← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Refried Beans | A Snivel of Republicans (feat. Harry Litman) | Feb 12, 2021
01:00:58
February 12, 2021 The Democrats wrap up their impeachment arguments; Trump’s Justice Department sought to block an investigation into Giuliani; Republicans are leaving the GOP; dozens of anti-Trump Republicans are in talks to form a new party; Justice Department says that a leader of The Oathkeepers waited for Trump’s signal to attack; President Biden terminates Trump’s emergency declaration at the Southern border, and seeks to defund the wall; plus AG and Aimee Carrero (@aimeecarrero) deliver your Good News.
Loading summary
Transcript133 lines
- [00:00]
Alison Gill
MSW Media. Hey, everybody, it's Ag. And welcome to Refried Beans, where we play an episode of the Daily Beans podcast from the same week either one, two or three years ago so we can see how far we've come. So please enjoy this episode from days gone by and note the date in the intro.
- [00:22]
Amy Carrero
Refried beans. I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried.
- [00:25]
Alison Gill
Beans, because maybe they're just as good.
- [00:26]
Amy Carrero
And we're wasting time.
- [00:32]
Alison Gill
LARRY J. Beans. Jelly beans.
- [00:39]
Amy Carrero
Jelly beans. Daily Beans.
- [00:45]
Alison Gill
Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Friday, Feb. 12, 2021. Today, the Democrats wrap up their impeachment arguments. Trump's Justice Department sought to block the investigation into Rudy Giuliani. Republicans are leaving the party in droves since the insurrection January 6th. Trump. Dozens of former Republican officials are in talks to form an anti Trump third party. The Justice Department says a leader of the Oath Keepers waited for Trump's signal to attack. And President Biden terminates Trump's emergency declaration at the border and seeks to defund the wall. I'm your host, A.G. hey, everybody. Happy Friday. It is the gateway to the weekend. I'm really excited to talk to you today. I had a really rough day yesterday watching, I should say on Wednesday watching the, that first eight hours or seven hours, I guess, of the Democratic presentation of just the video, just the video evidence against President Trump and his incitation of the insurrection. But today was a little more technical. It went a little smoother for me, at least mentally. And I'm gonna discuss some of the main points that went down. There's also a lot of stuff that's going on under the radar behind all the impeachment stuff. And I wanted to talk to you about that. Please join myself and Andrew Torres on Tuesday at 5pm Pacific Time on Stereo. We will be answering your legal questions and anything else really. And you get to hear Andrew Torres say fuck, which is always fun. And then of course, every Thursday, I'm there at 5pm Pacific time with Dana Goldberg to have a kind of, you know, sort of irreverent extra sweary, more personal chat. I want to thank everyone who joined us Thursday night. We kind of needed that sort of vent session about what we all witnessed on Wednesday in the impeachment trial. So download the Stereo app and you can actually do that by you set up an account by going to stereo.com alisonGill2L's and Allison2L's and Gill, you can set it up that way. And it's Friday. That means Amy Carrero is here she'll be joining us for the good news segment. We do not have any new cases or disputes to settle in Amy's court, although there was an amicus brief filed in a previous case. We'll be going over that. I'm really excited to speak to her. It's always a great way to start the weekend off. And I appreciate her very much and I appreciate you. So, everyone, we do have a lot of news to get to. Let's hit the Hot notes. Hot Notes. Lead story today, of course, is the impeachment trial continued today as the Democratic House managers wrapped up their arguments, which included tying Trump's rhetoric directly to the attack on the Capitol, which they did a fantastic job of. I thought it was very compelling. They also focused on the police officers, D.C. police, Metro Police, Capitol police that were injured during the attack. And they gave a presentation of the total lack of remorse from Trump after the attack to prove intent, which I thought was very strong. They also talked about potential future attacks and how acquitting Trump would embolden those attacks. Ted Lieu did a very good job at that, saying, I'm not afraid of Trump running for president again in 2024. I'm afraid of him running and losing and doing this again. And I think that that resonated probably with a lot of Republicans, though I don't think they're going to change their votes. We will see. We didn't really see any. There was no witness testimony. There was no new evidence today, though. There was yesterday. And it was very compelling, though. You know, there were at times 15, as many as 15 Republicans not on the floor, not watching the presentation, not listening to the evidence. They say it's because of COVID You know, they can watch it on tv, but they just, they simply weren't listening. A lot of them were doing hits on Fox News. It's just really, really disappointing. And, you know, I think that either the Republicans can vote to convict Trump or they'll be voting to convict themselves. Those are the two options. There's no way out of this because I don't think we're going to forget easily or soon if they vote to acquit the president, especially if they hide behind some of the really flimsy, absolutely ridiculous process arguments. Now, the future attacks talking about how acquitting Trump would embolden those attacks. The Democrats cited evidence from the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, Department of Justice, about planned attacks on the inauguration after the insurrection and more future attacks and talks of violence on some of these more obscure social media sites, including an attack planned for March 4th and so, and March 6th, I think, is another one. There's a lot of different things going on here. And the main takeaway today, that at least for me, was, hey, if you do this, if you allow him to have this January exception and get away with this, it's going to happen again. And they proved that the January 6th insurrection, was it happening again because of the dry run at the Michigan State House. And I thought that that was compelling evidence, too. So they talked about police being injured and Officer Sicknick being killed, and how Trump waited three days to lower the flag to half mast after learning of his death. Along with the fact that Trump didn't show up to pay respects while that officer lay in honor in the Rotunda. That was part of showing the lack of remorse that they outlined. And a lack of remorse obviously shows intent. They also sort of talked about how with this lack of remorse, with Trump's inaction after the insurrection, that he failed to help call out the National Guard, that he failed to call off the attack. They actually showed several members who were jurors in that body in the Senate, Republicans who had put videos out on social media that day saying, donald Trump, only you can call this off. You have to call this off. Which implies that if he's the only one who can call it off, that he's the one who called for it in the first place. And so, again, very compelling arguments. Another great argument that they made today was that Trump continued to use the word appropriate whenever he does something wrong. It's almost an admission that he's done something, but he thinks it's appropriate. So when asked at one of his yellow copter conferences, point blank if his speech at the Ellipse incited the insurrection, he said, look, many people have analyzed my speech. Many people looked over the words, especially the last sentences, and what I said was totally appropriate. They say it was appropriate. So he's done that before. And the Democrats used his. Showed a video of his utilization of the word appropriate before, when he talked about when he was encouraging his rally goers to violently deal with a protester, or the fourth protester, I think. And he was asked about that. He said, what I did was appropriate. And bringing up those past acts of him encouraging violence, saying, he's gonna knock people out, they'd go out on stretchers. Back in the old days, we would have a different way of taking care of people like that and encouraging violence, saying, hey, knock the hell out of him, and then I'll pay for your legal fees. Things that showing that he has that penchant and that when he is asked about it, he always says what he did was appropriate. And he did that again this time, and that therefore that developed. That's the development of a pattern of behavior on behalf of Trump. Now, finally, they ended with a prebuttal on the constitutionality of impeaching a former officer. And Rep. Joe Nagoos began this prebuttal and asked the jurors to understand the arguments the defense is about to make. He said the Democrats have proved that Trump thinks everything he did was appropriate and that a future president or Trump himself could and would do it again. And the defense's argument that we can't impeach a former officer would allow that to happen. They're calling it the January exception, as I said before. And Negu's also addressed the defense that Trump's speech was protected by the First Amendment. Negus quoted multiple conservative lawyers and judges and professors Scalia that disagree with that ridiculous notion. His free speech claim depends on an account of what he did that had no basis in evidence. So you can't claim free speech covers it, because the account of what Trump's defense is going to say is that he didn't incite violence. And so in that fantasy world, you can't claim First Amendment protection on a hypothetical. It just doesn't make any sense. His lawyers would have you believe that Trump was just some guy saying things that some people might disagree with. He says, quote, they'll do anything to avoid talking about the facts of the case. Instead, they'll talk a lot about other speeches, including ones given by Democrats, and that the First Amendment protects them as though they were exactly the same thing. We trust you to know the difference because you've seen the evidence that we've seen. They leave everything out that matters and why we're here and what we did. Because Trump wasn't just some guy with political opinions who showed up at a rally and delivered controversial remarks. He was the President of the United States. And he had spent months using the unique power of that office, the bully pulpit, to spread that big lie that the election had been stolen, to assemble his followers at the very moment we were counting the electoral votes, where he knew they were primed and ready for violence at his signal. Then, standing in the middle of that powder keg that he had created over months before, a crowd that was poised for violence, he struck a match and aimed it straight at this building. It was a very powerful quote there from Nagooz. They go on to say this isn't about politics. It's about a refusal to accept the result of an election and him inciting an insurrection. An acquittal will tell future presidents they can do what Trump did and get away with it. That this would now be a constitutionally accepted way to contest an election is ridiculous. It's bizarre. Quote, they're not arguing it's okay for a person to incite a mob to violence. That's not what they're arguing. Instead, they're offering a radically different version of what happened that day, totally inconsistent with the evidence. Then they insist that if the alternate reality were true, it's protected by the First Amendment. But you're here to adjudicate real evidence and real facts, not hypothetical ones. And then Raskin gets back up to discuss the legal flaws of the defense. Incitement of insurrection is not protected speech, plain and simple. The First Amendment smokescreen is a distraction, he says, from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. He said that Trump argues Congress is violating his free speech rights. When it was Trump that incited an insurrectionist attack against the US that halted speech and debate on the floor of the Senate, that imperiled the very constitutional order that protects free speech in the first place. It was a really, really interesting way to look at that. He went on to say, the flaw is that ignores the fact that he was the president. He swore an oath, and in exchange, he's given powers no one else has in the country, maybe on earth, and those powers come with special obligations to uphold laws. And then he brought in the example that Andrew Torres and I discussed on, I believe, the last live stereo app that we did on Tuesday. He says, what if a president publicly swore an oath of loyalty to a foreign leader as a private citizen? You can do that. You can't do anything about that. That's protected speech. But it is simply inconceivable and unthinkable that a president could do that, get up and swear an oath to a foreign leader and not be impeached for it. Would that violate their First Amendment rights? Just ridiculous. Then Raskin brings up Scalia, which I mentioned earlier, and how he talked about the differences of free speech applied to federal officers. He summed it up like this. You can't ride with cops, but root for the robbers. And when it comes to the peaceful transfer of power and the rule of law, the must choose the side of the Constitution and not the side of the insurrectionist. If he or she chooses the wrong side, nothing can excuse your betrayal of your oath. Of office. It's not a free speech question. Raskin then says, let's pretend Trump were a run of the mill citizen. Let's, let's take their weird ass Earth one, Earth two argument. Just another guy at the rally expressing a deeply unpopular opinion because we shouldn't overlook the fact that their opinion is totally unpopular, by the way, he says. But let's say he was just another guy. It's a bedrock principle that nobody can incite a riot. Nobody. It's not protected speech. He then cites Brandenburg v. Ohio, says there's no First Amendment protection for inciting a riot or any lawless action or likely to result in such an action. That's known case law. So even if Trump was just a regular guy and not the president, inciting a riot still isn't protected speech. And this is a classic case of incitement. They've proven that. Ted Lieu continued the prebuttal, who gave a good lesson on what impeachment is and what powers the House has under the Constitution. He discussed how it was he was a prosecutor and said, when you see a crime in plain view, you don't have to take months to bring charges. He defended the House moving quickly to impeach Trump because Trump will argue they impeached him too quickly while they simultaneously argue that they can't impeach a former officer. He pointed out that the House impeached him while he was still president. And he also brought up the defense that the House delayed the article of impeachment. That is not correct either. The Senate was not in session. And when asked, the Senate said if the clerk of the House tried to deliver the article of impeachment before the Senate reconvene, the clerk of the House would have been turned away. So Trump's team is actually arguing the House impeached too fast but delayed the impeachment. And then after the Senate delayed and turned the House away, they argue that you can't impeach a former president. It's fucking ridiculous. And excellent closing arguments by Negus, especially showing Rudy saying they showed this clip of Rudy saying let's do trial by combat. And then cut to Trump right after Rudy was done speaking. And Trump is praising Rudy for what he says and Rudy is strong. That was really powerful, too. And Raskin wraps up by posing questions to Trump's lawyers. Says, you're gonna get up, you're gonna say a bunch of bullshit. I have questions for you. I just five questions. Maybe you'll answer and maybe you won't. Number one, why did Trump not tell his supporters to stop the attack on the Capitol as soon as he learned of it? Number two, why did he do nothing to stop the attack for at least two hours after the attack began? Number three, why did he do nothing to send help to our overwhelmed and besieged law enforcement officers for at least two hours? Number four, why did Trump not at any point that day condemn the insurrection or the insurrectionists? And number five, if a president did invite an insurrection against our government, would that be a high crime and misdemeanor? Could we at least agree on that? So the impeachment will continue through Saturday with Shone as the lead defense counsel because Trump was outraged by the shit performance of Castor on day one. So Shone's going to be the front facing defender here, but Shone might not argue on Friday or Saturday because of his religion, but we'll see what happens. He withdrew. I think he withdrew his objection to it. But here's some breaking news from cnn. The Justice Department is now making clear that a leader among the Oath Keepers paramilitary group who planned and led others in the Capitol siege believed she was responding to the call from then President Donald Trump himself. We saw this throughout the impeachment trial where, you know, they were saying, hey, we got every. All of these insurrectionists said that they were sent by Trump, quote. As the inauguration grew near, Jessica Watkins indicated she was awaiting direction from Trump, prosecutors wrote in a filing Thursday morning. This is the most direct language yet from federal prosecutors linking Trump's request for support in D.C. to the most militant aspects of the insurrection. Previously, the Justice Department had somewhat held back on linking Trump's words so closely to the extremist group's actions during the riot. At least four defendants this week have argued in court they were just following Trump's direction to go to the Capitol building. The Justice Department finally continued. Her concern about taking action without his backing was evident in a November 9, 2020 text in which she stated, I'm concerned that this is an elaborate trap. Unless the POTUS himself activates us, it's not legit. The POTUS has the right to activate units, too. If Trump asks me to come, I will. Otherwise I can't trust it. Watkins had perceived her desired signal by the end of December, prosecutors in the filing argue to keep Watkins in jail pending trial. She was arrested several weeks ago and has been indicted for conspiracy and other charges related to the Capitol attack. Prosecutors describe Watkins as a military veteran who's now a leader of the broader right wing militia movement instrumental in a group called the Ohio State Regular Militia and A key player, taking action and communicating with others. Once she was inside the Capitol during the insurrection, she recruited at least two people to the insurrection and was training others to be in fighting shape for the presidential inauguration. That's one of those future things that they were talking about in the impeachment trial today. Watkins allegedly had a single minded devotion to obstruct through violence the certification of Joe Biden's presidency. That's according to prosecutors. Crimes of this magnitude committed with such zeal belie any conditions of release that would reasonably assure the safety of the community or by which Watkins could be trusted to abide. They note that she said on a radio channel, we are in the main dome right now. We are rocking it. The Justice Department also said Watkins wore camouflage fatigues and combat gear. Prosecutors on Thursday said they believe the paramilitary Trump supporter discussed transporting weapons across the Potomac River. The weapons by boat plan is mentioned in a court filing from the Department of Justice arguing to keep in jail Thomas Caldwell, a Virginia man charged with conspiracy and alleged to have helped organize the Oath Keeper and other extremist group rioters. Hmm. Three days before the siege, Caldwell texted a person believed to be connected to the paramilitary group of the 3 percenters about using a boat to cross the Potomac. And he wrote about having some dock ramp and pretending to use a boat or a fishing boat. The idea that Caldwell wrote would help his contacts avoid driving into Washington. So we just take the guns on a boat across the river. Hmm. Interesting. We'll be right back with some more news, news from under the radar headlines that we may have missed because of the impeachment. Stay with us after these messages. We'll be right back. Hey everybody, welcome back. We have some Rudy Giuliani news. This is from the New York Times. In the final months of the Trump administration, senior Justice Department officials repeatedly sought to block federal prosecutors in Manhattan, Southern District of New York, from taking a crucial step in their investigation of Rudy Giuliani and his dealings with Ukraine, delaying a search warrant for some of Giuliani's electronic records. That's according to people familiar with the matter. The actions by political appointees at the Justice Department in Washington slowed the investigation as it was gaining momentum in the final months of 2020. Prosecutors were still delving into whether Rudy had illegally lobbied the Trump administration on behalf of Ukrainian officials and oligarchs who helped him look for dirt in 2019 on Biden, then a leading Democratic candidate. Mr. Giuliani has denied any wrongdoing. His lawyer, Costello, I think it should be Abbott declined to Comment on media speculation. As we know, last summer, prosecutors and FBI agents in Manhattan were preparing to seek a search warrant for Rudy's records related to his efforts in Ukraine. But first, the investigators in Manhattan had to notify the Justice Department officials in Washington, who must be consulted about search warrants involving lawyers because of concerns that prosecutors might inadvertently obtain confidential communications with cl. The warrant involving Rudy was particularly sensitive because of his most prominent client, Trump. While career Justice Department officials in Washington largely supported the search warrant, senior officials raised concerns that the warrant would be issued too close to the election. In the 60 days before the election, the Justice Department generally tries to avoid taking aggressive investigative steps now, the Manhattan prosecutors noted to officials in Washington. They initially raised the idea in the summer, way before the 60 day cutoff. But even then, political appointees in Trump's Justice Department, including officials in the Deputy Attorney General's office at the time, did not approve, noting Trump was still contesting the election. This is after the election. They still couldn't get it done. The opposition rankled. According to the New York Times, both the Manhattan prosecutors and some career officials in Washington who questioned whether senior officials were treating all politically sensitive investigations equally. No, they were not. While Manhattan prosecutors still faced opposition examining Rudy's records, federal prosecutors in Delaware were allowed to issue subpoenas for a tax investigation into Hunter Biden. So that went. That went forward. And while the political appointees were skeptical that there was enough evidence to charge Rudy, the career officials felt that there was sufficient reason to believe that the search warrant would turn up evidence of a crime. That's the legal standard to obtain a warrant. Ultimately, senior officials in Washington proposed delaying a decision on the subpoena until Biden took over. It's unclear whether the prosecutors have obtained a warrant. Since Biden was sworn in, the investigation into Rudy has centered on his dealings with Ukrainian officials. And that's what this whole thing is about. As part of that focus, prosecutors in Manhattan scrutinized Giuliani's ties to Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch who is under indictment in the United States. Wow, look at that. Beans come true. Hoping to avoid extradition, Firtash hired two lawyers close to Giuliani to argue his case at the highest levels of the Justice Department. While Rudy sought Mr. Firtash's help in gathering negative information on the Biden. Ooh, who said that? Who was talking about that meeting with Benzkowski, that Barr just sort of walked by mysteriously? He was at that meeting. Yeah. So that's interesting. Yeah. Information, negative information on the Bidens Firtash, Parnas and Fruman show investigation into Rudy blocked by Trump appointees and then they said, well, it's too close to the election. Then after the election they said, well, they're still contesting the election. And then they were like, ah, Joe's gonna be here anyway, so we'll see how that goes. As we know, Joe Biden this week is gon ask for the resignation of all the U.S. attorneys except for two in the Southern District of New York. Southern District of New York is not one that he's keeping. So we'll see how, how that goes, how they pick up that, that Rudy investigation. I'm just hoping that the evidence that they were trying to get last summer hasn't been destroyed. Also in the days after the January 6th attack on the Capitol, phone lines and websites of local election officials across the country were like on fire. Tens of thousands of Republicans were calling or logging on to switch their party affil. California had more than 33,000 registered Republicans leave the party during the three weeks after the Washington attack. In Pennsylvania, 12,000 voters left the GOP in the past month and more than 10,000 Republicans changed their registration. In Arizona, an analysis of January voting records by the New York Times found that nearly 140,000 Republicans had quit the party in 25 states that had the readily available data. Nineteen states do not have registration by party. Voting experts say the data indicated a stronger than usual flight from a political party after a presidential election, as well as the potential start of a damaging period for GOP registrations as voters recoil from the Capitol violence and its fallout. And from Reuters, dozens of former Republican officials who view the party as unwilling to stand up to Trump and his attempt to undermine democracy are in talks to form a center right wing breakaway party. That's according to four people involved in the discussion. The early stage discussions include former elected Republicans, former officials in the Republican administration of Reagan, H.W. bush, G.W. and Trump, ex Republican ambassadors, Republican strategists and everyone like just Republicans across the board. That's according to the people involved. More than 120 of them held a zoom call last Friday to discuss the breakaway group, which would run on a platform of principled conservatism, including adherence to the Constitution and rule of law, ideas those involved say have been trashed by the Trump administration. The plan would be to run candidates in some races but also endorse center right candidates in others, be they Republicans, Independents or Democrats. Democrats. It's kind of like a, you know, the Lincoln Project party, I guess. Evan McMullen who was chief policy director for House Republican Conference and ran as an independent in the 2016 presidential election, told Reuters he co hosted the zoom call with former officials concerned about Trump's grip on Republicans and the nativist turn the party has taken. Additionally, three other people confirmed to Reuters the call and the discussions, but they asked not to be identified. And President Biden has rescinded the emergency order used by Trump to justify construction of the border wall. That's the White House announced that on Thursday. I have determined that the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border was unwarranted. That's a letter Biden wrote to Nancy Pelosi. I have also announced it should be the policy of my administration that no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall and that I am directing a careful review of all resources appropriated or redirected to that end. Trump issued the national emergency in early 2019 after repeatedly butting heads with lawmakers over funding the wall. The emergency declaration loosened the limits on taxpayer funding, paving the way for Trump to divert funds originally intended for other agencies. Biden's proclamation comes after the administration asked the Supreme Court to cancel an upcoming hearing on the legality of the border wall, which the court granted. The president has directed the executive branch to undertake an assessment of the legality of the funding and contracting methods used to construct the wall. That's according to the administration and the letter that they wrote to the court earlier in the month. This move leaves Biden caught in the middle between Republicans who want to continue construction and litigants who not only want to stop construction, but tear down the portions of the wall that have already been built. And finally, President Biden has secured 200 million additional doses of COVID vaccine and expects every American to be vaccinated by July. That's 300 million people. We will keep you posted on that as the vaccine is distributed. We'll be right back with former U.S. attorney and he is also the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Lippman. We're going to discuss the impeachment trial today, so stay with us after these messages. We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back. Today I'm joined by former U.S. attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Littman to discuss the future, the Department of Justice, the impeachment trial. Today I wanted to go over some of the key points. Harry Littman, welcome.
- [27:28]
Amy Carrero
Good to be here.
- [27:29]
Alison Gill
AG it's great to talk to you. I was watching today. Today was easier to get through than yesterday. Yesterday was pretty traumatic to watch. And I wanted to talk a little bit about today. That's Thursday's closing arguments from the side of the Democratic impeachment managers and what your top line takeaways were from the presentation today.
- [27:48]
Amy Carrero
Sure. I mean, their job today was to try A, to synthesize and B, to preempt or cut off the escape routes that you expect Trump's lawyers to try to avail themselves of. So, on the synthesizing part, you know, the guys were masterful, and they really have been from the start. And it doesn't go without saying you can compare other efforts. Adam Schiff was certainly masterful, but what struck me about these guys is they were so well coordinated. They had such sort of dynamics. One lawyer being sober and analytical, one sounding the kind of higher notes, one being, you know, maybe a little more emotional. And they did tie it all together, and where they really. People had known what had happened. But they're the two things that they tied together. I think yesterday and today were one, just how completely terrifying and dangerous the actual events were. We'd all seen little snippets on the news, but they made us kind of live it in real time. And you understood why people were under their desks and trying to call to kiss their loved ones goodbye. So that. That they did magnificently, I thought. And then they tried to tie it to Trump and his words, and also I think, basically a home run. What they did, besides the words themselves, which are pretty solid, they had two really important pieces of evidence. One is all the insurrectionists themselves saying, we did it for Trump. We were waiting for Trump's orders. Why don't we call Trump? He's going to love it, et cetera. And then this whole kind of course of conduct, which they're gonna try to get up and say, oh, none of this matters. But it matters, crucially, because it established the kind of bond between Trump and his base, so that they understood each other. To go back to Michael Cohen, who's been your guest, and his noting that Trump can speak in a bit of a code, they really understood each other. He had nurtured them. They were his guys. They were repeat players. They had done it in Michigan. So that really brought that home. That's the synthetic part now, the preemption part, I don't want to hog too much, because I'm sure you'll have specific questions to fire at me, but the one thing I want to say is they played a gambit very hard, but will it succeed? And that was when Jamie Raskin said at the End the jurisdiction point is now off the table. It's been decided and it surely true. I'm very interested in what the Trump lawyers will possibly say to try to suggest it's still in play and they can all adopt it, even though it's been rejected by the body as a whole, which is how you do these things. If he's possibly succeeded in taking that off the table. So they're left with really lousy legal arguments and then having to confront the facts. That's a lonely time for them tomorrow. And I think they'll try to stand up and sit down quickly.
- [31:10]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And you're a former prosecutor, and I sort of wanted to ask you about the concept of the prebuttal. Right. Because the Republicans get to go second. Well, I should say the Trump defense team gets to go last in this presentation. They'll be doing that over the next two days. But I really thought that the prebuttle to the First Amendment argument was spectacular. And I thought that the prebuttal, again, to the argument of constitutionality was really well done, although they did kind of really nail that on the first, you know, the first four hours of debate about constitutionality.
- [31:46]
Amy Carrero
It's true. And look, they have a lot of prosecutorial experience in there among the actual managers and all the people who worked on it as well. So it's a common in federal court, as you know, the closing arguments go government, defense, government, and both sides sort of employ this trope. And it's really effective. The government and its first argument will say, I'm going to ask Ms. A.G. if she will answer. And then they know that it can't really be done and they can stand up again and say, you notice she didn't. And defense lawyers, and they're a little bit more in that position here because they don't get to go last. Will say, you're not going to be able to hear from me anymore. It'll just be Mr. Raskin. But here are some questions I ask you to keep in mind. And so, you know, they both, they both trot it out, but, you know, you don't do it. It's a lawyer's trick of sorts in that you're posing questions that, you know, there's no solid answer to. And man, is there no solid answer to his conduct in the 2, 4, 6 hours, 6 hours after saying, you know, this day will be glorious and it will live forever and we love you. There's nothing more. The video is more visceral, but there's nothing more damning of him. Than his conduct after he has to be pushed to say anything. He's first delighted. He's, I love this little snippet. He's confused why all the people around him are not delighted. That's like, you know, pristine sociopathy. Right. And all that stuff completely puts the lie to the notion of, you know, he didn't mean to put bring the genie out of the bottle and bring this plague down. Because, of course, as the President of the United States, he would have acted quickly to tamp it down, and he didn't. And there is no good answer to that point. So if they are forced to focus on the facts and the senators do themselves, you know, that's sort of the, there's more that's vivid, but it's the most damning because there's just no answer to it.
- [33:59]
Alison Gill
So will the Dems get an opportunity to rebut what Trump's defense comes up with in the next 16 hours?
- [34:06]
Amy Carrero
Yeah, so I think, first of all, I think it'll be more like eight hours that they'll come up with, but I think so. So my understanding, you know, they're, as everyone remarks, not a real trial, but I think those were not the actual closing arguments that we saw. That was the end of their, what we would call their case in chief. I believe that there's schedules that permit for actual closing arguments. And of course they're going to be questions. And if you're, if there's any point you've left unspoken, you'll be able to work it in to the question. So I think if, and I should really say, when the Trump lawyers fail to bring forth any kind of adequate explanation, they'll have plenty of opportunity to point it out. And, you know, and of course, at this point now they're pointing it out. Did you notice Raskin said senators, America, they are gently, while being respectful. He was very good this way, not showing zero contempt for the Republicans. They're really able to turn the audience at least half into being the country so that anyone who votes against them, you know, has to face the wrath or stupefaction or whatever of, you know, what has to be. In a normal trial setting, you would think they'll be out for a few hours. This has been really done expertly. Of course, here we have many biased jurors in the country and in, especially in the Senate. But even so what, they will have to in some way come to grips with this evidentiary point. Unless, unless, and you know, you'll still see some senators try to say, I don't care. I'm not going to look at any of those. I just want this over. And so I'm going to make the.
- [35:54]
Alison Gill
Jurisdictional argument right now. They'll hide behind the fact that they think it's unconstitutional, even though that's decidedly not the case. Yeah. And I thought it was really expert. This was like so such incredible expertise as a prosecutor. And Jamie Raskin asked those five questions at the end. He said, here's what I want you to answer for me because when he comes back for his final closing argument, he'll be able to revisit those questions because they won't be answered and he'll be able to kind of drive that point home. So again, I don't know that this will sway any Republican senators, but.
- [36:30]
Amy Carrero
Oh, it'll sway them. They know what the truth is. But will it change their votes? And just a little shout out to Raskin. He's a constitutional law professor. He had every reason to think that they would expect him to be pointy headed. But he got up and, you know, the first thing he said was a disarming joke about I'm not being professorial. And the last thing he said was common sense. He did a really sharp job of he carried the water to the extent it had to be carried for this sort of, of fine grained constitutional arguments. But he really kept the overall presentation and his own presentation away from being, you know, pointy headed.
- [37:10]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And I just kind of want to remind everyone, not that listeners of this show need this reminding, but you know, this isn't all about just getting a conviction and barring him from running from office again. This is about showing the American people the events of that day, getting it in the record historically and also just doing the constitutional duty that the House and the senators are bound to do. And so I think that, I think we're also sort of putting the Republicans on trial here and how they vote. And it's going to be very important in the upcoming elections to remember if they allow this to continue, that it gives future presidents the ability to have a January exception and that that is extremely dangerous for democracy for the Republic.
- [38:00]
Amy Carrero
Yeah, 100% understand two things. The other intended audience, the world, you know, some of which are defying and others have real chagrin that the United States is brought, you know, onto its knees this way. And then moreover, you know, it's funny all the way down, starting with Schiff was like, he'll do it again. I was, you know, I always felt, well, maybe, but it's bad enough it has to be punished. But it's really been shown he will do it again. And Ted Lieu made that great point. I'm scared he's gonna lose. Because if it's certainly if it's that or losing, if it's the last gasp, yeah, he'll do it again. And it. Since it really is in the Republicans interest, but the country's interest that he be disabled as much as possible. So if you sort of fast forward, if they do acquit and you have him exercising a kind of tyranny, you know, it is on them 100%.
- [39:05]
Alison Gill
Yeah.
- [39:05]
Amy Carrero
How about. I know I'm running out of time, but the most you were following in the Twitter sphere a little. The most amazing thing I read today, Lindsey Graham calling this presentation of this important, you know, couldn't be anything more important for national business offensive. He was offended by it and absurd. He found it absurd. You know, that's. He is. He is lives in another planet. Yeah.
- [39:33]
Alison Gill
Well, he is offensive and absurd. I think, I think. I personally think Trump has something on him. Maybe it's the RNC emails that Russia hacked. I don't know. But we'll see what happens with Lindsey Graham Crackers. But thank you for coming on today. I appreciate your time. I look forward to speaking with you again.
- [39:52]
Amy Carrero
Likewise. We're gonna publish a Talking Feds podcast on this with Hakeem Jeffries and others. Probably tomorrow. Right. We're talking now Friday for your audience.
- [40:02]
Alison Gill
Great.
- [40:02]
Amy Carrero
So we're going to try to get it out as fast as we can, hopefully by Saturday.
- [40:06]
Alison Gill
Great. Thank you so much. Harry Lippman, everyone. Check out Talking Feds, the podcast. I appreciate your time.
- [40:11]
Amy Carrero
Me too. Good to be with you, Ag.
- [40:14]
Alison Gill
Everybody, stick around. We'll be right back with the good news after these messages. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. It's time for the good news. Who likes good news?
- [40:29]
Amy Carrero
Everyone.
- [40:30]
C
Then good news, everyone.
- [40:39]
Alison Gill
Good news. And it's Friday. That means it's Amy Carrero day. Amy, how are you?
- [40:43]
C
Hello. I'm good. How are you?
- [40:46]
Alison Gill
I'm good. Did you make it through all the impeachment trial stuff? Like, today was okay, but yesterday was pretty hard.
- [40:53]
C
Yesterday was so hard. Today I felt like they really brought it home. Also, like, I mean, they all did such a phenomenal job. But, like, Raskin is like, I, I mean, I, I was just in shock. Like, everything he, every single argument he made, every single mini speech, I just felt like was a master class. I'm not a lawyer, but I would assume that law students will be watching his speeches for a long time.
- [41:19]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And that's kind of what you do when you're a law professor, Right. You take people who aren't lawyers and you help what the law is. And I thought he did an incredible job.
- [41:27]
C
He did such a great job and negoose all of them. But I mean, at this point I'm just like, I don't know what desk these Republicans are going to hide under because it's just, it's so open and shut, you know?
- [41:40]
Alison Gill
Yeah. They'll hide under the constitutionality argument even though it's incorrect.
- [41:45]
C
Right, right.
- [41:46]
Alison Gill
My guess, I think you're right. But yeah, I brought it up earlier in the show. I said, look, you have one choice or the other. You can either vote to convict Trump or you're going to vote to convict yourselves.
- [41:56]
C
So put that on a T shirt.
- [42:00]
Alison Gill
What? What? Yeah, that'll sound like hotcakes.
- [42:02]
C
Hell yeah.
- [42:03]
Alison Gill
At least this week we have a lot of great good news submissions. If you have any good news or corrections or confessions or if you have a dispute you want Amy to settle in Amy's court, send it into us. You can go to DailyBeansPod.com and click on Contact. That's how you send it in. I'm going to go ahead and start with the first two because the first one's really short. But it's a good one.
- [42:23]
C
It is a good one. Go for it.
- [42:24]
Alison Gill
This comes from Susan. No pronouns. Susan says good news. I was named associate chair of the journalism department at my university and I am a breast cancer patient in long term remission. Wow. Congratulations, Susan.
- [42:35]
C
That's huge. That's amazing. Congratulations.
- [42:38]
Alison Gill
Yes, that's wonderful. Next up, from Katrine. I'm. I hope that I'm pronouncing that correctly. Pronouns she and her. Hey, beans. Beanses. That's like. Is that like Gollum? Hello, Beanses.
- [42:50]
C
My Beanses.
- [42:53]
Alison Gill
I'm a fairly new listener from Germany. Ah, it's Katrin. Since somewhat the sixth. I traded in my CNN addiction for the election and the six to listening to your podcast. It feels so much healthier. Thank a. Duncan. I have lost one of my jobs due to Covid during the first hard lockdown in Germany last March and I'm not able to regularly practice one of my other jobs during this lockdown which is teaching fitness and yoga classes. The good news is I decided to dare the experiment of starting online yoga classes and already had had old friends on my online classes who used to practice with me but moved away some time ago. It' like duh, we could all have thought of that a bit earlier. The classes are in German at the moment, but I'm planning on putting up private classes in English once I built up my community a little. If any of your listeners speak German or into yoga teachers with humor and weird accents, the link will be in the Links from listeners section of the newsletter. As Pet Tax, I'm sending in two pictures of a real Silver Lake squirrel from the time I spent in Los Angeles in 2018. It looks quite cute in the first picture, but after sharing some of my walnuts it got a bit pushy and started climbing up my chair. The white fabric you see are my trousers, which Dehusen which I almost shat having no clue about American squirrels. And if they make it aggressive, you see, the European squirrels are generally very well behaved and shy like most Europeans. Thank you and all your right, thank you and all your guests and co hosts for all the humor, love, compassion and empowerment you spread with your podcast. Being Queer. I especially appreciate the inclusiveness and gender sensibility. Sending lots of good thoughts from the cold north.
- [44:31]
C
Oh man, that's a cute. That's a cute little squirrel. You know it's funny squirrels. I can they. I guess they can get pretty aggressive if you're giving them treats. Yeah, that they're not like foraging for themselves, but that's pretty cool. Got a listener in Germany and a yoga teacher at that. Very cool. Love that.
- [44:50]
Alison Gill
Yeah. Choose Danka.
- [44:53]
C
Yeah, thanks for sharing. Okay, next up from George with a G. George pronouns he him. My good news today is that both of my parents have just received their Pfizer COVID 19 vaccines. The pandemic has made it all the harder that my family lives in the uk which has been a total shit show for their pandemic response. Whilst I'm all the way over in Japan. We it's been a long year of dreading that every email from them is filled with bad news. I'm hoping this means that soon my mom can go back to work at the retirement home she helps out at all. That's so cool. But hasn't been able to visit for obvious reasons. For pod pet tax, I've included a pic of my chinchilla puff who is a floofy little energetic escape artist and my hedgehog Teasel, a very shy huffy huffy ball of needles. Hey, they've kept me sane during all the day staying the at home. Wow.
- [45:53]
Alison Gill
Chinchillas are so.
- [45:55]
C
Wow.
- [45:56]
Alison Gill
Soft. They're so, so soft. Look at those ears. Look at the hedgehog.
- [46:02]
C
Oh God, I was like a porcupine. Oh, how cute. Very sweet.
- [46:06]
Alison Gill
Yes. So adorable. I love the hedgehog photos. Please send them. And this, I think our first chinchilla. Nope, we've had other chinchillas. This is. Oh, really?
- [46:13]
C
Wow.
- [46:15]
Alison Gill
Now, a few listeners have written in to let us know that there are many breeds of cattle that both males and females have horns, including an anonymous listener who wrote, cows have horns. Some female goats do as well. Santa's reindeer would technically be female, as only the ladies have their antlers in the winter while the males have shed theirs. Let's normally, let's. She then says, let's normalize the idea of horny females. You are the best and are great advocates for horny females everywhere.
- [46:44]
C
Love the horns. They just shed them. They just like. They just leave them there.
- [46:48]
Alison Gill
Huh.
- [46:49]
C
Interesting. Didn't know.
- [46:50]
Alison Gill
They just sort of fall off. Yeah.
- [46:52]
C
Oh God, that sounds.
- [46:53]
Alison Gill
That's. That. You know what, that's good to know though. So you know people who collect antlers and stuff, it's good to know that they're taking them off the ground and.
- [46:59]
C
Not off the deer. That is so true. Okay, good. That makes me feel better. Love that. Okay, next up, anonymous pronouns. She, her, hello, beans, Queens. I've been a listener ever since I heard AG interviewed by Jonathan Van Ness's Getting Curious podcast a few years ago. What a collab. Here's my good news. I got.
- [47:19]
Alison Gill
Wow.
- [47:19]
C
I got the second dose of the COVID 19 vaccine today.
- [47:22]
Alison Gill
Woo.
- [47:23]
C
I must confess though, that I still feel really guilty about having been vaccinated so early. I was able to get the vaccine because as a psychotherapist, I am a healthcare worker and part of the phase one of the vaccination rollout. That being said, I'm young, in good health, and I have been lucky enough to be able to practice, work remotely, and maintain my full time practice. I know I'm technically a healthcare worker, but I can't help but feel like I don't deserve to get the vaccine yet because I'm not working directly with patients who have Covid and am not at an increased risk of infection due to my profession or demographics. When I was talking about this with one of my friends, she responded in a way that profoundly struck me. She reminded me that psychotherapists have been helping clients navigate a pandemic economic crisis or racial justice movement. Turbulent election, violent insurrection, chronic uncertainty and trauma, all without training or preparation. And while simultaneously experiencing these events ourselves. As psychotherapists, we so often put ourselves last and we live in A society that overlooks the significance of mental health. It can be so easy to downplay the importance of what we do and our role in the pandemic response. But we are doing some front line. Just as my friend offered this perspective to me, I want to offer it out to the beans world in case there are other mental health workers who are struggling with similar feelings. Allison, Dana and Amy, thank you so much for all that you do to keep us sane and well informed. I love listening to you on my daily walks and consider you all a part of my self care routine. That's so nice. For my pad pot tax. Here is my nine year old Havanese, also anonymous. She was the runt of her litter and has grown into a feisty, spunky pupperina. And she has fantastic silver eyebrows. Oh, she really does.
- [49:10]
Alison Gill
Yeah.
- [49:11]
C
That's so cute.
- [49:12]
Alison Gill
That's so cute. I love Havanese. They're so cute.
- [49:15]
C
So cute. And like aren't they usually have, they usually have longer hair and I think I really enjoy the shorter hair on the Havanese. I think that it's, you know, at the end of the day we just need vaccines in arms, you know, and like girl, get your vaccine. You know what I mean? Like if you are in the phase, like let's do it because the sooner you get it then the sooner we can move on to the other phase. And I know that, you know, I'm sure there's like all sorts of kind of like a weird survivor's guilt when it comes to that stuff, but I don't know, I would just say and add to all of that that you are a health, health, you know, healthcare worker, frontline worker, but also the, you know, the sooner you get it, the sooner other people can get it. So I don't know, maybe that helps.
- [49:59]
Alison Gill
If we don't think about ourselves as individuals and we think of it as a big picture public health push. If everyone sort of pushed away the vaccine because they felt like they didn't deserve it, we could lose vaccine because it has an expiration date. It would be hard to recalibrate and reschedule and try to figure everything out. So you know, when you're, when your turn is up, take it. It's part of helping the whole entire thing go smoothly. But ye, your friend brought up a really good point too. You are definitely a get it, get.
- [50:27]
C
It, get it, get it. Love it.
- [50:29]
Alison Gill
Oh, this next puppy. Oh my God. Okay, next up from Peg Pronoun. She and her. I was able to get my vaccine because of a client. I walk dogs for a pharmacist. His wife called on Saturday with the news. They were looking for eligible people to get vaccine shots. They had leftovers that they desperately needed. They were desperately seeking arms for. I went that day with another friend. For sure. There are lots of good folks doing this heartfelt work as pet tax pick of their dog. Charlie, he is too, who is a special guy. Oh, my gosh.
- [50:55]
C
Yes. That is a cutie guy. Is he taking a poop in this?
- [51:00]
Alison Gill
I don't know, but he's thinking he.
- [51:03]
C
Might be taking a poop.
- [51:04]
Alison Gill
You're concentrating and I love it.
- [51:06]
C
That's. Yeah, exactly. Look, I. I heard somewhere that they have like five day. Like it's like five days or. Or something in order to get them going once they receive them. So, dude, if you. If you are in the right place at the right time and they're just gonna toss them, get your vaccine.
- [51:23]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And I, you know, somebody could do a hell of a lot of good if they came up with an app where you could locate vaccine that's about to be thrown out.
- [51:33]
C
Absolutely. So maybe. Hey, someone work on that. Okay. Hey, all. Steve from Ireland here. I just wanted to share the wee frivis. Frison. What is that? The wee frison. I don't know what that is.
- [51:45]
Alison Gill
I think so. Frisson. Yeah. Must be an Irish thing.
- [51:48]
C
I love it. Of joy I felt when I discovered an envelope in my porch with stamps from the USA Today and a return address from California. Inside, I discovered three fine stickers. So I immediately transferred them onto my most played, most visible instruments. Spreading the good. Spread the good news. Here's pics to show their new homes. Please keep doing all you do. Thank you. Look at that.
- [52:14]
Alison Gill
There's a super space beans one on a Fender guitar. And then there's a daily beans one on a drum. These are Irish instruments. And then there's a mandolin with a muller she wrote sticker. I am so honored. Thank you, sir.
- [52:28]
C
That's really fucking cool. Like, that's really cool.
- [52:31]
Alison Gill
I love that. All right, next up from Jorge Pronouns. He and him. Hi, ladies. I'm a longtime listener from San Jose, Costa Rica. I love Costa Rica. First off, I need to say I'm thankful your commentary and your focus on the issues during the maddening previous administration. Your listeners from other countries have also. Also have some skin in the game when it comes to US Politics. Absolutely. Whether we have family that lives there. My case. Or we work for a US company that is also affected by what happens there. My case. Also, or just the influence that US politics cause on our local policies and politics. My case as well, Listening to your takes and knowing that there are people trying to restore sanity to the discourse gives me a great deal of comfort. Last year has been full of blessings for my family as it has been tumultuous After a miscarriage in 2019, my wife and I found ourselves expecting twins, a boy and a girl in 2020. I lost my job in July due to the pandemic about a month before the babies were due. Even though it was scary, it ended up setting me up nicely. After a brief stint at a job similar to the one I lost, I got my dream job that pays better than the one I had with very and it has very flexible hours. So with everything, everything went smoothly. Well, as smoothly as things can go when you have to juggle two newborns, a four year old girl full of energy doing remote kindergarten and a wife recovery recovering from a C section, all while working remotely in a new job. So not smoothly at all. However, we are happy, healthy and safe. A family of five. My wife and I both have jobs, our big kid is starting preschool this week and the twins are doing are going to a nice daycare. We trust, we count our blessings and they are many. Disclaimer no newborns were literally juggled. Please do not juggle newborns. I repeat, no juggling babies.
- [54:06]
C
No juggling.
- [54:06]
Alison Gill
Reminds me of the jerk cat juggling rule. The ugliness.
- [54:11]
C
Yeah, I love it. Oh, here we go For Amy's court last week you discussed hot dog toppings and I have an amicus brief to submit. I too have the soggy boiled hot dog in and out of the bag bun. Yep, Childhood experiences. Amy toppings would be the soul joy and I would endorse mayo, mustard, ketchup, sweet relish or whatever you wish to make your hot dog better. But even more the mayo avocado plus ketchup mixture that Amy described. Oh thank you. Here we call it literally salsa rosada. Like that's translated into pink sauce. Could it be some sort of Latinx thing? Additionally, AG said she was not putting avocado on her hot dog and to this I say do it. There is a Guatemalan popular dish called mixtas. I will say that I had my doubts about it at first, but it was really good. It's not quite a hot dog, but a corn tortilla with guac, cabbage, a sausage and toppings and it is really bonus less carbs.
- [55:14]
Alison Gill
Okay, that sounds delicious.
- [55:15]
C
That does sound delicious. For my pod tacks I Have no pits to showcase. But here are a few family photos. Oh, that's so sweet. One of my own family and the kids. And a picture of the twins happy with their daycare teacher. Oh, that's so sweet.
- [55:29]
Alison Gill
Wow.
- [55:30]
C
We got two sets of twins.
- [55:32]
Alison Gill
They have thing one. That's the theme today is twins. Yesterday it was sex. And twins naturally follow the sex theme. Right now they have thing one and thing two, and then, of course, thing three. And that, of course, is from Dr. Seuss. So I'm very excited that you. These little. And what a. What a beautiful family.
- [55:54]
C
Beautiful family. And I just want to say thank you very much for your amicus brief, because I think it might be a Latinx thing. My dad's Puerto Rican, and I always remember my dad saying, like, he would always call it, like, salsa roja or whatever. He'd, like, always call it that. So I wonder if it is kind of like Latin people. Just. Maybe we. Maybe back in the day, we just had, like, really shitty imported ketchup. Or maybe we were just making our own ketchup in our own countries, and it was so bad we had to mix it with something else. I'm just. I'm just spitballing ideas here, because it is a real thing.
- [56:29]
Alison Gill
Well, don't y'all put mayo on your. Don't y'all put mayo on your street corn, too? Isn't that a thing?
- [56:34]
C
That is a thing. I think that's the thing. I think that might be more of a thing in, like, maybe Central America, because as far as, like. Like caribbe Latin X, which is what I am. I'm Dominican Puerto Rican. We don't. It's funny because corn is not a huge staple. We've got the plantains on our side, which I have to say, and I'm very sorry to any Dominican Puerto Ricans, but I prefer the corn. Oh, I know, I know. It's gonna get me intro. I hope my parents aren't listening to this episode, because I'm going to get.
- [57:04]
Alison Gill
We're gonna get some notes. Next up from Stephanie. Pronouns she and her hello there. In reference to you all finding out that a group of giraffes is called a tower. I decided to write to tell you some of my most favorite animal group names. They're so interesting and always make me smile. I hope they do the same for you. An unkindness of ravens. A stubbornness of rhinoceroses. A conspiracy of lemurs. Oh, yeah, those dudes, dude, they're conspiring for sure. A pandemonium of parrots. A bloat of hippos. An ostentation of peacocks. That's my favorite.
- [57:36]
C
Oh, yeah, I've heard that.
- [57:37]
Alison Gill
Yeah, I've heard that before. That's my. My parents don't like flaming batons. It's definitely too ostentatious and an embarrassment of pandas, which is nonsense because pandas are adorable, and I would never make me embarrassed.
- [57:51]
C
Totally.
- [57:51]
Alison Gill
That's interesting. An embarrassment of pan. I don't know. They do some pretty embarrassing things.
- [57:55]
C
Maybe it's just an embarrassment of riches. I. E. Pandas.
- [58:00]
Alison Gill
I like red pandas better. Yeah. For my pet tax, I've included a couple of pictures of my cousin's hedgehog named Winnie after Winifred Sanderson. Oh. I guess it's also twins. Hedgehog Day. She was the first hedgehog I've ever met in person, and it was wonderful. Also, a group made up of Winnie and her friends would be called an array of hedgehogs. You ladies are wonderful. Thanks so much for all you do. Thank you for the group, the collective nouns. What is a group of. What is a group of collective nouns called? Stephanie. Right in.
- [58:31]
C
Oh, my God.
- [58:33]
Alison Gill
Yes.
- [58:33]
C
Right in the list. I have also heard, and I don't remember what. What animal this is referring to, but you probably know ag a murder of. Of crows. Is it crows?
- [58:42]
Alison Gill
Yep. How. It's crows.
- [58:44]
C
How dark is that?
- [58:46]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And an unkindness of ravens. Murder and unkindness.
- [58:49]
C
Yeah, that's rough. But I think my favorite is definitely an ostentation of peacocks. And I love your Miss Congeniality reference to that. My parents. Yeah, my parents don't like anything ostentatious. I stole a pair of panties. One from the department. Department store.
- [59:08]
Alison Gill
Red panty.
- [59:09]
C
That's right. I could quote that movie all day long.
- [59:14]
Alison Gill
Yes. I love that movie. I'm gonna watch it tonight. All right, everybody, thank you for sending in your good news and thank you for the amicus brief in Amy's court. If you have any disputes that you need settled, even if it's just with your cat, because I have those all the time, you can send them into us. And also any of your good news confessions, corrections. We love them all. Thank you so much. If you don't have POD pet tax, you can send your family photos. These were so cute today day. Or just a. You know. You know, it'd be great, too, is to get, like, where you sit and be calm. I would like to see where people chill. Like your chill space.
- [59:48]
C
Yeah, that's a good one. Yeah. I love that. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [59:52]
Alison Gill
Chill station.
- [59:53]
C
Chill station.
- [59:55]
Alison Gill
Yeah, exactly. From I love you, man. Chill Stage Jobin. Anyway, do that@dailybeanspod.com click on Contact. Do you have any final thoughts before we get out of here for the weekend?
- [60:05]
C
Amy, I'm so glad so many people are getting their vaccines.
- [60:08]
Alison Gill
Woo woo.
- [60:08]
C
And thanks for all the good news. It's definitely been a strange week, but we're, we're doing it, we're getting through it.
- [60:15]
Alison Gill
Yeah. Yep. Can't wait until next week when we find out who the new US Attorneys are going to be. That's going to be fun. So actually, might not be next week. Might be the week after.
- [60:24]
C
It's like our Super Bowl.
- [60:25]
Alison Gill
Yeah, that's my. Yeah, that's my justice super bowl for real.
- [60:29]
C
I love it.
- [60:30]
Alison Gill
For realsies. And as soon as they take over in the Southern district of New York, they can go get back full throated into that Rudy Giuliani investigation and maybe we'll see him walked out of somewhere in handcuffs. That would be just so fantastic.
- [60:42]
C
I just came.
- [60:45]
Alison Gill
Justice porn. All right, everybody have a good weekend. Until Monday, please. Take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet and take care of your mental health.
- [60:53]
C
I've been ag and I've been Amy.
- [60:54]
Alison Gill
Carrero and them's the beans.
- [60:56]
Amy Carrero
Refried bean. I like refried beans.