Jack - The Hero We Need (feat. Cathy Harris)

Episode Date: August 17, 2025

Attorney General Pam Bondi has purportedly removed the District of Columbia police chief and replaced her with the head of the DEA as an emergency police commissioner. The DC Attorney General has filed suit against this takeover.DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office has admitted it’s having a hard time securing grand jury indictments against DC protesters for interfering with immigration and customs enforcement.A group of former national security and FBI officials has issued a warning about the ongoing purge inside the FBI.Plus, we speak with former Merit Systems Protection Board Member Cathy Harris about her wrongful termination.Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod?  Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn’t on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

M.S.W. Media. Attorney General Pam Bondi has purportedly removed the District of Columbia Police Chief and replaced her with the head of the DEA as an emergency police commissioner. The D.C. Attorney General has filed suit against this takeover. D.C. U.S. Attorney Janine Piro's office has admitted it's having a hard time securing grand jury indictments against D.C. protesters for interfering with immigration and customs enforcement. A group of former national security and FBI officials has issued a warning about the ongoing

purge inside the FBI. And we speak with former Merit Systems Protection Board member Kathy Harris about her wrongful termination. This is unjustified. Everybody welcome to episode 30. of Unjustified. It's Sunday, August 17th, 2025. I'm Allison Gill. And I'm Andy McCabe. All right, as you can see, we're rounding up another busy week as the Trump administration attempts to federalize the District of Columbia, citing the Home Rule Act of 1973. And we're going to get to that in just a bit. But first, we're honored to be joined by a former member of the Merit Systems Protection Board,

the MSPB. Now, Donald Trump fired her on February 10th. She sued the Trump administration, members of the MSPB can only be fired for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Eight days later, a federal judge ordered that she be reinstated. But then a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Trump did have the authority to fire her, but the full panel on Bonk ruled to reinstate her only to have the Supreme Court block the reinstatement during the pendency of her litigation. So please welcome Kathy Harris. Kathy, thanks for joining us on Unjustified. Thank you so much for having me. I feel a little bit like a ping pong ball after what you described. It's a torturous history for litigation. I'm sorry that you've had to go through

all that. Well, you know, that's okay. I'm a litigator by training, so it's strange being in the client seat, but I, you know, it is what it is. Yeah. Yeah. And speaking of being a litigator by training full disclosure everyone kathy harris is formerly my attorney in my wrongful termination case against the department of veterans affairs from trump's first administration uh but then joe biden reached down and and plucked her brilliant mind out of out of my case and put her on the merit systems protection board which was really really amazing because there had not been a quorum on the ms pb for so long that everyone's you know complaints were just languishing there which i think is kind of of what's kind of the point. It was a feature and not a bug. And so I have a new attorney. My case

is going forward. We just had a motion for summary judgment hearing and we're continuing on with that. But I just wanted to give everybody full disclosure that I've worked with Kathy Harris in the past before she was appointed by Joe Biden to the Merit Systems Protection Board. So Kathy, have there been any updates on your case after the ping pong ball pinball machine thing we just went through? Well, we're in waiting mode, waiting on the D.C. Circuit panel to rule on the merits of my case, basically to rule on whether Judge Contreras is ruling, finding in my favor on the merits is correct or not. And honestly, we expect a ruling could be any day. So, you know, fingers crossed and hoping for the best.

And do you know who the three panel judge? Is it the same three panel judge that considered your emergency motion or is that a different panel? Because I think my understanding is that the emergency motions panel sits for a month and then they change it out. So is this a different panel of judges? It's a different panel with one overlap. Judge Walker is the overlap. Then Judge Katzis and Judge Pan are on the merits panel. Gotcha. And let's talk really quick about multi-member boards because first of all, your case was consolidated with Gwen Wilcox, who was removed from the National Labor Relations Board. And there's a doctrine in place. So there has been for a long time called Humphrey's executor, which I think is at stake in these cases because some members of the Supreme Court have been seemingly wanting to overturn Humphrey's executor for a while. So can you talk a little bit about how multi-member boards are protected. I think there were additional laws signed during Biden's administration, but mostly I'm concerned here about Humphreys' executor. So the law of the land, really since the founding of the Constitution, has been that there are certain individuals who can only be fired for cause from the government. those are like myself on a, you know, high-level independent agency, multi-member board.

And what I was doing, I was doing really adjudicatory work. I was like a judge. So hearing cases from federal employees who were fired or whistleblowers and the like. So there's a statute that Congress passed. that says I could only be fired for cause. I was nominated and confirmed by the Senate, nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate. And my term was supposed to run until at least March 2028. The board is bipartisan by statute.

Only two members of the board can be from the same political party. So, you know, when there's a, and the terms are staggered. So when I was there, there were two Democrats. and one Republican, one of those seats expired, not mine. And so I would have assumed that it would be, you know, two Republicans and me as a remaining Democrat until my term expired. So, you know, the shock of it is that no, no member had ever been terminated of any independent board.

I think since Humphrey's executor as far as I know So, you know, my friends joke that the new case would be called Harris's executor, but I hope not because that would mean I'd be no longer with us because if you have an executor in your case

it means that the estate takes over. So I'm hoping that justice is served sooner rather than later so I can get back to work and do the job that Congress put me there to do. I think that, you know, your question, though, just that was background. The question really is, you know, what happens if Humphrey's executor goes away? Well, what happens is that the president can fire members of boards like mine, the NLRB, the Fed, and other important boards that have bipartisan, statutory protections from, from arbitrary removal.

Hey, Kathy, let me just push you a little bit on that to give, just by way of background, Humphrey's executor, Humphrey, of course, was on the, I think, the trade commission. Roosevelt basically inherited Humphrey, and he was a conservative, and Roosevelt wanted to get rid of him, and you asked him to resign, he refused to, and so Roosevelt fired him. And he made it very clear that he fired him because of his, political positions and his like conservative policies on that board. Of course, he died shortly after getting fired and his executor steps in and files this case, which goes on to become Humphrey's executor versus the United States. And the court basically says Roosevelt did the wrong

thing, couldn't fire him. And they lay out this test in which they say, in a board like this, the one that Humphrey had been on, which is not specifically or purely executive and function, but rather quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative, then the executive, the head of the executive branch, the president, does not have the power to fire at will, essentially a member of the board. So is it your, are you concerned that your case will, I guess my question is, do you think, If the court goes against you here, is it going to be because they're going to make some argument that you've failed that test? Or do you think they're looking to throw out the ruling in Humphrey's executor entirely and, like, say, okay, from now on, the president can fire whoever he wants for whatever he wants? Right.

So that's a great question, Andy. So the government has said that they want to overturn Humphrey's executor. It's not just that they think that the Merit Systems Protection Board is, you know, just doesn't fit in within that test, within that framework. It's that they no longer wish for Humphreys executor to be the law of the land. And they've been quite frank about that in their briefing and in their arguments before the court. And you had brought up the Fed as one of these multi-member board. words. But I think I remember one of the Supreme Court justices in one of these cases in a concurrence, and it might have been Justice Thomas saying, we want to get rid of Humphrey's

executor. I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but not for like the Fed. It seemed like they wanted to carve out for the Fed. And so I was wondering if you knew the temperature of the six conservative justices on this, because sometimes we see like maybe Amy Coney Barrett or Kavanaugh. not going along with what Alito and Thomas would want, which in this case would be to outright overturn Humphreys executor. Do you have an idea or a feeling about where the justices come down on the multi-member boards? I'm pretty sure none of them want to have the president be able to fire the Fed, anyone on the Fed board. But it seems like all the other multi-member boards, there are at least one or two justices who want to completely overturn Humphreys. but I don't know the temperature of the other justices.

So that's a question you'd have to ask my attorneys. You can ask Neil Cotillal what he thinks about that. I'm not a Supreme Court practitioner, and I'm not going to guess what the justices will or won't do in my case if it ever got there. But what I will say is that I think that my case is a very, important question about the um the doctrine of separation of powers right and and is it is is is the executive able to fire these high level multi-member bipartisan board members at will or is there a reason that we have these laws in place

and does our Constitution believe, you know, is there a belief of the integrity of the separation of powers? And that's, I really think, what it comes down to. And, you know, how the court comes out on it, I, you know, I don't know, and I'm not going to guess. But I think it's very important, if you think about what the Merit Systems Protection Board does, just from a matter of policy and principles, we want our civil servants and our civil service to be looked at with independence and integrity and non-partisanship. You don't want, for example, air traffic controllers controlling airplanes based on political partisan patronage. You don't want hurricanes to be, you know, predicted and managed by people who are appointed out of

political patronage. You might want the high-level policymakers to be politicals, but you don't want, you can pick your lawyer. The president can pick his lawyer, but he shouldn't be able to pick his judges. And that's what I was. I was a judge, an administrative appellate. judge rendering decisions on these kinds of cases? I think that's such an important point. And it also occurs to me that I think we have a tendency to look at this only from the perspective of presidents grabbing more power, right? And there are certainly people who believe that.

And some of them are on the Supreme Court. They subscribe to this kind of unitary executive theory that the president is really, you know, can basically do whatever he wants and has unlimited power and all that other stuff. And that's one side of the equation, but the other side of the equation, which I think is in such clear focus in this case, if the court goes that way and throws out Humphrey's executor and therefore grants the president this expanded power to fire for any reason members of multi-member boards who have been created by Congress, it's not just that the president is getting more power. It's that we are eliminating power from Congress. That's right. You were basically saying that Congress, in the things it creates, cannot even control how those entities are administered. And when we take power away from Congress, Congress is the place where Americans actually have a say over how power is executed.

And we lose that say. We lose that accountability. That's the part of government that's most. accountable to the citizens because you vote for these people. You vote for your representatives and your senators. So I don't know. I feel like there's a, there's, you know, it's like it's a zero-sum game. There's nothing new being created here. If you give all of this to the president, you by definition, are taking away power from Congress and therefore taking away the government's accountability to the citizens. Yeah, I think that's a very good way of describing the,

the main issues here, Andy. What I would add is that political patronage and government hasn't gone well for our country when we've tried it before, right? The reason the civil service laws were passed was after President Garfield was assassinated in the, I don't know, around 1880 something, right? And we passed the Pundleton Act to prevent against political patronage in government.

And over time, you know, that was strengthened. And then when we got to the Watergate corruption and scandals, that's when the Civil Service Reform Act was passed right after Nixon left office to prevent, again, against political patronage in government. so it hasn't gone well it didn't it didn't do what we didn't we didn't succeed in a way that perhaps some would have liked when we lean toward more political patronage in the civil service and there's been a reason that nonpartisan political you know that we haven't we haven't accepted that in the government for many many years because it leads to fraud waste and abuse. It leads to taxpayer waste and it leads to inefficiency of the service, which is something I think most Americans don't want. Yeah, and corruption. Corruption. That's right. Just what I was going to say. Yeah. And Kathy, I wanted to ask you before, while we still have a little time here, you know, I was removed from the Department of Veterans Affairs and now I'm seeing it completely gutted and I'm seeing veterans being sent out to private providers.

and toward the privatization. Andy removed from service at the FBI, seeing it being purged of its longstanding honorable members whose lives are dedicated to that service. I wanted to give you a chance to talk about your sense of the morale in federal government, these smear campaigns against our federal workers, painting them as lazy, moods,

you know, all of whom are very honorable, skilled people who are taking a pay cut to serve the United States, by the way. They could make so much more money in the private sector. But I just wanted to get kind of your thoughts on what's this dismantling of the federal government trying to go back to the spoils system and what that's kind of done to morale and our government as a whole. Well, listen, I've spent my career. representing federal employees and at times federal agencies. My entire career really has been dealing with people in the federal government and fighting discrimination, fighting against fraud, waste, and abuse, and fighting for basically the integrity of the civil service. So it was an

honor of a lifetime for me to be able to be a judge, an appellate administrative judge at the MSPB. And what I saw is, for the most part, our civil servants are professional, smart, dedicated, and honorable, for the most part, right? But there's systems in place to remove those who are not adhering to performance standards or conduct standards. That's all there we have that in place why it's not used properly uh you know by agencies that's a different question but the laws are there to be able to correctly and efficiently have a civil service right so when there's accusations of just you know rampant uh that people are just you know completely lazy and not doing their jobs it's just not true uh i can just just

tell you from my experience at the MSPB with our employees, they're the most, we're so lucky that these people are in government doing what they do. We are so lucky to have these people who have dedicated their lives to public service rather than doing something else in the private sector. And it's not just them. It's their families who are serving our country. And, I just feel very, I want to just offer my apology to those who have felt impugned and to just keep, keep up the good work, keep doing what you're doing. Someone told me, courage is contagious, and I hope that you will continue to do your jobs, and I'm going to continue to fight to make sure that the law is followed.

Well, we certainly appreciate all the work that you've done and the advocacy that you're doing going forward. We're going to be keeping an eye on your case. We would love to have you back on in the future sometime to talk about any updates, if that's okay. It would be my pleasure. Thank you so much, Allison and Andy. Thank you, Kathy. Such a privilege and an honor to get to talk to you today. So, yeah, please stay in touch with us.

We'd love to have you on again. All right, everybody, stick around. We're going to be right back with some more unjustified right after this. quick break. Hey everybody. Welcome back. That was so nice to get to talk to Kathy again. She's great. That was really nice for her to come on. Yeah, I look forward to talking to her again. All right. Let's talk about what's going on in D.C. This is reporting from the Associated Press. They say the Trump administration stepping up its crackdown on policing in the nation's capital on Thursday,

the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration to be Washington's Emergency Police Commissioner with all the powers of the police chief, a significant move that increases national control over the city as part of the federal government's law enforcement takeover. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a directive issued Thursday evening that the DEA boss Terry Cole will assume, quote, powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia chief of police.

The Metropolitan Police Department, quote, must receive approval from Commissioner Cole before issuing any orders. That's what Bondi said in her order. It was not immediately clear where the move left Pamela Smith, the city's actual police chief, who works for the mayor. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwab responded late Thursday that Bondi's directive was unlawful,

arguing that it could not be followed by the city's police force. Quote, therefore members of MPD, that stands for Metropolitan Police Department, must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the mayor. Schwab wrote in a memo to Smith, setting up a potential legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration. Now, Washington mayor, Muriel Bowser, wrote on social media that, quote, there is no statute that conveys the district's personnel authority to a federal official. Bondi's directive came hours after Smith,

That's the police chief, directed MPD officers to share information with immigration agencies, but only regarding people not in custody, such as someone who's been involved in a traffic stop or encountered at a checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief's directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of sanctuary city policies. Now, Bondi said she was rescinding that order as well as other MPD policies, limiting influence. queries to immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from coal. That's the DEA guy, according to Pam Bondi. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and supposed state of emergencies to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people

in the U.S. illegally. And it also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, I call it houselessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the administration has portrayed. For an already wary Washington, Thursday marked a notable and highly visible uptick in presence from the previous two days. The visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high traffic areas, was striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over D.C.'s law enforcement, which is, of course,

the Metropolitan Police Department, for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he'll reevaluate that as the deadline approaches. The response before Thursday had been gradual, and by all appearance, is low-key. But on Wednesday night, officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.'s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. The White House said 45 arrests were made Wednesday night, with 29 people arrested for living in the country illegally. Other arrests included for distribution or possession of drugs, carrying a concealed weapon, and assaulting a federal officer. And NBC is reporting. Also, Brian Schwab, as you said, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington

on Friday, challenging the Trump administration's takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department, and this lawsuit challenges Trump's Monday order as well as Attorney General Pam Bonday's Thursday order claiming federal control of the D.C. police force. Schwab's office argues that the order exceeds the limits on requesting services from D.C., which it says can only be done on a temporary basis and under emergency circumstances. The office also sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the Trump administration from taking over the police department, saying that D.C. would suffer devastating and irreparable harms if the Trump administration's efforts succeeded. Yeah. And this case was then issued to Judge Reyes, a Biden appointee. And she called an emergency

hearing, same day for it, for like, gave him a couple of hours. And I listened to the hearing. And the first maybe hour of the hearing, it was kind of a, it was the DOJ and the, it was the DOJ and the judge kind of going back and forth on section one of this order, which basically hands over control of the Metropolitan Police Department to the DEA guy, Cole, right? And says, you are now have all the powers of the chief. Under Home Rule Act of 1973, Section 740, I think it was, if memory serves. If I'm wrong, I apologize on that section. Because he's got this emergency power, right? And it's only lasts for 30 days because at first the order said, I'm going to do it until I decide that there's no more crime

and the bedlam stops or whatever. But then everyone's like, sir, no, you have 30 days. And I think I said this on the Daily Beans too. It reminded me of mean girls when he was like, I do not care how long this takes. I will keep you here all night. And she goes, sir, we can only keep them till four. And he goes, I will keep you here until four.

So anyway, the judge was going back and forth saying this is just really broad. you can't just hand over the police department because specifically because Bondi was saying you know everything has to go through this guy he's the de facto emergency police commissioner and you you can't do that under the Home Rule Act what the Home Rule Act says is that

the president can tell you know the mayor of DC I need this for example right she used the hypothetical I need the MPD to help me with ICE and immigration arrest and the mayor shall offer those resources in the MPD. She has to. And that would be the way to do this. But you can't just grant or hand over the Metropolitan Police Department to a federal

agent, namely this coal guy, and put them in charge and they get to tell the MPD what to do and what not to do. It was a thing about that, too, as not just in the affirmative. And so basically her, what I was taking away from that is the judge was saying, look, government, your interpretation of the law is too broad. But DC, your interpretation of the law is too narrow because the president can come in and order the mayor to have the MPD, you know, assist in some services. So. Yeah. So it's, I think that sounds right.

And the way that I read the Home Rule Act, it's pretty simple in this one respect. It's like the president has the power to draw on the resources of the MPD to accomplish a federal purpose. So yeah, that does make sense. And when he makes that request slash demand, which he initially does only for 48 hours, and he has to notify Congress to get to the 30-day point. But after the 30-day point, they basically have to pass a new law. to continue that. So we're not there yet.

But once he does that, the mayor has to comply, basically has to make that resource available to the president. But it doesn't say anything about like, okay, now we're going to put our own guy in charge and he's going to put in all new policies and maybe hire some people, fire some people like that. It doesn't go that far. It's simply to ensure that that law enforcement resource has been co-opted for a federal purpose.

I think there's also a limiting factor. here on that federal purpose definition. So I don't think he can come in and say, I need the MPD to patrol the streets of D.C. better. Like that's not enough. That's the job of the MPD already. And that's the responsibility of the mayor and the police chief. So I think there's pretty solid legal ground to fight.

I've been frustrated that the city hasn't brought this fight before now. It's interesting, right? Yeah. Yeah, because the judge, actually pointed that out. She says, am I correct, everyone? I'm the first person to ever rule on this section of the Home Rule Act. I'm going on Monday. I have no idea. Yeah. And so the other thing, you know, because the way the rule is set up, like Trump can put, can make Terry Cole the liaison between the federal government and the MPD, but can't put him in charge. And so the judge

pointed that out to the DOJ and said, certainly we can all agree that the president can't just take over the whole MPD and tell them all what to do and what not to do through an appointed federal officer, right? And the DOJ was like, well, uh, no, no, your honor, there's not really a huge difference between Cole being the emergency chief commissioner or the liaison. And she goes, oh, well, if it's not a big deal, just rewrite your order and we can all go home. And so, very nice. So then she took a break after an hour and she's like, well, 15 minute break. And 15 minutes, half hour, 45 minutes, an hour, hour and a half, nothing. And I'm like, maybe they're trying to work out some sort of a deal.

But we just got from Anna Bauer that they came back, about an hour and a half later. Judge Reyes said, all right, is this how I'm spending my evening? And then counsel for D.C. says that they've had a productive discussion with the DOJ, and they want to continue discussions as to sections two, three, and four. And they want the court to hold in abeyance, meaning don't rule yet on sections two, three and four, but we still want you to rule on section one, which is the one where they make Terry Cole like in charge of everything. And Reyes says she'd be happy to hear the argument on section five, but she doesn't see how she can enjoin that section because it essentially

tells the police to follow existing law in D.C. So that's weird. And Reyes says, okay, here's what we do. She says, I think section one of the order is plainly contrary to the statute, the whole rule. But I don't want to issue an order if I don't have to. And now the Department of Justice said that they're working on rewriting section one. So she says, if I don't hear from anyone by 630, I'm going to issue a temporary restraining order in joining section one. But Reyes won't issue a trow as to that section

if a new order comes out, right? So if they rewrite the order, like she said, then she won't issue the trow. Council for D.C. says they still want to renew the motion if it comes out, if the rewritten section still is against the law, you know? And she said, she'll give them, the phone number for her new clerks who are being sworn in tonight, if that happens.

Welcome to the job. Yeah. That's jumping in the deep end right away. Yeah. And she adjourned it. And she said, you guys are welcome to stick around for the swearing-in of the new clerks or you can head out. Otherwise, we're adjourned.

So that's what happened in court today with Home Rule. All right. This whole thing could have been avoided if they had actually just reached out to D.C. ahead of time and said, this is what we're going to do. even but they don't they don't fly that way they are only concerned with the big press conference the splashy media moment we're going to save dc we're going to throw all these horrible people in jail it's going to be great dc didn't even know this was happening until they heard the press conference and the fact is that the city the relationship in between the law enforcement community

between the federal side and the and the city side is actually extraordinarily good and it always has been because there's a ton of federal law enforcement in D.C. Everyone's got a law enforcement function. It's not just Bureau. 17 federal law enforcement agencies or something. Bureau of Secret Service, DEA, Marshalls, Park Police. It goes on and on and on and on. And MPD is the big dog because they have, you know, 85% of the real estate in D.C. is not federal. It's the, it's the district, not the federal government. So they have to work together. And they work together They're on everything. They're constantly, like, cooperating and having these meetings, the D.C. Council of Government meeting. I used to have to go to it every month. I was going to say, how do you know, Andy? How do you even know?

Oh, my God. I mean, when I was running WFO, the Washington Field Office, like, you spent over half of your time meeting with the MPD chief, meeting with the D.C. Council of Government. It's just like this very collaborative community. A lot of liaising. So if they had just gone over there and said, we're doing this, let's figure out how the mechanics are going to work. They could have avoided all of it, but they didn't, which is why in the aftermath of the great press conference, the big beautiful press conference, immediately people started asking questions, okay, who's in charge? And the police chief was like, I listen to the mayor. The mayor was like, the police chief runs the department. Like, they kind of ignored this whole Terry Cole thing. Amy Gleason.

Amy Gleason is in charge. I was just so stupid They clearly wanted to They wanted to be friends DC did Muriel Bowser did I think they wanted to do this In the least confrontational way possible

And you know what? Extra manpower, what the hell, right? But man they just That's not what the administration was looking for They just wanted the big foot Takeover Everybody shut up and listen to us moment Yeah it reminds me of

Remember when he went up walked on stage during his first term and shoved the guy from Montenegro out of the way and straight like walked right in front of him like that's him right yeah yeah that's what this is and that's what uh I think you're right that they just wanted that big tough moment and they made they put out that video of all the ice trucks no no out on the street slow roll yeah what it's just it's it's it's propaganda um and that's what they wanted that's what they wanted that's what were aiming for. And the judge was pretty frustrated. She's like, guys, so you're fine with Cole being a liaison between the mayor and the MPD? Then write it up. See you know, like, so we'll keep an eye on

this, but ridiculous. Donald Trump is producing a TV show every day. Yes. It's the TV show of the presidency, the big beautiful presidency. And so like these kind of things, they don't care. They don't care about the law, how this looks, how it will actually work. They don't really have a lot of knowledge about those things. And so they're just really focused on the TV aspect of it. Yeah, agreed. All right. We have more to get to, but we're going to take another quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back. Welcome back. It appears that Federal prosecutors are continuing to have a hard time getting grand juries to indict protesters

who allegedly interfere with immigration and customs enforcement officers. This reporting comes from CBS affiliate WUSA-9. Federal prosecutors twice sought a grand jury indictment against a D.C. woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent during an ICE inmate transfer and were twice rejected. Ouch. Over two. The U.S. Attorney's Office admitted in court on Thursday. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey revealed the denials to attorneys for Sydney-Lory Reed and later granted their request to remove all bond conditions and release her on her own recognizance over prosecutor's objections.

So they did not get either indictment and they also lost custody of the prisoner. And they still wanted to keep her in custody. Wow. He will resume a preliminary hearing on Friday afternoon to determine whether to dismiss the case entirely. Quote, two presentations to the grand jury return no bill both times. That's what Harvey said. Suggesting the evidence is wanting, given the standard for indictment is probable cause. That's classic judicial understatement. Suggesting your evidence is wanting that.

Okay, if it was a cop that was saying that same thing, it would have been, your case is a leaky bag of shit. Right. Do you remember in the War Games movie where he's like, it's come to my, I've come to the conclusion, Mr. McKittrick, that your defense system sucks. And like that's just, so suggesting the evidence is wanting, given the standard for indictment is probable cause. So your evidence sucks because it's a real low bar to get an indictment. You can indict a ham sandwich, as Justice Alito has said. suggesting the government may never get an indictment is what the judge finished with. Grand juries, as we know, are tasked with deciding only whether there's a reasonable basis

to support charging someone with a crime. It's a much lower burden for prosecutors than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of criminal juries and typically make their decisions after hearing evidence only from the government. At the federal level, grand juries return indictments or true bills, the vast majority of the time, right? We've talked about this. It's like a 97% return rate for True Bill. Yeah, it's not even a majority.

It's like almost every time. It's P. Yeah. Okay, so Reed 44 was charged last month with an enhanced felony version of an assault charge that requires inflicting bodily injury on a federal officer and carries a maximum sentence of up to eight years in prison. The charge is the same offense filed this week against a former DOJ employee accused of throwing a sandwich in the U.S. I mean, why do you always give me the lines that I cannot finish without laughing? Sorry.

Okay. A former DOJ employee accused of throwing a sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent. In a press release last month, U.S. attorney Jeannie Piro's office accused Reed of trying to impede the transfer of two alleged members of the 18th Street gang who were being arrested by ICE outside the D.C. jail prior to. to transferring custody to the FBI. Oh, yeah. Now, federal prosecutors declined to call the injured FBI agent or any of the ICE officers involved in the incident during Thursday's hearing.

However, instead, they had an investigator with the U.S. Attorney's Office testify about his review of a video of the incident and brief conversations with the officers. The investigator, special agent Sean Ricardy, said he'd had no involvement in the case until he was asked to prepare for testimony Thursday morning. Now, video played by prosecutor shows Reed approaching the ICE officers while holding up her phone, which she says is for her protection.

She then is later seen being held by multiple officers against a wall while she asks, how do you feel about stealing fucking people? Wow. Mind your own business, said an unidentified ICE agent in response. So they didn't even have the assaulted officer there. Am I reading that right? Yeah. So whoever the alleged victim was, which I think is an FBI agent, had nothing to do with the actual hearing where they were trying to indict this woman. So Ricardy said while officers were attempting to control her, reads, quote, flailing arm movements made contact with the FBI agent. Now, no injury is shown on the video as played in court, although prosecutors submitted photographs of the agent with small abrasions on the back of her hand, which Ricardy said did not appear to be present prior to the incident. That is about the hardest way to prove an injury that I've ever heard. Why not just get the agent to come in and say, she hit me with her arm? Because he'd be lying. Okay. Eugene Oam, an assistant federal public defender representing Reed, said prosecutors were presenting the court

with nothing but hearsay from an investigator who wasn't present. He asked Harvey to review the grand jury testimony himself before ruling on probable cause, although Harvey declined. Quote, we should be able to get to the bottom of why all the citizens of the District of Columbia seem to think there's no crime while the government continues to allege one against my client. Ohm said. Wow. Wow. Now, because Reed is charged with a felony, under federal law, prosecutors must secure an indictment within 30 days of her arrest. Now, that clock was paused temporarily until Thursday's hearing, but now it's running again. Following a rejection by a grand jury, prosecutors can attempt again to seek an indictment as many times as they want, with Piro's permission, which I'm sure she'll grant.

Alternatively, they could charge Reed with a lower-level misdemeanor offense that doesn't require an indictment. Harvey ordered the parties to return to court Friday afternoon to resume the preliminary hearing, and Reed's attorneys have asked him to decline to find probable cause and dismiss the case against her entirely. Now, you mentioned sandwich guy. Oh, I did. Yes. who's my hero no pun intended um that was so awful i can't thank you i have more he he was charged with assault with a deli weapon i i have more um now this is just in here a judge has released 37 year old sean dun no relation to harry done he's a former doj employee and he's been released on his own recognizance just like reed in the previous story despite charging him with the

enhanced version of an assault charge that requires bodily injury and carries up to eight years in federal prison. Prosecutors said Thursday they had no basis on which to argue he should be detained. So at least they weren't trying to detain him. Now, again, they have 30 days to get a grand jury indictment. So how many times do you think they'll reject a true bill for sandwich guy? You know, I guess the question is how many times will the prosecutor's office try to get one? And this one, unlike the last reads case in which you have this bizarre use of video because the obvious witness for some reason won't testify, the sandwich attack was also captured on video like explicitly.

I'm sure you've seen it. Oh, and he said, I did it. I threw the same. So it really comes down to what the grandeurs are going to think about how injured you could possibly become from getting hit with a subway now it was a foot long so i'm going to say you know had a little bit more heft to it than a six inch might have there's salami in there from what i hear the whole thing is they should try to actually indict the ham sandwich oh you are just on fire today with the dad jokes my god i can't believe it it's because i never had

children oh my gosh it's how i make up for that i think sandwich guy uh do we know what he did at doj i'm kind of fascinated by this he worked in the criminal division oh boy i mean you've actually come across this guy my travels over there yeah mr dun he was fired up he is fired up in that video and he ran and it they took a block to catch him i thought he was going to get away he was fast pretty he had pretty good legs on him but uh they did catch up to him and he ended up on the ground uh but as he said he said he said and immediately was he was very clear about it. I did it. I threw the sandwich, which was really not in doubt at all because it's absolutely captured on video. Yes. That guy gets hit right in the chest

with the foot long. And I talked to Harry Dunn about this and he said that officer, by the way, if he doesn't testify before the grand jury, it's because he's embarrassed. I mean, right? And that there are probably group, you know, group chats and, you know, signal groups and stuff of officers who they have nicknames for him now. They are not letting this guy live down the sandwich. They are crucifying this guy. And yeah, I don't know. That could really go wrong for him if he has to step up and testify.

I was hit with a sandwich I have. And here's the thing. I don't, much like in Reed's case, like you said, I don't think that the grand jury is going to buy that there's this enhanced felony with bodily injury. I think it would be like, come back, actually, you don't even have to bring in a misdemeanor to a grand jury. No, no.

That would be the proper charge here. This is what happens when you have a U.S. attorney who is as performative as her boss and really doesn't have any experience, like, at this level. Right. She's, you know, she was a county attorney in Westchester County, New York, and then she was a judge for a while. So I'm not saying she doesn't know the criminal system, but like, and, Not that any of this would happen in normal times, but in normal times, there's no way this stuff would get charged at that level. It would be if it got charged at all.

It was, I had agents, when I was in New York, I had agents on my squad who were in, like, legitimate, like, fist of cuff with people who were trying to avoid being arrested. And we could not get the U.S. Attorney's Office to charge those people with assault on a federal agent or anything like that. So those cases are very rarely ever brought. And in these two incidents where the whole thing's on video, it's this minimal kind of barely contact with the back of your hand or hit with a sandwich. I mean, Mr. Meiner, if you want to make a point out of it, but man, they're just overcharged.

The big picture beauty about all this is thinking back to the immunity arguments before the Supreme Court, where Trump was saying, If you don't make me immune, there would be rogue prosecutions for all of the end of days. John Sauer made that argument in the Supreme Court. And Sotomayor, Justice Sotomayor, said, no, we have so many checks on rogue prosecutors. We have grand juries. We have indictments. We have pre-trial motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.

We have trial. We have pedit jury. We have, which is the regular, you know, the 12 jury of your peers. Trial jury, yeah. We have then after conviction, sentencing memorandum. Then we have appeals after that. We have so many checks on rogue prosecutions. And now we are seeing exactly what Justice Sotomayor was describing is the protections

against rogue prosecutions for political purposes. They can't get indictments read. they can't get past the federal grand jury in a lot of these cases. And that just proves that you don't need immunity because you have all these other protections. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think that's right. I think that's right. Just thinking about that. I think about the immunity decision a lot, Andy. I'm with you. It still bothers me.

I'm with you. It's a hard one to get over. That in Anderson, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, seems super obvious to me. but I guess. So frustrating because these political times will pass. This is not forever, but that decision may very well be forever. Yeah, hopefully we can get it overturned at some point, probably not in my lifetime. No. Unless we expand the court, kill the filibuster, and put four more justice is up there.

A lot of hurdles you've got to get over there. It's quite a few. Yeah. And eventually that case will end up at the Supreme Court. So, you know, six and one half dozen. everybody, we have one more story to get to before we get to listener questions, but we have to take one last quick break. So stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. We have one more story, as I said, before we get to listener questions. If you have a question, there's a link in the show notes. You can click on it, fill out a form, and Andy and I will read your questions. So an advocacy group opposed to President Donald Trump and made up of former national security officials. has issued an open letter to current FBI officials warning about the ongoing purge within the agency.

They write, greetings, we write to you as former members of the U.S. intelligence, diplomatic, defense, and national security communities, veterans of service to both Republican and Democratic administrations. We are the steady state, a nonpartisan group of professionals who have served in the CIA, FBI, State Department, Department of Defense, NSA, DHS, and the uniformed military. Together, we have spent our careers upholding the Constitution and defending the United States from foreign and domestic threats. We have worked across the globe at embassies, forward operating bases, and conflict zones, as well as here at home in Washington, D.C. and in field offices across the country. Some of us sat across the table from foreign intelligence services, some led counterterrorism operations or nuclear non-proliferation programs, while others negotiated treaties or built coalitions in defense of democracy. Whatever the mission, one constant was our respect for and reliance on the integrity,

professionalism, and independence of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Together, we help keep America safe from espionage, terrorism, and transnational crime. Together, we ensured that more than a dozen presidents are the best intelligence and analysis available to make decisions that shape the outcome of the Cold War and safeguarded American interests around the world. They go on to say that it is from this shared legacy of service that we now write in deep concern and solidarity. The recent removals of seasoned FBI leaders, most notably agents Brian Driscoll, Michael Feinberg, Walter Jardina, are not isolated personnel matters. They appear part of a broader campaign to dismantle the FBI's longstanding independence and recast it as a tool

of political loyalty. That such dismissals are reportedly tied to perceived personal disloyalty to former President Donald Trump is profoundly alarming. The elevation of unqualified political loyalists, such as Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, whose resumes do not meet the basic standards for leadership of the world's premier law enforcement agency, makes the pattern unmistakable. It is not about reform. It is about control. The aim, it seems, is to transform the FBI from a respected, constitutionally grounded investigative service into a personal enforcement arm of a political figure. We have seen these dynamics abroad, leaders who demand loyalty from security services not to the law but to themselves. These regimes

do not end well. The FBI has long been a bulwark against such corruption, an institution where rule of law and civil liberties are held in balance with the demands of national security. Its independence is not a bureaucratic feature. It is a democratic necessity. To our friends and colleagues in the Bureau, past and present, we recognize the pressure you are under. We honor your service and the sacrifices you've made, quietly, honorably, often without recognition. And we want you to know we stand with you. Your integrity matters. Your courage matters. The nation is watching and will be inspired. by the FBI, and history will remember. With respect, gratitude, and resolve, the steady state.

So that is the letter. And, Andy, there is some breaking news as we're recording. Senator Dick Durbin is calling on the DOJ Inspector General, who is no longer Michael Horowitz, to investigate, quote, the arbitrary removals, forced retirements, and reassignments of senior FBI officials, the impact of these decisions on national security operations, and the disparate impact on personnel who are women, or persons of color. Good for him. I hope he gets an answer. I doubt that he will,

but they're asking. It sounds like it could go into that same file that the third witness against Emil Bovey went into the, oh, we lost it. We never really had it. Oh, wait, here it is a day too late. Hopefully, hopefully he'll get an answer, but we'll stay on this and report back

as soon as we hear. Yeah, we sure will. All right. It's time for some questions. We have, I think, time for one or two. Andy, what do we have this week? Yeah, so I have one question and then one kind of comment that somebody sent in that I thought was really thoughtful and could be helpful to some people. So let's do the question first. Question comes from Cosmob. Cosmob says, Greetings, Dynamic Duo for Democracy. It's a good one. I like that. How are all these creative but subversive strategies and actions generated. How do people like Bondi and Hengseth and Patel and Gabbard and Vance and the rest come up with things like who to fire, what damaging reports to release or leak, sequence

to normalize military in the streets, and so many more. Does Trump guide them or even know what they're doing? Did they get together like the quorum to discuss Epstein issues and workshop ideas? Are they just following the ideas of Project 2025 or operatives associated with it? That's a lot of questions in one question, but I get it. I see where you're headed, Cosmo. I'll just give you my opinion. Then, of course, I'm interested to hear yours, Allison. I think that what happens is President Trump sets such a clear example of what he wants, what he wants from the people around him, the way he wants them to talk about him, the things that he wants them to talk about him, the things that he wants them to. to focus on the enemies he wants them to go after. He is so clear in his communication about what he likes and what he doesn't like. And he's also very clear about what the penalty is for falling into the don't like category that everyone around him, they know, they know what they decide what to do based upon

what they think he will like and look favorably upon because they are tied to one thing and one thing only, and that is the idea of currying the favor of the person they serve. It is not a commitment to the rule of law. It is not a commitment to the Constitution. It is not a commitment to the citizens that they represent or protect or what have you. It is a 100% commitment to satisfying the whims of Donald Trump. And so the playbook is pretty easy to figure out. anytime things are going bad, you go back to the Russia, Russia hoax, hoax, hoax.

If the president needs a lift, he needs a distraction, you just start throwing around names like Barack Obama and Jim Comey and John Brennan. That's, they know how to do this because it's been very clearly communicated to them. Yeah, that's kind of how I see. I think the way I see it is that Trump just really wants to be a strong man, a dictator, right? And so there are several competing interests that all over, that all have some part of their Venn diagram underneath the fact that they need a dictator to do what they want to do. And so we've got Christian nationalism, right, the Heritage Foundation, to do the, to get the Gilead they want, they need a dictator in place because there's laws against the stuff that they want to do. So that's a lot of project 2025.

We've got Russ Vaught, right, who just wants to dismantle the federal government and traumatize federal civil service servants. We've got Stephen Miller, who wants to, who is a eugenicist, who just wants to rid the country of everyone who's not a white guy. Yes. We've got, you know, and have women be subservient and make babies so that they have laborers and people to join the military and ice. And then so we have all these, we have Trump who is the figurehead. but we have all of these people pulling all the strings who want different things out of a dictator and can only get them from a dictator. And that's who his cabinet is and who his advisors are. Yeah. And that's what they're doing there. And so they're really just getting all of these ideas,

workshopping everything out of the authoritarian playbook and bringing in all of the little pet projects they want to get done that can only take place under authoritarian rule. That's the way I see it. Yeah, I totally agree with you. Like there's all of those special interests, no that's where the philosophy is in in this administration like trump does not really have a political philosophy or political commitment or like a really strong sense of value with something he's trying to accomplish internationally or domestic he is just drawn to those things that he thinks make him look more powerful and make him richer and that sort of thing.

It's the Leonard Leo's of the world who take advantage of the fact that Trump is ideologically an empty vessel. Putin. Yeah, Putin. The list goes on and on. And so they're not drawn to him because they think he's great

and the best president ever. It's just they know that they can get the thing that they want done under this administration. Now, the people he surrounds himself with in the cabinet and running the agencies, very different than the first. first administration. It's just all sycophants, people who have been willing to prove their loyalty, which is basically prove the fact that they are willing to bend and do anything he asks without

ever saying no, this is a bad idea, that's illegal, whatever, whatever. No, they'll just do it because they want to make him happy. Yeah, agreed. All right, what's our final comment before we get out of here? Final comments, a little bit long, but I think it was, I think it's pretty good. So this comes that's from Jay from West Virginia, and he says, Andy, I'm a therapist and frequent listener. You mentioned feeling off for years after an unjust firing. What you described is called disenfranchised grief. It involves a persistent and unresolved sense of loss because it centers around something that there is no social template for losing. People can experience disenfranchised grief with the loss of a pet, the termination of a job, or even with chronic illness. It's important

to name it correctly so that people can seek help and find ways to feel less off. I wanted to mention this because it's important, especially at this moment and time, so many people at the FBI and in the federal government have lost so much. A few visits with a therapist or even watching YouTube videos to get a better understanding can help. So I just wanted to put that out there because I thought it was helpful that Jay was able to name this thing that probably a lot of people are feeling. feeling and hopefully if you are, it's a way to start looking into maybe feeling a little bit better. Disenfranchised grief. Well, I'm going to look that up and I'm going to mention

it to my therapist and also watch YouTube videos about it. Heck yeah. Why not? And Jay also wanted to mention that of course you can also text or call 988 anytime. And he says, sorry I don't actually have a question, but you always explain things so well. Thanks for listening, Jay. And thanks for letting us know about that because I have it too. It's gone. That was my life. Yeah. And I didn't do it for 20 years like you, Andy, or 20 plus years like you.

I did it only for 12. But I had settled into that. That's what I was going to do until I was done. Yeah. And not only did you take my job away from me, my security, but you also took my purpose away for me to help veterans, to help veterans get timely access to quality care and to help active duty service members and their families get the same.

Like, that was my identity. And it's just got, now I have a new one. Right. Right. You know, that doesn't make that other thing not missing from that. That's right. That's right. I think Kathy Harris, the people she talked about today at the end of our conversation about

her impressions of the federal workforce and people who are drawn to it because they want to do the right thing. And there's a lot of them out there now who are probably going through the same feeling, the same process. And so anyway, hopefully with just. Jay's steer and guidance here, people have something they can look into to maybe help them out with that. Yeah. Thanks, Jay. And thanks to everybody for listening. We really appreciate it. We'll be back in your ears next week to talk about what's gone down. I'm assuming that Judge Reyes is going to block Section 1 unless the DOJ can rewrite their order, the hearing that should have been an email. And, of course, we'll have updates on, you know, everything else that's going to be happening between now and then.

we appreciate you again if you have a question there's a link in the show notes you can submit your question using that link man andy do you have any final thoughts no i've just uh you know obviously can't wait to see what happens this time next week uh watching the the great summit is taking place now and uh so i'm sure there'd be a lot of talk about that this weekend in the beginning of next week but uh anyway we'll be here on unjustified uh next week for you as well i can't believe interpulled and just arrest him so isn't there a red notice out for this guy or Because we're not ICC signatories, you can't arrest people on red notices in the United States. That doesn't seem right.

I don't know. I don't know the rules. That seems crazy to me. But huge victory for him, no matter what happens at this, whatever it is, summit meeting, conference, whatever, just the fact that he is standing on TerraFerma, U.S., in a place that hardcore Russians believe is still a disputed territory, which, of course, it's not. yeah he wins just by showing up and shaking hands and having his picture taken yeah it legitimizes his yeah he's back he's back in the in the community of world leaders yeah yeah all right well we'll we'll update you on anything that comes out of that summit as well so thank you so much

everybody have a wonderful rest of your sunday and we'll see you next week i'm alison gill and i'm and i'm andy mcabe unjustified is written an executive produced by alison gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hockey, with art and web design by 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.