration last year. The judge found that the Justice Department's prosecution was vindictive. Yeah, and boy, you could just control copy and control paste the Abrago vindictiveness stuff in the Southern Poverty Law Center case because first of all, in the Abrago case,

he had Todd Blanche go on Laura Ingram on Fox News and say, we only brought these charges because the Maryland judge did us dirty, right? Yeah. Ruled in favor of Brago. And that allowed Judge Crenshaw to find a presumption of vindictiveness,

which then shifted the burden to the government. It was then their job to rebut the vindictiveness, which they failed to do, so he was forced to dismiss the case. case. In this case, Todd Blanche went on Fox News on Laura Ingram and said, this case was mysteriously closed by the Biden administration, so we decided to open it back up and bring the charges again. Wow. Yeah. Now, what he failed to mention was that the initial case was opened under the first Trump administration. And they used all of the lies about how, you know, the unite the right rally.

And in footnote 29, this is what I kind of wanted to bring up to you because it mentions the Broadview 6, they say all these lies that we're, you know, enumerating here told by the Department of Justice and other officials in our motion for vindictive prosecution. We want to remind you, we also have a motion to get the grand jury stuff, to get the grand jury transcripts. And we just, and that's a totally separate thing, but we just want to mention to the court that this week, Andrew Boutros, in Chicago had to dismiss charges against the Broadview Six. The case is called USV Rabbit. That's the Broadview Six case. Just wanted to let you know that they're hiding, they were hiding grand jury material

and that they were doing all this very, so we have to assume, one can only assume, that the same shenanigans were pulled in our cases, grand jury, because these are all lies. So we want to see the grand jury transcripts as well. And that's what they're asking for. Yeah. The door is open.

Yeah. Now the flood comes through. Here it comes. Yeah. And so I think it's very important that even though Todd Blanche went on Laura Ingram and stuck his foot in his mouth again and said, oh, that case was closed by the Department of Justice, but we're reopening it. It was mysteriously closed. He failed to mention that Trump was the one who mysteriously opened it in 2019. And by the way, there is no such thing as a mistake.

seriously closed case. Not cases closed themselves from lack of attention or something. There's a deep file inside the Justice Department and also one across the street in DOJ that documents everything that happened. And in this case, probably didn't happen. It documents all the false leads that led to no evidence that led to somebody finally saying, this is crazy, let's close it. Yeah.

And SBLC wants that file, rightfully so. They want that file. Anyway, again, like I said, boils down to Trump being mad that people hated his good people on both sides' remarks. He wants to blame the whole Unite the right rally on this nonprofit, the Southern Poverty Law Center. And there's just so many parallels to the Abrago case. But the main difference here is that in the Abrago case, Judge Waverly Crenshaw and Tennessee is an Obama appointee, pretty fair judge. I don't know much about the judge in this Southern Poverty Law Center case, but it is a Trump appointee from the first term. First term Trump appointees tend to be a little bit better than second term Trump appointees.

But I don't know much about this judge. But and we're talking about Alabama here. So we'll see. Hopefully we at least get some discovery on this and that the judge just doesn't say, no, motion denied. Hopefully there's a little discovery ordered here. And we'll see what happens in the other motion about the grand jury material. that are mentioned in footnote 29. Anyway, really interesting filing.

Yeah, for sure. All right. That brings us to the question segment of our show. Now that we are done, hitting me in the head with a bat. This is the portion of the show where you send in your questions by clicking the link in the show notes. And then Andy and I go through them and see what we can answer. And I think we've got time for one question, maybe two today, depending on how quick they are. Andy, what do you got?

I've got one question, but I've got two little cleanup matters here. Then I'm going to put out first. First is just a shout out. And this one, because it was so crazy. As you know, Alison, I am traveling right now. I'm in Australia, other side of the globe. And I stumbled across a wonderful woman yesterday. So I want to shout out to Denise from the Shoot Harbor Marine Terminal in Queensland, Australia,

who just spotted me ordering coffee. And was like, he said to my wonderful wife, your husband looks just like somebody from the United States. And so that's what started the conversation. She just picked me out of a crowd. I was not looking my best either, I want to say. And she was very quick to tell me that she listens to all of the Allison Gill podcast. So I said, well, you know what? That is awesome.

We took selfies. It was great. She's absolutely a lovely person. So thank you, Denise, thank you. I got the selfie. I was actually my goddaughter's graduation. So it was nice because they were reading like 10,000 names. Yes.

We weren't anywhere close to my goddaughter. daughter's name yet. And so it was nice. It was a nice little distraction from sitting out at a graduation. By the way, the valedictorian was so cool. The kids are all right, Andy. He got up and he's like, my name is, I think his name was Wyatt. And he's like, look, I just turned 18. And the very first thing I did was register to vote because our rights are under attack in this country. They're under attack by a bot and paid for Supreme Court. They're under attack by ICE officials who are taking our neighbors and separating our families. And if you want to do something about it,

the best thing you can do is register and vote and blah, blah, blah. And then, like, afterwards when they announced, like, what he was going to school and all that stuff. It turns out he's going to Harvard. He's going to go into government. And I was like, high five, kid. That's the future. That's how we get out of this.

People ask me all the time, how are we going to get out of this? That's how we're going to get out of it. As always, we rely on the young people to save us. Interesting dichotomy, too, because, like, one of the other salutatorians was just very, like, I love the school and I love our lunches and our friendships and the laughter will last and da-da-da. And then this kid's like, your voting rights are under attack. You're all going to live in cages and let you stand up and fight. And we like stood up and cheered.

My friend was like, the kids are all right. The kids are all right. We're like, woo. That's awesome. It was great. That is great. That is the framing in which I was able to get the photo of you and Denise. Denise, thank you so much.

That is so cool that we've got focus. listening in us. Totally is. Okay. Now one quick correction. I'm not even sure if we made this mistake, but we probably did.

And then, you know, this is the MSW media. We are fully transparent here. So the correction is, it comes in from someone who remained anonymous. All right, hold on. I don't want to mess it up again.

Substantive is pronounced substantive with the emphasis on the sub rather than the stun. It is not substantive. This word is often used in legal matter. of just asking that you please pronounce the word correctly. Okay, anonymous, I got it.

All right. I think both are correct, but I prefer substantive. Yeah, if for no other reason, then it's going to make anonymous happy. So that's how we do it. Yeah, it was probably me that said substantive. That was probably me. I don't know. You know what?

Who knows? But there we go. Now we're all corrected. Okay. For the question comes from Craig in Maine. Craig says, hi, devoted consumer of all MSW media here. The recent and pleasing uptick and selective and vindictive rulings has got me wondering. I thought part of making the selective argument was showing that similarly situated suspects were not charged.

But until this DOGA clown car rolled into town, it wasn't it considered unethical for prosecutors to disclose the identities of suspects against whom they had elected not to pursue charges? If you don't have a toady Todd Blanche saying all the quiet things out loud, is there some kind of bizarre world database? where lawyers can find cases that were not brought. If not, how do you find similarly situated non-defendants? That was a really interesting question. Oh, yeah, I don't know. How do you? I mean, other than like the similarly situated non-defendant saying,

I didn't put the seashells there or whatever. Yeah, exactly. So you're right, Craig. There is no such awesome database, but you're a little bit off in your analysis. So you don't have to show examples of people who were investigated and not charged. Typically what people, although if you had that,

it would be very powerful. But in most cases, what you have is other defendants who were investigated for the same activity but received what were charged with much lesser crimes. So in other words, if you and all your friends were stealing classified documents and all of your friends got charged with like misdemeanor, mishandling, and you got charged with like full felony weight espionage,

then you could go say, wait a second, how come they all got off with misdemeanors, and I'm getting hammered with the felony? Also part of the vindictive argument, you also have to show that the government ratcheted up the charges on you because you refuse to do something they asked, like plead guilty to something else. So it's complicated, and there's a lot of proof that you need for these motions. And I have a question for you, too, Andy. I mean, when you do, do the vindictive and selective prosecution, it can be dismissed for vindictive or selective, right? I think the Abrago case was just, in fact, the judge didn't find that the merits of the actions of the DOJ actually rose to vindictiveness, but because the government couldn't rebut the vindictiveness,

the case was dismissed. And there was no selective prosecution consideration, right? They're slightly different. Selective is more the thing that we've been talking about, like these other. other people got X and I got stuck with Y sort of argument. Vindictive is more what we've been talking about on the pod over this show and the previous show. Like the government has exposed their true motivation by making these public statements and

they're not really coming after me because I violated the law. They're coming after me because, you know, I'm a political enemy or something like that. They're often brought together in the same motion, but not always. And either one of them, if you're successful, can result in the end of the case. Yeah. Wow. Really interesting question. Good question. I wish we had a database of similarly situated, non-proscuted people. That would be great. Especially these days. It would become pretty handy. But anyway, yeah, thank you for sending in those questions. Everybody, if you have a question, link in the show notes, send it to us. We really look forward to reading them every week. We really do. They're always just so thoughtful and fantastic. So thank you. Thanks for listening. We will see you next week. Do you have any final thoughts? just like super appreciative of the people all over this globe who listen to this show and send in questions or just you know uh check in with us every sunday that's uh much appreciated and it goes a long way to kind of spreading the love instead of constantly spreading the chaos and the negativity

which seems to be what what what our country is spreading a lot of around the world lately there's good people out there everywhere and they enjoy meeting us when we come out to travel and meet them and appreciate what they have. So yeah, thanks for all the listeners all over the place. Yeah, finding community is super important in these times. So thanks for finding community with us here on Unjustified. We'll see you next week. I'm Allison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. Unjustified is written and executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hawkey 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.