Jack - Zero Business Hours

Episode Date: June 1, 2025

The Trump Administration files a motion to dismiss the Abrego Garcia case based on jurisdiction. Judge Xinis denies two government motions requesting delays.The government asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of their own request to do credible fear hearings on the ground in Djibouti for the men unlawfully flown to South Sudan.Law enforcement continues to struggle under pressure from the White House to increase immigration arrests.Trump nominates his private attorney turned Deputy Attorney General to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.Plus listener questions…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

MSW Media. The Trump administration files a motion to dismiss the Abrego Garcia case based on jurisdiction and Judge Sinise denies two government motions requesting delays. The government asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the due process they requested on the ground in Djibouti for the men unlawfully flown to South Sudan. Law enforcement continues to struggle under pressure from the White House to increase immigration arrests. And Trump's private attorney turned Deputy Attorney General is nominated to the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals. This is Unjustified. Hey everybody, welcome to Unjustified. It is Sunday, June 1st, Rabbit Rabbit 2025. We are already in June. We are, I was talking to Andy offline and I was like, we're one eighth of the way there. I find that method of counting to be very depressing, but that's just me. I rather just ignore it and just hope it goes fast. I'm Andy McCabe. And yeah, AJ, I have to tell you, last night, I went to

an event for you, do you know Jonah Bromwich, who writes for the New York Times? Yeah, he had a book reading here in DC. He just put out a book called Dragon on Center Street. And it's about the case of New York versus Donald Trump. Pretty cool book. It was great to hear him talk about it. But I, but I met a bunch of, uh, fans of the show last night at the end of the, at the end of the reading. They were all super, uh, positive. It was great to meet them. And they seem to really appreciate the information that they're getting from unjustified, uh, every week. So it was great to meet those folks and thanks. thanks for listening and saying hello last night. Yeah, not as cool as the information they got on the Jack podcast, but still very important

information nonetheless. Super important. I mean, instead of talking about superseding indictments, we're talking about Emile Boevey being nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. But that's information that's important to get out. And that's so cool that you met them. And yeah, I'm looking forward to reading that book. I've ordered my copy from my small local bookstore.

I like to do it that way. Excellent. And I was there. I was there for that trial. And we are recording on the one year anniversary of his conviction. Yes. Yes, we are. So good time to remember all of the significance

of that trial which a lot of people wrote off at the beginning like, oh, this is the least significant case against Trump and that's a position that Jonah I know disagrees with. And sure enough, it's the one that made it over the finish line and it was a super significant prosecution in and of itself. So anyway, let's jump forward and talk about the many, many things that happened this week.

We don't, it's another week where we're not getting off easy here with a light show. We do have a lot to cover today. Yeah, indeed. And thank you for filling in for Harry Dunn, by the way, earlier this week on Clean Up on aisle 45. That was fun. Super fun. I enjoyed it. Thanks for having me.

Yep. So with everything going on, we had an incredibly active week on the Abrego Garcia docket. So I think we should start there. Yep. And it all has gone down in the past couple of days, Andy. Starting on May 27, the government, the Trump administration, filed a request for

30 more days to respond to the Abrego Garcia complaint that was filed back in March. Okay. So this is separate from the discovery that might lead to contempt, right? This is the actual underlying case. Right. And here is what they said. The defendants have responded to requests for production of documents, answered interrogatories, and prepared four individuals for their depositions. Defendants have expended significant resources coordinating across multiple agencies, reviewing and producing documents, preparing witnesses, and assessing complex privilege issues within the expedited timeframe. Accordingly, defendants request that this court grant them until June 26th, 2025 to

respond to plaintiff's complaint. The same day, Judge Sinise denied their request for more time. She said, today, the very day defendants answer or response to the complaint is due, defendants move for a 30-day extension of the filing deadline. Defendants expended no effort in demonstrating good cause. They vaguely complain in two sentences to expending, quote, significant resources, engaging in expedited discovery. But these self-described burdens are of their own making. Ooh, buddy.

Yes. Further, as the docket plainly demonstrates, defendants are intimately familiar with the causes of action and of the pending deadline. The court has conducted no fewer than five hearings in this case, and at no point had defendants even intimated that they needed more time to answer or otherwise respond.

Thus, to say now that additional time is needed to do that which the law requires rings hollow. Accordingly, the motion is denied. Defendants shall file their answer or otherwise respond to the complaint today. Ouch. Yeah. She's like, hey, maybe if you'd brought up that you might need more time weeks ago, months ago, you tell me today on the day that it's due. So did they file on time? No, no, they have not. And they still have not.

As I look at the docket right now. Instead, that same day, they filed a motion to dismiss the whole case on jurisdictional grounds. They say the court must dismiss the plaintiff's claims against the defendants because, taking all factual allegations in their complaint as true, they fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction. This court lacks jurisdiction because Abrego Garcia is not in United States custody. His injury is not redressable by this court. And of course, Andy, this all hinges on whether the US

has constructive custody of Abrego Garcia. Yeah, and of course, to read that sentence, his injury is not redressable by this court. It's like his injury is directly the result of what the government did to him and this court certainly has's like his injury is directly the result of what the government did to him. And this court certainly has jurisdiction, but whatever. I digress. Then on May 29th, still no response from the government to the complaint that was due two days prior. The

government asked for a 14 day extension on discovery. So another request for delay. They said on April 15th, 2025, this court granted plaintiffs motion for expedited discovery. Since then, defendants have responded to requests for the production of documents, answered interrogatories, prepared for individuals for their depositions, and prepared briefing on issues ranging from privileges to emotion by the press seeking to unseal documents and emotion to dismiss. Defendants have expended significant resources coordinating across multiple agencies." Well, at least one of the sentences in that paragraph was completely cribbed from their other request for 30 days, but nevertheless. They go on to say, completing these

tasks has been extremely burdensome on defendants who, through their diligent work, dedicated an enormous number of attorney hours. Despite defendants' diligent efforts, additional work is ongoing that necessitates a modest extension of the May 30 document production deadline. First, defendants have made numerous concessions to plaintiffs to expand the scope of discovery, requiring defendants to repeatedly task their IT personnel with identifying and collecting and their limited staff available for document review with reviewing additional documents. Okay. I got to pause here because my head

is exploding. Why do you have limited staff? It's the government. It's the Department of Justice. They've got more attorneys there than anywhere. Okay, and if they're understaffed, how come? Yeah, just get more of them to work on this thing that's due. And don't they have 19 law firms

that are gonna do $140 million of pro bono work for them? That's a lot of backup. Yeah, that's a lot of backup. I've never in all of my life, briefly as a lawyer in private practice for a couple of years before I went into the FBI, and then all of the prosecutions and the litigation around them that I've been exposed to, I have

never seen the Department of Justice have the temerity to make an argument to a federal judge that they just can't dedicate any more attorney hours to responding to the court's deadlines. This is like so embarrassing. It's humiliating. I'm stunned. I'm absolutely stunned. Okay, so they go on to say, for instance, plaintiffs asked to expand the date range for documents collected. Defendants agreed.

Plaintiffs also asked defendants to collect documents from 10 additional custodians, including two cabinet level secretaries, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Defendants agreed. Plaintiffs proposed additional search terms to identify potentially responsive documents. Again, defendants agreed. Plaintiffs even asked defendants to collect and search documents and records in the custody and control of Attorney General Bondi, including paper records. The court has ordered defendants to do so and defendants are complying.

Yeah. Can I stop you right there because they're like, defendants asked for this and we did it. Defendants asked for that and you did it. As you're reading that, I'm like, no, the court ordered you to do that. And they finally acknowledged that and I'll add the court ordered us to do it and we're complying. So it just it blows my mind. And you can't complain about things that you agreed to. That's the idea of agreement. Like you don't get like goody goody points for each time that you agree and work non-confrontationally.

They ask for something if you agreed with it without filing a motion to quash the request and live with it. Like that was your that was your opportunity. But nevertheless, they say, but collecting and reviewing records from high ranking officials has required time consuming controls and procedures to ensure security, including a severely curtailed number of document reviewers granted access to sensitive documents. Again, if the problem is you haven't tasked, put enough attorneys on these requirements, get some more attorneys. You have more. And time-consuming controls to ensure security? Just use a signal chat, man, on a

dirty internet line like you do with war plans. And the insanity that like they're up against Abrego Garcia, like the United States government is complaining, we don't have enough resources to litigate against this all powerful single immigrant who's not even here in the country because you threw him in a dungeon in El Salvador. Yeah, it's pretty bold. Now, Judge Sinise asked Abrego-Garcia's lawyers to respond to

that request for delay. And she did it on that morning. And she said, I want your response, plaintiffs, lawyers for Abrego-Garcia, I want your response by noon today. And they responded. They said the government was ordered to complete its supplemental production by tomorrow. Yet in the past two weeks, the government has produced one and only one document, an apparently incomplete copy of the EARM file relating to Abrego Garcia's 2019 immigration proceedings. Defendants have still refused to produce any documents reflecting or even relating to any efforts to facilitate Abrea Garcia's release and return. This is far from a good faith effort to comply with the court order discovery. It is reflective of a pattern of deliberate

delay and bad faith refusal to comply with court orders. The patina of promises by government lawyers to do tomorrow that which they were already obligated to do yesterday has worn thin. Nice. I know, I love that sentence. Yeah. The government states that it, quote, attempted to contact plaintiffs to obtain their position on this motion, but were not able to obtain their position. In fact, while the parties conferred on discovery matters over

email and phone over the course of the past week, including yesterday, the government did not raise its extension request until 11.35 p.m. last night and then filed its motion an hour later without waiting for the plaintiff's response. In sum, in the more than six weeks since this court ordered expedited discovery, remember it was supposed to be a two-week discovery and we're at week six now, the government has produced just 165 documents, most of them court filings, and related materials that surely took no time to review. The government has produced just one document since the May 16th deadline that fixed the operative document production deadline.

Zero documents produced to the plaintiffs to date reflect any efforts made to facilitate Abrego-Garcia's release and return to the United States. The court should deny the government's motion. Host 1 Judge Sinise ruled on the motion on the same day, she said, defendants now move for a two week extension of the May 30 document production deadline, the motion avers non-specific quote, hard at work assertions. But for the last two weeks, according to plaintiffs,

defendants have produced exactly one document. Defendants also represented that they had quote, attempted to contact plaintiffs for their position on the motion, but were unsuccessful. This may be because defendants did not try to reach plaintiffs until 11.35 p.m. last night by email and having predictably received no response, filed the motion an hour later at 12.33 a.m. This is hardly a good faith attempt to obtain plaintiffs' position. This is hardly a good faith attempt to obtain plaintiff's position. The court has reviewed defendant's motion in plaintiff's opposition and finds no good cause to modify the deadlines set forth at ECF No. 146.

Thus the motion is denied. Furthermore, to preserve the orderly progression of expedited discovery, defendants shall submit the May 23rd privilege log to the court by no later than June 4, 2025 in Excel format, along with a representative sample of withheld documents necessary for the court's in-camera inspection regarding all assertions of privilege apart from state secrets. By no later than June 6, 2025, the party shall file simultaneous letter briefs not to exceed five pages

Regarding the propriety of defendants privilege assertions in the May 23rd privilege log. Hmm Well as of what is it almost 5 p.m. May 30th. I'm looking I'm going over to the docket Nothing Shocked. It's done. Nothing there. Not even their thing that was due three days ago, their response to the complaint, nothing about discovery.

We do have a couple of motions by Amicus Curie and the press to unseal documents because apparently Marco Rubio submitted a supplemental declaration and things like that and the press wants to get at that as do some amicus curae. And so those motions have not been answered yet. The amicus curae brief was granted and made, but most of that is under seal. So we will continue to keep an eye on this docket. Uh, but so far one document produced since May 16th, 165 documents produced in the last six weeks and they want another two weeks to do it.

And, uh, the judge says, Nope. So as we record it on May 30th, that discovery is due today. Um, I'm assuming we'll have a pretty good robust followup for you on next week's episode. For sure. Yeah. I don't, do you have, like, this just seems like just like the typical stonewalling and delay.

Yeah. That was the sense that I got from her. Honestly, the only part of her order that I really disagree with is this line where she says, furthermore, to preserve the orderly progression of expedited discovery.'" We have not preserved that so far in the kind of cynical scoreboard. The Trump team is winning here.

If what they're trying to do is delay and obfuscate and turn over nothing, they're six weeks into succeeding at that. And the plaintiffs are six weeks into getting 165 documents to tell them nothing about what is happening to this poor man who's stuck in El Salvador. So you know, I wonder like how closely this is impossible. This is just total speculation, impossible to figure out, but like, this is echoing the litigation strategy that we saw in the Jack Smith cases by none other than the current

deputy attorney general, Todd Blanch and his henchman, Emile Beauvais. How much of what we're seeing here in this case is a direct, you know, an effort to kind of follow that line. Like this is what you do. Just keep throwing up, you know, nonsense, throwing you know what on the wall, see what sticks, appeal every adverse ruling, blah, blah, blah. Yeah. And a lot of it, they know what to do. They know what threshold issues are. For example, when they want to, you know, assert privilege privilege, they know that that has to be untangled before you complete discovery, which has to be untangled before you get to contempt proceedings. They know that. And so by obfuscating and stonewalling this privilege log that was due a week ago, you know, in Excel format with all the stuff that she

can review in camera, that's, they know exactly how to do this. They know exactly how to delay because there's not much a judge can do to overcome those threshold issues other than just say hurry the f up and do it now and know you can't have any more, you can't have any more time. Um, but you know, she knows that if she moves forward without addressing those threshold issues like privilege that the government will win the case will get tossed out. So, Yeah, it's really frustrating. I mean, they're just working the system in the most kind of underhanded way. It's not the kind of thing you typically see

from a Department of Justice. But of course, you don't typically see a Department of Justice crying poor mouth over, we don't have enough lawyers. I'm just saying I think the bar is much lower than anything that I've seen before. Yeah, agreed. All right, we have an update for you on Judge Murphy and his court and the case about the men that were transported to war-torn South Sudan. Then they stopped in Djibouti in Africa. And we're going to talk about an update on that case right after this quick break. So everybody stick around. We'll be right back.

Okay, last week we discussed Judge Murphy's hearing and subsequent ruling in a federal court in Boston that the government had violated his court order blocking the government from sending migrants to third party countries without due process when DHS sent a plane to South Sudan. Okay, so a lot has happened in the case in this past week. There were two parts to the case. One was about the plane that was trying to drop the immigrants in South Sudan,

which ultimately ended up stopping in Djibouti. And the other was about a man who was originally deported to Mexico and then ended up in Guatemala. So let's start with the South Sudan case. Yeah, that's a good idea. And the OCG case, which is the Mexico Guatemala case, is kind of subsumed in this. It's very interesting because there was a class certification that this judge entered, Judge Murphy, back in April saying, no, you can't send anybody to a third country. And we're going to call that

a certified class. And that's what the government violated when they put people on the planes to South Sudan. So during that hearing with Judge Murphy, we briefly touched on it in the last episode. We urged you to go to law fair to get more information about the hearing. But during that hearing, the judge said that due process has to happen and that these plaintiffs must be given a credible fear interview before they're handed off to a third country. The plaintiffs argued that they should be brought back to the United States, but the judge asked the government if they'd be willing to do that. And they said, we'd rather not. If we had our druthers, we'd rather hold these administrative interviews on the ground in Djibouti. And

they spent a great deal of the hearing hashing out the details of what that due process looks like. The plaintiffs complained. They're like, this is gonna be really hard. How do we get them their lawyers if they're in Djibouti? How do we have translators? This is gonna be really logistically a nightmare. And the government was like, we'd much rather do that. And the judge is like, you can just fly them back to the United States.

And by the way, I was tracking that plane, Andy. It returned empty to the United States the next morning. They could have just brought everybody back to do this, but that's not what they wanted to do. That's so heartbreaking. That's not what they wanted to do. And so they spent a great deal of that hearing hashing it out. And when it was done, Judge Murphy issued an order based on what the government wanted to do. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. So before I get into that order, I just want to do, this was

something that I read off of Steve Vladek's sub stack, which we're going to go into in more detail later in this story, but just a quick explainer on what the differences here with the third country aspect. So normally when people come into the country, if they're going to file an asylum claim, there's like two ways it happens, right? You either like get on the website, at least during the Obama administration, this doesn't even work anymore, or the Biden administration. And you could make a claim for asylum,

and then you would actually get an appointment to cross the border. And then you'd have an adjudication process where you got to make the credible fear claim. That's the standard. A judge has to find that you have a credible fear of being persecuted or tortured if you're sent back to the country that you come from. So that all happens on the front end. And if you lose in that process, then

at the end of that litigation, they enter an order of deportation and you have to go back. But you've already had an opportunity to air your claim. The difference here is that the government has the authority under the law, if you have been ordered deported, to send you back to the country that you are from, or they can send you to what's called a third country, someplace else that you're not actually from. But they can send you there if that country falls into one of a couple of different categories that are outlined in the statute. And that's a last resort. That's like the last thing you do, right?

That's right. So the problem here is if you've been ordered deported and then the government decides you're going to go to a third country, if you have a credible fear of being tortured or persecuted in that third country, you've never had a chance to raise that claim because you didn't know that you were going to be sent to a third country. So that's why you lose this element of due process.

That's what happened to these men on this plane. They had deportation orders and then all of a sudden, for whatever reason, the government lose this element of due process. That's what happened to these men on this plane. They had deportation orders and then all of a sudden, for whatever reason, the government decided we're going to send these people to South Sudan, which is a crazy idea. But they were beyond the end of their litigation, which ended up with a deportation order. So they never had the opportunity to say, hey, hold on a second. If I go to South Sudan, I could be in great danger. That's why this, this due process issue in this case is a little bit different than the ones that we've been talking about in other cases. So back to Judge Murphy in this case. So here's his response

to the government's motion to stay his order. Okay. he says, defendants have mischaracterized this court's order while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry. By racing to get six class members onto a plane to unstable South Sudan, clearly in breach of the law and this court's order, defendants gave this court no choice but to find that they were in violation

of the preliminary injunction. Even after finding that violation, however, the court stayed its hand and did not require defendants to bring the individuals back to the United States as requested by plaintiffs. Instead, the court accepted defendants own suggestion that they be allowed to keep the individuals out of the country and finish their process abroad. Now that of course would have happened in Djibouti. Right. Okay. He goes on to say since that hearing, merely five days ago, defendants have changed their tune. It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than defendants anticipated. However,

the court never said that the defendants had to convert their foreign military base into an immigration facility. It only left that as an option, again, at the defendant's request. The other option, of course, has always been to simply return to the status quo roughly one week ago or else choose any other location to complete the required process. It goes on to say, a defendant's argument might be stronger if this were at all close,

but the court breaks no new ground in finding that the events of May 20th, 2025 did not include a meaningful opportunity for the class members to present fear-based claims. Defendants own submission shows that it is ICE's general practice to provide 24 hours notice prior to removal. Here, the class members had fewer than 24 hours notice

and zero business hours notice before being put on a plane to South Sudan. Class members appear not to have had any access to counsel. Indeed, a declaration submitted by the plaintiffs alleges that ICE canceled at least one attorney's pre-scheduled meeting with her client. It cannot be said enough that this is the result the defendants asked for. And he quotes the defendants. He quotes the DOJ when they said, quote, I think we can certainly agree that any remedy

should be narrowly tailored. I don't know that return to the United States would be required to carry those interviews out. You know, I think those could probably be conducted abroad." For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for reconsideration and for a stay pending appeal are denied. Now, the order the government violated here was an amended preliminary injunction issued by Judge Murphy back on April 30th, barring the government from removing migrants to a third country. The government appealed to the First Circuit, who denied them a stay of the order. That denial is what allowed the government to file this week for an emergency stay with the

Supreme Court. Now, here's where we get to Steve Vladeck because Steve writes about the government's motion for an emergency state of the court. He says, to my mind there are three basic points that the application gets right. That's the government's application. But a lot more that it gets quite badly wrong. Starting with what it gets right, the net effect of Judge Murphy's April 18 injunction, as modified on April 30, is to create the possibility of a 25 day delay before individuals can be removed to third countries. There is a colorable argument, albeit one that I don't think is self-evident, that 8 USC

section 1252, which is the law that provides for third party, third country deportations, divested Judge Murphy of the power to issue class-wide injunctive relief requiring notice and an opportunity to seek cat relief. Cat refers to the UN Convention Against Torture and CAT relief includes notice and the opportunity to object to third country removals on the basis that they credibly fear torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment if removed to that country. Okay. So what Steve Vladeck is saying here is that there is actually a potential argument

that the government makes that Judge Murphy can't, doesn't have the power to issue a class wide injunction on cat relief. Got it. That's right. Based on the law. And that's a colorable argument means like there is, there is an argument to be made there. It doesn't necessarily mean that's persuasive or we'll win the day, but just like you could

make that argument without looking like a fool. Okay. Steve goes on to say, the district court's mid-flight intervention was, quote, extraordinary as were the court's orders to the government to effectively maintain custody of the six class members at issue until and unless they've received the notice and opportunity to seek cat relief required by the original jurisdiction. So that's kind of a second thing that he's pointing out that the government could not unreasonably argue

to the Supreme Court. Like the court essentially went pretty far in what they ordered the government to do or refrain from doing. He goes on to say, in the abstract then, the government has a non-laughable case that it might win on the merits and that it's being harmed in the interim. That of course is a reference to the standard to stay the court's order. Not to win on the whole case at large eventually, but again, this is the government asking the Supreme Court to stay, stop, or block this judge's order and showing in your application that you're likely to win on the merits and that you're being harmed unless the order

is blocked and stayed, that's the standard that the Supreme Court will apply. Mm-hmm, but leave it to Trump's DOJ to take a non-laughable case and make it laughable. Right. Because here's what they got wrong, according to Steve Vladeck. Again, you gotta subscribe to One First if you haven't.

Yeah, it's truly the best. He says, the claim that Judge Murphy invented procedures for notice and resolving entitlement to cat relief is just wrong. Murphy's actions closely mirror and indeed are based upon existing regulations for reinstated orders and motions practice.

The only genuine innovation is the 10 day minimum between notice and removal. The claim that Judge Murphy kept moving the goalposts is more than a little galling given the government's own behavior, clarifying that the injunction bars use of Department of Defense resources and not just DHS resources,

is not moving the goalposts. Reiterating that Libya and Saudi Arabia are covered by the April 18th injunction, like any other third country, is not moving the goalposts. And holding that the government violated the 10-day notice requirement in the case of the six class members being removed to South Sudan

is not moving the goalposts. It's throwing a flag. Yeah, and probably the most egregious claim the government made to the Supreme Court in its filing is that Judge Murphy forced DHS either to repatriate the six deportees or to detain them at a US base abroad. That's the location in Djibouti.

The transcript shows that DHS counsel asked to complete reasonable fear processing overseas so as to avoid return. Judge Murphy adopted that proposal verbatim and allowed but did not compel repatriation. Yeah that one blew me away and Aaron Reichlin Melnick who's an expert on immigration law said that that's possibly sanctionable to say that the court forced us to do this in Djibouti. Like, no, that was your idea, bro. It's really very close to that line of an intentional misrepresentation.

Yeah. It'll be interesting to see how the Supreme Court comes back on this. And the last issue that Steve Vladeck notes in One First is he says, finally, the government suggests that Judge Murphy has claimed the power to order the return of any class member. But as noted above, exactly one person has been ordered returned, and that's OCG. That's what we mentioned before, the person who went to Guatemala via Mexico. And only after DHS admitted that it had removed him without any notice or fear inquiry and after discovery showed that its earlier declaration was completely bogus because they had said, you know, oh, O.C.G. told officers he loved Mexico.

They did. Yeah. And they were like, show me where that says that. Oh, we can't find him. Oh, it looks like it wasn't said. And Steve talks about this. He says, OCG is the second part of this case. And at first, OCG was removed to Mexico before Judge Murphy entered his restraining order based

on the government's claim that OCG had stated that he did not fear being sent to Mexico. But the government has since filed what's called a notice of errata, which is a we screwed up filing, suggesting that it has been unable to identify any officer who asked OCG whether he feared being removed to Mexico or who had even informed OCG that he faced imminent removal to Mexico. And on May 23rd, like almost like a little over a week ago, Judge Murphy ordered the

government to take all immediate steps to facilitate OCG's return, which by the way, the government has filed something with the court saying they're in the process of doing that of chartering a plane to get OCG out of Guatemala. So they recognize that and to say that, oh, you're just over broad with this whole class thing. You know, it's like, no, there's one guy we're trying to return to the United States. Honestly, I'm kind of stunned that they that they admitted their error here. I know I've never I've never thought I would see a notice of errata from this government. Right.

And it must be because when they looked back at the statements they had made to the court, they were just like, oh my God, this is absolutely wrong. I think there was evidence that the opposite was true, right? There was evidence in an immigration hearing that he feared Mexico because he had previously been raped and kidnapped there. That's right. And so the evidence, like it's all there in black and white. Yeah. And they got caught. There was just no explaining this. And this is from a group of people who will explain

away anything. Right. There was no, no, no explaining this other than just like, okay, you got us. We'll go bring it back. Yeah. For sure. All right. We'll keep an eye on both of these cases. And of course, Boasberg's docket too. Nothing much happened there, but we'll, you know, that's with the original JGG going all the way back to the March 15th turn the planes around contempt, which was stayed. We haven't really don't really have any significant updates there. But we'll keep you posted on all of that. I'm sure we'll get more information this week. We haven't had a quiet week since we started.

Nope. But we do have to talk a little bit about the intense pressure the White House is putting on law enforcement agencies to ratchet up their mass deportations. And we're going to talk about that right after this break. Stick around. We'll be right back. All right, everybody. Welcome back.

Let's talk about what's going on at the FBI, Andy. Yeah. All right, everybody, welcome back. Let's talk about what's going on at the FBI, Andy. And this comes from your colleagues at CNN. They say the White House is putting intense pressure on law enforcement agencies across the government to meet a goal of a million deportations a year. And I'll interject here. I think Stephen Miller said he wants 3,000 a day. That's led to a surge of agents and officers across the federal government, focusing their attention on arrests and deportation efforts and in some cases, straining resources. And you and I have been talking about this for weeks and weeks now. Right.

I think I remember one of the first discussions we had to kick off this straining of resources was when they took the whole Joint Terrorism Task Force and assigned them to ICE, right? Right, right. At the FBI, hundreds of agents have been reassigned to immigration-related duties, raising concerns among agents that the shift could hinder important national security investigations, including into terror threats and espionage by China and Russia. Now, top FBI officials have provided little guidance to field offices on how agents are expected to increase immigration arrest numbers while also working their top priority cases. That's according to the sources and here's the kind of the twist and this is the buried lead fbi agents have been told by their supervisors. Not to document moving resources away from high priority cases toward immigration related work.

That is so concerning. I repeat, they have been asked not to document what they're doing at the FBI as it relates to moving resources away from high priority casework to immigration related casework. That is just like, if that's true, that is just like an on the ground acknowledgement of we're doing the wrong thing here and we don't want any records of it, which just the idea of doing that is it just injects a level of subterfuge and falsity into the organization that is just incredibly corrosive. Yeah. falsity into the organization that is just incredibly corrosive.

And I think the Supreme Court gave them a boost, gave this particular administration a boost in their efforts to deport more people. I honestly am sure this just probably has to do with the fact that Obama and Biden deported more people than Trump is deporting, and that makes him really mad, and he wants to be number one at deporting people. And so they're having a real hard time. But on Friday, unfortunately, the Supreme Court granted the government's request for an administrative stay pending appeal in the temporary protected status. People here legally under the Biden administration, they were granted asylum on parole status, right? Temporary protected status. About a million people just today have lost their legal citizenship. And that's where I think they're going to go to

beef up their deportation numbers. Do you know what I mean? For sure. Yeah. These are mostly people from Venezuela and Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua. Yep. And so they were here. They didn't have they didn't have like green cards or, or long term visas, but they had this TPS, this temporary protected status, which means you can't be you can't be deported to the country you're from while

you have TPS. So wipe out the TPS, which is what the Trump administration has done. And that makes all those people here like overnight, you're here without status, i.e. we can deport you. Yeah. And even if the good guys win this case on the merits, these people will be gone by then. At least a great number of them. So I heard, I've also heard in the last few days that the FBI director has decided to offer agents overtime for working, I guess, on immigration matters, which is also weird

because FBI agents cannot earn overtime. You get something called, well, you get a certain percentage of your salary as what they call availability pay. And that's what acknowledges and compensates you for the fact that you're basically on duty 24 hours a day. Nicole Zalzal He's also offered to give people who work He's also offered to give people who work immigration and detention cases until the end of this fiscal year, the chance to move to offices of their preference. Oh. Which, you know, this is a big deal for agents. You have the ability, no matter where you're assigned, you can put in a request to be transferred to your like

the office that you want to work from. So maybe you're stuck in New York and you really want to be in Salt Lake City. Kind of like the military like that you got orders. You designate Salt Lake City as your office of preference. And then at some point in your career, once you get senior enough, you get high enough on the list, you could be sent there. Every year, the director has to decide how many transfers he's going to allow to be used

for these sort of voluntary moves. The numbers get very small and the budget is tight. It's also tough to manage the workforce if you're allowing people en masse to just start showing up at different offices, you create some real... So this is like one of those decisions that seems probably clear to him, like yes, it will serve as an incentive for agents to do something that normally they probably wouldn't want to do, but you are creating a huge problem in the future.

But this is not a group that really leads the Bureau with a great eye on the future. No. And when we talk about moving people away to immigration from other FBI priorities, we're talking about past priorities because they have some new priorities now that are a little different. And you have that story, right, from our friend Joyce? Yeah, that's right. So Joyce Vance writes for her newsletter, Civil Discourse. This entry came in under, not your mama's bureau.

I love Joyce. She says, recently, FBI Director Cash Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, gave an exclusive joint interview to Fox News host, Maria Bartiromo. Despite the friendly venue, it did not go well. The criticism from the right was fast and furious. The Twitterati conspiracy theorists wanted to see more prosecutions of Democrats who weaponized DOJ and other parts of government. And weirdly, people who visited Epstein's sex island, that would be Jeffrey

Epstein, the Twitterati, they seem to assume that they're all Democrats or maybe MAGA faithless Republicans. In a clarifying tweet, Bongino said he and the director, quote, made the decision to either reopen or push additional resources and investigative attention to three cases. The DC pipe bombing investigation involving bombs found ahead of the January 6 riot outside of the DNC headquarters. Now of course before joining the FBI, Dan Bongino asserted that it was an inside job. So basically accusing the FBI of having placed the pipe bomb. Thanks, Deputy Director Bongino.

The second case is the discovery of a bag of cocaine in an area frequented by visitors to the White House during the prior administration. Now this bag of cocaine is frequently linked to, or people tried to link it to presidential son Hunter Biden's acknowledged cocaine use, although the discovery of the bag in the White House post-dates a Hunter's recovery and no evidence linking it to him or any other Biden family member has ever surfaced despite Trump's insinuations. You know, Ronnie Jackson was running a pill mill out of the White House, okay, under the Trump administration. Number two, there's a big New York Times story out this weekend about how much, how high Elon Musk has been while he's been the head

of Doge. Yeah, that came out, that came out today. Ketamine, cocaine, ecstasy, Molly. Like he showed up with a black eye today. He said his son kicked him. He got punched by his five year old son or some BS. But bet it was a Tesla owner. But my, I wish it was me. No, I'm kidding. I take that back. I just, to investigate this baggie of cocaine Years, it's just it's yeah mind-blowing. Oh, yeah, and the third case. This is a great one

Is the leak of the opinion in Dobbs the Supreme Court case that reversed Roe versus Wade? And Joyce points out that there's at least some reporting suggesting that the leak was the work of a conservative. So who this renewed prosecution Who this renewed case would go after is not not really clear. No Alito be careful. Yeah. Yeah, so Because of the leak or the cocaine which one are you oh because it's just kidding don't answer that do not answer that I'm your attorney. Don't answer that. Do not answer that. I'm your attorney. Don't answer that. Well, let's see what flag she flies this week. So the insanity of this announcement by Dan Bongino, of course on his own private social

media, but put that aside, is only one of these is actually an FBI case. That's the pipe bomb. The pipe bomb case is not solved, which doesn't surprise me, because these cases are not easy. But the idea of going back with fresh eyes and reevaluating what's been done in that case and trying to come up with new strategies,

maybe putting new resources on it, not a terrible idea, not a terrible idea. That you do this with cold cases periodically. So I don't have a problem with that one. What I do have a problem with is the fact that he said in his announcement that these were cases that he and Patel believe there was a great public interest in because they involved public corruption. So are you, are you suggesting Mr.

Deputy director that you think there is some public corruption behind the fact that the FBI has not solved the pipe bomb case? Like there are FBI people who know who did this, but are covering it up for some, for some reason. I mean, that is, uh, that is absolutely ridiculous. If that's the case. I think it's probably more likely that Dan Bongino just doesn't really know what public corruption is, right? He doesn't understand that under the law public corruption is someone in a position of

trust takes something of value in return for the execution of an official act. The other two cases have nothing to do with the FBI. The FBI didn't investigate the leak of the Dobbs decision. It's not even a violation of law. No. It's maybe a violation of Supreme Court policy or practice, but that's a matter for the Supreme Court to investigate, which they did. And they ultimately determined that they couldn't figure it out.

And then finally, the cocaine case. I mean, honestly, what's the... If they're, you know, that's a Supreme... That's a Secret Service that's a secret service matter, not an FBI matter. So maybe- It wasn't even an eight ball. It was like a baggie of cocaine.

Some idiot. I mean, there's a couple thousand people that roll through the White House every week, visitors who were there for one reason or another. And somebody probably realized they had something that they were afraid of getting caught with. And so they just dropped it in the little cubby hole or wherever it was found. So yeah, this whole thing is ridiculous. Bizarre. All right, we have one more quick story here for this segment.

This is from the Times and this is about judicial threats. And this is from Mattathias Schwartz. He writes, threats against federal judges have risen drastically since President Trump took office, according to internal data compiled by the US Marshals Service. And we've known that the threat to judges has increased, but Schwartz here comes with the numbers. He says in just a five month period leading up to March 1st of this year, 80 judges have received threats, according to the data. And then over the next six weeks, an additional 162 judges received threats, a dramatic increase that spike in threats coincided with a flood of harsh rhetoric from Trump himself, sometimes criticizing judges who have ruled against the

administration and in some cases calling on Congress to impeach them. Many judges have already spoken out worrying about the possibility of violence and urging political leaders to tone things down. We've covered this a little bit on the Daily Beans. We've talked about the pizzas showing up in people's houses and the judges saying, you know, it seems, you know, silly. Oh, you got pizzas delivered to your house, but that is a, we know where you live message is what that is. And it's very frightening. There's a lot of swatting. There's a lot of terrible things going on. So much so that when the Judicial Conference met recently, they actually talked about the possibility of having the US Marshals come up under the

judiciary or at least have the judicial branch appoint the head of the US Marshal Service because they needed a better protection. And they're afraid that under Pam Bondi's tutelage, that they won't get it and that they might actually be called to do nothing in the cases, you know, if the threats increase, they might be asked, Pam Bondi could ask them to stand down. And as we also know, Marshals are in charge of carrying out contempt orders. So that's another issue. Now, it is very important to note that the judicial branch can't just claim this. This has to be something that's passed by Congress. But that they were having those discussions.

Yeah, it's pretty remarkable. Yeah. And that they were bringing their concerns to Chief Justice John Roberts at a breakfast is like, wow, I never thought I would hear the very conservative judicial conference saying they need more police protection and that they're very interested in having control over at least the head of the US Marshal Service. Yeah, I mean, the numbers are really concerning and you know, Pam Bondi goes on Fox News and reiterates Trump's attacks on judges. Every time a ruling comes out that goes against the administration,

which I saw some data on that just recently, that there was 182 times courts have ruled against the government in all these cases since the inauguration. And that's an over that just keeps climbing every day. So yeah, I mean, it doesn't surprise me that they're losing faith in the attorney general of the United States to do what is necessary to protect them, which is staggering. That they think that the attorney general would ask the marshals to stand down in their protection of judges. Yeah.

Like, wow. She invites that speculation by her own conduct and by her own public statements. But these sound like things I would come up with in my head in 2016, not something that they would be discussing at a tutorial conference. You know? Yeah, sure. The threat is real and the threat is here. Also, I don't know if you saw Bongino's sad, very sad day on Fox News complaining about

how he's basically divorced from his wife and he has to sit and stare at four government walls all day. Government walls. You know, you could get up out of your office and go do four government walls all day. Government walls. You know, you could get up out of your office and go do some work, I guess. Yeah, or go talk to actual government people. Yeah, go meet the people. Do that, try that. But he was very, very sad, almost in tears

about how hard this job is. I guess podcasting, and no shade to podcasters, doesn't prepare you for the awesome responsibility of the Deputy Director of the FBI. But I will say being the Deputy Director of the FBI does prepare you for the awesome responsibility of podcasting. podcast. Yeah, as it does. Thank you for that turn around. I was like, where's this going? Oh, man, I saw it. I was actually I've been I've been talking about that since yesterday, that bizarre interview, like I thought the the interviews now these are Fox sitting on the morning show couch people. I don't know who they are, but that's where they seem to work.

And they're looking at him during, when he's saying all these things and they're like, you could tell they're just kind of like, oh my God. When he want to talk, start talking about getting divorced from his wife, he's like, but we're not actually divorced. It's not very alpha. I don't know. I feel like his wife learned about the impending divorce

yesterday on television, which seems really weird. But nevertheless, you mean Dan? Yeah, it's a hard job, dude. I don't know who told you that it was going to be easy. It's maybe the hardest job I've ever had in my life. Maybe send him a little sympathy card or something. Maybe, maybe. Yeah. I mean, it's pathetic. The things he said. And then it was kind of funny. He's like, sometimes we're here until seven o'clock at night. I'm like, dude, that's an early night home. That's, that's when I was there to the VA. These guys are just not, uh, well, whatever. I don't ask him to work that overtime.

He talked a lot about how he doesn't like the job. And when people ask him if he likes it, he says he doesn't. He's only doing it to sacrifice for the greatness of America or whatever. In this whole diatribe, he didn't manage to say one good thing about the FBI or FBI people or this opportunity. I sure noticed.

That is so sad. I mean, yes, it's a super hard job, and it's wrecks your personal life. And anyone who's done it, I'm not the only one that I experienced, everyone else has done it has experienced that as well. But it's also one of the most unique positions, certainly in the federal government, to participate in the great, some of the greatest work that's done in the United States of America. That organization accomplishes miracles every day that no one

will know about except the people who are involved and the deputy director. Thankless job. Yeah. And I mean, you get to work with the greatest people on earth. The mission is so righteous, the capabilities of the organization, the dedication of its people. Like when they asked him about it, none of those things came to his mind. It was just all about how long the hours are and I don't like the office.

I mean, it's just, it's sad. It's a sad day for the men and women of the FBI that that's how their leadership talks about the experience of leading them. Yeah, morale has to, I can't even imagine what the morale must be like. Yeah, that interview didn't help it. I tell you that. Oh, for sure. All right, we have one more quick story we need to get to and some listener questions, but we have to take one last quick break. Everybody stick around. We'll be right back.

All right, everybody. Welcome back. One more quick story before we get to listener questions. And if you have a question, there's a link in the show notes that you click on and you can fill out the form. Send Andy and me your questions and we'll try our best to answer them. But we have this one quick story from Reuters. Trump said on Wednesday that he's going to nominate Justice Department official, Emil Bovi, a lawyer who defended him when he was convicted of criminal charges a year ago today over hush money paid to a porn star to interfere in an election. He's going to nominate that guy to serve as a federal appeals court judge. Trump announced in a post on social media, uh, truth social that he named Bovi the principal associate deputy attorney general. I'm sorry. I think I called him the dag in the intro.

He's the pay dag. Uh, he was the acting deputy attorney general to serve as a life tenured judge on the Philadelphia based third circuit, us court of appeals. Bovi represented Trump, like I said, at his criminal trial in Manhattan last year alongside Todd Blanch, who is the DAG, the Deputy Attorney General. In a confrontation to remind you that sent shockwaves through the legal profession, Boeve in February instructed prosecutors within the Manhattan US Attorney's Office where Boeve used to work to drop a corruption case against New York City Mayor

Eric Adams. Boeve's order to dismiss a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Bovi's order to dismiss the Adams case prompted 11 prosecutors in Washington and New York to resign, a lot of them very conservative. The Third Circuit, which hears appeals from courts in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, has six active judges appointed by Republicans, six appointed by Democrats, and two vacancies. This is the one where Joe Biden tried to appoint someone and that appointment got tanked because the appointee was Muslim. The other one, the other vacancy is one of the four that Chuck Schumer dealt away in order to have the Republicans stop blocking

his federal district court bench nominees, which is what allowed Biden to make a record 234 appointed judges on the federal bench during his term. So this should be a huge red line on judicial appointments, in my personal opinion. Mm hmm. Emile Boeve should not be appointed as a judge on any court, let alone a circuit court. And to throw kind of gas on this fire, Trump actually posted, I think it was today or last night, that he really is mad at the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo said that, you know, that he did him dirty. The Federalist Society did him dirty.

I also don't like the Federalist Society, but for different reasons. Trump and Stephen Miller feel that the Federalist Society is too woke. I think they're probably particularly mad at like Amy Coney Barrett, for example, and any of the other Trump judges who have ruled against him that have been receiving threats and would like to have the marshals up under the judiciary. But just wild that Em Emil Bové. Ugh. It really shows you, especially with that whole attack on the Federalist Society, which, hey, good for them.

But it shows you a little bit of the mentality between Trump and really more realistically, Stephen Miller. They expect what they expect from, like, if Leonard Leo or anyone comes to them and says, hey, here's a good person to put in this judgeship. They expect that if they put someone onto the bench, that person will rule with them every single chance they get. That it is, that's what's required. The payback for the job is you must support us and our positions no matter how they end up in front of you for the remainder of your life term.

It is like a absolute quid pro quo kind of organized crime approach to like what you owe me. It's really remarkable every president has ever served has put people on the bench who then turned around and disappointed him. Uh, who was it that said, uh, Warren burger was the worst thing, a stand full mistake of my presence that Eisenhower put him on the mission. I think, but yeah, it happens. You pick a guy cause you think he's good for it. And then he does something that disappoints you and you just kind of shrug your shoulders.

Maybe you're angry for five minutes and walk away. Eisenhower didn't turn around and attack the federal bench and get on social media and get all of his supporters to go out and start threatening judges. But that's where we are now, I guess. Yeah, reality is pretty different now than than what it was. All right, let's let's take a listener question. I know we've been here past your your hour past your bedtimes. Everybody listening.

Sorry about that. We had a lot to cover this week. But and I'm getting noticed that in the Tacoma DC area, there's a tornado watch. Are you anywhere near Tacoma, DC area, there's a tornado watch. Are you anywhere near Tacoma? No, I think Tacoma Park is like DC, Maryland side of Maryland side of DC. So, although my dog is freaking out a little bit here, he's on high alert expecting, you know, a thunder clap at any moment.

So if you hear him panting crazily in the background, that's what it is. But what do we have for listener questions? Maybe we can answer some, you know, thunder shirt questions for dogs. I can definitely answer those. So this one comes to us from RM and RM really packs two questions in here. So we'll go through this pretty quick. Dear Alison and Andy, thank you for your dogged analysis and reporting of the truth and our collective battle to uphold the rule of law. Given that we now seem to be entering the pardon spree portion of this administration,

can people who have been pardoned under Trump be unpartened when a new president comes into office who actually believes in using the pardon power appropriately and believes in the rule of law or is a pardon forever? Well, this is an easy one, R.M. The pardon is forever. Yeah, RM. A pardon is forever. Yeah, it is. It's forever. And I know there was a lot of chatter from some folks on the internet back in the 2020-ish time frame, 2021 time frame about corrupt pardons. We even talked about it early in the Mueller investigation with the pardon dangling for Cohen and Manafort and all that. And people wondering, well,

we haven't ever litigated before whether or not a president is disallowed or if it's illegal to issue a corrupt pardon. And we won't because first of all even even with a normal Supreme Court the pardon power is so broad it's like one of the broadest things that an executive can do it's right there in the Constitution this Supreme Court especially that says that the president isn't above the law anyway is definitely not going to entertain a case about whether or not a corrupt pardon can be overturned. But I don't see that any pardon ever being able to be overturned.

This is the court that said you can't prosecute a corrupt governor. Okay. This is the court that's bribery. The public corruption statutes in this country. It's almost impossible. You have to like have it on video, audio, witness in the room. One person says, I am giving you this money in return for the following quote, pro quote. So- And I have to do the following thing and complete it and then, I don't know,

make a letter about it and stamp that I've completed the quote. Let me make it clear, I would not do this without your money. Yeah, no, this do this without your money. Right. Yeah. Now, this group, not a chance, that's not a chance they would ever consider a limitation on the president's ability to pardon. And pardon, that's just, you know, you cannot be prosecuted again for any conduct that was related to what you were pardoned for.

It's very, very complete and everlasting, unfortunately, when it's used improperly. Okay, second part of the question. Also, as a part of his DOJ weaponization campaign, do you predict that Ed Martin will take extreme measures to get the individuals he feels may have relevant information for his sham investigations into the alleged politicization of the department.

So will he go to extreme measures to get them to talk, even if they do not desire or are not required to be forthcoming? I expect that Ed Martin will do anything that crosses his mind, whether it's lawful, ethical or not. If he thinks he can strong arm witnesses into appearing in front of the grand jury and testifying or whatever else, I have no doubt that he will use every tool in his toolkit.

And the government can be really onerous when it comes to pressuring people to provide information. Now at the end of the day, everyone has the opportunity to take the Fifth Amendment if they believe that that testimony could be incriminating for them. Of course, if the government turns around and gives you immunity, then you cannot refuse to testify.

So yeah, I think we need to keep a close eye on this because I think if Ed Martin keep a close eye on this because I think if Ed Martin has proved anything so far, it's that the guy, there's nothing this guy won't do. Yeah. And the rules don't matter. Even if he can't get a conviction, he'll come out and say, we investigated so and so for this and we're pretty sure he did it even though the grand jury didn't return an indictment. They will name and shame quote unquote, just like he said he would, which is very against DOJ policy. You can ask, just ask individual one in the Michael Cohen prosecution, who also known

as Donald Trump, why he was referred to as individual one. That's why they do that. The country A, individual three, lawyer six. That's why you see that. That the country A, individual three, lawyer six. Yeah. That's why you see that. And that's even if they do stuff wrong. Unindicted, co-conspirator, whatever. Yeah. You never name them.

But Ed Martin will. So I don't even think he needs to, much like the Trump administration has always done, need to rely on actual convictions or investigations. Just the announcement of them is enough for them to go on and to create their conspiracy theories and rile up their base. So we're going to see a lot of it. Heck yeah. All right, everybody.

Thank you. Sorry we kept you for a little bit over the hour, but we appreciate you sticking around with us and we'll have probably just as much if not more news to report next week in the ongoing Boasberg, Abrego Garcia, OCG, South Sudan cases, Alien Enemies Act, et cetera. We're going to have a lot to talk about plus anything else that crops up from good old, you know, Dan Bongino and Kash Patel about where they're focusing their resources of the, you know, one of the greatest law enforcement. The greatest law enforcement agency on the planet. Sorry. The greatest. I'm going to tell Harry you said that. You

can tell him I'll fight him over that one. I mean, I might take a swing and then run away fast. You're much quicker. I bet. Right. Cause of you. Right. Because he's so tall. All right. And you run marathons, which blows my mind. But I'm trying, trying to stay alive. Thank you. Everybody take some time for yourself. This week, whatever you're whatever you're doing, take some time. Just, you know, I don't know, pet cat, pet your dog, go out for a walk. Try to enjoy some alone time. I think we all need it. We all need a little bit of downtime. And I know I appreciate mine when I get it. So I hope you do too. Absolutely. Very, very wise words.

Thank you. I'm from a not so wise person. Everybody will see you next week. I'm Alison Gill and I'm Andy McCabe. Unjustified is written and executive produced by Alison Gill with additional research and analysis by Andrew McCabe. Sound design and editing is by Molly Hockey with art and web design by Joel Reeder at Moxie Design Studios. The theme music for Unjustified is written and performed by Ben Folds and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator-owned independent podcasts

dedicated to news, politics, and justice. For more information, please visit MSWMedia.com.