C (24:29)

Huh?

Alison Gill (24:30)

Sound familiar? I'm not going to submit to a democratic denial so easily, Ms. Le Pen added angrily, displaying little of the serenity that she had spoken of before the verdict. An opinion poll on the presidential election published on Sunday gave Le Pen 34 to 37% of the vote. That's more than 10 points ahead of her nearest rival. President Emmanuel Macron is term limited. He cannot run again. The court also sentenced her to four years in prison, with two of those years suspended and the other two can be served under house arrest. She was fined €100,000, which is like 108,000 bucks. Ms. Le Pen's electoral ineligibility is effective immediately. As a result, she will be able to run in 2027 only if she secures a more lenient ruling on appeal, which will be difficult, but not impossible. The appeals process is slow in France, so must be nice. Must be nice, France to have a functioning judiciary and a system of accountability and court that hasn't been bought and paid for. And a constitution that doesn't have more holes than Swiss cheese big enough to park a cyber truck in. Man, je suis Jalu. I am very jealous. All right, everybody, it's time for some good trouble. What are you guys doing? All right, everybody. In honor of Trans Visibility Day, we have some good trouble from our friends abroad. The Jonestown Estate in Ireland is hosting an anti trans conference on April 5 under the guise of safeguarding children. But here's how you can contact them to let them know that platforming transphobia is unacceptable. We will have a phone number and an email along with a link to the event in the show notes. You can email them at info@the johnstownestate.com j o h n s johnstownestate.com so fuck you guys very much and you're safeguarding children bullshit we know is a complete and total lie. So that's your good trouble. That's your mission should you choose to accept it. Happy Trans Visibility Day. Everybody will be right back with an important article that I just read from Public Notice. David Lurie. Stick around. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back. Hey everybody. I did not realize how bad my sleep habits were until I got my Helix mattress. My old mattress was fine, or so I thought, but it was made for someone else. But I started noticing stiffness in my lower back. I was. I had so much anxiety I couldn't sleep. I would wake up drenched in sweat. My Apple watches relentless reminders that my sleep was below average started to get started to build in my soul. But Helix changed everything. Their sleep quiz matched me with a mattress that actually supports my body and within weeks the difference was undeniable. My watch shows fewer wake ups, more constant deep sleep. This was a big one. My resting heart rate dropped. Turns out when your body isn't fighting an uncomfortable mattress all night, it can actually rest. Now I fall asleep faster, I stay asleep longer, and I wake up without that foggy I need three coffees to function feeling. So if you're on the fence about upgrading your mattress, take it from someone who waited too long. Helix is worth every penny. Your future well rested self will thank you. So go to helixsleep.comdailybeans for 20% off site wide. 20% off site wide. That's helixsleep.com dailybeans for 20% off site wide again. Helixsleep.com dailybeans you'll be glad you did. Hey everybody, welcome back. About two weeks ago, John Roberts issued a statement pushing back on Trump and Musk, calling for the impeachment of judges because they didn't like the decisions they were coming up with, namely Judge Boasberg. But you know, pretty much any of the 26 or 27 or 28 different judges that have ruled against him in the last couple of months. And I posted on Blue sky, oh no, I never thought the leopards would eat my judiciary. And you might have heard me say something like, I can't believe Judge Roberts handed Trump a crown and then got surprised when Trump smacked him in the face with it. Well, David Lurie just yesterday on Monday, wrote a piece for Public Notice, John Roberts created a monster. It's about to eat him. And I just wanted to read you some of this piece. And by the way, you should subscribe to Public Notice. It's awesome. John Roberts and his fellow Republican Supreme Court justices not only paved the way for Donald Trump to retake the White House, but encouraged him to seize dictatorial powers upon his return. Now the Trump Court's right wing ideologues appear poised to greenlight many of his authoritarian actions, thereby enabling him to further destroy the foundations of our democracy. But Roberts and his extremist compatriots on the court face one serious problem. Trump also wants the justices to endorse his campaign against the authority in independence of the judiciary, potentially rendering the court into a shameless stooge. As a result, the cost of the Supreme Court continuing to do Trump's bidding may be to undermine the judicial power and authority that Republicans devoted so much effort to obtain. After voting against convicting Trump for his January 6th coup attempt, Mitch McConnell said there was no need for Congress to act because we have a criminal justice system in this country, we have civil litigation, and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one. Womp, womp. But Trump escaped such accountability with crucial help of John Roberts. While much has been made of the delays in prosecuting Trump under Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, the players that actually ensured Trump would not be held accountable for his assault on the nation's democracy were the right wing jurists on the nation's highest court who effectively crippled Jack Smith's prosecution through a combination of calculated delay and a ruling that undermined the rule of law. First, the court delayed its immunity ruling for months and thereby held the Trump prosecution in abeyance. Trump's initial assertion of immunity on October 2023 was rejected by the trial court in December of that year, but proceedings in the case remained entirely stayed until Trump's immunity claim was heard and decided by higher courts, a process the Supreme Court chose to drag out despite a plea from the prosecutor for an expedited review. As a result of this likely calculated delay, the Supreme Court did not issue its decision on Trump's immunity until July 2024. Second, when the ruling belatedly arrived, it was an early Christmas gift for the Donald authored by Roberts. The decision not only made it practically impossible for Trump to be tried before the election, but it also granted him far broader ambit of immunity than his lawyers had even initially thought. Asking for Roberts declared that a president enjoys absolute or qualified immunity from criminal prosecution for any action taken in his official capacity. That means that Trump could well avoid criminal consequences for using SEAL Team 6 to murder opponents, a hypothetical that an appellate judge had used as a darkly humorous hypothetical to demonstrate the absurdity of Trump's immunity claims. Robert's immunity ruling not only gutted much of Smith's case against Trump, it also sent a clear if Trump wins the election, he can freely engage in even more egregious crimes, secure the assurance that he would never face criminal accountability. As Justice Sotomayor put it in her dissent, the court made the president into a king above the law. As later events would demonstrate, Trump and his cronies got the message loud and clear. And now this next section, which I love, is called I Never Thought the Leopards would Eat My Face because of my post on Blue sky that said, I never thought the leopards would eat my judiciary. All right, so after Robertson Co. Cleared the way, and Trump won. Last November, the new president took up the Supreme Court's invitation by embarking on a brazenly illegal attempt to take autocratic power and void fundamental rights. Despite the fact that Trump enjoys majorities of Republican yes people in both chambers of Congress, he has devoted little effort to passing legislation during his first month in office. Instead, Trump has followed the model of dictators and ruled by decree, issuing barrages of executive orders in which he has asserted the right to run roughshod not only over fundamental rights, but also to violate the separation of powers. With the help of Musk and Doge, Trump is crippling institutions and programs whose existence is legally mandated by Congress, like USAID and the Social Security Administration. Musk's backpack wearing thugs have even used force and the threat of prosecution to seize the buildings of statutorily independent government agencies that the press president has no legal authority to directly control. Trump is also using extortionate threats to force private persons, institutions including universities and law firms and states and localities to bend to his will. Because Republican congressional leaders, which is in quotes, are completely in Trump's thrall and unwilling to challenge him even when he's harming their constituents, it has fallen nearly entirely on the shoulders of the lower federal courts to place brakes on Trump's illegal seizures of power. According to Steve vladek, to date, 39 different judges appointed by presidents of both parties have blocked illegal Trump actions. There's the number 39. That's what I was looking for. Calling their bluff Having entered office armed with Robert's grant of King like immunity, Trump and his cronies have responded to those judges enforcement of the law with expressions of anger and increasingly ominous threats. As soon as judges began issuing rulings limiting Trump's assault on the Constitution, he and his allies began threatening to impeach the judges for ruling against Trump. In response, Roberts released a statement solemnly declaring that quote for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. This was not the first time Roberts responded to Trump's dismissal of judicial authority and legitimacy. In 2019, Roberts rebuked Trump's attack on an Obama judge for enforcing the nation's asylum laws by stating we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges. What we have it is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. Except for Judge Cannon. I added that now Roberts 2025 statement has already proven to be as ineffective as his 2019 statement. Rather than signaling any intention to back down. Trump shot back by declaring, if Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court don't fix this toxic and unprecedented situation immediately, our country is in very serious trouble. It's clear Trump expects Roberts to follow up his defense of judicial independence by kowtowing to Trump and repudiating the lower court judges who have been enforcing the nation's laws. Trump's confidence that Roberts and company will bend to his will is probably merited, even if stakes for the court have never been higher. I'm not so sure about that. I don't think it's clear that Roberts will keep granting him these okays. But here's the Trump dilemma. As Trumpers have racked up losses in the lower courts, they've begun demanding that Robertson Co. Immediately step in to give Trump license to continue forward with his power grab. For example, the court is now considering an emergency Trump challenge to a ruling staying his illegal effort to cancel millions of education grants because they're purportedly infected with dei, meaning civil rights. Trump has also sought immediate Supreme Court review of whether trial judges properly issued nationwide injunctions against his patently illegal effort to erase birthright citizenship from the Constitution. As he just asked the court, Trump just asked the court to allow him to continue to send Venezuelans to a notorious Salvadoran prison without due process, one of the dubious pretexts that they're wartime enemies. Somehow, while it's unclear what the court will do in these cases, Trump has good reason to believe a majority of justices will be sympathetic to his dictatorial cause. Robertson, his fellow right wing jurists, have long signaled their partiality to the so called unitary executive theory. This autocratic theory holds that the president has sole authority over the operation of every executive branch entity, including statutorily independent agencies. MAGA leaders have justified Trump's actions on this theory, contending that any statutory limits on his authority to control each and every non legislative and non judicial component of the federal government is unconstitutional and therefore void. If this theory is taken seriously, and it is by right wing ideologues like those on the Supreme Court, then a majority of the court may end up ruling that Trump is not only free to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Trade Commission, as he's already done, but he could also take over direct control of the Federal Reserve Board and personally set interest rates. Yet there's one obvious problem with the prospect of the Supreme Court allowing Trump to move forward with this authoritarian project. The justices themselves could pay the high price of discarding what is left of their own already impaired legitimacy. In recent decades, the court's right wing justices have assumed even greater power for themselves, including by drastically constraining Democratic presidents and legislators and hobbling landmark legislation such as central provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Indeed, McConnell and GOP donors devoted decades and millions of dollars to stacking all levels of the judiciary precisely in order to stifle Democratic elected officials and advance the Republican agenda. Yet the court's own hard right fought seizure of power from the elected branches of the government could well be out the window if Roberts and his colleagues accede to Trump's current demands and give up any pretense of judicial adherence to the rule of law. After all, how can the right wing justices who control the Supreme Court expect a future president, particularly a Democratic one, to accept rulings limiting the exercise of their power from a court that served as the judicial stooge for an aspiring dictator? That's Public Notice. Thank you so much, David Lurie, for writing that. You can check it out at public notice. I suggest you subscribe. It's on substack. All right, everybody, stick around. We're going to be back with a fascinating conversation with the authors of the book Fight Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House. It's about the 2024 election. It's written by Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnes. And that is right after this break. And that book is out and available today. Stick around, we'll be right back. Hey, everybody, welcome back. I'm excited to speak to a couple of friends of mine, actually, best selling authors, New York Times bestselling authors have shattered. They have a new book out comes out today. It's called Fight Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House. Please welcome Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnes. Hi.

Jonathan Allen (39:18)

Hi. Thanks for having me.

Alison Gill (39:20)

Hey, it's good to see you, Amy. It's good to meet you, John. You and I go. Well, I don't know if way back is descriptive enough, but far enough back to where we know each other. But it's really great to finally meet you, Amy.

Jonathan Allen (39:34)

Thank you. Good to meet you and thanks for having us.

Alison Gill (39:37)

Yeah, absolutely. This book is pretty astounding. There's tons of stuff in here that I didn't know previously that we were all just sort of have been since November 5th especially, kind of guessing about. And so let's jump right into it. We can kind of go chronologically here with the presidential race. A lot of folks had said, you know, I don't know if it's the best thing to, to switch candidates three months before an election. And we kind of get really into the weeds in this, in this new book that you, that you all have written. So let's start with, you know, a question that's been on a lot of people's minds about Biden. You know, we kind of all thought he was just going to serve one term and then, and then step aside, but then he didn't. Can you talk a little bit about that? That.

Jonathan Allen (40:24)

Yeah, I mean, absolutely. I think that a lot of us, I mean, obviously this age situation was something on the minds of all reporters who are covering Biden at the time. We asked, a lot of us, asked the White House about it. There was concern from a lot of people from, from the donor class to lawmakers to even people inside the White House about his age. And would he be able to do, would he be able to continue to be president? You know, I think the White House saw that he had a successful first term, that the economic policies were good, that he performed well at the State of the Union. And I think going into the debate, they needed a moment, if you will, to kind of change the trajectory of the race. He was losing to the former president at the time. And they wanted a way to kind of regain the conversation and to show the pres. What the president could do against the former president. And I think that's where things went awry, obviously.

C (41:33)

And if I could just jump in here so folks, get a context. The span of this book runs from that first debate between Trump and Biden through election night. And if I could just add to what Amy says, I mean, what you get as a reader is you get to watch the debate through the eyes of many of the Democratic leaders, not just the campaign staff that are watching it, but you see it through the eyes of Kamala Harris. We take you inside Nancy Pelosi's condo on debate night, where she's watching by herself. She was nervous. She had told Joe Biden he shouldn't debate Trump in the first place. She clearly had concerns that needed. Dunn, the White House advisor on communications who helped do the debate prep, decided not to fly to Atlanta with the debate team to watch the debate in person. She instead went home to her house in the Washington area to watch by herself Jim Clyburn, Al Sharpton. And you kind of watch it through all these people's eyes and varying levels of shock. And one of the things that we write about in the book is there were varying levels of shock from people who had been close enough to him to think that it wasn't such a good idea for him to debate Trump to, you know, people who are in the outer rings of the Democratic leadership and even beyond that, having even greater levels of, again, shock when they're watching this. And ultimately, you know, I think as Biden struggles on the debate stage, they come away with different opinions. But for some of them, this was this, you know, alarm bell moment, the five alarm fire where they're like, oh, my God, we've got like, I had no idea how bad this candidate was. And for others, it started to provide an opening for something they'd been looking for, which was to shake up the race. They obviously thought and hope, or at least hope, that Biden would be able to do that in a positive way for himself instead of a negative one. But for some of them, this created the opportunity to try to replace the candidate at the top of the ticket who was trailing in a static way to Trump for so long. And that's the other thing I think a lot of voters, particularly Democratic voters, didn't really understand heading into that debate was that they were looking at polling that suggested the race was close. But, you know, people who do this for a living were looking at that same polling and determining that he was trailing Trump by enough in enough of the swing states and did not, had not figured out a way to close the gap, that they really did need some sort of major positive change. And they couldn't quite figure out how Joe Biden was going to accomplish that.

Jonathan Allen (43:59)

And he had been trailing for a while. Right, John, in the swing states, we have polling that we reported in the book where, you know, outside groups were doing polling in the swing states and showed that Biden was losing in, in all of these states. And they kind of knew that and, and swept it under the rug.

Alison Gill (44:18)

That wasn't. We'll get to what happened, you know, with the surprise and shock after election night, because a lot of the folks inside the Harris campaign had seen the polling as more favorable and were surprised by the outcome. How much of the age thing do you think actually might have to do with the media? Because leading up to the debate, we know that this poll was published by one of the firms that did the poll was Fabrizio Lee, who's all over the Mueller report. And then everybody just sort of ran with this, you know, age issue. And then it kind of felt like, I mean, people do bad debates all the time, but it felt like the debate was sort of this a tool, the debate performance was sort of a tool that could be used by people who wanted to push Biden out to, to push him out. Because at, you know, full disclosure, I backed Biden the whole way. And then as soon as Biden dropped out, I was immediately like, it has to be Harris. And then, you know, we have to go from there. I didn't think it was a good idea to push Biden out. But let's talk about leading up to the debate because you had mentioned that Pelosi said and some other folks had advised him not to debate. I didn't want him to debate. And from what I gathered, at least from what you had written about what Pelosi had said is that age or not, I feel like a lot of people didn't want Biden to debate Trump because it would legitimize him as a legitimate candidate and a lot of people didn't see him as such. And that, you know, what happened in the 2020 debate, it was just this, you know, Gish Gallop, but nobody could get a word in edgewise. And, and so that, to me seemed like probably the leading reason. But talk a little bit more about what, you know, about Pelosi not wanting him to debate.

C (46:08)

Yeah, it's a, it's a great question, Allison. And look, I think not only do I think, but I know that the argument that she made to Joe Biden was basically the one that you're making, right, that she, that he should not lower the presidency, he should not elevate Donald Trump, that it could be, you know, just a, a muck of a debate. And whatever he was doing in that, it was not right to put Donald Trump on the same stage with him at the same time. Nancy Pelosi is as hard edged and practical a politician as there is in the world. I mean, I, like, I've never seen anyone like her. She's by far the most capable politician I've ever seen. And if Nancy Pelosi thought that Joe Biden was going to beat Donald Trump, even if it was ugly, even if it lowered the presidency, she would have been advising Joe Biden to debate Donald Trump. But it is certainly the argument she used with him. It was one that I think had some resonance with him, even though he decided to debate Trump in the end. And it had resonance because Donald, Joe Biden looked at Donald Trump and said, this guy's, you know, not worthy of the presidency. So she was playing to, you know, to what he believed and I think what a lot of Democrats believe in, truly what Nancy Pelosi believed.

Alison Gill (47:25)

I mean, I believe that's what I thought. I, that was my I was like, that's what I was telling everybody. Yeah.

C (47:30)

She goes so far as to think to herself. We write about sort of what. What she's thinking is this is going on through the process, and folks who read the book will see we have an author's note at the end and sort of how we do reporting what people are thinking. Sometimes it's something they told us, sometimes it's something that people that they spoke to told us that they had said, or sometimes through documents. But basically, Pelosi's view was, you can't rumble with Trump without coming up with mud. And to the level, her visceral hatred for this guy who she led an impeachment of twice, who made fun of her husband having his head bashed in with a hammer, should not be understated. Her view was not only was Trump bad, but that, like, almost literally, he stunk, and that Joe Biden wouldn't be able to get the stench off of him if they appeared on a debate stage together. And that's just part of the reporting we have in the book about her feelings about. About Donald Trump.

Alison Gill (48:23)

Now, Amy, after the debate, talk a little bit about the. The tense moments and discussions between Pelosi and Biden about staying in the race or dropping out.

Jonathan Allen (48:33)

Well, it's interesting because, you know, she. I don't think she wanted her fingerprints on this. She's obviously not the speaker of the House anymore. She didn't want to step on the toes of Hakeem Jeffries at the time. But obviously people were looking to her. She was getting a lot of calls from people, and people were flagging her, you know, in, in the halls and saying, we need your help on this. He's going to lose. And so I think she felt, after talking to a lot of colleagues and, you know, she was polling people, even the night of the debate, we have a text exchange in the book where she's asking people what they thought. So, you know, she's very calculating, obviously, and she's taking notes and she's hearing from all her colleagues or a lot of them. And so I think she gets to a point where she feels like she needs to act. And so obviously, she's working the phones and talking to people around him. And I think finally she gets to a moment and we all see it play out where she. She goes on TV on Morning Joe and she has this moment. She obviously knows she's going to be asked about it, and. And she feels the need to weigh in. And meanwhile, people at Biden, at the Biden camp are, you know, losing their minds over, over what she has said. They're taking this, this obviously very, very hard. They thought that she had fired shots and that they didn't know what she was doing. And so, and they, they kind of felt like she was being a traitor all along. And so we capture this, we kind of take you inside in the book, inside the campaign, what's happening. We're focusing also on Nancy Pelosi on set on Morning Joe as she's talking about it. But she's, she's obviously walking a very delicate line here. And she's, she wants to, she's clear and she knows what she's saying. And yet she doesn't want to take full credit for it publicly either.

C (50:36)

Her belief on debate night, according to somebody who spoke to her at the time, was that she was worried there was going to be such a bum rush to get rid of Joe Biden that night, that it would ultimately end with Kamala Harris immediately being put into the, into the presidential spot. And she wanted to slow it down a little bit. And so she's got, as Amy saying, she's kind of got pressure on both sides of this, right? She doesn't think, you know, she, she thinks Biden's not doing well, but she wants to make sure that there's not a path back for him. She wants to kind of slow it down just a little bit and try to figure out if maybe they could have a process for an option other than Kamala Harris. She has known Vice President Harris for a long time. They are not close. This is not somebody she wanted to see pushed right into that role or really ever wanted to see pushed into that role. And at the same time, you know, she sees the frailties of Biden. She also believes, I think, to her core that if you're going to try to get somebody to do something, you can't make it obvious. And we were put on this vote, so you can't make it obvious what you're trying to push them to do or they'll resist it. So it's almost this, like this sort of step by step evolution of Nancy Pelosi's role. And I think she would have loved it if some of the other Democratic leaders had stepped up and been willing to leave their fingerprints on the political body, as it were, and none of them did. And so she ends up being the point of that spear. And, you know, it's not. She just keeps prodding Biden. She just keeps moving. You know, he says, I've made A decision or, you know, she goes out her first interview and says we have to determine if it's an episode or a condition. And of course, everybody, you know, at the White House in the campaign freak out about that. What is she talking about? And then, you know, a week later or so, she's saying President Biden has a decision to make. Well, he had already just said that he had made his decision to stay in the race.

Alison Gill (52:35)

Yeah, we were all kind of wondering about that.

C (52:36)

So everybody's watching this and, you know, I'm sure Pelosi will go to her grave swearing up and down that she had less of a role in this than, than she really did. But I, I think she was, to Amy's point, she didn't want to be the one with the fingerprints on the body. And at the same time, you know, came to the conclusion that there was no way that Joe Biden was going to win this race. And among the people in her ear are colleagues in tight races. You know, she didn't want to see the House and Senate lost. They ended up being fast forward spoiler alert. Republicans want control of the House and Senate anyway. But she, you know, once she determined that those were both likely to go if Biden stayed at the top of the ticket, she needed to help push him out. And at the same time, she felt like trying to push him out too obviously would be problematic. I think we all know, we can all see Nancy Pelosi was the person who, who led on that, whether you liked it or not.

Alison Gill (53:28)

Yeah. And whether, and again, she'll take it to her grave whether she was doing it because she wanted to happen or because everyone else that was pushing her wanted it to happen. And she, like, she, like you said, she was trying to slow it down in a sense because she thought there would be a mad rush of all these people who were champing at the bit to get rid of Joe Biden are going to start flooding in and coming forward. And let's take this a step further because in the book you talk about what I was noticing, the two camps of what happens if Joe Biden steps down. The, the, the endorsed Kamala Harris camp and the open primary, you know, ultimate dance off, whatever camp. And it seems like a lot of elite folks, people who work with what's his name, Ari Emanuel, people who like, who work for like, super rich agencies and hedge funds in, in Hollywood, were withholding massive amounts of money from Congress. And I was trying to make all these DOT connections like, and they actually end up doing a lot of work with Peter Thiel and Elon Musk and. And that whole group of people. And I was like, why? Why are they so interested in blowing up a campaign three months before an election? That's really weird. But they were withholding their donations from. From Democratic members of Congress. Big money. We're talking like massive amounts of money. And so it was kind of almost like extortion.

C (54:53)

Yeah. Not just from the. So both from the members of Congress and from the Biden campaign. So both the direct. The Biden campaign and the major super PAC supporting Biden, you know, Future Forward. And then also these members of Congress as little way, you know, other ways to put pressure on Biden, to put pressure on those members of Congress, to put pressure on Biden, to put members of pressure on those members of Congress, to put pressure on Pelosi, to put pressure on Biden. And I think what you have in the sort of leadership of the Democratic Party is the ones who are closest to the donors are kind of most in favor of, you know, the. What is shorthanded in the book and by some of Pelosi's critics, as her view of he goes, she goes, meaning Biden goes. Kamala Harris goes. We. We get somebody new. And though. So Pelosi and Obama were in that camp. And then you see this other camp, which is sort of, I think, you know, what we would call the. The sort of party establishment types who obviously Pelosi is that sometimes Obama has never been a super big Democratic Party person. But you see the Clintons, you know, stay behind Joe Biden and then move to Kamala Harris. You see the, basically the leaders of the Democratic National Committee doing the same thing. Of course, the president is the head of that arm, so it's not terribly surprising that they go along there. But you kind of see this stack up of the sort of traditionalists who believe in the platform party structure and its rules, going Biden and then moving to Harris immediately. And then this Obama, Pelosi kind of faction, I mean, they're talking to each other and we report on that a little bit in the book. But they are also trying to not be seen conspiring together. And they are very much in that, like, get rid of Biden, get rid of Pelosi, have some kind of mini primary, some sort of, you know, out of not even the West Wing writers could come up with that. This, you know, sort of mini primary that would have worked. And at the same time, these very seasoned politicians love that idea, which is at the same time to your point being Pushed by some of the big donors.

Alison Gill (56:53)

We got a couple minutes left here. I want to talk a little bit about some of the more newsworthy parts of this book, which by the way is fascinating read. I recommend everybody check it out to get these perspectives. Some I agree with some I disagree with, some it answers a lot of questions about why I was feeling the way I was thinking about certain things. For example, like the battle. We were just talking about whether we were going to have an open primary or whether we were going to endorse Harris. I was, I was endorse Harris team endorse Harris. But talk a little bit about kind of the aftermath election night. I know that you kind of take the readers inside, like you said, these people's homes where they're watching the debate alone. But also on election night there was a lot of really fascinating, newsworthy stuff here.

Jonathan Allen (57:39)

Yeah, I mean, we take you into the various camps. What's happening. Kamala Harris had different locations and locales where her people were across Washington. So we take you inside the room, the boiler room, with her top campaign aides and what they're seeing as the results are coming in. And we take you inside the vice president's residence where her closest aides are gathered in a separate room downstairs. She's downstairs, but then goes upstairs for much of the evening and her aides are trying to gather information and tell her what to do. They find out that she's about to lose, long story short. And they call her upstairs and let her know and she's still not ready to concede. She gets guidance from her brother in law not to conceal seed. And she is actually, she's asking all kinds of questions like are we sure have, do we have a final count on, you know, on this? Have we checked everything? So we, we kind of take you into what she's thinking and also how they break it to her that she's losing. And, and that's a really interesting thing as well. And, and we also, you know, I, I think the big thing is that she was surprised and, and Tim Walls was also surprised that they had lost. And we talk about that. We take you inside his hotel room where he's so stunned, he's speechless and she kind of feels the same way. And they're told to go to bed and they'll figure things out in the morning.

Alison Gill (59:21)

Yeah, that was a huge kind of almost relief point. It was like a big you're not alone, aha moment because we were all shocked and to, to read that Harris was thinking what the just happened and that Walls was speechless. It's like, okay, okay. Just so. Like the rest of us. Because afterwards, you know, when she came out and gave her speech, everything seemed great and fine, and we talked, the concession happened and all that, and we were like, why aren't they dumbfounded? They were, is what you're saying. They were.

C (59:50)

Absolutely were. And you live it through them, as, you know, as they've been saying. As you were saying, Alice. I mean, you read this book and you get the. You. You get that feel of the. The crestfallen moment, you know, where they really, both of them, Harrison Walls, really believed that they were on pace to win. And you get some of that is the sense of the bubble of a candidate on the campaign trail at the end, where you're going to big rallies and you're getting, you know, Jon Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen revving up crowds like you've never seen before. But part of it is the campaign aides were telling them they were going to win. And there's been this revisionist history on podcasts and in other venues from the top brass of what was the Biden campaign and became the Harris campaign, about how they never had any chance of winning. And that's just bullshit. She was even in their own polling, and in fact, they had her winning 270 electoral votes as late as October 10, according to polling that Amy and I report for the first time. And so the idea that there was no chance that Kamala Harris could have won.

Alison Gill (60:53)

No. I mean, I was. I was, like, tweeting at the time. I'm no longer on Twitter, but at the time I was tweeting, I was like, has anyone noticed that Harris has stopped saying we're the underdogs in this race and has pivoted to a much more. We're gonna win when we fight. We went, you know, has pivoted to a much more. It's like confidence. Like just this higher level of confidence. And that seems to mirror the timelines of what she. What the campaign was being told in real time in the book, that. In this book. It's fascinating to read it and to. To relive what my brain was going through at the time and to see it all play out in a book in black and white in print.

C (61:30)

I think it's. And, Allison, you could probably speak this better than we can, but I think, you know, for a lot of Democratic voters are going to read this, and they're going to be first infuriated, and then they're going to feel some level of catharsis. Because to your point, they're not going to feel alone anymore. They're not going to feel like, was I the only person that saw this.

Alison Gill (61:47)

Happen or felt that this was happening?

C (61:49)

Yeah, yeah, that watched. That watched, you know, that was basically told something that didn't end up being true. And I think a lot of people are angry about that and they, they should be angry about that and they should be angry about how they watched all this play out. And at the same time, again, I, you know, I mean, I think it's always nice to know you're not alone.

Alison Gill (62:06)

Right.

C (62:07)

And so I think for a lot of voters and a lot of readers, that, that will be cathartic about this election. The one other thing I want to jump back to just in time if I can, real quick, because I think people are going to find this fascinating. We're the first people to report on the, in depth on the conversation between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris when he hands off, you know, basically ends up endorsing her. And she, and we go sort of minute by minute, there her team was, her family and her team were in her pool house at vice president's residence on the day Biden dropped out, having a secret meeting about what would they do if Biden dropped out in the next few days and they convinced themselves it wasn't going to happen. And while they're having that meeting, Harris is not in the meeting. She knows it's there. She's up in the house and she gets a call from Biden and Biden's like, I'm going to drop out. And we go into that conversation in depth. And I'll leave it at this because I want to leave a little something for the readers there, but let's just say they didn't see exactly eye to eye on what Biden should say and how he should say it. When he got out in the best way to help Harrison, there was a real back and forth between his team and her team and between the two of them on the phone.

Alison Gill (63:13)

Yeah, definitely leave that for the readers as a pretty crucial part of the story. And also just really interesting because you also, in the book, you go into detail about how Harris was already prepared. She, she had already thought of this eventuality and she's, that doesn't surprise me at all. She's a very prepared person. I remember during her debate where she, during the, during the, you know, 30 or 60 second commercial break, Trump's like moving his arms around and just sort of looking at the lights and Harris is over there taking notes. Taking notes, Taking notes for the first two minutes and the last minute she's reading her notes and then she's like, all right, let's go. Like, she's a prepared person and this really comes out in this book. So I appreciate you guys coming on today. Everybody, you can get the book now. Like I said, my, my latest favorite thing to do is buy like 10 copies and go put my favorite books into little libraries around town. But you can definitely get this wherever books are sold. It's called Fight Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House. You give me a text when it hits bestseller status, which I thank you, Alison.

C (64:22)

We will definitely do that.

Alison Gill (64:24)

Any, any last things that you want to tell potential readers before we let you go?

Jonathan Allen (64:30)

I think we're, you know, we're, we're seeing this moment play out right now. Fight is a theme that people really feel viscerally right now you want to fight against. I think both sides want to fight. But I think in this message, as in our other books on the election, you really take away what candidates can do in the future, what they have done. And it's sort of a playbook for the next election and for the future. We're not just talking about the past.

Alison Gill (65:00)

Right. Excellent. All right, thank you so much. It was great to see you, John. Great to meet you, Amy. Everybody again, grab it. It's called Fight Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House. On sale today by the authors, New York Times best selling authors of Shattered, my good friends Jonathan Allen and now my good friend Amy Parnes. I appreciate your time today.

C (65:24)

Thanks, Allison.

Alison Gill (65:26)

Everybody, stick around. We'll be right back with the good news. Everybody, welcome back. It's time for the good news. Who likes good news? Everyone. Then good news, everyone. Oh man, we do need some good news today. So if you have any good news, please send it to us. Confessions corrections. If you have a pronunciation correction. If you have a shout out you want to give to a loved one or yourself or a small business in your area. Maybe some great activism, community organizing that's happening in your area, we want to hear about it. Also, shout outs to great government programs that have helped you or a loved one. Whether it's Affordable Care Act, Social Security, Section 8, SNAP, WIC, Head Start, great VA health care you may have received or a family member received. We love to hear about that. And of course, student debt forgiveness. And we will read your submission on the air as long as you pay your POD pet tax, which means just attach a photo of your pet. If you're a patron, you can see those photos on the Patreon posts. You can become a patron@patreon.com Muller she wrote, if you don't have a pet, you can attach an adoptable pet in your area. We'll see if we can find them a home. Any animal photo will do if you don't have either of those. And then of course we love of baby pictures. We're also accepting bird watching photos, which could be an actual bird or you and your family and friends flipping off Trump and Musk properties. All right, first up from Lauren, no pronouns. I'm a daily listener of the beans and a weekly listener of Jack Unjustified and even going back to the Mueller she wrote days. I live in Europe where I serve as a principal at an American International school. My ability to actively engage is largely through donations. Five calls and letters to elected officials. I share this with you because you might know organizers that might like this idea. You might remember the not quite successful Hands across America in 1986. Yes, hands across America. I do remember that. Though you were probably in elementary school. We didn't have any drones or social media. But with those I can imagine it being an incredible protest day with something amazing like drone footage and more likelihood of success. With the ability to share locations and where people are needed via social media and the Internet. Getting it to go through as many states as possible would make it even better and easier for more people to participate. Here's the idea. Hands across America 2025 do you believe in free speech? A woman's right to choose, that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are good government programs? Do you believe in due process, rule of law, taxing the rich at least at the same rate as the middle class or preserving democracy? Even if you only believe in one of these things, let's join Hands Across America to show our solidarity. Research shows that it only takes 3.5% of us to force change through protest. We don't have to agree on everything to fight against the insanity together. That's a great idea, Lauren. I'll start pitching that around to some folks. Here's a bird watching photo from New York City in 2021. I have a very similar one. Very beautifully done. Thank you so much Lauren for that submission. Next up, Shannon. No pronouns. I was at the 76ers basketball game for my daughter. She's an amazing musician and was playing with her school jazz band inside the main entrance as people walked in. That's cool. They were great. Very proud of Council Rock south and my daughter. I noticed a table behind me with flags and rainbow stickers and found out it was Pride Night at the game. This table specifically was a few moms who quote, seek to create a caring, just and affirming world for LGBTQ people and those who love them Them. It's for the Chester and Westchester community in Pennsylvania, but thought this would be a good way to get the word out and encourage others to look in their areas for the same. If needed. We will have a PFLAG link in the show notes for you to check it out. And thank you so much for that, Shannon. That's a good little bit of good trouble. Next up from Craig Pronouns he and him Listen to your glorious self today and I'm grateful as always for your support in this nightmare. You glancingly mentioned Kingsley Wilson, the DOD deputy press lackey. Did you know she's worth recognizing as a legendary racist? Like, how can you stuff that much hatred in a young person? Her reputation is key to understanding pretty much anything she says. But in the good news, I was surprisingly satisfying. It was surprisingly satisfying to be out with my people, whom I'd never met in a Tesla takedown event this weekend. Right on. I'm sure you can guess the breeds of our two Scotties that we live with. Okay, yeah, they're Scotties and they're adorable. Craig, I'm glad you got out to a Tesla takedown rally. Those looked like a lot of fun. Next up, Retaviva. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. Pronoun she and her I listen to and read a variety of sources, but I only pay for two daily News and political feeds, and I generally consider them ideologically different. So imagine my surprise when they crossed paths today. You reading JVL's Bulwark post about being dissidents on the Daily Beans? I'm calling that good news because I think it signifies that all of us, left, right, center, have ways to come together in solidarity and fight this shit the Trump administration is throwing at us for Podpet Tax. Here's a real life bird beauty that I'm so fortunate to see on a regular basis. Great horned owls are not as rare as you think, but that's another nugget we can live by. Look for something good and you just might find it. Thanks for all you do. We have a great horned owl that lives very close to my I can hear him every night. He's very cool. This is a beautiful photo. I haven't gotten a photo of ours yet. I'm gonna try. Thank you so much for that submission. Yeah, that Bulwark post about dissidents, it was pretty. Pretty spot on, I thought. I think that's the one I read yesterday. All right, next up from Rachel Pronoun. She and her. Hi there, Ag. I'm contacting you with good news. I've contacted before. Teacher in a Title 1 school in Georgia with the Trump voting husband. Ah, yes. Hi, Rachel. He's not maga, but he's been blinded by his own prejudices. My good news, the dam is breaking. A month ago, he was telling me to touch grass. Last week he told me he doesn't agree with all of my points of view but respects my passion. Then yesterday he tells me he's going to blow my mind. He agrees that tariffs on Canada and Mexico are not a good thing and they're causing instability. He's come to this conclusion as he got laid off about two months ago, not the federal mass. And has a cr. Has had a crap time finding work. He won't go over the bridge with me yet that this is all deliberate, but I think he's getting there. I'm heartened and I see this as positive progress. He has an interview today, so wish him luck. Good luck, hubs. I'm gonna include another star pick. My brat Corgi. I love her even when she drives the rest of the house crazy. She's adorable. Look at that beautiful picture. Oh, there's snow. I like to visit the snow, Rachel, but not living it, but this little beauty. Oh, I want to pet the puppy, you guys. Thank you so much for the good news. I needed it today. I'll be back in your ears tomorrow. There's also an episode of cleanup on L45 out tomorrow. And go Crawford, Wisconsin. Get out there and vote if you haven't already. I imagine anybody who lives in Wisconsin that listens to this show probably voted early. But. But I know a lot of people who are really into it and like to go to the polls on the day of. So fingers crossed. This is a big one. We'll see you tomorrow. Until then, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health, take care of your family. I've been ag and them's the Beans. The Daily Beans is written and executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and reporting by Dana Goldberg. Sound design and editing is by Desiree McFarlane with art and web design by Joelle Reader with Moxie Design Studio. Music for the Daily Beans is written and performed by they Might Be Giants and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator owned podcasts dedicated to news, politics and justice. For more information please visit mswmedia.com msw media.