Ag (2:02)

Blew by Steve Bannon's war room. We're just two spots beneath Matt Walsh now. So if, you know, if you haven't subscribed, you're not following, it's free to do that. Make it happen, and we'll just knock these jerks off the charts. So thank you. Thank you, everybody who followed the podcast.

Dana Goldberg (2:18)

Love it.

Ag (2:19)

And if you're listening, if you're also listening for the first time, because, you know, a little bit of chart manipulation is fun if you're actually listening to the show.

Dana Goldberg (2:25)

Welcome.

Ag (2:25)

Welcome to the show. Also, later in the show, I'm going to be joined by my friend, a former federal prosecutor, former deputy assistant attorney general, host of the Talking Feds Pod, Harry Litman. I'm going to talk to him about how he quit the LA Times. Right. He was a columnist there. And he's like, I'm out. So we're going to talk about that and why he did it. And yes, a federal judge has dismissed Mike Flynn's lawsuit against the government in which he claimed the Russia investigation was a witch hunt. The judge was like, there's no claim here. It's dismissed. Andy and I are going to talk about this on the next Jack podcast. And Alvin Bragg in Manhattan has filed a brief, his, his brief arguing against dismissing the 34 felony count conviction of Donald Trump. And Harry Dunn and I are going to cover that in detail on the next cleanup on aisle 45 pod next week.

Dana Goldberg (3:11)

All right. And by the way, according to Punchbowl News, like we said, Mitch McConnell fell after GOP lunch and he is being treated. He apparently sprained his wrist, got a cut on his face. So we're gonna have more on that as it unfolds.

Ag (3:25)

Yeah, I think he's leaving. Stepping down. He's supposed to step down in November, but maybe it's January now. Just like, retire, my friend. Just, bro. I shouldn't say my friend. Bro. Retire.

Dana Goldberg (3:35)

Yeah, I was gonna say. And I think stepping down, he's taking a little too literally. So maybe just be careful as you're stepping down, Mitch McConnell.

Ag (3:42)

Don't fall down. Just.

Dana Goldberg (3:43)

There you go. Just step down position.

Ag (3:45)

All right, we have a lot of news to get to. Let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes. All right, first up, from Hannah Rabinowitz at CNN. The Justice Department secretly obtained phone records for two members of Congress and 43 staffers, including Kash Patel, President elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the FBI during a sweeping leak investigation in Trump's first term. And that's according to an inspector general report that was released on Tuesday. And if you're releasing inspector general reports for shit that happened in 2018, in 2024, you need more inspectors general or the faster one or something because this is some shit we could have, like, used.

Dana Goldberg (4:24)

Yeah, it was important ago.

Ag (4:26)

The new report from the Justice Department's inspector general raises concerns about how the department tried to root out reporters sources from a sprawling and bipartisan list of federal employees who had access to classified information because of their job cash. Patel and the two other members of Congress are not named in the report, but sources familiar say that Patel was targeted along with Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell. Patel was a staffer for the GOP led House Intelligence Committee at the time. And Schiff has since been elected to the Senate and took office Monday. Now prosecutors also sought records, including emails from journalists at cnn, Washington Post and the New York Times. The report found the DOJ investigators issued a broad sweep based on who may have had access to the sensitive information that was leaked, seeking records based only on, quote, the close proximity in time between access to classified information and subsequent publication of the information related risks chilling Congress's ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch. That's what the inspector general wrote. That's because such a move, quote, exposes congressional officials to having their records reviewed by the department solely for conducting congressional constitutionally authorized oversight duties and creating, at a minimum, the appearance of inappropriate interference by the executive branch in legitimate oversight activity by the legislative branch. That's what the inspector general added. Inspector general did not recommend charges against anyone in his review and didn't find any indication that the career prosecutors assigned to the leak investigation were motivated by politics. Okay, sure. Patel, meeting with senators on Tuesday regarding his upcoming FBI director nomination, did not comment on the report. Among the issues that the inspector general pointed out is that there are no guardrails for prosecutors who want to subpoena communications records for members of Congress or their staff, and that while some protections for journalists do exist, they were not followed. And so I think it's funny that Kash Patel, who wants to dismantle the deep state in the FBI, was part of a Trump deep state into his shit. What a fucking dick. For example, the prosecutors did not have to inform the Justice Department leadership that the records they sought were those of members of Congress. And Bill Barr, who was the Attorney General during the latter part of this investigation, had said he was not aware of any of the congressman's records being sought in a leak case. Barr declined to be interviewed for the inspector general investigation, so he didn't have to say anything under oath. The report also notes the Justice Department obtained non disclosure orders in 40 of the congressional cases, meaning that the DOJ didn't have to tell these people that they sought and got their records from third parties. While journalists do have more protections outlined in the Justice Department rules now, the report details breaches of that protocol and the department's efforts to secretly obtain communications of eight journalists within CNN. The Trump administration secretly sought and obtained the 2017 phone and email records of Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr. The Biden Justice Department later informed Starr that prosecutors had obtained her records covering two months between June and July of 2017. It remains unclear what the Trump administration was looking for in Starr's records The New York Times said it believed the investigation that sought four of its reporters communications was likely centered around a 2017 article about how then FBI Director Jim Comey, a foe of Donald Trump's, oversaw investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign. The Washington Post, reporting on the DOJ pursuit of three of its reporters records, linked the news to three stories it published in 2017 about the Obama administration's response to Russia interference in the 2016 election and about Trump world contacts with Sergei Kislyak, Russia's then ambassador to the U.S. the news outlet said at the time that what it Learned of the DOJ's investigation, quote, makes clear that investigators believed people working in Congress were the sources of the information. In between his posts on Truth Social announcing nominees for his incoming administration, Trump urged Republicans Wednesday to nix a bipartisan bill that would give journalists greater protections under the federal law. Trump wrote on his favorite social network, republicans must kill this bill. Yeah, that's pretty clear. Yeah, this is known as the Press act, by the way, that protect reporters from exploitative state spying. It would prevent the government from forcing journalists to reveal their sources and limit the seizure of their data without their knowledge. So that's something that bipartisan bill that's in the Congress right now, but if it doesn't get passed by January 3rd, I'm afraid it'll go nowhere.

Dana Goldberg (8:57)

I agree with you. Okay, this one's from the Mattow blog. In July, just a few days after President Joe Biden ending his reelection bid, as Democrats rallied behind Vice President Kamala Harris's 2024 candidacy, Donald Trump turned his attention to something unexpected. In a rant published to his social media platform, the Republican condemned a gag order imposed on him months earlier in his criminal case in New York, slamming the order as unconstitutional. The then candidate went on to claim that the order was interfering with his candidacy. He didn't say how or why, of course, and suggested the gag order was part of an electoral conspiracy. Quote, can this really be allowed to stand? Trump concluded the answer evidently is yes. This is what the Washington Post reported. The Supreme Court on Monday declined to lift the gag order placed on President Elect Donald Trump that bars him from talking about people involved in his New York criminal trial that resulted in his conviction for trying to influence the 20202016 election. The justices did not offer a rationale for why they were keeping in place the order by New York Supreme Court Justice Wom Sean, who presided over the trial in which Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of making hush money payments to an adult film actress to keep her quiet about their sexual relationship. In case anyone needs a refresher, it was in April when Judge Merchan first imposed a gag order on the then GOP candidate in his hush money, falsifying business records case. Trump responded soon after by going after the judge's daughter publicly, by the way, and repeatedly, which led to the revised gag order. The Republican was told he could still talk publicly about much of the case, and at the time, he spoke of it, little else, by the way. A lot of what we were hearing was that. But among other things, the criminal defendant was told to refrain from making public statements related to jurors and witnesses. When Trump played fast and loose with the boundaries, he was held in contempt and faced financial penalties in the form of $10,000 in fines. While a jury ultimately found the defendant guilty on 34 counts, the defendant and his attorneys have continued to challenge the legality of the gag order, though each of those efforts have failed. As for Trump's underlying claim that gag orders are unconstitutional, no court has ever reached such a conclusion, by the way. None. When accused criminals are out on bond, they have to meet a variety of conditions, and that's including refraining from making public comments that might interfere with the judicial proceedings. It's pretty standard stuff. President Elect would have Americans believe that he is some kind of victim. Those claims have never made any sense, and they apparently didn't generate much sympathy from the U.S. supreme Court. And my only thought on this is that the US Supreme Court knows that their little puppet and will say something quite illegal. And already there's, you know, enough doubt in the Supreme Court that we have. So they're probably like, just keep him. Shut the fuck up. Like, just make him shut the fuck up.

Ag (11:56)

Yeah, either that or, you know, they need four votes to hear the case. And maybe, you know, maybe Alito and Thomas are sick. I don't know.

Dana Goldberg (12:05)

I mean, I guess that's possible. They're on a yacht somewhere with Harlan Crowe, right?

Ag (12:09)

Yeah, they're on a. They're sick. They're on a yacht, and.

Dana Goldberg (12:12)

Okay.

Ag (12:13)

Yeah. All right, next up from Adam Reese at NBC New York, Attorney General Letitia James has rejected Donald Trump's request to walk away from her office's $486 million civil fraud judgment against the President Elect. Quote, this office will not stipulate to vacate the final judgment against Trump and his company or otherwise seek to dismiss the action. That's what a lawyer for James's office said in a letter to Trump attorney John Sauer. Sauer had asked James's office to voluntarily dismiss the case last month, saying it could interfere with Trump's duties as president and that she should drop it in order to promote unity.

Dana Goldberg (12:48)

Go yourself. That's what I have to say about that. Sorry everyone.

Ag (12:53)

In a letter to SOUR made public Tuesday, the Deputy State Solicitor General, Judith Veil, declined the invitation. No thank you, noting that both sides have already fully filed their arguments in Trump's appeal of the judgment to the Appellate Division First Department, which is a mid level appeals court. Quote, there's no merit to your claim that the pendency of the defendant's own appeal will impede Trump's official duties as president. That's what Veil said. The trial is over, final judgment has been rendered and the defendant's appeal to the first department has been fully submitted and briefed and argued Mr. Trump's official duties will not be impeded while awaiting the First Department's decision, she said. Vail also pushed back on Sauer's claim that the Attorney General should follow the lead of the federal and state prosecutors in Trump's criminal cases. Special Counsel Jack Smith, as we know, dropped his two cases against Trump following his win, while the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has agreed to indefinitely postpone but not drop Trump's sentencing on state felony charges. Quote, this civil enforcement action is not criminal action and the State Supreme Court did not impose any criminal sanction on Mr. Trump or any other defendant. Accordingly, the various actions taken by the Special Counsel's Office or the District Attorney's Office office from New York county in the respective criminal cases brought by those offices against Trump are irrelevant here. That's what the letter said. Judge Arthur Angoron handed down the $350 million judgment against Trump, his company and several top executives in February after a months long civil trial, including testimony from Trump and his oldest children. That amount has since swelled to over 497 million, including prejudgment interest, with Trump on the hook for the lion's share, 486 million. The judge found that the Attorney General had proven that Trump and his executives had repeatedly engaged in fraud over like decades, including by grossly exaggerating the company's assets to secure loans at better rates than they'd otherwise be entitled to. Trump had denied any wrongdoing, which he maintained was the case was politically motivated because James is a Democrat. In his letter, Sauer, who Trump has nominated to be the US Solicitor General, claimed the findings were legally flawed as well. They were not. Vail denied that claim, saying the overwhelming evidence supports The Supreme Court's conclusion that Mr. Trump and the other defendants engaged in repeated and persistent fraud and illegality. That's what she put in the letter.

Dana Goldberg (15:09)

I love that they're not dropping the state's cases, to be honest with you. You know, we'd all like to hope that our democracy will live on past this next four years. And I say four because he, assuming that things stay the way they are, will not be president after four years. Now, Vance may, whatever, and there's the statute of limitations on these. I don't know what they are, but these are states cases. And under our laws right now, he cannot be pardoned in states cases. So I sort of love that. Tish James is just like, absolutely not. I don't know if this guy's, you know what's going to happen.

Ag (15:40)

No, this is a civil case.

Dana Goldberg (15:41)

Exactly.

Ag (15:42)

There's nothing the Supreme Court has upheld multiple times. Now. That doesn't mean they won't go back on their promise.

Dana Goldberg (15:46)

Sure.

Ag (15:47)

That a civil case can go forward for a sitting president, just not a criminal one.

Dana Goldberg (15:51)

So I'm glad. I'm glad she's making the stance. All right. We've got a little good news from the Biden administration. This is from CBS news. More than 4 million Americans gouged by credit repair companies, including Lexington law and credit repair.com, they're soon collectively going to receive 1.8 billion in refund checks. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that on Thursday. The payments make up the biggest distribution yet from the CFPB's Victims Relief Fund, financed by civil penalties paid by companies that violate consumer protection laws. Checks are going to be mailed out coming weeks to 4.3 million consumers who are charged illegal advance fees or subjected to illegally deceptive bait and switch advertising by Lexington Law, CreditReport.com and their parent companies. And that's according to the federal agency. The CFPB in August of 2023 obtained a legal judgment against the credit repair businesses with the district court ruling the companies had violated a law that prohib such companies from collecting fees until at least six months after their promised results. The companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the court ruling shutting about 80% of their business operations. That's including telemarketing call centers. Quote, lexington law and credit report.com exploited vulnerable consumers who are just trying to rebuild their credit, charging them illegal junk fees for results they hadn't delivered. CFPB director Rohit Chopra stated that in a news release. Quote, these historic distributions of $1.8 billion demonstrates the CFPB's commitment to making consumers whole, even when the companies that harm them shut down or declare bankruptcy. Which I agree. Since its launch in 2011, the CFPB has distributed more than 3.3 billion to consumers harmed by a range of illegal practices such as student loan and mortgage relief scams and predatory lending. The victim's relief funds allows the CFPB to provide financial relief in cases where direct compensation from the violating company isn't possible. The brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren, our dear Democrat from Massachusetts, the CFPB was established after the 2008 financial crisis. Funded by the Federal Reserve, the agency has weathered several legal challenges from opponents. The Supreme Court in May upheld its funding structure, which had been challenged by the pay lending industry.

Ag (18:13)

Oh, just a bunch of real good upstanding people in the payday lending industry.

Dana Goldberg (18:17)

Oh yeah, they're in it for the little guy. You know what I mean, right? Absolutely.

Ag (18:21)

600% interest me.

Dana Goldberg (18:24)

Whatevs now. Still, the agency's efforts, they could prove short lived amid calls from, of course, who Republicans to weaken the agency or get rid of it entirely. On Wednesday, Elon Musk among those designated by President Elect Donald Trump to front and effort to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash regulations and cut government spending. Well, they called for deleting the CFPB entirely, arguing in a post on social media that there are, quote, too many duplicative regulatory agencies. Well, payments will be sent between December and January to eligible consumers harmed by the companies and those eligible do not need to take any action to receive a check. It's just going to show up for you. Those who think they are eligible but have not received a payment by mid January, they can then contact JND Legal Administration and that link might as well just in case anyone here listening is going to be affected by this is CFPB lexlaw.org okay.

Ag (19:24)

Yep.

Dana Goldberg (19:24)

The CFPB says the payments are based on a pro rata share of fees paid by consumers to Credit Repair.com and Lexington Law, but that the payments might not cover all the fees that were incurred. So if payments were divided evenly, each person would receive about $419 quote. If funds remain after the distribution is complete, additional checks may be sent to consumers who cash their initial check. You don't need to take any additional action again from the agency. So who knows, who knows who are going to get these checks. But I tell you what, another $419 in the bank is going to help some people.

Ag (19:57)

Yep. Thank you Senator Elizabeth Warren. And keep your dirty Republican mitts off my Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Dana Goldberg (20:05)

Damn right.

Ag (20:06)

All right, everybody, we're going to be right back with the good news. But first, I have a great interview with Harry Lippman, former federal prosecutor, host of the Talking Feds Pod. We're going to talk about why he quit the LA Times. So stick around. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody, welcome back. I'm happy to be joined today by my friend, my local friend, as a matter of fact, former federal prosecutor, former deputy assistant attorney general, host of the Talking Feds podcast, and former columnist for the LA Times. Please welcome Harry Littman. Hi, Harry.

Dana Goldberg (20:43)

Hey.

Harry Litman (20:44)

It really has been too long. You are my neighbor and like, I think the first person who just kind of, kind of really came out here with all kinds of important information that, that everyone's been following you for. So I'm a longtime fan and a friend. So very good to be here.

Dana Goldberg (21:02)

Yeah.

Ag (21:02)

I was like, man, you got to start a podcast. And now it's totally everywhere. It's completely taken off.

Harry Litman (21:07)

You started with that great work. Mueller, she wrote, though, that was just genius from the beginning.

Ag (21:12)

It was a good name. It was a good name. I don't know what happened to the investigation. No, I do, but we talk about that on another day.

Harry Litman (21:19)

Investigation, right?

Ag (21:20)

Yeah. Well, you know, because we talk about this, like, for a long time I was so mad that Merrick Garland didn't bring those obstruction of justice charges from the Mueller investigation. And then we found out that Bill Barr gave him a get out of jail free card, wrote it all off, said the, the DOJ refuses to press charges for obstruction of justice. And that's why it could never, the case could never be brought. The attorney General has so much power that way. Trump doesn't need to pardon himself when he gets into office. He could just have Pam Bondi and the new paid act whip him up a note that says he can't be prosecuted for any of the.

Harry Litman (21:51)

Oh, yeah, 100. It's a little phone. It's a phone call. Because the pardoning himself, I don't, I think it's dubious even with this Supreme Court, but doesn't matter. And this is why, by the way, the much longer conversation I see on swimming upstream with you, but get out your calendar and pretend Garland appoints Jack Smith in March of 2021. You don't get there because this power that you've just properly identified remains with them until a case is final. That means final, final, cert denied, final. And look where we are now, is there any way to think that the whole thing could have ended in a year and a half from now? It's out of the question. So, yeah, it wouldn't have happened. So there's no, there wasn't a scenario in this real world with this Supreme Court and everything else where he was and Eileen Cannon, where it was going to happen. So.

Ag (22:45)

And even if you do get an indictment and a conviction, it doesn't matter. He's already a convicted felon. People still voted.

Harry Litman (22:51)

That's right. And they don't care about it unless it gets final. If it gets. If he sentenced to 20 years and it gets final.

Dana Goldberg (22:57)

But.

Ag (22:57)

Right.

Harry Litman (22:57)

That was never gonna happen.

Ag (22:59)

No, it's gonna take 10 years to get that done. And the Supreme Court wouldn't allowed it. I don't even think that. I don't think the second interlocutory appeal would have gotten passed the Supreme Court in any case. Even if he, even if he wasn't elected, it would have had to go back up to the Supreme Court. And I think they'd be like, no.

Dana Goldberg (23:16)

You know, we don't.

Ag (23:16)

Then they would have gutted the charges or taken some of the official acts out.

Harry Litman (23:20)

We can take our time about doing that. Besides. Yeah, that's right.

Ag (23:23)

And by the way, you couldn't have appointed.

Harry Litman (23:25)

Oh, everyone quit picking on Merrick Garland.

Ag (23:27)

So much and you couldn't have appointed Jack Smith in March of 2021 because he was doing something over at the Hague. Anyway, he was busy. It had to been something.

Harry Litman (23:34)

That's right. And come on, that would have been too much. Anyway, I'm going to. This is a longer. I'm going to wait, I guess tell Garland leaves office. Maybe it'll now be on my substack since as you say, the obvious venue is now my former paper. But I'm going to write this all up. I really, you know, I love the guy. I've worked with the guy. I have huge reverence for the guy. But I think he's getting a bum rap. But that's why you want me to.

Ag (23:58)

Come on and you know, bum rap or not. Like what's more likely that a lifetime civil servant that's woefully underpaid with thankless jobs tried to undermine the rule of law? Or that a billionaire oligarchy Supreme Court that immunized another oligarch is. Is where the problem.

Harry Litman (24:17)

I think that's what we call one of them. Their rhetorical question could be, but you.

Ag (24:22)

Know, some people, I'm not going to take away anybody's ability to have an opinion about, about Merrick Garland. I just like to share the facts. But what I'm here to talk to you about, my friend, is the, the fact that you, after what happened at the LA Times, decided you were no longer going to be a columnist at the LA Times. This takes me back to when, like, gosh, in the, the 2020 election, it was Bloomberg, I think he offered me, he offered me five figures to advertise for his, his presidential campaign. And I said no, I, I'm. No. But, you know, once there is a candidate that select, this is during the primaries. Once there's a candidate that's selected and you want to spend money on that person like you've promised, come back and see me and that declination. I lost a ton of money on that declination. But I think what I gained in goodwill by doing the right thing meant so much more to me. So talk to me about why you left the LA Times and what the response has been over on your substack.

Harry Litman (25:26)

I will and thanks. So, yeah, I did, you know, not having a paper platform anymore. Put this on my relatively new substack and I'll get to the response in a bit because I do want to try to explain it. It's not simply that I disagree with the, an editorial direction or that I dispute the entitlement of an owner to take a certain view and then of course, readers to respond to it. So it really is a g. You know, the whole point starts from that. I think we are really at a very dangerous spot in history and society, one where we can't even agree agree on what the facts are. And Trump in plain sight, is dismantling guardrail after guardrail. He's done political things we now see him putting into place and proffering a series of nominees who are just meant to basically decimate their agency's mission. And what's left to, you know, we've talked about the Supreme Court Court. It's certainly not a safe harbor for society and democratic rule, let me put it that way. But in plain sight, he's going after the FBI, he's going after the military. Right. That hasn't received that much notice, but wants to be able to just fire anyone he cares about. In other words, anyone that expressed opposition or who got in his way in the first term, he's method, methodically trying to get at. So this just couldn't be a more patent kind of execution of than authoritarian playbook. So it was in that context. I thought it was pretty Creepy that the LA Times and the Washington Post would pull an endorsement of Kama Harris, that everyone had worked on and seen the logical thing and readers expected. But what drove it, and that was the beginning. More things have happened at the LA Times that have been trending in Trump's direction. But it's the combination of the things that the ownership are doing for, not for any, any reasons of content or policy disagreements, but just basically because they're scared of him and he's, and he's threatened them. That combined with really this very, very important, dangerous juncture we're in where, God, we need the media to just do the simple basic North Star task of saying what the truth is. You know, try this, this notion that we're going to be more fair and balanced. That's. Those were the words. When what that really means is start to tilt toward a, you know, Trump kind of account that is always, always, always, as you would put it in your very interesting podcast, a lie. And the, you know, you just, it seems so essential for the media to stand up. So that was it for me. It wasn't, you know, I, A lot of it was distasteful. A lot of it I thought was brutal and unprofessional. My colleagues. But, you know, why not stick around and do my best for the LA readers to tell them what's, you know, my thoughts. I was never personally told what I could write about or not write about. I had great editors. Let me actually call out Josh Gefke, my most recent editor, who's tremendous. But man, oh man, these are not normal times. So for whatever my little voice can achieve by saying, media, please do your job, 2 out of 5 biggest papers in the country were face down by Trump before he even took office. These are not normal times. That's what really drove me to say I needed to leave. And yeah, the response has been way huger than I anticipated. The attention. It's gotten like totally weird to me across the country in the New York Post, the New York Times, there's something in there. And Slate Today, msnbc, cnn, the Daily Mail. So there's that. But also, you know, I might have thought this would be a little controversial and except on Twitter where everything you say is greeted by a, you know, even more vulgar than you would say on MSW or Daily Beans. I've had really almost embarrassing because it's not like, you know, there are other people who work there, they can't leave. It's they, you know, that's their full time job and kids in school, etc. I can, I've always kept get independent and do other things that will keep me afloat. But really a overwhelmingly positive and strong enthusiastic response. Comments like you can't believe, so gratifying. So it makes me feel really good about it in a sense. Except that as I say, the genesis of the whole thing is a dark period. And that and my resignation certainly doesn't make that go away. But it does cast a light, I think on some pretty worrisome stuff in the car.

Ag (31:15)

Oh yeah, I mean I've been, I've been trying to say to the media there's actually a market for truth. You talk about this fair and balance thing. I remember when a bunch of people tried to unpack what had happened on a Abby Phillips show on CNN when the guy came on and told me, Hassan, that his hope your pager doesn't go off or whatever. And there was this unpacking of that where everyone was like, look, in order to be fair and balanced, these newsrooms are trying to get Republican commentators on their panels. But unfortunately that means bringing on racist, bigoted, fascist, oligarchic.

Harry Litman (31:50)

Or non, who are too scared to go on.

Ag (31:52)

Right. And so you know what, what has become fair and balanced like the media is the corporate media is terrified of seeming liberal. But when facts are on the side of liberalism. Yeah, you know, oh well then you're trying to shy away from being factual at that point.

Harry Litman (32:10)

That's it. I mean, your fingers right on it. Yeah, yeah.

Ag (32:13)

And, and, and I've been trying to say like being independent and you know, do it like for example, the couple hundred or so content creators that got invited to the DNC got really great access and the, the corporate media was like angry about that and they're like, well why would we let you in if you're just gonna throw Scott Jennings in my face or whatever. And so, you know, I think we've come to this point where when the facts are on one side, politically speaking, you can't really have a fair and balanced other side. Unless we're talking about like the Adam Kinzingers and the Liz Cheney's of the world to come on. But we are now, we're no longer talking about policy. We're not having an argument with Liz Cheney about tax rates or you know, anything like that or the size of government. Right now we're trying to put guardrails in place to prevent the loss of our democracy come January 20th. So I think, you know, you're right, it's so important that that independence be There and I think what we're going to see is a sink or swim type situation. And I talked to my friend who's in the music industry about this because this happened to the music industry, to major labels back in the day when independent artists and Napster and downloads and the Internet kind of dismantled what, what happened with the, with the big labels and, and it was the, the musicians and the artists were like, look, you need to adapt or you will perish. I think we're going to see the same kind of thing with the media and unfortunately a lot of the corporate media is like, well these cable news shows are failing because people just don't like this anymore. And they don't, I don't think they understand that it's, it's because of probably the content and, and that there is a market for it and, and I think, and talking feds and now you're substack or MSW media are kind of, that's the proof is in the pudding. It's, it's, people want that. People are desperate for that kind of independent fact based reporting.

Harry Litman (34:11)

Well, that's the hope of course. Trump won the election and he won an election within a relentless can. Every single time you zone in, he was lying just again. But, and it's as you say, you know, it's not oh I'm for this and nor, nor is anything that the papers did about I favor his immigration policy or I have concerns about her record as an age. It was nothing about that. So just to say, you know, I, I think I, as I run the substack, you, it's just a dereliction of duty to have a, on the one hand, on the other hand approach. There is no other hand, your initial or you know, there is no balance when what your first duty has to be to inform people about the facts.

Ag (35:05)

Right. I mean unless you're sitting on your new show and saying, all right, so here's the facts of this particular story and now we're going to bring somebody in to give you a bunch of conspiracy theories. Right? Like it just doesn't, it just doesn't make any sense. But, but I am very proud of you, my friend. As soon as that came out, I re. Blue sky it, I don't know what we're called. Reposted it on Blue sky, which is a much nicer place than Twitter. And I was like way to go, Harry, way to go. And it got such a massive response. Everybody was so very supportive of this and supportive of your move to do that. So I really Recommend everybody check out the Talking Feds pod. But also, what is your substack so people can go and subscribe and follow?

Harry Litman (35:47)

Yeah, thank you so much, and I hope people will. That is where I'm going to be, and I'm going to be doing my best. And I just want to say this is not, you know, it's not like, oh, I am a Democrat, and I tend to like Democratic policies more, but it's so much more fundamental than that. And we're watching in real time, you know, since the election, if anything, a more brutal agenda. That's always, when you push on it, it's always got a lie underneath it. And it's a deep puzzle or problem that historians will be working out that so many people got a steady diet of lies that wound up voting for him. But it's, again, this really is objective. You know, everybody ought to want to know the truth, and newspapers ought to see their first responsibility as setting out the actual facts. And I just got to say, you know, I don't think the. What happened at the Washington Post, what happened in the LA Times is about, you know, good faith disagreements about what's true out there. Nobody, nobody says, oh, nobody responsible said, oh, you know, actually the 2020 election was, you know, stolen. Although Trump just said two days ago that he's, he's, you know, he still is trying to rewrite history.

Ag (37:13)

Oh, he's gonna, he's gonna take your Department of Justice and use it to litigate that.

Harry Litman (37:17)

Right. I mean, this, and this is what authoritarian leaders do. This is, you know, Orwell made this clear. It's a big part of things, is to control history is the propaganda of the victors. At least he wants it to be. So, you know, here you got me going on my high horse, but that really is why I saw the stakes as so high. And I'm gonna, you know, and you're doing it. And a handful people are out there just first and foremost saying, you know, here are the facts, ma'. Am. So I'm going to, I'm going to keep doing that best I can, and I know you will, too.

Ag (37:49)

Well, I appreciate it and I appreciate your time. So everybody, Harry Littman, you can follow him on all the socials. Former federal prosecutor, former deputy assistant attorney general. That, by the way, that's when I knew I made it was when Harry Lippman called me up and asked me for Andy McCabe's contact information so he could be on the talking fence pod. And I got to tell my friend, you know, like, I'VE been telling I was comedian for a decade. I've been telling dick jokes. I was a civil servant. But the former deputy assistant attorney general just asked me for the former acting director of the FBI's phone number and I had it.

Harry Litman (38:23)

That was a great, great connector. But you know, really it's you're more about connecting. You're also substance. All right, Harry litman.substack.com Perfect. Although you do it and oddly you go to the talking Fed substack. But Harry litman.substack.com thanks. Thanks very much for letting me scream that one out.

Ag (38:45)

No problem. So everybody head there and also check out the talking feds pod wherever you get your podcast. Harry, it's been great to talk to you.

Harry Litman (38:50)

Thank you as always. Hope to see you sooner than last time since we're we're neighbors and friends.

Ag (38:56)

Absolutely. We'll make it happen. All right, everybody, stick around. We'll be right back with the good news after these messages. We'll be right back, Everybody. Welcome back. It's time for the good news, everyone.

Harry Litman (39:14)

Then good news, everyone.

Ag (39:21)

Good news. And please send your good news stories into us. We could use all the good news we can get, especially if you get a check from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let us know. Let us know about it. We want to know if you got your 419 bucks. Bucks because you got swindled by one of those predatory credit repair companies. But you can submit your good news@dailybeanspod.com just click on contact and you can submit it by paying your pod pet tax, which means just simply attach a photo of your pet. If you want us to guess what breeds are in your shelter pup, we'll do our best. But it's all downhill since we got all five right a couple weeks ago. And if you don't have a pod pet, you can send us an adoptable pet in your area. We'll see if we can find him a forever home. If you don't have that, any animal photo will do. Really? We play any animal guessing game that you opine on the bovine. What the heck Wine. What's the model of your axolotl? Just send them to us. And then of course, if there's no animals in your life or anywhere near you, you can also send baby photos. We absolutely love those. And then of course, we're doing a special right now for the holidays, bird watching. Okay? So if you have photos of you and your friends and your family flipping the bird, giving the one finger salute to Trump Properties, we Want to see all of those photos? Send them to us and then shout outs to government programs that have helped you or a loved one. Whether it's Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, Head Start, Section 8, anything great VA health care you've received, and of course student debt forgiveness. I send those to the White House and they love reading them. Again, send it all to us dailybeanspod.com and click on Contact. Quick Correction how to Train youn Dragon is a DreamWorks joint. Disney doesn't quite own everything Wink emoji. Thank you, thank you. You're right, it's a DreamWorks joint. And from Dr. Crazy Cat Elder, she they Speaking of cats in sinks, here's Willow, who loved hanging out in the sink. But who would give me this you made a bad pun look when I asked are you sinking Nice beautiful baby.

Dana Goldberg (41:21)

So sweet.

Ag (41:23)

Thank you for that Dr. Crazy Cat Elder.

Dana Goldberg (41:26)

And this one's from Cynthus. It could be Cynthus or Cynthia, but we're going to find out. And correct me if I'm wrong with Cynthus because that's what we have in front of us. Pronouns she and her Good morning beans Queens Daily listener of all podcasts and first time sharer. Speaking of chickens. Included is a pic of my one and only Georgia Grace in her homemade chicken Halloween costume. The best one I ever made. She had orange tights, yellow rubber gloves over her shoes too. Also, government program shout out to Pennsylvania's Governor Josh Shapiro, who in 20, 21, 22 and 23 used the extra Covid relief funds the state had to extend the rent relief program for low income qualified renters. Yeah, that was my interjection. By the way. The paperwork process was super easy and the communication from the state excellent too. In just weeks I received a check for the max amount of $1,000 toward my rent. I was so grateful to have this help. Love your show. It's my wake up, have my coffee and daily me time treat. Thank you both for all you do. And this is an adorable chicken in a chicken costume. And I think maybe it's Cynthia, but if it's not, either way, what a sweet baby.

Ag (42:37)

And thanks. I love that wake up, have my coffee daily me time treat. Everybody takes some me time. So thank you for that and this chicken costume. You're right, this is the best I've seen.

Dana Goldberg (42:48)

It's real, real good.

Ag (42:50)

All right, next up from Nancy K. No pronouns Morning beanies. Like others, I stopped listening to the news after the election. Except for the daily beans. Mostly because I couldn't figure out how to unsubscribe. No matter. I missed you.

Dana Goldberg (43:08)

So I'm back.

Ag (43:10)

The other podcasters are anxiety producing for me. You guys are the best. This morning you asked to see hobbies. Mine is jigsaw puzzles. Some take a day or two, others a week or two. This one took me about a week. Love your show.

Dana Goldberg (43:23)

Look at this.

Ag (43:23)

Ooh, it's got like amethyst.

Dana Goldberg (43:26)

I didn't even realize that's what it was until you finished reading this. That's awesome.

Ag (43:31)

That's beautiful. Yeah. Love a good jigsaw puzzle. If you're doing puzzles, send them in.

Dana Goldberg (43:36)

Me too. All right, this one's from Deanna. Pronouns she and her All Hail Queens of the Beans. I want to let you know that because of you I made a new friend who helped me buy a new car. Oh, many months ago I Many months ago during a good news segment, I made note to remind myself to look into auto buying consulting whenever I decided to trade up to a small suv. I really didn't want to go through the process alone and love the idea that this woman owned business, exists and was excited to help folks in this way and we could talk politics. Karen is in Colorado, I'm in Georgia, and once we could pick ourselves up off the floor after the election, we spoke, emailed, texted, commiserated, and got down to business. She listened to what I was looking for, then made a chart of some additional options I might want to consider when I found the SUV for me. She was available to negotiate for hours on Saturday and push through when I might have settled. I ended up with a great deal, a friend that held my hand remotely through this process and a cool new very blue suv. Because I came to you from Stephanie Miller's universe, my first instinct was to name her Viva La Resistance. So Erin and I dubbed her Viva. I love that for short. I'm thankful for her help and for the daily beans. Attached for you is Viva, a 2024 Toyota Corolla Cross. I've attached my living pets, my nine year old sibling kitties. I adopted them in January of 2020 from a lady who was being moved into a memory care facility. They've gotten me through Covid times, all my breast cancer treatments and surgeries, a sad breakup and more recent deaths of my dad and three other loved ones. My God, the cat distribution system came through for me in the nick of time. The big fluffy boys, Alex AKA Bubba, Bubacito, Boo Boo and his sister is Allie AKA Ali Bali Mamacita or Principessa Their breeds are also attached. This is a really sexy car. So that's awesome, Deanna. And also two really sexy kitties, one with a man face and one with a woman face. Is a woman face? Is that a thing?

Ag (45:43)

Catwoman face? Yeah. Yeah, I think so. All right, let's see. Western, Persian, exotic, Eastern. Look at this polycat.

Dana Goldberg (45:52)

Wow, look at this. Is some, like, tom cat and shit in here. There's a lot of cats mixed in with all of these.

Ag (45:58)

There's the Maine coon that I saw. Little ragdoll. Little 3% ragdoll in that baby. Oh, this is beautiful.

Dana Goldberg (46:05)

Actually, I sort of love this because I'm learning all kinds of cat names right now.

Ag (46:10)

Broadly Persian, Persian, 0% exotic short hair, 0%, 4% British shorthair, whatever a Peter Bald is. There's 3% of that in there. A little bit of Abyssinian, some Russian blue. And a domestic. Polycat is a remarkable result of many generations of mixed breeding between different types of cats, which is why the ancestry and origin of these kitties can be very difficult to determine. So your mom is a poor.

Dana Goldberg (46:39)

And that's why it sounds like these kitties are polyamorous, because it's a polycat. So they have multiple partners.

Ag (46:45)

Most cats are. Right, right. Oh, thank you for that. Thank you for that submission. And congrats on the new car. It's awesome. And thanks to Aaron for her helping you out. Let's see if. What's the business again? Auto buying, Consulting With Aaron. Yeah, she's in Colorado. All right, next up from Marie Pronoun. She and her. Hi. Thanks for the daily good news. We need positive information every day, especially over the next four years. I agree. Marie. Marie, I've been meaning to send you photos of our cats. Well, mostly my husband's cats. We had two kittens from a friend's family that were all loved for many years. They were the most unusual cats we've ever seen. Neighbor kids would take Sage and play house in their garage. Sage is one of the cats. And carry them around like a baby. Pepper would go to another neighbor and look in the window wanting to play with their dog. They also liked to go sledding on the back hill with neighbor kids.

Dana Goldberg (47:37)

Kids.

Ag (47:37)

Another neighbor said Sage was his favorite neighbor. Pepper, we think, was eaten by a pack of coyotes in 2017. And Sage lived a long time until he was too sick and we had to put him to sleep in the spring of 2020. With 2020 Covid and caring for my elderly parents 600 miles away, I was off and away. One trip in December 2020, I came home to two Covid kitties my husband got from a local shelter named Cocoa and Chives. We named cats after spices and baking items. So we had pepper and sage and now we have cocoa and chives. I like how it's chives, plural. What is amazing is how closely they resemble sage and pepper. Anyways, chives a bit neurotic and Coco is a homebody. It's fun to see the older cats and newer cat photos. I make T shirt quilts, memory quilts, original quilts, and Frank Lloyd Wright quilts.

Dana Goldberg (48:29)

Wow.

Ag (48:31)

At Marie Harnish creations on Instagram. Cats in box are sage and pepper. Cats in bed are chives and cocoa. The paper cut of cats done by my former high school mentee was a gift for my husband. All right, first of all, here we have sage and pepper in the box and then we have chives and Coco in the bed. Oh my God, they are the same. Wow, look at that. A gray and white baby and a void baby. And then we have. And then we have the. The art there. The paper cuts cats. Beautiful. Fantastic.

Dana Goldberg (49:09)

All right, this is from Hannah Pronoun. She and her hey beans queens. I want to shout out the Save Student Loan Repayment Plan introduced by President Biden, his administration. My husband works in conservation education, a very important but not particularly lucrative field. The SAFE plan reduced. Reduced the burden of our student debt payments significantly and allowed him to continue to work to educate public, especially kids, about the importance of preserving our natural spaces. I know the SAFE plan is currently being challenged in the courts and may not be long for this world, but I appreciate how much it has helped us. We started our careers. For my pot pet tacks, here is our ball python, Caliban. They were originally sold as a female, but we suspect that they may be males since they're relatively small and female pythons are larger than males regardless of their sex. We love them as they are, as it should be.

Ag (50:04)

That's beautiful ball python.

Dana Goldberg (50:06)

Absolutely beautiful. Hello.

Ag (50:08)

Thank you, Hannah. And again, yeah, great shout out to the Save Student Loan Repayment Plan. I'm glad that it's being challenged in the courts. And I, you know, I don't know, I think I feel like Trump's DOJ will drop it, but that's such a good plan. So, no, anyway, thank you, thank you for the picture of the beautiful snake. Thanks to everybody for all. There were no birds here today except for the chicken. The little chicken dressed up. Send in all your good news, your photos, your happy places. Your hobbies, your businesses, you're flipping the birds to Trump Properties. Send it all to us dailybeanspod.com and click on contact. We'll be back in your ears tomorrow. Thanks to my good friend Harry Litman for, first of all, quitting LA Times, and second of all, coming on the show to tell me about it. Do you have any final thoughts today, my friend?

Dana Goldberg (50:53)

I do not.

Ag (50:54)

All right. We'll be back in your ears tomorrow. Until then, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health and take care of your family. I've been AG and I've been dg. And them's the beans. Refried beans. I like refried beans.