Jack - Takes the Cake

Episode Date: May 24, 2026

The Department of Justice has established a $1.8B “anti-weaponization fund” after Trump dropped his lawsuit against the IRS. A former federal prosecutor has been indicted for sending herself copies of Volume II of Jack Smith’s final report. A federal judge has dismissed the charges against Kilmar Ábrego García on vindictive and selective prosecution grounds. The Justice Department has dropped all remaining charges against the Broadview 6 after a grand jury transcript showed gross misconduct. Plus listener questions. Do you have questions for the pod or something for HITMEINTHEHEADWITHABAT?  TACO, NACHO, and More Trump Acronyms - by Carlos Greaves 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.

M.SW. Media. The Department of Justice has established a $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund after Trump dropped his lawsuit against the IRS. A former federal prosecutor has been indicted for sending herself copies of volume two of Jack Smith's final report disguised as cake recipes. A federal judge has dismissed the charges against Kilmar-Brego-Garcia on vindictive and selective prosecution grounds. And the Justice Department has dropped all remaining charges against the Broadview Six after a grand jury transcript showed gross misconduct. This is unjustified. Hey, everybody, welcome to episode 70 of Unjustified. It's Sunday, May 24th, 26.

I'm Allison Gill. And I am Andy McCabe. And Allison, we're going to dive right in. because we got some miles to cover here today. So last week, you will recall, we briefly mentioned a potential, then potential, forthcoming $1.8 billion slush fund that the DOJ is calling a settlement between Trump, his sons, and the IRS. And we said last week that we'd wait until this week to see what unfolded.

And a lot has happened. My God, the country's on fire over this, as it should be. Yeah. So it's a story. It's been dominating the headlines all week. And of course, since we recorded our last episode, Donald Trump filed a notice to the court that he was dropping his $10 billion lawsuit. Now, he didn't need to ask for permission to do this because the IRS never answered his complaint. And so that allowed him to unilaterally drop the case. He made no mention in his notice of any sort of a settlement. Yeah, and after that, the judge noticed that. She closed the case, right? But she made mention of the fact that there was zero mentions of any settlement, no terms of any settlement in the notice, and that there's no settlement of record. So whatever the Department of Justice would do next would not be a settlement of that case that she just closed.

That was her purpose in saying that. And then NBC reported that the Justice Department announced last Monday that it was, in fact, establishing. a $1.776 billion-dollar anti-weaponization fund after Trump moved to dismiss a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over his leaked tax returns. And again, the article here says, NBC says that Trump moved to dismiss his case, but he didn't. Moving requires permission. That's right. He just filed notice. He noticed the court. So a move, he didn't move. That didn't happen here. But regardless, they go on to say, Justice Department officials announced that Trump and his co-plaintiffs would drop their IRS lawsuit, as well as their other claims of damages, the one in

connection with the 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home, and the one that he was filing for damages and the Russian collusion scandal, all that, you know, the hoax. And he was dropping all those claims in exchange for creating the fund, which the Justice Department said set up a, quote, systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfair. Yeah, so the 1.776, and if you, if that number sounds familiar, yes, it is. It's been picked for promotional value, I'm sure. $1.776 billion available for the fund was based upon the projected valuation of future claimant's claims according to the Justice Department.

Sure. Yeah, right. I'd love to see the math. I want to see the work. Show your work on the paper. Yeah. Like in school, I want to see how they calculated that. Yeah, and public citizen has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for that very thing. Nice, nice. Okay. Trump was speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, and he said the fund was meant to reimburse, quote, people that were horribly treated, adding that he wasn't involved in the fund's creation. Yeah, I'm sure he didn't know anything about it. Todd Blanche released the settlement document, but then amended it the following day. The Associated Press reports, on Tuesday, the Internal Revenue Service agreed to drop all pending

probes of Trump over whether he's paid his fair share of taxes to settle a lawsuit brought by the president over a leak of his tax returns. That could include, assuming it was ongoing, a longstanding audit into a technique that Trump reportedly used to avoid paying taxes years ago that could have hit him with an estimated $100 million bill if the IRS found wrongdoing. So he kind of pardoned himself. Yep, yep, he did. But it doesn't end there, does it?

No, no. But tax experts, by the way, say that grant of immunity is shocking in the breadth of protection it offers the president and could undermine confidence in the fairness of the tax system. And by the way, nobody's bringing this up, so I will. When John Gleason filed his amicus brief against the $10 billion lawsuit, He talked about, hey, if you're thinking of settling this, we need to make sure the DOJ intends to comply with regulatory requirements and to account for limitations on the relief. And there's certain rules that you have to follow when you settle stuff, including 26 U.S. Code 727A that makes it unlawful for executive officials to request any officer employee of the IRS to terminate an audit of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability. of such taxpayer. Now, John Gleason didn't say, with respect to Trump and his audits, but I think he put

that in there because he knew this was probably going to happen. I think it would fit. Yeah. Yeah. So here's a quote, this is an unprecedented remedy. That's former IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, noting that Trump should be treated like every other taxpaying American. Quote, people expect the same tax rules and enforcement framework to apply to everybody. But that's not all. Like you said, the creation of this fund ruffled a lot of feathers in Congress on both sides of the aisle. In fact, Republicans were so mad about this that after a very contentious meeting on the Hill with Todd Blanche, in which at least 25 Senate Republicans yelled at Todd Blanche for setting up the fund without Congress, they all packed up and left town without funding

ICE and Customs and Border Protection. We're so mad. We're going on vacation. Yeah, they couldn't get, Because the, you know, their funding, their reconciliation bill to fund ICE and Customs and Border Protection because Democrats refuse to do so. Because it falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee, so does this weaponization fund. And a lot of people were wanting to put restrictions on it or, right, you know, include laws about this fund in the budget reconciliation bill. And they couldn't. It was like, forget it. And they all just went home. Oh, poo. Somebody get my driver and tell him to take me to the airport. I'm ready to go to Cabo.

I mean, it's just hilarious to me. Like, this is what passes for a fight in Congress. Stomping your feet and shaking your fist as you walk out the door on vacation. Well done, gentlemen. Now, Ted Cruz, by the way, somebody just sent this to me, apparently said on his podcast, quote, there were fireworks at an epic level. This is about that meeting. And I got to say it's one of the roughest meetings I've seen in my entire time in the Senate.

Fiery does not begin to cut it. They were screaming at the acting attorney general. These are Republicans. This was the Republican Senate caucus. I mean, I'm glad, but wow. How, what is it? How many years has it been? What does it take and to wake them up?

This, apparently. If only you belong to some sort of legislative body that could pass a law to block the fund. Anyway, well, okay, so this reporting comes from the independent. President Donald Trump lashed out at his Republican, colleagues in the Senate who left the Hill this week without funding the president's signature immigration agenda after widespread opposition to his $1.8 billion slush fund. In a furious Friday truth social post, the president hit out at North Carolina Senator Tom Tillis, a soon retiring Republican, who has broken from Trump on various matters, including the newly formed

anti-weaponization fund. Referring to Tillis as a weak and ineffective senator, Trump accused Tulles of pushing back against him in retaliation for refusing to endorse him. I don't think that's what it was about, Don. I don't think so. I think it was about the graft and corruption, but that's just my guess. Our Bean's talk episode on Friday was called Stupid on Stilts, which is what Tom Tillis called this weaponization fund. Nice. Quote, the media said how, this is Trump, the media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn't brave. He was just the opposite. He was a quitter. Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months with some of his rhino friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end, it will only get bigger and better and stronger than ever before.

All right, lawmakers headed home early ahead of Memorial Day weekend after hitting an impasse over the Justice Department's newly created fund, which would allow people who believe they were unfairly prosecuted to obtain monetary relief from taxpayers. Many have raised concerns that the fund would give people, such as the January 6 rioters, pardoned by Trump, the chance to seek money from the government, despite once violently attacking the capital. Yes, that's them. That's the same people who tried to overturn the government. They're now going to be getting that money. But I was told it was a peaceful protest and that it was caused by 26 FBI agents and liberals.

So how would they possibly get money for this? They were hugging the cops. It was a day of love. No. Okay, so that includes Republicans such as Tillis, who called the fund Stupid on Stilts, Senator Mitch McConnell, who referred to it as utterly stupid, and Senator Bill Cassidy, who called it a slush fund.

Imagine that a fund that is set up to compensate people who assaulted Capitol police officers and other responding agencies, right? Tillis said on Wednesday. Yeah, right, exactly. That's exactly it. Stupid on Stilts. Now, there have been a few lawsuits filed, including one by former Capitol Police Officer, our friend Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department Officer, our friend Danny Hodges. That lawsuit was filed by Brendan Ballou in the District of Columbia.

And I will be speaking with Harry Dunn and Brendan today on the breakdown over on the Midas Touch podcast at news. Now, Crew has also filed a lawsuit to dissolve the fund. Common Cause has filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia. Jamie Raskin has introduced legislation to stop it. Multiple people have said they will file claims, including Mark Caputo and Michael Cohen. Jim Acosta says he should be entitled to anti-weaponization money because Donald Trump yanked his press pass during his first term. And then there's this reporting from Ryan Riley at NBC, quote, progressive podcaster Allison Gill, a former Department of Veterans Affairs employee forced out of her job over her Mueller, she wrote, podcast, said she filed a claim to Blanche this week.

she's asking for $8.647 million, a seeming reference to the 8647 Seychelles Instagram photo that the Trump administration used to charge former FBI director James Comey because the Trump administration asserts 8647 is a threat against Trump. Comey joked this week on CNN. He guessed he'd be in line for a payout from the fund saying, I hope I'll be ahead of those who savagely beat police officers and sacked the Capitol. And we'll keep an eye on all of this going forward. And I just want to say, much like Todd Blanche saying the 1776 is just a valuation of potential claims.

Right. My $8.647 million has got nothing to do with anything other than those are. That's my calculations on back pay, forward pay, future pay, and lost pension and wages and punitive. Nice. Yeah. I think I need to start scraping together my receipts to sloth. I was going to ask. Yeah, are you going to file a claim?

I have already been talking to my lawyer about it. So I have not done it yet. But stay tuned. Stay tuned, everyone. And stay tuned. I will also be filing a lawsuit against this fund coming up this week. And I'll keep you posted on that. So that's a little breaking news, I can tell you.

Excellent. Yeah. I don't know. I think there's a future in which Todd Blanche gets investigated for public corruption. I think of Todd, particularly if he becomes the Attorney General of the United States, is Todd Blanche using his position of trust, his public position of trust as a public official, receiving pecuniary gain for doing that. And how can you characterize this as anything other than a bribe to another public official,

that being the president of the United States? Maybe not one that goes directly in his pocket, but one that certainly is to his benefit. So I don't know. You know, I'm just theorizing here. just an investigator. That's what I do. So that's my hope for the future. It's what we call a clue, as they like to say in the business. But, you know, I mean, a $1.776 billion bribe makes sense because Todd Blanche could be in deep trouble over our next story. And we're going to talk about that after this break. So stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. Rarely,

rarely do we have some amazing, great and incredible news to report here on the Unjustified podcast, but we do today. Great news from CBS. A federal judge Crenshaw in Tennessee tossed out an indictment charging Kilmara Brago-Garcia, a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported by the Trump administration last year with human smuggling. U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw granted Abrago Garcia's effort to dismiss the criminal charges on the ground that the Justice Department's prosecution was vindictive. This is extremely rare to win a vindictive and selective prosecution motion. Crenshaw had already ruled that the Salvadoran man demonstrated the prosecution may be vindictive, which left it up to the government to rebut that presumption. But in his decision, the judge

concluded that prosecutors failed to meet that burden. And this is all Todd Blanche's fault. Yes, ma'am. It's all his fault because that presumption of vindictiveness that shifted the burden onto the government to prove they're not being vindictive was because Todd Blanche went on Fox News and said, yeah, we charged him because that Maryland judge, Judge Sieny's, you know, wouldn't deport him.

Well done, Mr. Blanche. Okay, so the decision is a massive victory for Brago Garcia, whose immigration case became a flashpoint in President Trump's sweeping immigration crackdown. Brigo Garcia was charged last year with two counts of. human smuggling stemming from a November 22 traffic stop in Tennessee, where he was pulled over

by a state highway patrol and was found to have numerous people in his vehicle. He pleaded not guilty. The indictment came after Abrago Garcia was removed from the United States in March of 2025 and flown to El Salvador. That was that middle of the night, Judge Boasburg, emergency hearing about the two planes that took off and he ordered the planes to be turned around. Abrago Garcia was on one of them. but an immigration judge had granted Abrago Garcia a legal status that forbade immigration authorities from deporting him to his home country. And a Trump administration official acknowledged his removal to El Salvador was a mistake. Abrago Garcia filed a civil lawsuit in Maryland challenging his deportation and a federal judge ordered to Trump administration in April of 2025 to facilitate his return back to the United States. The Department of Homeland Security, however, resisted doing so for months, but then returned him to the U.S. only after they filed these criminal charges.

He has since been intertwined in civil and criminal legal fights and held on separate occasions by federal authorities in Tennessee and immigration officials in Maryland. He's remained out of immigration custody for several months while his cases proceeded. Quote, the court does not reach its conclusion lightly, Crenshaw wrote. The objective evidence here shows that absent Abrago's successful lawsuit, challenging his removal to El Salvador, the government would not have brought this prosecution. The executive branch closed its investigation on the November 22 traffic stop. Only after Abrago succeeded in vindicating his rights, did the executive branch reopen that investigation. Yeah. And in the criminal case brought in Tennessee, Abrago Garcia and his attorneys argued that he was unfairly targeted by the federal government because of the civil lawsuit that successfully challenged his removal to El Salvador. And during a nearly six-hour hearing in February, members of Abrago-Garcia's defense team questioned.

to government witnesses on when the Justice Department decided to move to indict him, and whether anybody at the White House, Justice Department, or Department of Homeland Security were directly involved in those discussions. The U.S. attorney, who was then leading the prosecution, Robert McGuire, said he decided to bring charges years after the initial traffic stop because, quote, the evidence pointed to Abrago Garcia having committed a crime. Such a detailed and specific answer. McGuire also insisted it was his decision.

to prosecute O'Bregor Garcia and no one else's, adding that no one instructed him to do so or directed him to seek an indictment. Careful perjury leaking around the corner there. Look out. Abrago Garcia's legal team, however, showed internal emails from a high-level Justice Department official that suggested that there was significant interest in charging Abrago Garcia after he challenged his deportation, including one that referred to the case as a, quote, top priority. Oh, Mr. McGuire. Yeah, and that was Mr. Singh who worked in Todd Blanche's office. Ah, look at that. Bummer. In his opinion, the truth will out, right?

In his opinion, Crenshaw said he found insufficient evidence of actual vindictiveness, but concluded that the government has failed to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness. Again, this is all Todd Blanche's fault. The record in the case, Crenshaw says, does not explain the government's change in position to remove a problem. Brago and not prosecute him, to then prosecute and not remove him, adding there is a retaliatory taint that kicked off the renowned investigation into Abrago Garcia. Yeah, the judge wrote that objective evidence comes close to showing that, but for Abrago's

lawsuit, the Justice Department would not have indicted him. Crenshaw wrote that statements by then Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and the involvement of Akash Singh, an associate deputy attorney general, directly tie main justice. That's a quote, directly tie Maine Justice to reopening of an investigation into the 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee in response to Abrago Garcia's successful challenge of his deportation. Blanche is now the acting attorney general. Quote, the objective credible evidence shows that Maine Justice was involved in this investigation before McGuire, Crenshaw said, adding Singh's involved. in the case, quote, touched on everything from the timing of the indictment to the substance of

potential charges. And let me just throw in here, Allison, very quickly remind us what vindictive prosecution requires. It's not just you proving that the government prosecuted you because they don't like you. That's not enough. You have to prove that the government prosecuted you to force you to do something else that the government wanted you to do. Right. So, It's like if the government charges you with narcotics trafficking and you're like, I didn't do that. I'm going to go to trial. Then they come back and then charge you with another narcotics trafficking and wire fraud and like add 20 more charges on the hubby. Just like using the criminal justice system to like break you, to make you stop resisting essentially.

Yeah. And that's exactly what happened here. Oh, it's totally what happened here. But I think it's interesting that the emails back and forth didn't rise to vindictive. prosecution, but like I said, because Todd Blanche said that stuff on Fox News and there was a presumption of vindictiveness, the burden shifted from Abrago Garcia having to prove it was vindictive to the government having to prove it was not, and they failed. That is why these charges are being dismissed and is so rare, again, like I said, to get one of these rulings. Now, I spoke with Mr.

Abrago's attorney. His name is Sean Hecker, and he submitted this statement to me. He said, Kilmara Brigo Garcia is a victim of a politicized, vindictive White House and its lawyers at what used to be an independent justice department. We are so pleased that he is a free man. Justifiably so, as this administration continually chips away at our democracy, we remain grateful for an independent judiciary that will dispassionately apply binding precedent to the facts. So Todd Blanche could, you know, he might have needed to send over a $1.776 billion dollar, uh, gift to Donald Trump after he got this case thrown out. Yeah, for sure. I mean, it is what it is.

Todd Blanche is engaged in the highest, most visible act of trying out for a job in the history of this country. And he's going to do anything humanly possible to get himself that, to get rid of the acting and become the permanent attorney general. The irony of all this is that the latest step, which we talked about the first part of the show, the slush fund might be the thing that actually kills the deal for him because he still has to get approved by the Senate. He's got to get confirmed if he's going to be the attorney general. And this thing may have made him unconfirmable. That's a very good point. How do you vote for this guy?

If you're screaming at him in a hearing and stopping out of the hill to go on vacation because he made you so mad, I don't feel like that's the best preparation for getting. those senators to confirm me. But we'll see. We'll see how they they tend to fall in line. But now that you've got Tillis, Cassidy, who lost his primary after Trump went against him, and then you've got folks like Collins and McCann. Cassidy actually bucked his vote on a war power's resolution and voted with the Democrats. So after eight tries, they finally got a war powers resolution through. And then when it went to the House, they couldn't get the votes to stop it. So they just, they canceled the vote. We're closed. No soup for you. There's no more soup left today. Go home.

Jim McGovern was like, what's going on? Why are we not having this vote? And he's like, you'll have to submit a parliamentary procedure. He's like, just tell me why we aren't having to click, click, gavel, gavel, gavel, everybody leave. We're going home for vacation. So they weren't able to vote on a war powers resolution. They weren't in the Senate able to vote to fund ICE and Customs and Border Protection

with their budget reconciliation bill. So, yeah, we'll see what happens. While I think Republicans do fall in line a lot, there's at least a couple of senators that are now just going rogue because that's what happens. You grow a spine when you don't have to run for office again. You've been taken out when you've been, right, when you've had, you got the Joe Pesci treatment in the basement one day by Donald Trump, which is happening like all over the place. Yeah, that doesn't make friends, Mr. President. That doesn't secure allies whose votes you need on stuff. So yeah, it's just, it's incredible.

It's kind of like in a weird way. It's kind of the domestic version of, oh, I don't know, provoking a pointless war with Iran for the sole purpose of convincing them that they can now hold the entire world hostage with the Straits of Hormuz. But I digress. I don't want to get it. Did you see that the plan was actually to put in Ahmadinejad? Did you see that story from the New York Times?

I'm like, my God, what? That's your plan. But then they accidentally. injured him and he's like, I'm out. I'm not part of your plan anymore. And so they, so that that's when the hominy son took over the regime. They were like, oops. Oh, and the straight is closed and we can't open it. Darn. Yeah. Just, oh my God, just incompetence from top to bottom. Unbelievable. Oh, Madenajai. No what? You know what? I'm sorry. It's totally believable. It's been believable all along. You're right. This next story that we're going to cover, though, is actually kind of unbelievable.

I can't believe this happened, but we'll talk about that right after this quick break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. All right. This next one comes from Politico. I don't know what else to say about her. Let's just dive in. Wow. Just wow. This one, I got to, I got to be honest. This one struck me out of the blue. As you know, I am far, far away this week. I'm on the other side of the world. And don't tell anyone. I'm in Sydney, Australia right now, which is super cool. But I read this. I was like, you've got to be kidding me. Anyway, a former Justice Department prosecutor has been charged with sending herself copies of an unreleased volume of, you got it, special counsel Jack Smith's report on his investigation into President Donald Trump. Her name is Carmen Lineberger. Am I getting

that right, Allison or Lindberg? I haven't heard her name pronounced, so I assume it's Lineberger. Okay, Lineberger, it is, 62 years old, entered a not guilty plea of four charges related to stealing and concealing government records in federal court in West Palm Beach, Florida on Wednesday. She was released on her own recognizance court records show. So get this, the indictment says Lineberger, who was the managing assistant U.S. attorney in Fort Pierce, Florida, received a copy of the restricted Smith report volume by email last year. and then sent it and other internal DOJ messages to her personal hotmail and Gmail accounts. U.S.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon has barred public release of that volume.

Remember, you can't send it outside of the Department of Justice. That's right. Which discusses his investigation, Jack Smith's investigation, into the presence of classified documents. More than just the presence of classified documents, the retention and the obstruction of the handling. Yeah, all that. All those espionage acts, yes, yes.

Right, 42 counts, man. Now, an attorney for Lineberger, Tamma Cudman, did not respond to request for comment. The indictment returned Tuesday, says Lineberger sought to cover her tracks by using the file names, quote, chocolate underscore cake underscore recipe.p.D.F. And Bunt underscore cake underscore recipe. pdb. PDF for the internal government records she moved to her personal accounts. Every spy knows if you put cake in the file name, no one will ever know what's in there. Okay, however, the charges and a Justice Department press release don't make any claims about why Lineberger move the documents to her private

emails. The indictment also doesn't provide details of what, besides the report, was in the emails and documents she moved to personal accounts. Interesting. Interesting. We got a, we got a proven tent, right? We'll see what happened. You do. Maybe she comes back and says, you know what? The DOJ systems are so bad. I just sent them to my personal hot mail account, which is much better. Much more secure. Get my work done. Could happen. Boy, it's not classified. Nope. Lineberger faces one felony count of obstruction of justice, prefer calling it cake. One felony count of Concealing government records calling it bun cake and two misdemeanor counts, misdemeanor counts of stealing government property valued it under $1,000.

The maximum sentence, if convicted, on all charges, is 25 years in prison. Although federal defendants typically receive significantly shorter terms under federal sentencing guidelines, especially first-time offenders with no criminal history. The case is being handled by prosecutors from the Northern District of Florida, likely because Lineberger's ties to people in the U.S. Attorney's Office for Southern Florida could create a conflict of interest. Because they've all had her bun cake. So, you know, they can't, you can't sit in judgment of someone whose cake you've eaten. There's a hole in this cake. Okay. Cash Patel, of course, any absurd story these days also includes that gentleman. Cash Patel posted on

Twitter about it saying, quote, this afternoon, a former managing assistant U.S. attorney who supported Jack Smith's politicized investigation of President Trump has been charged with stealing the confidential investigation documents. Carmen Leinberger allegedly emailed the confidential material to her own personal email, disguising them as dessert recipes to conceal them from record searches. Weinberger is charged with four felony counts in the indictment. This FBI will not hesitate to bring to account those who violated the trust of the American public in an investigation that should have should have never been brought to begin with. Close quote.

It's interesting. I wonder if Kosh Patel has any interest in what's in volume two of that report, given that he's in volume two of Jack Smith's final report. Back in January of 2025, senators demanded information from volume two when they were considering the nomination of Kosh Patel as FBI director. In a letter to the DOJ, they demanded Mr. Patel's grand jury testimony. as part of the department's investigation of Trump and other defendants regarding the president's unlawful retention of classified documents,

and any and all sections of volume two of the final report of the special counsel's investigations and prosecutions submitted on January 7, 2025, by Special Counsel Jack Smith to the Attorney General, that refer to or pertain to Mr. Patel's testimony or actions. Special counsel Jack Smith's team issued subpoenas to Verizon Communications, for Patel's communications at the time when they were investigating whether President Donald Trump had interfered with the 2020 election and had hidden classified documents at Trump's Marlago Resort.

During the dispute over presidential records, Patel was designated by Trump to be his representative to NARA, that's the National Archives and Records Administration. He publicly asserted that Trump had issued orders declassifying the materials at Maralago, claiming, he, a claim he repeated during his 2022 grand jury testimony in the document's case. But a claim that was never, ever proven or substantiated by a single shred of evidence. I'm adding that to the paragraph here. A claim or you could call it a lie. Yeah, yeah. A lie based on mistruths is, you know, that's what a lie is.

Yeah, and that defense was never used. We talked about that when we saw the defenses that were put forth by Trump. And Nauta and Dale Lavera, they weren't trying to say that he declassified these things. That was even too much for them. Yeah. But not for Patel. No. Now has indicted somebody who was a potential leak of these documents.

But I will say this. I'm very pleased that there are copies out there besides, like, the one that is, you know, in a burn bag up in gosh Patel's office. And the one that Judge Cannon has. So we're still following the story, too, about the Knight Institute at Columbia University's request to release volume two of the report now that the charges have been dismissed against Nauta and Dale O'Fera, which that was the reason, the justification that Eileen Cannon refused to allow the report to be released. Right. But anyway, I think it would be interesting to see what this case, how this case plays out. We'll definitely follow it because I think it's fascinating. Like you said, it just got a bolt of bolt from the blue.

Cake recipe lady. Stealing Jack Smith, Volume 2. Send it to us. Something like this happens. You're like, oh my God, how close were we? Were we close? Could we have been the next email recipients? I get so many crazy emails from people.

I would gladly take, taken one from Carol Weinberger. Seems like a nice person. I went back through all my emails and signals to see if I'd gotten any bunk cake or chocolate cake recipes. That's so disappointing. I know, I know. Oh. We were that close, that close.

That close. That close. We want that report. Now, in a related story from Politico, a federal judge has ordered AIDS to Trump to continue to observe the requirements of the Presidential Records Act, despite a Justice Department, Office of Legal Counsel opinion, that found the law unconstitutional and how it unconstitutionally intrudes on presidential power. Okay.

In a ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John Bates concluded the 1978 statute is likely constitutional and granted a preliminary injunction that essentially nullifies the opinion issued last month by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. So that's good news. Quote, yes, the original public meaning of the text of the Constitution, canons of interpretation, Supreme Court precedent, general principles of property law, and almost 50 years of practice confirm that Congress has. the enumerated power to regulate presidential records under the Constitution's property clause, Bates wrote. Just a couple of... You really covered the whole horizon there of possible buttresses to this statute. Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, faulted the OLC opinion for relying on a, quote, stark misreading of the Supreme Court precedent.

That is nerdy lawyer speak for you effed up, boys. That is a pretty bad. Yes. When a federal judge accuses your interpretation as a stark misreading. He also rejected the Justice Department's arguments that the law is unconstitutional because presidential papers were considered personal property of the president until the 1970s. Yeah, until the law that's totally constitutional. Until the law, she wanted to change that. Oh, boy.

But before that, it wasn't the law. Yeah. Isn't that crazy? You also used to be able to kill someone. for stealing your horse. That's not allowed anymore either. I mean, I don't know what to tell you guys. Things change.

It just, you know, over time, we grow, we learn as human beings. We try to get a little bit better, and things change anyways. My goodness. He also noted that the Trump administration observed the law without objection during his first term. Well, yeah, why would you follow it for four years if it were so unconstitutional? Right. Yeah. My goodness.

All right, everybody. We have a pretty significant hit me in the head with a bat segment this week. It harkens back to, do you remember when Comey was indicted the first time? And they were going through grand jury transcripts as part of a vindictive and selective prosecution claim and found that apparently Lindsay Halligan, who never appeared before a grand jury, got a no-true bill on three-kills. counts, but then just erased the first one and then signed it like she got a true bill on the second two and didn't tell anybody. Yeah. It's like that on steroids. What happened in this case. And we're going to talk about it after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. Everybody,

welcome back. It's time for a little 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 a bat. Which is our segment going over the head with a bat. Which is our segment going over the presumption of regularity. This one's a dozy, Andy. It's from CBS. Federal prosecutors in Chicago have dismissed all remaining charges against the four remaining members of the so-called Broadview Six, a group of protesters who were arrested outside a U.S. ICE facility in Broadview, Chicago last fall. Defense attorneys and prosecutors were forced to drop the case because of significant errors in the grand jury process. Whoops. Yep. U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros said during a Thursday afternoon hearing that the decision to dismiss charges was due to improper

handling of the grand jury proceedings by the lead prosecutor in the case. A rare federal trial for misdemeanor charges that had been scheduled to begin next week was canceled after prosecutors agreed to dismiss the charges with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled. Boutros announced the decision to dismiss the remaining charges in court following a closed-door meeting over redacted grand jury transcripts. He told the U.S. District Judge April Perry, he was unaware until recently of the alleged misconduct, including a prosecutor meeting with a grand juror outside of proceedings and other jurors who disagreed with the case being dismissed and prevented from participating.

Oh, my God. Yeah, yeah. Boutros did not dispute the allegations saying the conduct was upsetting, and the reason the case was being dismissed. Upsetting. Upsetting. Upsetting. I'm upset and I was not even in the case. My God.

I mean like, what is going on here? Hit me in the head with bat right now. Yeah, that's why we call it hit me in the head with a bat. During a closed door hearing on the redacted grand jury transcripts, Perry told federal prosecutor she was incredibly shocked. That is strong language for a judge. Incredibly shocked by the redactions that were made according to a transcript of the hearing that was made public Thursday evening. I have read hundreds, if not thousands of grand jury

transcripts involving prosecutors who are the most junior of prosecutors to several U.S. attorneys who appeared before the grand jury. I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts. In that sealed hearing, Perry summarized several issues, she said, jumped out at her immediately and glaringly upon reading the full grand jury transcript. The first of those concerns, according to the judge, was improper prosecutorial vouching in which an assistant U.S. attorney put her personal credibility and trustworthiness on the line in support of the charges, Perry said. So I guess that's like going in and saying,

trust me, this is the worst thing you're ever going to see. You should indict it. Kind of. Kind of. Yeah. The same prosecutor also apparently excused grand jurors, quote, who disagreed with the government's case when presented with it during the first of three sessions, asking them to, quote, not partake in the second hearing, the judge said. So let's just get rid of the no votes and stack the room with just the yeses, I guess. That's insane. Now, Judge Perry said she understood from the transcripts that there had been improper prosecutorial communications. of a substantive nature with the grand jurors outside the grand jury room.

That's the prosecutor talking to the grand jurors outside the grand jury room. Substantive. Wow. Communications. Ultimately, it took three grand jury sessions to get an indictment. The first sessions resulted in a no bill, meaning grand jurors moved to not press charges. At the second, according to the record of Thursday's closed door hearing, ended abruptly in the middle of testimony.

from the U.S. ICE agent at the center of the incident. Perry said it was problematic that it appeared prosecutors redacted the transcripts in an attempt to conceal what happened during the grand jury proceedings. Problematic? Say it's fireworthy. I mean, like, wow.

Quote, mistakes happen. They happen to all of us. But as I tell my children, you own it, you admit to it. You apologize for it and you move on. What you do not do is hide it. So that's the quote. from the judge. Defense counsel Parente said during the grand jury sessions, prosecutors used

vouching, which he called a 101 no-no for any prosecutor, kicked out grand jury members who disagreed with them, did not disclose that a no-true bill, which indicates no indictment, had been returned to either the defense or the public. Parente also said that after receiving the no-true bill from one grand jury, they represented their case after excluding grand jurors who disagreed. agreed with them. The grand jury then returned a true bill to indict the Broadview six. Parente also said that while Judge Perry thought only 30 lines of the transcript had been redacted to hide all that, prosecutors actually left out entire pages and never informed her. Quote, we all took the government attorney's word on a great many things, Judge Perry said.

I at the time was operating on a presumption of regular grand jury proceedings, which these were very clearly not. So based upon what I've seen in the grand jury transcripts, the calculus has changed, and it has changed considerably. Perry told prosecutors that the trust she normally extended to them has been broken by their previous redactions of the grand jury transcripts. Parente said he will make a motion for sanctions for their clients so they can get their legal fees covered. In any hearings over those sanctions, he expects prosecutors to testify in open court regarding their conduct, and the defense will be able to cross-examine them. He also said they plan to file a claim with the Department of Justice's new anti-weaponization fund,

the 1776 Fund, for financial relief for their clients. So as they say in this story, the transcripts of the closed-door hearing were released, and here's another choice quote from the judge on that. She says to the defense, you're entitled to a briefing and perhaps a hearing on vindictive prosecution, should you choose to raise it. And she also raised a possibility, fortunately and thankfully, of sanctions and possible ethics violations for prosecutorial misconduct. Man, I hope so. Like, where is the bar complaint against these attorneys?

I mean to just kick people out who voted against you, to have ex parte communications in the hallway with grand jurors outside of the grand jury room, to bring in new people, to go vote three times on it, to not tell anyone that you had a no true bill. when I believe there's a row, this is in D.C. Bowsburg has set up a rule saying you have to tell me of all of no true bills. Remember, but this is Chicago. The Broadview Six included a candidate, congressional candidate Kat Abogazale, right? A 45th Ward guy. So I'm very, very thankful. Congratulations to Kat and the other defendants for having the rest of their misdemeanor charges dismissed.

because the original felony was dismissed because of this grand jury stuff. But the defense attorneys, Parente, were like, Judge, I think that what happened in the grand jury room taints the whole case. And that's when Judge Perry asked for the unredacted transcripts. And had she not, we would not know any of this. Right. I mean, the fact that they gave her, quote unquote, redacted transcripts, which were missing pages.

That's not a redaction. that's just that's just a falsification of the of the grand jury process like you know you they didn't want to have to explain why additional entire pages were entirely blacked out so they just like well leave those off the pile i mean unbelievable and you know you think about if this had happened in the context of a civil lawsuit like let's say a civil suit went to a jury and one of the lawyers on one of the sides you know was having these improper uh conversational with jurors outside of the courtroom. Let's just say that.

That would absolutely get the case dismissed and the lawyer would be brought up on bar charges. Here, we're talking about somebody who did that and other bad things in an effort to convict someone of a crime. It's so much more severe. It's so much more important. Yeah. I'm just stunned.

This is like this whole, what we refer to as the hit me in the head with the bat segment is just exposing all of this. craziness that's going on around the country, but this is like full-blown, like bumping up against criminal activity, I believe. Yeah. And I thought Lindsay Halligan was bad in the Comey case, but this is pretty unbelievable. No, believable. It is believable. It's totally believable. We'll keep an eye on some sanctions motions. I know that they're looking to file some. And, you know, also, probably not a good

idea to go after Kat Abugazale. She's the girlfriend of the head of the onion. Keep an eye on the onion in the coming days, massive headlines there. Because, I mean, this just, this is unbelievable, but also very believable from this particular Department of Justice. And I think it speaks to this was what. What did you say? This was only the second time this person had been in a grand jury room. So it speaks to the massive brain drain at the Department of Justice that has been occurring.

And then them trying to put out ads on Craigslist for assistant U.S. attorneys. And if that's the explanation to this, there was no intent to do anything wrong that it was just like the worst form of rank incompetence we've ever seen from a DOJ lawyer, which I don't believe that's the case. case, but let's just say, for the sake of argument, then that's on the U.S. attorney. If the U.S. attorney is putting lawyers in front of grand juries who are so incompetent that they are undermining the entire system, like that U.S. attorney should be fired. You can't, as the leader of an organization, you can't, like, fail to train, fail to guide, fail to instruct your employees and then send them out to, like, wreak havoc around the world or in your backyard or whatever, and not be held accountable.

for it. It's outrageous. Yeah. Outrageous for sure. And the judge was like, well, glad I took a look. But before anything could go down, because the judge was like, we can be looking at vindictive and selective. You should definitely check that out. But that's when the prosecutors were like,

no, no, no, we drop all the charges. We're dropping all the charges. Drop the charges. Drop the charges. We don't need to bring him with prejudice. It's cool. Slowly back away into the shrubbery like Homer Simpson. Anyway. Send that guy a fruit basket. It's all going to be fine. No. Sorry about that. We didn't realize. We didn't know. Had I known. Uh-huh. Okay. Yeah, right. All right. Well, everybody, it's time for some listener questions. If you have a question you'd like to send in to us, I think we have time for one today. You can do so by clicking on the link in the show notes and filling out the form and it will send your questions to us. What do we have today, Andy?

All right. So the first one is just a little bit of a shout out, clearing up some business from last week. You know, last week had tons of tons of people wrote in wanting to know where they could access the list of the infamous Trump. acronyms, taco nacho and everything else. Many people wrote in today and pointed out some of the source of that list, which is actually a substack called Shades of Greaves. And Greaves is G-R-E-A-V-E-S. It's on substack. And it's a guy named, I think his name is Carlos Greaves. He's a former electrical engineer and he's now become a writer and he wants to write comedy or something along those lines. but jump over to Shades of Greaves, and he had a post on May 5th that has the entire list, which he basically wrote up. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So it's pretty funny. Throw them a subscribe while you're over there, and you can gorge yourself on all that taco and nacho stuff. Now I want tacos. Yeah. Okay, so lots of people wrote in questions about the slush fund, and we really covered that, I think, pretty extensively here. so I opted to go with something that tags onto this last story that we just did. And because it gives us an opportunity to show you like just how far this story is from normal.

So this one comes to us from C.C. C C C C says, Alison and Andy, thank you so much for everything you're doing. I have a lot of MAGA relatives. And listening to your show with all the background data has really helped me push back on a lot of the narratives they are hearing. Hopeful that minds will be changed. My question, in the presidential immunity ruling, I think Elito made the comment. that you can indict a ham sandwich. He did.

I think he did. He definitely did not invent that. In the oral arguments, he said it, I think. That's right. That's right. So with all the information coming out about the Broadway 6, this appears to be somewhat true. I mean, if you rig the grand jury and then lie to them, it does appear that you can get an indictment. How often do you think this will be happening now?

Well, let's remember that... If I got indicted by this administration, I'd be. be like, we need to check the grand jury transcripts just based on Lindsay Halligan and based on Butros and the Broadview Six. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So let's remember that in ye older days that we like to refer to as normal times, even under totally lawful, appropriate, you know, circumstances, the grand jury still is very, very much in the prosecutor's corner because the prosecutors can present whatever evidence they want and they can not present evidence that that makes the case look weak. They can only, you know, they can put in handpicked just a few witnesses.

There is no cross-examination of witnesses. There's no attorney in the room who represents the target or the soon-to-be defendant in the case. So it's a, it is a system that greatly favors the prosecution. The burden for bringing back an indictment is very low. It is simply probable cause. And all that is how the system was designed and how it functions normally. What you're seeing now is a massive departure from that. Many U.S. attorneys and assistant U.S. attorneys are failing, even though they are so advantaged in front of a grand jury, they're failing to get indictments in many of these cases that we talk about every week because the cases are so terrible and many of them are based on poor, if any, evidence. Sometimes there's, we have seen

situations where agents have testified falsely or incorrectly, all kinds of things that are undermining even this incredible advantage that prosecutors have. So all we have to do is get back to a time when assistant U.S. attorneys are just doing their jobs the way they always did. They still had many of the, you know, the better hand, the better cards in their hand. And I, you know, with a better U.S. attorney and a better attorney general and good recruiting and training and retention of quality assistant U.S. attorneys across the country, you're going to see this kind of nonsense go away because that's the way it always was. That's what people who care about justice and care about the oath they've taken to the country and believe in the Department of Justice. that's what they will do. How do we know this? Because that's what they did until this administration. People who can experience shame and embarrassment. Right. You don't want to lose their licenses.

Who don't want to have cases fail in front of the grand jury. That's the thing here, right? Is because the DOJ used to care about their conviction record. They used to care. They had, there was shame attached to losing a case. Right. Or to getting a no true bill return. And that shame is now gone. It is shameless now. And as evidenced by Janine Perel, I don't care about, I'll take a no true bill. I'll take a not guilty verdict.

I'm going to bring all the crimes. You know, she just doesn't care. There's no shame in being a complete and total abject loser. And, you know, the only thing, the only thing standing in the breach. and Attorney General Todd Blanche and former Attorney General, Acting Attorney General, Tom, and former Attorney General Pambani knew this, is that these lawyers want to keep their law licenses, which is why they filed this memo saying, no, the DOJ, bar associations shouldn't be, the DOJ can intervene into bar association.

We could take care of ourselves. We could investigate our own. And so they know that the only thing standing in between indicting a ham sandwich every day of the week is, is that these folks, they don't have shame, but they might want to keep their law license. And so they're trying to get around that as well. Yeah. And let's be clear. This all comes back to Donald Trump.

Yeah. Donald Trump. This is what happens when the executive, the president and the executive brand, leader of the executive branch, puts unremitting pressure on an agency, in this case, the Department of Justice, not to follow the law, not to follow the facts, but to do what he wants. for whatever reason. Eventually, the agency will break and it will start complying with that pressure because it's inevitable. And that's where we are now.

You know, the administration wanted Kilmar-Brego-Garcia deported, even though a federal judge had issued an order years before or months before, whatever it was, saying he could not be deported to his home country. They didn't care.

The president doesn't care. White House as a kid, they just wanted it done. And so DOJ went along with it. And they let those planes go without demanding that they come back. They ignored the court order to turn him around. That's just one example. And now we have- They ignored the Supreme Court order to return Brigo Garcia, or at least to tell the courts how, you know, what steps you've taken. Yeah. To effectuate his return to the United States after being wrongfully deported. I worked with many, many, many, many U.S. attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys on cases. And not one of them that I worked with. Some of them I loved others. I didn't like, you know, some you get along with some you

don't. That's totally fine. Not one of them did I ever think would have brought a case in front of a grand jury that they didn't believe was a good, solid, sound case that could win. Because they had standards and they would just look at you and say, no, you don't, you're not there yet. You're not ready yet. Go out and get me more evidence. You know, go out and flip another witness. Go out. Well, that's a rule. Isn't that a rule in the book? Yeah, of course. You have to believe that you can, you have to believe that you can obtain and then maintain a conviction. That's right. That's the policy in DOJ.

And these are all super competitive, like very aggressive prosecutors. They want to make cases too, but they didn't, they're not going to do them at the expense of the law, the expense of the standard, at the expense of their own reputations. Because you want the win rate. So that you could go out and hang a shingle and be like, I didn't lose eight out of ten cases when I was a U.S. Attorney or a assistant AUSA. But I'll take them. I don't care. She doesn't care. Of course she doesn't care.

She just goes back to her Fox News job when she's done. I've got to make the president happy. I mean, good luck with that. See how well that's gone for every other human beings trying to accomplish that. Yeah. There's room for you under the bus too, Janine. Heck yeah. Another quick note before we get out of here just got this.

Tulsi Gabbard is resigning. Yeah, I saw that. ODI and I don't have too much information on this yet about why I've read somewhere that her husband has an illness and she's trying to go be with him. I was assuming she was about to be fired anyway because of her poor performance on the hill under testimony and she's anti-war in Iran and probably, you know, but we'll get more information and when we have more information, we'll report it out to you on that. Yeah, that's what she put in her resignation letter to Trump, which I read a couple hours ago.

And if that's the case, like, I wish her husband nothing but the best. She says he's been diagnosed with some extremely rare form of bone cancer. And that's, you know, nobody wants that for anyone. I am surprised that she's made it as long as she has because her tenure has been rocky, to say the least. But anyway, that's that. All right, everybody. Again, if you have a question, you want to send it into us. There's a link in the show notes for you to click on.

And then it'll take you to a form you can fill out to submit your questions. to us. We really appreciate it. Send them all and we will see you next week. And as we always say, who knows what could happen between now and then. But I guarantee you it'll be enough to fill an hour. Oh, hell yeah. It will talk. Anyway, thank you so much, everybody. 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 Hawke with art and web design by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. The theme music for Ungecated. Justified 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.