The Daily Beast Podcast - I Saw Trump's Brazen Cash for Pardons Scam: Lawyer

Episode Date: September 28, 2025

Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer joins the Daily Beast’s Joanna Coles to reveal how Donald Trump dismantled the Justice Department’s pardon process and replaced it with a pay-to-play system. Oyer explains how career experts were sidelined on Trump’s first day, leaving space for clemency to be sold to the highest bidder and reserved for the well-connected. From million-dollar Mar-a-Lago price tags to pardons for sex offenders, fraudsters, and January 6 rioters, she exposes how Trump turned clemency into a political and financial weapon. Oyer also contrasts Biden’s careful, narrow pardons with Trump’s sweeping, loyalty-driven approach—and why victims were often left behind while Trump’s allies walked free. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It appears that it's a very good time to be a white-collar criminal because of this possibility of getting a pardon from Donald Trump. There has cropped up a whole pardoned economy that extends beyond the president himself to people in his orbit with access to the president. I'm Joanna Coles. This is the Daily Beast podcast. And amid all the chaos and the noise and the different stories and the Jeffrey Epstein of it all, it's sometimes hard to focus on specific stories, which really illustrate the changes going on in the United States of America right now. And today's guest does that in such an articulate, interesting way. I really urge you to watch right through to the end because Liz Oyer's perspective on what's happening at the Department of Justice is really fucking scary. She was the pardons attorney for the Justice Department. She was disappointed by Joe Biden pardoning his son and his family.

But the scale of the pardons under Donald Trump and the money and the pardon economy that he has created really is quite, quite astonishing. And imagine her first day of work is under the new administration, is learning that the people who've been found guilty of taking part in January the 6th have all been pardoned. They've all been pardoned with none of the rigor and the research that should have gone into their background. Several of the have been re-arrested for violent crimes for sexual abuse of children. But Liz's detailed analysis of it and what happened to her as an expert's, civil servant is really a remarkable story. So, no more time to waste. Let's get into it. Liz, Oya, you were the US attorney for pardons, which sounds like a fascinating job, actually. You started in 2022, so you caught the Biden administration and then you caught the beginning

of the Trump administration. First of all, tell us exactly what you did. And then I want to get into what was it like, you know, issuing the pardons for Joe Biden's family? And then how has it changed under Donald Trump? Sure. The Constitution grants the President of the United States. The broad power to grant pardons to anybody that he chooses for any reason. And because of the potential for that to be abused or misused, there historically and traditionally has always been a non-excused. unpolitical figure, the pardon attorney, in the position of advising the president about the exercise of his pardon power. So that was my job. I started in that position under Joe Biden, and I continued in that role

under Donald Trump throughout the first seven weeks of his administration before I was fired and then replaced by someone who's really a co-cooperative, this individual, Ed Martin, who is known to be a very strong MAGA supporter. So that was a major pivot in how the role of the pardon attorney has been occupied historically away from the practice of having a non-political career person like myself in that door. Okay. So you're a civil servant. Talk us through first what it was like actually pardoning Joe Biden's family members. Well, the pardon attorney doesn't have the ability to actually grant the pardons but simply

provides advice to the president. So how does it actually work? the process. And are you able to be frank and honest with the president when he wants to pardon, say members of his family? I mean, talk us three, for example, when President Biden was planning to pardon his family members. How did that work? Well, the president is not required to rely on the advice of the pardon attorney. And throughout history, there have been examples of pardons that presidents have granted on their own accord without relying on the advice of the pardoned attorney. And those are really the ones that are most notorious. I think dating back to Gerald Ford's pardon of

Richard Nixon, there have been pardons that have been high profile and objectionable. Bill Clinton, pardoned Mark Rich, who was a major donor of his. But in general, presidents have relied on the advice of the pardon attorney. In the case of the Biden pardons, there are certain pardons that were issued that did not go through the traditional process of vetting by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, including the pardons of the Biden family members. And from my perspective, those were a disappointing use of the pardon power because they feed into that perception that the president can use pardons to benefit friends and family in a way that's not consistent with the intent of the pardon power. But presidents throughout history have done that on a

occasion. It's not, you know, it's disappointing, nevertheless. So take us into the new administration. Donald Trump becomes our 47th president. Do you meet him? Do you have connections with his chief of staff, for example? How does the process work? Typically, the pardon attorney has a contact in the office of the White House Council and engages in discussions about pardons through the White House Counsel's Office. During this Trump administration, my office was never able to establish that line of communication with the White House. We were really, frankly, out of the loop about all of the clemencies that were issued at the start of the administration. On day one of the new administration is when the

January 6th pardons were issued, and that came as a surprise to me and my colleagues who learned about it on the news along with the rest of America. So at that point, did you begin to think, oh, there's going to be no role for me here? I mean, that seems pretty alarming. Well, the work of the office sort of shipped it in a different direction under the new administration. We were tasked with working on the restoration of firearm rights and the right to possess a firearm for people who had lost that right due to a criminal conviction. that's not something that's historically been within the sphere of work assigned to the office of the pardon attorney. There really hasn't been a process in place at all within the Justice Department to restore gun raids.

So this was something new. And this became the focal point of the work of the office under the new administration. So the new administration comes in. You're already a bit disappointed because Joe Biden, the previous president, has pardoned his family. you're then assigned to look at criminals who want to get their guns back. That was the direction that things were moving when I left the position of pardon, and you were fired, I think it's fair to say. Yeah, I was fired on March the 7th on a Friday afternoon without any notice.

I was actually in a meeting and a colleague pulled me out of the meeting frantically and told me that there were two security officers back in my office waiting to deliver me with the termination letter and escort me out of the building on that right after the need. And what happened then? Is that what indeed you found? Well, I was never given an explanation from my firing. Like many other Department of Justice career employees, I got a very brief letter that stated that I was being fired pursuant to the president's power under Article 2 of the Constitution. without any further explanation.

But what had happened leading up to my firing was that I was asked to make a recommendation to the Attorney General that I was unable to make. And within a few hours of providing my final decision that I could not make that recommendation, I was terminated. And was this a recommendation to give Mel Gibson the movie star back his weapons? That's right. I was asked to essentially write a memo to the Attorney General recommending that she restore the gun rights of the actor Mel Gibson. He had lost his right to own a firearm after he was convicted of a domestic violence crime. He was convicted of abusing his ex-romantic partner. And he lost his right to own a gun as a result of that. And I was asked to recommend that the Attorney General give him back his gun right. I wasn't comfortable doing that because there's a great deal of data out there that shows that it is dangerous for people who have a history of domestic violence to be in possession of a firearm. Domestic violence incidents are much more likely

to be fatal if the abuser possesses a gun. So that's not the type of decision that I could take lightly. And I wasn't able to make a recommendation. It was suggested to me that because Melm Gibson has a personal relationship with the president, Donald Trump, that he was a suitable candidate for that type of relief. But as a career expert, my job was to apply my knowledge and expertise, and I knew that that's not sufficient reason that we would rearm someone who has a domestic my own sister. I wasn't able to make that recommendation. And very shortly after I communicated that I wasn't able to do that, I was far. And do you know if Mel Gibson's got his guns back? He did. After I left the department, the attorney general went ahead and restored his gun rights anyway. And that's

It's sort of illustrative of what's going on in the Justice Department right now. Career experts who are applying their knowledge and expertise neutrally are not valued or even wanted in these discussions if they serve as an obstacle to accomplishing the political objectives of the president. In my case, I believe I was being asked to make that recommendation because they wanted to give it a veneer of legitimacy. They wanted to make it look like a nonpartisan career. professional decided that it was safe for Mel Gibson to have his guns back. And that's why they wanted me to make the recommendation. The attorney general ultimately has the authority to grant this restoration of gun rights to whomever she chooses and she chose to do it in the case of Mel Gibson, even though I didn't recommend it. So it just illustrates that I was being used to provide some cover for a decision that was really political.

Sure. And then when you didn't give them that cover, they fought. They fire a fee, yep, and then they went ahead and did what they had wanted to do from the start anyway. So let's get into Trump's pardons because at this point it's a sort of record level, bigly, bigly pardons, as he might put it. Now, as you pointed out, he pardoned all the January 6th participants on his first day. what was the sort of feeling when you heard that news from the news? What was the sort of reaction within the Justice Department at that point? Well, to some extent, we saw it coming because the president had said on the campaign

trail that he was going to do this. But it really did come as a shock that he did it so quickly after taking office and that the pardons were so sweeping. I think everyone believed or held out hope that she would at minimum draw some distinctions between the people who used violence in connection with the January 6 events and the people who didn't. And those distinctions in the end were not drawn. It was a blanket pardon of everyone.

And the scope of it was really pretty shocking to myself, who's my colleagues in the Justice Department. So that was one sort of job. lot of pardons. Can you talk us through some other pardons and also this phrase that you keep referring to on your Instagram channel, which I refer people to lawyer, Oya, which is how we discovered you. And it's really, you're so good at explaining all sorts of actually quite complicated, nuanced areas of the law. Can you talk us through? The pardon economy?

Sure, yeah. Donald Trump has monetized the pardon power in a way that no president in history ever has. He has essentially created a system that's a pay-for-play system to receive a pardon. Historically, pardoning applicants for the most part have been vetted by the Justice Department and go through a rigorous background investigation process before their can. considered for a party. But in Donald Trump's world, what seems to matter most is political connections, loyalty, and money. So Donald Trump has been accepting pardon applications and granting pardons to people who are able to access him through political and financial channels. There are

a couple of examples of this that really stand out. For example, there's an individual named Paul Walsack. His mother was a major Republican donor. and she paid $1 million to go to a dinner with the president at Mar-a-Lago, and a few days later, her son received a full pardon from the president. The pardon spared him from having to go to jail, and it also spared him from having to pay back the money that he stole from the victims of his fraud. Most of the pardon recipients under Donald Trump have been people convicted of large-scale white-collar fraud crimes, and these are crimes that have had a drastic financial effect on their victims.

They're crimes that have involved stealing money from investors, stealing money from tax cares and the government, frauds on Medicare and Medicaid benefits. So these that have cost taxpayers and crime victims a great deal of money. And I have looked at all of the pardons that Trump has granted to date and kind of totaled up the aggregate financial bosses. And they total over a billion dollars. over $1.3 billion actually in losses to crime victims and taxpayers as a result of the offenses Trump's party. And one of the things that is so unusual about the type of parties he's granting is he is relieving the debts. He's forgiving the debts that are owed by these convicted white-collar offenders as part of the pardon.

So he made it such that Paul Walsack didn't have to pay back the money that he stole. He actually was skimming money from the tops of the paychecks that were going to the doctors and nurses that he employed in a healthcare company. And now he doesn't have to pay back that money. There's another individual in Trevor Milt. So, Liz, I just want to be absolutely clear on this. Paul Walsack, who was skimming doctors and nurses' salaries, got forgiven by Donald Trump after his mother paid $1 million to have a dinner at Mar-A-Larab. go. Yep, that's exactly right. The thing that really struck me about the case is this is a case where Paul Walsack had, you know, high-crice lawyers, he's from a wealthy family. They argued at his

sentencing proceeding in front of the judge that he should not go to prison. And the judge who sentenced Paul Walsack to 18 months in prison said, I need to impose this sentence to send the message that wealth is not a get-out-of-jail-free card in this country. And then literally days later, Donald Trump sent the exact opposite message by wiping out the prison sentence as well as the financial obligations that Paul Walsack had because of his family involved, because his mother awaited, it will be knowing orders to attend this dinner. And Hull Walsack, by the way, he knew that money to buy himself a yacht. He used it to shop at Bermdorf Goodman's and other high-end stores. So this is not the type of person that really scrimms. out for that type of assistance. But in Donald Trump's world, the political connections and the money

was enough to get him that benefit. And his is really just one of many examples of really egregious types of pardons that have been issued purely on the basis of political and financial connections under Donald Trump. And that million dollars that Paul's mother paid for a dinner at Mar-a-Lago. Where does that actually go? Well, that's a good question. The New York Times has investigated that he said of it and did a really comprehensive story that kind of trapped the donation and where the money goes. But we're seeing that all of this money that various pardon applicants are painting is ending up in some former fashion benefiting Donald Trump or people in his orbit. There's another individual

well, meeting to Trevor Milton, who deep-broaded his investors in a startup company. He was supposedly going to build the Wall's first electric-powered semi-truck. It turned out that the whole company was a fraud. There was a video showing what was supposed to be a prototype of this truck actually working. And it turned out that it was some members of his team had pushed this truck down a hill to make it look like it worked. So it was a fraud, the whole thing. And Trevor Milton owed his investors over 600. million dollars in Mossacks. He paid. He and his wife donated $1.8 million to Donald Trump's campaign.

And shortly after, Milton got a full pardon from Donald Trump. So that's another illustration of this kind of K-for-play system where by spending just under $2 million, Milton was able to wipe out a debt in excess $600 million that he otherwise would have had to pay back to his investors. And the only people to benefit from that, Trevor McDonnell Trump. It's a loss for everyone else, for tax cares, for crime victims, and for our justice system as the whole.

What is there any recourse for the victims here? I'm thinking of doctors and nurses. How do they, what recourse do they have? Or the investors, Trevor Milton's investors. The only recourse for these victims is to

file a civil lawsuit and to try to get their money back that way, but that's a very expensive and time-consuming process. There's actually a federal law in place that requires that people who commit financial crimes pay back their victims. And Donald Trump is undercutting that statute. He's basically saying that it has no effect by granting these pardons. Crime victims are not supposed to have to fight in court to get their money back. It's supposed to be an automatic part of the sentencing of the perpetrator of the crime.

and it was in these cases, but Donald Trump essentially undid that debt, that obligation by granting the pardons. So if these crime victims want to pursue getting their money back, they have a costly legal fight ahead of them. So basically, if you've committed a white-collar crime, all you have to do is give some money to Donald Trump or one of his cronies and you get off. You don't have to pay anybody back and you're free to go off and do it again. It appears that way. It appears that it's a very good time to be a white-collar criminal because of this possibility of getting a pardon from Donald Trump. There has cropped up a whole pardon economy that extends beyond the president himself to people in his orbit with access to the president who are accepting huge amounts of money from people hoping to get a pardon in exchange for legal services and lobbying services. It's been reported that pardon seekers are paying in many cases a million dollars or more for high-priced lawyers and lobbyists with connections to Donald Trump to try to get their applications to the front of the line on the president's desk. Some of these lawyers and lobbyists are being created a million dollars up front and then another million dollars if the application is successful.

And this is creating really sort of a feeding frenzy around parties. the pardoning process has become a completely financial transactional process, not something that is rooted in principles of law or justice. Liz, just hold on one second. We're going to take some messages from our sponsors. And we're back with Liz Oyer, the former pardons attorney for the Department of Justice. This feels very much the behavior of tin pot regimes, the sort of regimes that Donald Trump, when he was first,

power referred to as shitholes. What's happening now is very corrupt. It's really the definition of corruption. Selling the instruments of official office for personal gain is the definition of corruption. And that appears to be where the pardon power has gone. And it's not just detrimental to the crime victims and the taxpayers. It's also very unfair to the people who have legitimate applications for pardons that have been submitted through the ordinary process. There are right now somewhere around 14,000 people who have

applied for pardons through the Justice Department whose applications are being ignored in favor of the wealthy and well-connected. And some of these are individuals who really do have compelling cases for second chances through clemency, but those folks don't have the ability to jump the line, to access the president through Marilago or through the Oval Office. And so those folks are losing out, well, people who are well-connected and wealthy are benefiting tremendously. Well, one person who's certainly got the president's attention was Gillen Maxwell, who's already been moved to jail. She's been already given a much nicer jail than where she was. She's been transferred from Florida to Texas.

And, of course, she was sentenced to 20 years for sex trafficking. Do you think it's likely that she's going to get a pardon? I don't know whether she will or won't get a pardon, but I will say, one, it would be absolutely shocking against the backdrop of history for someone who has been convicted of a crime like the one that she has to receive a pardon. The idea that a person convicted of sex trafficking of minor children would even be seriously considered for a residential pardon is quite shocked.

It defies all of the norms that historically have governed the use of the pardon power, and it is completely inconsistent with the standards that the Justice Department applies in recommending parties for her even to be considered. But what Trump does is he dangles the possibility of a pardon to try to get people to do his bidding or to help him out of situations that are challenging or to pledge loyalty or money to him. He doesn't even have to give the pardon in many cases to get what he wants out of the transaction. And I think that's what we're sitting with the line Maxwell. Her attorney and she knew very well that Donald Trump is the one person who could bail her out from this 20-year prison sentence that she is serving. And so the possibility of a pardon is a very powerful enticement to get for assistance. Donald Trump, meanwhile, has a political crisis on his hands over the Epstein case and

Glenn Maxwell is somebody who might be able to help him find a path out of this crisis. So he dangles the possibility of a pardon to see what she might be willing to do for him that could help him. And in this case, that involves sending his deputy attorney, Jean-all, the number two official and the Justice Department, to meet with her in Florida over two days to talk with her and see if she could either exonerate Donald Trump or implicate Donald Trump's political enemy or both. And that's really all Trump needed to do to get a benefit of that is dangled the possibility of a pardon. So whether he gives her one or not is almost immaterial at this point to everyone other than

Glenn Maxwell. You know, she's the only person who I think in the world who's hoping that she does get is pardon. But Donald Trump has gotten a tremendous benefit out of her just by dangling that possibility. Well, and she's already gotten a much better jail than normally a sex offender would have. That's right. Yep. She's also gotten that benefit. Her transfer to a minimum security facility really defies all of the Bureau of Prisons, policies, and regulations that pertain to where an incarcerated person should be housed. She got that benefit only because she was willing to sit down with Todd Blanche, who, by the way, is, you know, Donald Trump's personal attorney looking out for Donald Trump personally, not for the people of the United States who he serves in his role as deputy attorney general.

And she got a special benefit because she was willing to do that. So this isn't, of course, only Donald Trump, is it? He's got Pam Bondi as the attorney general. This is also his top appointments at the DOJ. Is there any pushback, do you think, or do you think this is literally people being utterly subservient to the power of the presidency? Donald Trump has stacked the Justice Department with political loyalists at every level, and there is no one left in that building who is pushing back against him as he defies all of the norms that apply to the exercise of the powers of the Justice Department in our country. It's really shocking. The institutional guardrails that have historically reigned in the conduct of the Department of Justice have been intentionally stripped away. There have been people that have been fired from career positions that have always existed.

For example, the Department of Justice has always had a non-political ethics advisor, which provides advice about complex interest and times when the attorney general or her staff might recuse themselves from particular matters. financial complex of interest, that person was fired several months ago and has not yet been replaced. So throughout the department, there are intentional efforts to erode career expertise and strip away all the guardrails so that the department can be used to accomplish the president's lipful objectives at all costs. Well, and I'm sure he doesn't want to replace anybody to talk about ethics and the Justice Department at this stage. Ten people who were pardoned from after the January 6 riots have been re-arrested. Many of the individuals pardoned in connection with January 6th are back in prison for very

serious offenses. There are a couple of folks who have been re-arrested and sentenced to prison time for offenses involving sexual abuse of children. There is one individual who was sentenced to a significant prison term for plotting to kill law enforcement officers who investigated him. There are numerous people who have been arrested on gun crimes and other types of offenses. This is the problem with the failure to vet these pardon applicants. There was no individualized consideration given to the nearly 1,500 people who received pardons.

And as a result, many of those folks have gone out and continued to endanger communities and committed very serious crimes since they received the pardons only a couple of months ago. So you're a lifelong civil servant. How does this, what is your reaction to this new and very fast corruption of the DOJ? What's happening in the Department of Justice right now is really shocking and it's really dangerous. My fear as a civil servant is that it's going to take something really awful happening before we really see the full. full extent of the damage that is being done in the department right now. But the problem is on multiple levels. We're losing so much knowledge and expertise within the department. We rely on

that knowledge and expertise to keep us safe. People are being fired and removed from positions in important parts of the Justice Department, like the National Security Division, for example, which keeps us safe from terrorist attacks. And these people are not being replaced with other knowledgeable experts. They're being replaced by political operatives or they're not being replaced at all. And it creates a huge number of vulnerabilities for the American people who rely on the Justice Department to keep us safe. And my fear, my concern is that we have not yet seen how those vulnerabilities are going to endanger us in the future. And it's fascinating that Donald Trump's friends haven't said to him, at least as far as we know, why are you validating people who

were scamming investors, lots of his friends work in the investment community. Why do you think he's so sympathetic to white-collar criminals? I think Donald Trump is sympathetic to those in which he sees something up himself. And he sees that white-collar offenders are being unfairly persecuted because he can relate to those people. Those are the people that he can relate to. He has shut down enforcement of parts of the law where he sees some. some similarities between himself and the people who are on the other end of these investigations. He is selectively enforcing laws against people who he either doesn't relate to or he views as his

rivals or enemies, and he is choosing not to enforce the laws against those who he views as his friends and allies and kindred spirits, which is really just fundamentally contrary to the rule of law system that our society is built on. and he's making himself rich and his friends in the process. That's right. So the parmonds have gone largely to wealthy white-collar criminals and to people who are MAGA supporters. There are a couple of really egregious ones

that have gone to people who aren't necessarily accessing him through money, but who are accessing him through their loyalty to MAGA. There's an individual in Nevada, an elected official named Michelle Fiore. who was convicted of fraud after she stole money from a police memorial fund. She was raising money to build a memorial to two police officers who died in the line of duty. And she stole the money. She embezzled it. And she used it on plastic surgery for herself.

And she received a full pardon from Donald Trump without spending a day in prison and without having to pay back that money that she stole, simply because she was a well-known outspoken Trump support. order. There's another elected official, a sheriff in Virginia, named Scott Jenkins, who had been selling sheriff's badges for cash. He was selling badges so that people who were prohibited from owning guns could obtain guns so that people who got traffic tickets could use the badges, flash the badges to get out of their tickets. And he made thousands of dollars selling these badges. And he received a full pardon from Donald Trump without spending a day in jail again because he was an outspoken vocal Trump supporter.

Liz, we're just going to take a quick break for some ads. We're back with Liz Oyer talking about Donald Trump's pardon economy. Do you think that people are sufficiently aware of what's going on? I think there's so much news and information coming at us that it is very hard to stay fully aware of everything that's going on. I think that what's happening in the Justice Department is something that hasn't yet personally affected people enough to get the attention that it deserves. I think that it may. You know, I hope that it doesn't take something terrible happening for people to start focusing on it,

but I think it hasn't gotten the attention that it deserves yet. If it's happening as so corrupt, the president is really using the justice system to enrich himself and to persecute this political rivals. And that is something that ever happened on such a large scale before. And it's something that really should be upsetting to all Americans who care about the integrity of our institutions. And when you say something terrible might happen, what sort of things do you mean? Well, there are still many important functions that the Justice Department fills in terms of keeping our country safe, of folding the rule of law and protecting our civil rights. And when you strip away the expertise and knowledge, when you, when you eliminate the

workforce that has the knowledge and expertise to perform those functions, you place this in a very dangerous position. The Justice Department is responsible for preventing and responding to things like cyber attacks, things like terrorist attacks, any threats to our public safety. and the demolition of career expertise within those domains, within the Department of Justice, has unknown risks to the safety of our country in the future, to the civil rights of all Americans, and to the integrity of our democracy. Well, Liz, I very much hope you will come back and keep talking us through the changes at the DOJ. It's very helpful to get your perspective on it.

And I will say that when I'm reading about it, I tend to glaze it. over. I see Department of Justice. And you just think it's going to be so complicated. And I know there are all sorts of court cases going on at the moment, some of which are enabling Donald Trump and some of which are curtailing his worst instincts. So we would love you to come back and keep us posted with other cases. Absolutely. One of my goals from the near future is to post more explanatory content on my substack as well as my Instagram lawyer or to try to help Americans who aren't lawyers understand these important legal issues that affect all of us. And I welcome the opportunity to come back to discuss these issues anytime. Thanks for having the

And I should ask you, what are you doing now? Are you doing other things besides your sub spec? I'm doing writing, media education, and trying to figure out how I can best use my own platform and expertise to defend our democracy during this really critical time when it is under a So, Liz, have you officially left the DOJ now? I know you were fired. Are you still in touch with them? So I was fired and I am appealing my termination through a process, the administrative process that's in place for federal employees to appeal firings that are unlawful. My firing was clearly in violation of federal civil service laws and protections for whistleblowers. But the Department of Justice has, has effectively tried to stonewall the legal process for seeking recourse in my case and the case of many other fired federal employees. So now I'm in this situation where I am litigating against

people that I used to work with who are upholding the Department of Justice's position in port that my firing was permissible because the president can fire anybody he chooses for any reason because he's the president. And it's been a really frustrating and demoralizing process, frankly. It has been very upsetting to see former colleagues in the department standing up for these illegal firings and taking the position that they don't have to confly with the orders and directives related to the litigation. One thing that I've sought throughout in my case is discovery. I'd sought the documents that demonstrate that everything that happened needing up to my firing is exactly as I'd said. He just, Justice Fartman, had said that that's not why I was fired. They said that I'm lying.

And there are documents, I know because I saw them and I wrote them, that demonstrate that everything that I've said is true, but they are refusing to produce them. And they're defying court orders and rules that require them to produce them. They're not participating in good faith in the legal process. And to say that about the Justice Department, which is entrusted with upholding our rule of law system, is really quite shocking and disappointing and upsetting, I think, to me and to many other civil servants. All right, Liz Oyer, thank you very much. Looking forward to having you back to take us through the really alarming changes that are going on at the DOJ. Thanks, Joanna. What an alarming perspective on what's happening at the American Department of Justice, the pay for play for pardons and the fact that if you're the victim of a scam, you're not only going to see no money back from it, but very likely, even if the criminal is convicted, he might just, you know, pay some money and get out,

not even have to go to jail. It's truly, truly alarming and up to all of us to really pay attention to this. So thanks to Liz Oyer, thanks to you too, if you have been watching. If you're on YouTube, go to the Join Now button just below this podcast and join our membership so you can get extra content and be invited to all sorts of community benefits. it's at the Daily Beast. And don't forget to subscribe to the Daily Beast.com for moment by moment updates to the madness.

And don't forget to subscribe to The Daily Beast podcast and also catch up with Inside Trump's Head where Michael Wolf and I go twice a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays on YouTube and it drops at midnight on Wednesdays and Fridays on Spotify, Apple, wherever else you get your podcast. But we are really trying to approach Donald Trump by understanding what motivates him. And I think you heard from Liz Oyer that what motivates him

to free people who've already been found guilty by the justice system is this strange sympathy that he has for rich criminals. Don't forget, as the first lady would have us be, Be Beast. Thank you to our Be Beast members, Connie Rutherford, Karen White and Heidi Riley. We appreciate your support. And thank you to our production team, Devin Rodgerino, Anavon, Erson, and our editor, Jesse Milwood. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber.

Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.