Bulwark Takes – Episode Summary

Episode Title: NOT GUILTY! Why the “Sandwich Guy” Verdict Matters
Date: November 7, 2025
Hosts/Commentators: JVL, Sarah Longwell, Co-commentator

Episode Overview

This episode of Bulwark Takes dives into the newsworthy acquittal of the so-called "Sandwich Guy"—an individual charged in federal court for throwing a wrapped sandwich at a law enforcement officer in Washington, D.C. The discussion explores the implications of the trial and verdict, examining its symbolic weight, what it suggests about current justice and law enforcement practices, and how it fits within the broader context of political authority and protest in America.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The "Sandwich Guy" Case and Its Absurdity

• JVL opens the segment noting the sheer oddity of federal prosecutors spending days on a case about a sandwich being thrown at a cop:

  • "Do you remember the, the expression when we were kids, somebody would say, oh, you don't have to make a federal case out of it?" (01:01)
  • The case was driven by Judge Jeanine Pirro, who initially pushed for felony charges before settling on a misdemeanor after the grand jury refused to indict.

• Sarah Longwell immediately highlights the disconnect:

  • "It's a great day for sandwiches all across America... you shouldn't throw things at law enforcement officials. That being said, these guys are such big babies..." (01:59)

2. Jury's Decision and the Lack of Harm

• The jury not only acquitted but seemed unmoved by the supposed threat, with debate turning on whether any real harm was done:
  • "The evidence was the sandwich remained contained, still in the paper in its wrapper. It hit him on his tactical vest, which, you know, can take bullets... I do not think they felt like there was the harm done that was worth going after this guy." – Sarah Longwell (02:17)
• The segment notes that the jury asked for clarification about the standard for bodily injury versus bodily harm, indicating even they found the prosecution's argument thin (05:23).

3. The Political and Authoritarian Subtext

• Both hosts point to the deeper context of federal authority, protest, and state overreach:
  • "It's not really about harm, right? It's about authoritarianism. It's about saying to the citizens, how dare you mock us? Your job is to obey us and respect our authority..." – JVL (05:49)
  • The presence of federal officers, ICE, and the National Guard in D.C. is characterized as an occupying force by Sarah (03:23). She describes it as both a political issue and a matter under legal dispute.

4. The Role of the Jury: Hedge Against Authoritarianism

• JVL praises the American jury system as a check against the whims of state power:
  • "The criminal justice system is one of our big hedges against authoritarianism here, because you still do have to get a jury of 12 normal people to look at this and go along with it..." (04:54)
  • This contrasts with the perceived unreliability of political actors to act responsibly.

5. Symbolism and Civil Disobedience

• Sarah discusses why protest symbols like "Sandwich Guy" catch the public imagination:
  • "You can see why people grab onto that as a totem for pushback. But here's the thing... There’s been massive protests against having ice and the National Guard in the streets. Massive 'No Kings' protests. And almost to a person, people are not taking the bait." (06:35)
  • JVL suggests that while a million sandwich-throwers would be problematic, "one sandwich guy as a symbol... that's kind of useful, right?" (07:43)
  • Sarah agrees, emphasizing the importance of balanced, peaceful protest for effective civic opposition (07:53).

6. Broader Problems—Overcharging and Misuse of Law Enforcement

• The commentators broaden the focus, connecting the sandwich incident to a larger pattern of state overreach and trumped-up charges:
  • "Law enforcement filing bogus charges is an enormous problem. It has always been a problem... going after Jim Comey and Letitia James is the same thing as going after Sandwich Guy. That level of corruption from the state is unbelievably dangerous." – JVL (08:35)
• Sarah ties this to harsher, more dire abuses, referencing the George Reedus case of excessive force and wrongful detention (09:41).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• JVL (01:01): “Big news from the District of Columbia. A jury of his peers has acquitted the sandwich man in a trial that took three days and much time of federal prosecutors.”
• Sarah Longwell (01:59): “It's a great day for sandwiches all across America... you shouldn't throw things at law enforcement officials. That being said, these guys are such big babies...”
• JVL (05:49): “It's not really about harm, right? It's about authoritarianism. It's about saying to the citizens, how dare you mock us? Your job is to obey us and respect our authority. And if you don't, we will make up charges and we will go to the court and just make shit up and try to put you in jail.”
• Sarah Longwell (06:35): “The National Guard in the streets is bait. They are trying to bait people into bad behavior. And this is why I don't want people throwing sandwiches.”
• JVL (07:43): “Maybe you don't want a million sandwich guys, but one sandwich guy as a symbol that everybody else can rally around and then use to mock them. That's kind of useful, right?”
• Sarah Longwell (09:41): “...the idea that a jury of this guy's peers said, no, we are not going to take this minor infraction and turn it into a federal case or even a misdemeanor case. You guys are the ones that are overreaching here. Happens in the broader context of a world in which they're doing things like this... because they're trying to project this authoritarian, you know, menace on people.”

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:01—JVL recounts the full “Sandwich Guy” case and why it was federal
• 02:17—Sarah explains how the jury saw through the lack of harm
• 03:23—Discussion on federal officers as an “occupying force” & political implications
• 05:23—Jury’s confusion over “bodily injury” vs. “harm”; low standard for prosecution
• 05:49—JVL links prosecution to authoritarian impulses
• 06:35—Sarah on protest, baiting by authorities, and the optics of resistance
• 07:43—The utility of “Sandwich Guy” as protest symbol
• 08:35—JVL connects this to greater abuse of prosecutorial power
• 09:41—Sarah recounts broader, harsher abuses and the importance of the verdict

Conclusion and Tone

The conversation is irreverent, sardonic, and sharp, matching The Bulwark’s signature style. The hosts use humor to underscore the absurdity of prosecuting trivial acts while emphasizing the case’s importance as a bellwether for resistance to state overreach. The “Sandwich Guy” verdict is treated as symbolic—relieving courtrooms from petty authoritarianism and highlighting the resilience of jury trials as a democratic safeguard.

Final Note (10:40):
"Having sandwich guy get acquitted 48 hours after a blue wave washes over the entire mid Atlantic feels pretty good... it's been a pretty good week so far." – JVL