Andy (5:29)

I just want to say, you know, you noted that we still have the right in this country to. To assemble, to protest. I want to point out that we have an annoying habit on this podcast of being outdated by events by time between the time we record and the time the episode comes out. I hope this is not one of those times, because that's all I think about now is you're like, well, yes, of course we still have those rights. And then, you know, a half hour after we finish recording, you know, Donald Trump signs executive order saying no more than three people can be in a room at the same time. You know, so hopefully that won't be the case. But there's a couple of things going on here, and one is the use of the word insurrectionist is not accidental in the same way that calling this an invasion, calling immigration an invasion, has never been an accident, you know, over the. Over the amount of time that Donald Trump has been using it, which has been a long time. Because these words, first of all, they obviously conjure up awful, dark images of, you know, again, what Donald Trump wants people to believe is going on, that there is this. This invasion coming across the border and setting our cities on fire and protesting against the United States of America. So none of those words are accidental for that reason, but also in terms of what Trump wants to do, which is he's already rolled out the National Guard. There have been not joking references to sending a Marine battalion to Los Angeles. And by using the word invasion and by using the word insurrection, Donald Trump is trying to lay the groundwork to be able to, in his mind, at least legally do this and also to do it and have his supporters and in his hopes, have the court of public opinion behind him, because people will hear the President talking about an invasion and insurrection, whatever it is. And look, you could never sleep again if you just wanted to spend your entire day talking about the hypocrisy. But the fact that he pardoned all the January 6th people, actual insurrectionists, and now is calling people who are peacefully protesting insurrectionists. It can't be overlooked. Even though it's like, yeah, of course this is what they do, but I still feel like it needs to be hammered home.

Danielle Moody (7:57)

Language matters, right? Language matters. And it's one of the greatest tools of fascism is to distort, is to distract, and is to make us question everything that we see and everything that we hear, right? And so what Donald Trump and what this regime is doing is using language that then loses its meaning. Because if you look at what happened on January 6, 2021, and that is people building a gallows on the steps of the Capitol building, calling for the hanging of the Vice President of the United States, members of Congress running for their lives. But those were, quote, unquote, patriots, Andy. But then people that are marching out in the streets on behalf of themselves and their neighbors, their right to live free, their right to support themselves, their right to. To. To request asylum, right? Then that, all of a sudden, is an insurrection. Then people don't know which way is up, and they don't know who to support. And you then have outlets like ABC and CBS and others just showing cars on fire and not showing the peacefulness that is happening. Because what happened when ICE came in is that the people push back against ice. Right. Because ICE is being used as Donald Trump's masked gestapo. Right. In order to be able to disappear people, they pick them off, off of the streets and then we have no idea where the fuck those people go. Do they go to El Salvador? Do they go to South Sudan? We have no idea. And so the fact of the matter is this regime is gearing up for autocracy. They're gearing up for the militarization of this country. And. And LA is their test case.

Andy (9:35)

Yep.

Danielle Moody (9:36)

So in response to the protests and Donald Trump's call in for the National Guard to come in to escalate a situation that didn't need escalation, Gavin Newsom, who is the governor of California, is suing Donald Trump and the administration for utilizing the National Guard. And then also, and in response to Tom Holman, the quote, unquote, border czar, who said that he was going to arrest Gavin Newsom for, for interference or whatever it was that he said, Gavin Newsom responded and said this, quote, he's a tough guy. Why doesn't he do that? He knows where to find me. Lay your hands off of four year old girls that are trying to get in, that are trying to get educated. Come and arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy. I don't give a damn. This is just some wild shit of where like America has turned into the wild, wild west, right. Where Donald Trump is using his personal Gestapo to intimidate citizens, to intimidate governors. He is lying about violence that is happening, that the LAPD needs to come out and come out and very clearly and say that, no, these protesters are peaceful, but this is the kind of rhetoric that Donald Trump has been using and spreading and that Fox and other right wing outlets amplify. Right? And so, you know, to me, yes, Gavin should be suing. Yes, there should be considerable pushback and from all blue state governors that signed on to a letter against this administration and their use of, of the National Guard. Because we have to understand the National Guard has been used, Andy, very infrequently in America, in America's history. And when it has been used, it was used in order to stop white domestic terrorists from terrorizing and killing and attacking black people who were integrating schools and integrating public facilities. Right. Who are trying to like live free and get educated in this country. That's when we've seen the National Guard deployed, which was for the safety of citizens, not in aggression against citizens. And so I know that we cannot trust the courts to hold. But what do you make of the fact that now this is going from the streets into the courthouses?

Andy (11:58)

Yeah. Look, you know, later in the show, I will talk to Chris Geidner from Law Dork about the fact that everything that the courts are overrun with lawsuits against the Trump administration, and this one is, you know, just another one to get added to it. Well, I do want to point out that the National Guard has also been called out in a similar manner to how Trump is doing it. I'm thinking, of course, of Kent State, where there was a protest against the Vietnam War going on, and the National Guard was called in, and it led to some deaths. And this is obviously much more akin to that than it is, as you were saying, Danielle, when it was actually brought out, to protect the rights of people. This is one of the bad times. But it has been a really long time since this has happened. And. But look, Donald Trump has been looking for an excuse to do everything that he's doing. And, you know, the fact that California is pushing back legally is good. You said earlier that, you know, you've had to say something nice about the lapd, and that also goes for Gavin Newsom. We've had to say nice things about Gavin Newsom, which kind of gives me a little bit of a rash. I'm hoping it's off camera, but there's. I feel it a little bit in my sternum. I feel a sternum rash coming on. Danielle, for speaking well of Gavin Newsom. But look, they're fighting back. Newsom has been very, very strong in terms of saying the right things. The Tom Homan thing, the funniest thing about the Holman thing is, of course, he sort of backtracked from that and said, well, I was misquoted. I was just saying that if anyone gets in the way, you know, of federal officers doing their job, they'll be arrested. And so that would include Gavin Newsom. And then Trump was asked about it, and he was like, oh, yeah, he should arrest Gavin Newsom. I'd love for him to arrest Gavin Newsom. So it's like, as is typical with Trump, you try to backtrack, and then he steps all over your backtrack and just, you know, gets right up, puts it all front and center again. This has the potential of ending very badly.

Danielle Moody (14:10)

Yep.

Andy (14:10)

Obviously, I really hope that's not the case. There are people out there who are both sidings this and who are saying, you know, who are saying everyone needs to be peaceful, as if there's violence being committed by both sides here. There is not There most assuredly is not. The violence is coming from one side of this, and it's the side of ICE and it's the side of the federal government. And so for the people who are out there both sideing this and, and it's people like Adam Schiff, who's a congressman from Southern California, who should know better, but clearly doesn't. And they put out these milk toe statements. And that's where I do have to hand it to Gavin Newsom in this instance, he has made it very clear who the bad guys are here. And it is 100% the federal government and the ICE agents to the point where you've got, I think it was Department of Homeland Security defending ICE by saying they're just doing their jobs.

Danielle Moody (15:15)

Where have we heard that before? They're just following orders. Where, where does, where does that.

Andy (15:21)

Yeah. Historically, that defense doesn't work out very well.

Danielle Moody (15:26)

Yeah. Yeah.

Andy (15:27)

And, you know, if you're curious, if you're the bad guys, a good sign of that is the defense, that you were just doing your job or following orders.

Danielle Moody (15:36)

I'm disappointed in Adam Schiff, as you know, as I often get disappointed in Democrats with platforms and positions who want to try and say, oh, well, there needs to be peace in the streets and there needs to be this, that and the other thing. How about you need to focus on who, like you're saying, Andy, who the actual enemy is. Donald Trump is an enemy of the people. And I would like to remind folks that during the George Floyd protests in 2020, after the public murder of George Floyd at the hands of Derek Chauvin, that when people were in Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C. that Donald Trump called in police officers on horseback to violently. Lafayette Square of peaceful protesters so that he could pose with a book that he doesn't read in front of a church that he doesn't attend. Right. Where he held up the Bible upside down. Right. And told and asked. Right. Mark Esper at that time. Right. Can we, can't we just quote, unquote, shoot them, meaning the protesters? And Esper said, no, that's illegal. Right. So Donald Trump doesn't have, right, a stomach for protests. He doesn't have a stomach for pushback. And when faced with it, he wants those people to either be violently harmed. Right. Or imprisoned. That is not the actions of a president of the United States. That is the actions of a dictator. And now he has gotten rid of all of those people that were supposed guardrails in his first administration, in his first term who told him, no, boss, you can't do those things. And now he has DUI hire like Pete Hegseth and the dog killer Kristi Noem, who are bloodthirsty and want nothing more than to cause harm to who they believe is quote unquote vermin, which is anybody that is anti maga, which actually equates to being pro democracy. I can't stand them.

Andy (17:30)

Yeah, for sure. I was going to say, and then you went ahead and said it yourself that we don't have the Mark Esper types there anymore. And that is the, that's the scary part of all this is that you know the people. And it's not that Mark Esper was, you know, such a great guy, but they had a line and you couldn't cross that line. And was the line, you know, should the line have been further left or wherever, however you want to say it, should it have come much earlier? Yes, but at least they had a line. Stephen Miller doesn't have a line. Pete Hegseth doesn't have a line. None of the people in charge right now have a line. Their line is whatever Donald Trump says it is. And they also agree with Donald Trump. So it's not even like it's half the idea that they would never push back against him, but it's also the idea that they agree with him. Kristi Noem agrees with him. Kristi Noem wants brown people to be killed in Los Angeles this week. She just does. And I believe this entire administration wants to see that happen. You don't send in the National Guard. You don't start talking about sending in the Marines to the continental US Unless you want bullets to fly. So I am, I am really hopeful that between now and when this comes out and going forward that nothing God awful has happened. But boy, if there were ever a potential for a flashpoint, I think this undoubtedly this is it.

Danielle Moody (19:02)

Agreed.

Warby Parker Ad (19:04)

What makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker? It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com if you're.

Chris Geidner (19:36)

Alignment in charge of keeping the lights on, Grainger understands that you go to great length and sometimes heights to ensure.

Andy (19:44)

The power is always flowing. Which is why you can count on.

Chris Geidner (19:47)

Grainger for professional grade products and next day delivery. So you have everything you need to.

Andy (19:53)

Get the job done.

Chris Geidner (19:55)

Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

Andy (20:09)

As the Trump administration continues to push America down an authoritarian path, it feels like the number of suits brought against it is in danger of overwhelming our judicial system. Joining me now to Discuss is former BuzzFeed legal editor and former deputy editor for Legal affairs at Grid News and the current publisher of the Essential law dork@lawdork.com Chris Geidner. Chris, thanks so much for being here.

Chris Geidner (20:32)

Hello Andy.

Andy (20:33)

Hello. So I've got the lawdork homepage open right now, as I often do, and here are some of the pieces you've written just in the past week or so. SCOTUS allows the Trump administration to end legal status for another half million people. Federal Judge protects trans care for federal prisoners Blocking Trump order for now. Judge orders Trump Admin to let those sent to seekot challenge Alien Enemies Act Removal and conservatives on SCOTUS give Doge the go ahead Again. This is from the past week, not the past month or even the past year. This feels insane.

Chris Geidner (21:10)

I think, as the understatement of the the century, it's not good. This is certainly not what one wants to be covering in order to feel like things are stable and going in a good direction.

Andy (21:26)

Yeah, and that list doesn't even include Harvard. And then, of course, shortly before this interview, California Governor Gavin Newsom announcing that they would be suing the administration over Trump's federalizing of that state's National Guard. Is our system built to handle this kind of stress test?

Chris Geidner (21:45)

Well, we'll find out. That's the ultimate answer. I mean, in some ways it is, and in some ways it isn't. I think in the ways that it is, we've seen it working. The example of lifetime tenure for federal judges. We've seen judges who just in Trump's first term were appointed by Donald Trump to the bench, ruling against him regularly this term. We have seen, as you just mentioned, the California governor and likely attorney general who has a a 2pm press conference that I presume is going to be announcing this lawsuit, are able to use federalism in a way that isn't attempting to keep schools segregated, but using it to actually have the states use their sovereign authority to challenge federal government actions that they think are inappropriate. Those are the ways that it's working. Those are the ways that the framers thought that having this diffuse power across both up and down with Federalism and side by side with checks and balances would work. Now, the downside is we've also seen signs of where it's not working, and that is at the top of the judicial branch with the Supreme Court and almost even more so somehow with the congressional leadership and just a complete unwillingness to what I think I wrote to jealously guard their power and their role in the system, which is sort of something that the founders thought was like an obvious thing that anybody would do.

Andy (23:38)

Right? Yeah, no, it really is. I've talked about this with other guests. I think it was Andy Craig just that there was no way the founders could have anticipated Congress sort of willingly ceding its power to the president in the way it's been doing. But let's talk about how the courts have been doing sort of in general, is it fair to say we'll get in and then I want to get into some specific cases. But in general, you know, you mentioned that there's been sort of a failure at the top, meaning the Supreme Court. Is it fair to say that in general the lower courts, the district courts, the appeals courts have been better than the Supreme Court?

Chris Geidner (24:21)

They have. And I think it is notable and I think one of the biggest changes between the first Trump administration and the second, which is actually pretty surprising in light of the fact that if you, you were just generically looking at things, you would say, well, in the second Trump administration, there's a bunch of Trump appointees on the appeals court, so it should go better for him. I think the biggest change is that the appeals courts are almost more skeptical this time around. I think the district courts, district court judges, one, they're, they're less politicized, they're less likely to be ideological picks. They generally still, even in this era, although maybe this Trump administration will be a little less so are essentially selected by the home state senators, at least are, are given much more power than for the appeals court or obviously the Supreme Court. But, but even with the appeals court judges, we have seen far more willingness to push back and at the very least keep the Trump administration in a holding pattern than we had seen in the first Trump administration. And I think we saw that with the Birthright Citizenship executive order, where all of the appeals courts are, have been in agreement with district court injunctions blocking that Birthright Citizenship executive order from going in effect. And we saw it to a lesser degree, but it had been kept on hold. Trump's efforts to re up his anti trans military ban The While the D.C. circuit would have let it go into effect on an administrative stay. The ninth Circuit did keep a district court injunction there in place, but the Supreme Court stepped in and overturned essentially the injunction in the military ban case because they said that the military can start implementing it, which means they can kick out trans service members. So while it's technically a stay pending appeal, it's it's going to change these people's career and lives. And even with the birthright citizenship case, while we don't have an opinion yet, and they did keep the nationwide injunction in place for now, that's the case that they did. The took the rare step of actually scheduling oral arguments on a shadow docket case. And we had those arguments on May 15 about whether or not the nationwide injunctions blocking the implementation of the order to end birthright citizenship was appropriate. And that's one of those cases that we're waiting to get before the 4th of July.

Andy (27:40)

So I want to talk more about this sort of where something gets stayed at a lower court and then the Supreme Court says, no, we don't need to stay this while it's working its way through the legal system. And I want to bring up something you wrote about. On Friday, the Supreme Court issued an order that again overtowed a lower court stay on the Trump administration getting rid of immigration programs that give legal status to about half million people. So in other words, Trump has turned these half million people into basically lawbreakers, even though they were here legally. And a lower court said, ah, let's pause that while the challenges play out. And then SCOTUS just said, no, we're fine with these people now considered to be here illegally while their case is working its way through the justice system. Can you make this make sense, Chris?

Chris Geidner (28:44)

I mean, the way it makes sense is they're allowing Trump to have dramatic broad authority in implementing immigration policy. The the way that I've looked at it is that essentially any power that has been exercised previously, even if it had only been exercised on a case by case basis, even if it had only been exercised individually in some cases, only if it had been granted exercise to grant relief to people, and this administration's effort is to revoke that relief essentially for all of that category of actions. The the Supreme Court has said while litigation is going forward, we're going to allow the president, the Trump administration, Kristi Noem, whoever, to exercise that authority during litigation, which as Justice Jackson wrote in dissent in this latest case, this has happened twice now, once relating to temporary protected status of Venezuelans, a case that came out of the 9th Circuit and then this case that you're talking about, about parole status in immigration, not like criminal justice parole, but essentially stopping your removal and allowing you to get work permit, allowing that during proceedings that, that they took that out, and both of those have been taken out. And before there is a final court ruling on whether or not Kristi Noem's actions were legal in either case. And I think essentially what the court is saying, at least the, the, the six conservatives are saying, if it's a power that we have given to the president, that, that Congress, the Constitution, whatever has given to the president in immigration, we're going to give him deference. The sort of one exception to that is due process, when they give no process. And that most notably has been seen with the Alien Enemies Act Proclamation removals, and then with essentially times when they improperly removed people. And people lawyers have been there to sue and represent them and ask for the government to take steps, as we all now are, maybe me more than others, but I think everybody at this point with sort of up orders from court saying that the government facilitate the return of these people, because facilitate was the verb that the Supreme Court authorized.

Andy (31:48)

Right. It's just what I mean, look, this is not an original thought. I'm not claiming any genius here, but why is it not the case that it is very clear that if they don't stay this order, this immigration order, that people will be harmed and possibly irreparably. And whereas if they did stay the order and say, all right, you want to do this, it's now working its way through the court system. Until we get a final ruling on whether you're allowed to do this, let's just. We're just not going to let it happen because these people's lives will be ruined. And if we put a hold on it, you'll be fine. Government.

Chris Geidner (32:34)

Yeah.

Andy (32:34)

Why is that not the case? Why is that not the case, Chris?

Chris Geidner (32:38)

You're right. I mean, this is, this is essentially what the, the point that, that Jackson, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson made in her dissent is. I mean, she said that the Supreme Court had plainly botched its handling of this case. And I mean, essentially her point was sort of twofold, was one, the government very well could be wrong on the merits, and that is a serious question. There have been serious claims raised. A district court judge issued a ruling saying that he agreed they were likely right in those claims that the government was wrong. And so you've got that as a starting place. But then what she went into is that one of the other factors in granting a stay of a district court's order during litigation is proving irreparable harm. And what her point was is that the government didn't do that. This is something that came up even, I would say, in a way, on this side of the ledger, even more strongly in the doge cases, that essentially the government didn't even make a case that there would be irreparable harm beyond. We don't get to do what we want to do if there is, if we don't get a stay of this injunction. Now, what Justice Jackson went on to talk about in the immigration case and you alluded to is this fact that on the other side of the ledger, there is tremendous harm that you are creating if you allow the government to bring this into effect. And it's sort of on two levels as well, because you've got the. The very visceral, practical level that everybody is thinking about that is like, you're going to upend these people's lives. You're going to, like, potentially deport them. You are going to make them in a constant state of fear about their. Their livelihood, their ability to stay in this country during litigation before there's a final ruling on whether the action against them is legal. Then secondarily, there's also a question of irreparable harm, that if these people are actually removed in some cases, it could actually moot their case. It could make it so that their litigation can't even continue. And so essentially, if the government deports them quickly enough, they could make it so that these, this litigation will never reach a final status.

Andy (35:34)

It's just wild to me. And, you know, maybe someone needed to tell the Supreme Court conservatives that a lot of these people are Christians. Maybe that would have helped.

Chris Geidner (35:45)

Yeah, it's. It's. I mean, it's just. It's really wild that we're getting these extremely substantive rulings in terms of their impact with virtually no reasoning that that most recent one was literally a paragraph there. There was nothing in the paragraph is essentially all of the language that it takes to describe what you're doing. Because, I mean, obviously the language we've been using, like you are issuing a stay of an injunction pending appeal, and then there's this language that the Supreme Court uses when they do that, that. But it is actually important to think about, because what they do when they issue these stays pending appeal, they're not normally at the Supreme Court level yet they're still having merits resolution before the appeals courts. And so the language that they use Is this language about the stay is granted pending resolution by the Court of Appeals. And if a petition for writ of certiorari is sought at the Supreme Court, which is the way of asking the Supreme Court to take a case. And until the Supreme Court decides what it's doing. And so what they're doing, and they've done this in these immigration cases, they did this in the DOGE cases, they did this in the military cases, what they're saying is we're allowing the government to take this action for upwards of a year and a half before there would be an appeals court ruling, a time to request Supreme Court review, Supreme Court granting review, briefing on that argument, argument being held, the justices writing opinions and dissents, and then them releasing it. Like we're talking about the, the earliest these likely being resolved being next June. And during that entire time, trans people are going to be kicked out of the military. DOGE is going to have access to people's Social Security information. And these between these two rulings on immigration, upwards of nearly a million people are going to have their legal status removed in their ability to be quickly deported. And we know from this administration's actions that they probably will try to deport many of them.

Andy (38:31)

Yeah. Oh, my God. It's just, I guess, say what you will about Clarence Thomas, but, you know, when you pay him, he delivers. I know, I know your standards are higher than my current ones, so I won't ask you to say, well, I.

Chris Geidner (38:51)

Assumptionably, I'll just respond to that a little. I would argue it's actually pay him and he'll stay on the court ruling exactly as you want. It's not so much, I, I don't think that Clarence Thomas changed his views.

Danielle Moody (39:07)

No.

Chris Geidner (39:08)

I, I, I think that they wanted to keep him on the court because there, there is some reporting around the time that he got all these benefactors that he was, he was thinking about leaving, he wasn't liking it, he wasn't able to make money. And all of a sudden Harlan Crow became his best friend. And all of a sudden he got this rv and all of a sudden he decided to stay on the court upwards now of, of 30 plus years. And, and, and that's notable when you think like there have been a few rulings this term already on the Shadow docket and elsewhere that have been seven, two. They weren't Trump appointees who were dissenting, it was Thomas and Alito in the Alien Enemies act case, it was Thomas and Alito who were dissenting and siding with Trump there. I think the more that happens in some ways the better for the left because they're, they're less likely to retire and give Trump a chance to replace them with somebody who's half their age. I, I think they truly are getting an impression. We're the only ones who can do this.

Andy (40:17)

This.

Chris Geidner (40:17)

We need to stay here because we stand strong.

Andy (40:21)

Oh boy. Chris, I gotta run but thank you so much as always for coming on and educating me and hopefully our viewers and listeners and everyone else. Go to lawdork.com trust me. Chris. Thanks a lot.

Chris Geidner (40:37)

Thanks a lot. Andy.

Warby Parker Ad (40:41)

What makes a great pair of glasses At Warby Parker? It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com if you're.

Chris Geidner (41:13)

Alignment in charge of keeping the lights on.

Andy (41:15)

Grainger understands that you go to great.

Chris Geidner (41:17)

Lengths and sometimes heights to ensure the.

Andy (41:20)

Power is always flowing.

Chris Geidner (41:22)

Which is why you can count on Grainger for professional grade products and next day delivery. So you have everything you need to.

Andy (41:30)

Get the job done.

Chris Geidner (41:31)

Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Ranger for the ones who get it done.

Danielle Moody (41:45)

Folks, I am so excited to welcome to as the World Churns Kate Compton Barr who is the loser in chief, the Can't Win Victory Fund. I you know, it's a hell of a name but we are in a hell of a time. I would say that I'm tired of losing, but you tell me why we shouldn't be tired of losing.

Kate Compton Barr (42:10)

Because we lose because of our gerrymandered map. So I'm sitting here in North Carolina. I'm actually on vacation with my family in western North Carolina right now because of our gerrymandered maps. There is still debris from Hurricane Helene sitting in the middle of the road votes. And the folks who are supposed to be taking care of that and representing these constituents can just ignore it because the districts have been drawn to protect their power no matter what.

Danielle Moody (42:37)

I think that we kind of use the word gerrymandering and we talk about the ways in which Republicans have been able to solidify power without actually having to answer to their constituents. And we use this term but really break it down for us in how because that's a perfect example. Hurricane Helene was how many months ago? Right. You know, and we know that it was devastating, but at the same time, we also know that we have fema. We have these different agencies that are put in place to deal with the disasters that are becoming more frequent because of climate change that come into certain areas of the country. So talk to us, though, about gerrymandering and what. Like what? I. Because I feel like we have kind of have shrugged our shoulders about it. Yeah, well, you know that district is gerrymandered. Yeah, well, voter suppression, that's just part of politics, that we've allowed ourselves to believe that that is just inevitable.

Kate Compton Barr (43:34)

Yeah. It's also because it's like a really crappy word, and it sounds like the kind of thing you would write a thesis about instead of something that would, say, affect your daily life. So part of the job of losing in these gerrymandered districts is to really bring gerrymandering down to ground level for voters. So basically, what happens. Let's use North Carolina as an example. Every 10 years, we have a census required by the Constitution. That's where, you know, you get the papers in the mail. We have to count every citizen in the US and then we have to have our voting districts drawn based on that census, because our districts need to have roughly the same number of people in them. That's how you get one person, one vote. So our votes are equal. The trick is, who's drawing the districts. In some states, they're drawn by, like, a citizens commission. So it's a nonpartisan group who is trying to draw districts according to all of the criteria laid out to make a good district. In a state like North Carolina, it's our state legislators, incidentally, the state legislators will be elected by those districts, so they're incentivized to draw a district that will make it as easy as possible for them to keep their seats. So in North Carolina, we have 170 state legislative seats. That's 50 in the Senate and 120 in the House. North Carolina is a purple state. I don't know if y' all just saw Justice Allison riggs won by 734 votes out of five and a half million. So we should really have, like, 50% Democrats, 50% Republicans in our state Legislature. What we actually have is more like 60% Republicans and 40% Democrats. So that's out of whack. And we only have about 20 competitive. I mean, and that's generous. 20 competitive state legislative seats out of 170. So that means 150 districts in our state, the state legislature seat is basically determined before anyone cast casts their ballot. That first of all is second. It means that those representatives don't answer to the voters. And so you can have things like elected leaders from western North Carolina counties who do not advocate for FEMA support after a hurricane because they are more concerned with not getting a well funded Republican primary opponent than they are with their voters actually holding them accountable in the general. So it's like it's a shitty system. It's been around since 1812. It's not like it's new, it's just with our computers, we've gotten better at it. Like, they used to gerrymander with crayons in the 1970s and now we have like statistical models. And so they make these districts with surgical precision. And in North Carolina, our state supreme court most recently said that partisan gerrymandering was allowed under our constitution. And so they gerrymandered the shit out.

Danielle Moody (46:40)

Of us, you know, and so here, this is what happens, right? What, what I, what I see as the response to gerrymandering is that people then just begin to give up, right? That they just decide, well, what difference does my vote make? What difference does it make if I, you know, if I volunteer on this campaign, if I get out there, if I try and organize, because at the end of the day, it's not going to matter. And I believe that, you know, the driving force for Republicans is hopelessness. Right. Like in, particularly in state and local spaces, it is the desire to just drive hopelessness to a point where people don't even try. And so that's where can't win comes in. Right. Which is this idea that, you know, we actually need to keep trying. So talk to us about the birth of this idea and why it's something that we really need to take hold of. Because I think that it is a driver of faith, right? The faith that we actually can change a historically broken system.

Kate Compton Barr (47:45)

Yeah, I mean, you basically nailed it. So I ran for State Senate in 2024. I declared my loss on the day that I filed to run for office because I was running for a gerrymandered seat and I lost. But along the way, we tried a whole bunch of different ways to talk to people about gerrymandering and how it affects their daily lives. And what we saw on election day was that my district got a little bit bluer amid a red wave. We saw voters flip from R to D, only a few hundred, but in a state like ours, that matters. And we saw like maintained voter Turnout in a year where turnout was a little bit lower than our 2020 election. So it seemed like having a candidate who showed up radically transparent about what was going on. And like, I did all the candidate things. I knocked on doors, I kissed babies, I spoke places. But what I didn't do was tell people a lie about the fact that I could win and I didn't fundraise. So it was basically just a I am here to make as much noise as I possibly can kind of campaign. And we kind of wondered, all right, well, if that worked in one place. Imagine if you have 20 people running that way or a hundred. We can start to really affect these statewide races, and then they have to start paying attention to us. So even if it's not at a district level, if we are able to generate the kind of impact on a state supreme court race, we have Justice Anita Earl's up in 2026, and she is the next step on our path to Fair Maps. They will have to start listening to us. And turns out gerrymandering is like a nonpartisan issue. Everybody hates it, right? I got more MAGA handshakes for talking about it and saying I'm running on principle than. I mean, like, I kind of wanted to bathe in and hand sanitizer at the end, but. But the deal is nobody likes it. Voters know what it feels like to be ignored. They want someone to show up for them. We need to have, like, cool community leaders showing up in these districts and, like, carrying the message of, like, change. But we don't need them to be lying about the fact that they can win, because that's when we start to look like fools, because all those voters know. I mean, we've been living with this for a long time, so we know the, the reality. So when somebody comes in and says, I'm going to win this thing, it just feels ridiculous. Plus, we really, really, really have to show up to elect Justice Earls. It's a. In North Carolina, we had to elect Justice Riggs to reelect Justice Earls. And then in 2028, we need to elect three Democratic state supreme Court justices, and then we get Fair Maps. So this is all a part of.

Danielle Moody (50:39)

The plan, a larger build out of what. Okay, so, you know, here, here's the thing too, because I, I really, I appreciate the, the honesty and the integrity behind. What it is that can't win is doing what you all are doing, because I think that it's important. 1. You know, I, I really want you to also kind of unpack for us the Reason why you're not fundraising, Right? Because some people would say, well, even if you can't win, right, don't you need money in order to be able to spread your message? So talk to us about the reason behind the non fundraising.

Kate Compton Barr (51:17)

Yeah. And to, to be clear, the Can't Win Victory Fund is fundraising so that we can support these candidates everywhere and they don't have to go to their neighbors and ask for money for a losing campaign. You have credibility when you tell people the truth. And we need to rebuild credibility, especially in the Democratic Party right now. We need to be our authentic selves. When you can't win, you can literally do anything. You can't screw it up. So we can have candidates run and be their authentic selves and we can try new things. We're trying a whole bunch of stuff around messaging in these red districts so that we can learn. But also one of the worst parts parts of running for office is the fundraising piece and having to go mostly to your friends and family and call them and ask them for their hard earned money, especially if it's a race, you know, you cannot win. So our goal is for the Can't Win Victory Fund pack to be able to make donations to our can't win candidates just, you know, up to the maximum. Right? And then those candidates can use the money to print their walk cards and to put out a couple of digital ads and then they don't need to ask their friends and family for money. And that's how you get better candidates to run. Because in 2030, when we have fair maps, we need candidates with name recognition and experience to stand up against those incumbents. And so we got to make it as easy as possible right now for folks to get that practice, frankly and to carry our message and to help Justice Earls get reelected and to rebuild credibility in red districts. I mean, when you only have 20 competitive seats, that means 150 districts feel ignored by both parties. That's a huge opportunity for Democrats.

Danielle Moody (53:08)

You know, let me ask you this too, because again, you know, I think that the problem that Democrats have on, and I mean there's so many. But like, but I was like, but. But one of them is the messaging, right? Is figuring out how to package and sell a message that people are going to grab hold of, right? And I talk about this ad nauseam on this show and others. When you say that you're giving candidates, right, an opportunity to be their authentic selves and try different things, different tactics, talk to us about some of the things because you're also a behavioral scientist. Right. Like you also are are steeped in understanding how people think, why they think, the way that they do, what prompts their action versus them staying home, et cetera, like across the board. So talk to us about some of the tactics that you are trying that like we don't see play out, for instance, on the national level because people are focus group to hell. And they have inside the Beltway consultants that are telling them like, no, no, no, don't be your authentic self, because that doesn't sell be this manufactured version that we think will, you know, will. Will get us across the finish line.

Kate Compton Barr (54:25)

Yeah, I mean, my expertise is in persuasive communication. And the reality is there's no single message that will work for everyone. So what we need is the right message for the right voter at the right time. And that means we need people who are in those communities who understand their communities and how like as authentic members of those communities, they know how to talk to their neighbors better than anyone in D.C. ever will, frankly. And so what we want to do is give them the tools to take what they know about their community and then get it into the world as quickly as possible. So the grassrootsy side of our work is running these losers, we call them camp winners or candidates in as many places as possible. And then we have a tech side or we are training large language models to think like target voting groups, like hyper specific ones. So that if you're in North Carolina Senate District 37 and you know what the kind of target voter profile is for your district in 2026, you could have a message idea, show it to that voter model and it will predict how the message will perform. So you can kind of try a bunch of different things, hopefully inspiring a lot of creativity without spending money. You can check your message. If it's a great one, maybe you put a little money behind it to do digital advertising or you put it on your walk card. If it's not a great one, the tool makes some suggestions for making it better. Or you go back to the drawing board and try some more things. And we keep training those models based on what you're, what you yourself as a candidate are experimenting with. So it's, it's this like blend of, of grassroots door knocking followed up with authentically voiced targeted messaging that is appropriate for that community.

Danielle Moody (56:22)

So if you were thinking to yourself, right, these are the ways in which Democrats on the national level are failing. If I were to sit down in a room with these folks as like we are six months into the Trump regime, and they have yet to figure out a proper pathway forward. We're just like, fucking spinning our wheels here as we're watching every part of our nation and democracy crumble in front of our eyes. What would be some of the advice that you would offer based on what you have seen from the 2024 presidential and how things are unfolding with. What I am looking at is the lack of knowledge. Like, what did you learn? What have we learned? Right, as a party over the last nine years of Donald Trump being around and being in.

Chris Geidner (57:13)

In.

Danielle Moody (57:13)

In power, in. In the Republican Party. What has been learned? Like, what would you offer to them?

Kate Compton Barr (57:20)

Yeah, we. We struggle so much with wanting to give people all the information so they can make up their own minds. We got to stop that shit. Find five words, everybody use them at the same time and just like, make them specific. So one of the examples I'll use is like, Trump ran on no tax on tips. That message applies to maybe 3% of the electorate. Maybe. But what it communicated to people is like, ah, he understands blue collar workers. He understands the financial pressures we're under. Our brains, this is just like a cognitive thing. Are much better at taking this very specific example and kind of extrapolating how it might apply to our lives versus something like the opportunity economy and. Which is a big idea and was actually like an incredible package of proposals that really, really, really would have helped a lot of people, but the idea was too big and people couldn't figure out how it applied to them quickly. So, you know, I would break things down into, like, big money for small business would have been a great opportunity economy thing. Right. So big money for your small business would have been even better. And I think now what we need to be doing is getting real clear. I mean, we have this like, big, ugly, big, beautiful, whatever you want to call it, bill rolling through, and everybody's distracted by the spat between Musk and Trump when we really need to be talking about the fact that billionaires are about to get a tax cut and you yourself are going to pay more. And so get focused, don't get distracted. Stop trying to sound smart and, like, deliver all the information. Do y' all remember those? They sounded like caveman speak kind of signs from the Trump campaign that were like, kamala, high taxes, Trump, low taxes. Did you see those? Yeah. So effective. Because people could understand them as they were driving by. Not grammatically correct in many cases. Like, you know, that's authenticity, right? Apparently.

Danielle Moody (59:28)

Apparently.

Kate Compton Barr (59:29)

I mean, Trump is the master of telling a lie. And making it sound like the truth because he says it in a way that's, like, convincing.

Chris Geidner (59:36)

It's.

Kate Compton Barr (59:36)

Well, it's convincing, and it seems like it's breaking the norms and the rules. And so people are like, oh, he's willing to tell the truth in the face of, you know, whatever sort of backlash he'll get for saying it that way. Like, he's just real direct about it, even when it's a lie. But we need to be real direct about telling the truth.

Danielle Moody (59:55)

Well, Kate, we will leave it there today. This is fantastic. Please tell people how they can learn more about can't win and connect with you all and the work that you're doing.

Kate Compton Barr (60:07)

Absolutely. Thank you for having me. You can find me at cantwinvictoryfund.com @cantwin victory Fund on all the social media platforms except for X, because we don't do that. Or at Kate Bar can't win. And if you are thinking about running for office in a district where you can't win, please let us know. We are actively recruiting our candidates right now.

Danielle Moody (60:30)

All right. Amazing. Thank you so much. Really appreciate you, the work that you're doing and your time today.

Kate Compton Barr (60:35)

Appreciate you, Danielle.

Danielle Moody (60:37)

Thank you. So, Andy, as we are beginning what is, you know, a very fucking unsettling week in these United States, who are you laying out and presenting as your fuck that guy to kick things off?

Andy (60:54)

It's someone I take no pleasure in making my fuck that guy, except for the fact that I have just come to really, really loathe him. And I'm talking about Jonathan Greenblatt, who is the CEO of the Anti Defamation League, which at one point in its existence, actually did some good work and was very good about calling out bigots and anti Semites and racists and people of that ilk. And now, under Jonathan Greenblatt's watch has become just awful. Just absolutely awful. And he spoke at a meeting of Republican attorneys general on Friday, I believe. And he, as the Forward reported, he repeatedly compared pro Palestinian student protesters to Islamist terrorists. He also said that the left is where the quote, unquote, real deal threat is for Jews. None of that is true. He also said, we are an apolitical, nonpartisan organization. No, you're not.

Danielle Moody (62:01)

No, you're not.

Andy (62:02)

No, you're not. I won't say that the fact that you are speaking at a meeting of Republican attorneys general sort of puts the lie to that, because it doesn't necessarily. But when you look at what this man has said and when you look at what he has been saying in the past. It's been a couple years now, and it's been pre. It was pre October 7th. So he doesn't even get that as an excuse. He and unfortunately his organization have become. There's a phrase that Jewish people sometimes. Or a question that Jewish people sometimes ask, and they say, is it good for the Jews? Jonathan Greenblatt and the ADL are no longer. Are not good for the Jews. I'm just going to say it. He repeatedly conflates anti Zionism or anti Israeli sentiment with anti Semitism, which is the worst possible thing in the world for Jews who historically have been called out or accused of. Of having dual loyalties or of being more loyal to Israel than America or whatever country they live in. And for, you know, for decades, Jews have had to say, well, that's just not true. And here he is saying, if you say something bad about Israel, it's antisemitism. No, it's not. Because if it is, there's a hell of a lot of Jewish anti Semites out there right now. And then to top that off by comparing college protesters to Islamist terrorists and then saying there is a through line from Occupy Wall street to BLM to defund the police, to river to the sea. They are the same people. These are the same kind of nihilists. His point being that what he calls anti Semites, but which are anti Israel protesters are on the left. And so was Occupy Wall street, and so was blm, and so was defund the police. And so it's clear that that is where the threat to American Jews comes from, is from the left. All of that is utter bullshit. And also now you're going after blm, and now you're going after Occupy Wall street, which, you know, I just. He is the worst. He has become the worst of the worst. And the ADL is no longer apolitical. It is no longer nonpartisan. It is a tool of the current Republican administration. It is a tool of maga, and fuck that guy.

Danielle Moody (64:36)

Yeah, I just, you know, it is. It is truly unfortunate when organizations that you once really lifted up and wanted to believe were doing work that truly needed to be done because people are defamed, right? Terrible things are said. Stereotypes are repeated and amplified, which can turn into discrimination, discriminatory policies, and in many cases, violence. And for him to now have weaponized the ADL against the very people that he was supposed to be supporting, he should resign. He should be forced to resign. He should be called to resign for the ADL to regain its space Space, in very important space that it should hold in, in our country, which is holding abusers accountable. And now he has become an abuser himself. Fuck that guy.

Andy (65:28)

Yep. All right, Danielle, finish off this day, kick off this week, however you want to put it. Who's your. Fuck that guy.

Danielle Moody (65:35)

Finish off this day. I'm gonna say finish off this day. So here's the thing. Terry Moran is a court correspondent with ABC News and over the weekend he posted on social media a post about Stephen Miller. And I'm going to read it to you and then you can tell me whether or not anything that was written in this post was a lie, was violent, was aggressive, or just frankly. Well, some hard truths to swallow. Terry Moran wrote this. The thing about Stephen Miller is not that he is the brains behind Trumpism. Yes, he is one of the people who conceptualizes the impulses of the Trumpist movement and translates them into policy. But that's not what's interesting about Miller. It's not brains, it's bile. Miller is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred. He's a world class hater. You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishments. He eats his hate. Trump is a world class hater, but his hatred only a means to an end and that end is his own glorification. That's his spiritual nourishment. So here's what ends up happening. Terry Moran posts this and the Trump administration that is known for their absolutely vile statements that they put out about various people, various groups and never rescind when asked to apologize or when presented with a mirror. They never back down, have the audacity to say that ABC should suspend, if not not fire, Terry Moran for his hate filled social media posts. Now I, I, I don't know about you, Andy, but I can pull up at least 10 of Donald Trump's posts from over the weekend that would warrant being, being forced to resign, questioning his, his mental acuity, etc. Etc. So bobblehead over who is the, the, the, the, the press secretary, I like to call her the mouthpiece. Bobblehead. Carolyn Levit calls for his suspension and guess what? ABC does. They agree and they suspend Terry Moran for doing nothing. Then, oh, I don't know, offering his thoughts and opinion about Stephen Miller. None of what she has said is not true. If you listen to anything that Stephen Miller has, has said in any number of interviews, you know that the man is fucking vile. You know that he is full of Hate, you know, that he's a white nationalist. You know that he is anti American, anti democracy. Right. And pro violence. Like you know, all of those things. Why? Because all you have to do is listen to the things that have come out of Stephen Miller's fucking mouth. So the idea that abc, but again, this is a network that paid Donald Trump $20 million, right, because he didn't like something that Stephanopoulos said on abc, which was also the truth, but then said, okay, Donald Trump, just don't take away our FCC license, just don't come after us, right, we'll keep our head down and continue to kiss your ring. And here's $20 million for your future library, which will never be filled with any kind of books. Maybe it'll be filled with fucking napkins or you know, those diagrams that Donald Trump likes to fill in with Sharpies. But the fact of the matter is, is that ABC is exactly the reason why corporate mainstream media is useless and has become just an absolute shell of itself. It used to be that media was considered the fourth estate because it was supposed to hold power accountable and educate the people's, the people of this country. That is not what mainstream corporate media does. Mainstream corporate media does handshake deals so that they can get in the room with the powers that be and then they just continue to wash each other's backs. That's what they do. I am so disgusted with ABC the same way that I am disgusted with cbs. The same way I'm disgusted with Jake Tapper at cnn. All of these mainstream corporate media outlets need to go the way of like the fucking dodo bird. For that reason and so many other reasons, ABC is absolutely my fuck that guy, folks. Turn off the channel, cut cable, get rid of these outlets because they are doing no service to you whatsoever.

Andy (70:19)

Yeah. We alone are bringing you the truth.

Danielle Moody (70:22)

Thank you.

Andy (70:23)

So you know, that's what you need to be watching and listening to. What I can't figure out about this story is what Steven Miller is upset about. He is proudly all the things that Terry Moran said he was. In what world does he have the right to be mad that Terry Moran said this? These are all things you brag about. You brag about your hatred. As Moran said, it's very obvious that hatred is his spiritual nourishment. Look, I think you can say that Terry Moran is a correspondent. He's not an opinion person professionally. So he shouldn't be saying things like that publicly. I don't know that that works in this day and age. It certainly used to be the way things worked or were supposed to work. On the other hand, we never had really, at least not since Nixon. We never had a president talking about reporters the way Donald Trump does and the way his administration does. It feels like the rules don't apply anymore and the rules don't apply anymore because one side, and that would be the Trump people, decided, fuck the rules. So I'm not entirely sure why ABC thinks it needs to play by the rules when the other side reliably breaks them. So even though I sort of get the argument that a national correspondent shouldn't be talking about national figures this way, it just, it feels very, you know, it feels very 2010. And look, also the fact that ABC did exactly what the Trump administration, you know, I guess ordered is too strong a word, but told them it wanted them to do that obviously just makes it really worse. So, yeah, fuck those guys.

Warby Parker Ad (72:12)

Every idea starts with a problem. Warby Parker's was simple. Glasses are too expensive. So they set out to change that. By designing glasses in house and selling directly to customers, they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials like impact resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate. And they start at just $95, including prescription lenses. Get glasses made from the good stuff. Stop by a Warby Parker store near you.

Andy (72:42)

If you work as a manufacturing facilities engineer, installing a new piece of equipment can be as complex as the machinery itself. From prep work to alignment and testing, it's your team's job to put it all together. That's why it's good to have Grainger on your side. With industrial grade products and next day delivery, Grainger helps ensure you have everything you need close at hand through every step of the installation. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.