← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Refried Beans | American ID Crisis (feat. Kat Calvin) | 3/1/2023
00:49:55
Thursday, March 2nd, 2023 In the Hot Notes; a showdown between the FBI and the DoJ over the surprise search of Mar-a-Lago; Matt Gaetz tries to gotcha Biden’s Under Secretary of Defense by accidentally introducing propaganda from the People’s Republic of China; an intelligence review finds the Havana Syndrome is not caused by an energy weapon or a foreign adversary; Congressional Dem leaders send a letter to Fox News following the Dominion lawsuit revelations; plus AG delivers your Good News.
Loading summary
Transcript47 lines
- [00:02]
A
It's no surprise that newsmakers try to manipulate the audience. They want you to believe that they are the one holding the line, and they'll use any trick they can to get you there.
- [00:10]
B
But don't let them fool you.
- [00:12]
A
Get Unspun I'm Amanda Sturgel. I've been a reporter, and today I teach future reporters to cut the spin and think critically about what newsmakers say. My podcast, Unspun, shows you how to know when you're being manipulated by the news, learn to spot the tricks, and how to make up your own mind about what's true. So if you're tired of being fooled by the news, subscribe to Unspun today. Unspun because you deserve the truth.
- [00:40]
B
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. Refried beans.
- [01:04]
C
I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried beans, because maybe they're just as good
- [01:07]
B
and we're wasting time. Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Thursday, March 2, 2023. Today, a showdown between the FBI and the DOJ over the surprise search of Mar? A Lago. Matt Gaetz tries to Gotcha. Biden's Undersecretary of Defense by accidentally introducing propaganda from the People's Republic of China. An intelligence review finds the Havana Syndrome is not caused by an energy weapon or a foreign adversary. And Congressional Dem leaders send a letter to Fox News following the Dominion lawsuit revelations. I'm your host, Alison. Hey, everybody, it's Ag. Just a little heads up. The allergies are bad today. The wind is whipping up in San Diego something fierce. So I just wanted to let you know if I've got a little frog in my throat or it sounds like, you know, I'm a little bit raspy. That's why I just wanted to give you a heads up. Also, did you know 12% of Americans don't have ID and how that can impact them? We're going to be talking later in the show with Kat Calvin. She's from Spread the Vote and Project id and we're going to talk about the issues surrounding that and what she's doing to fix them. She's amazing and I look forward to that discussion. We have a lot of news to get to today, so let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes all right, from Carol Lennig et al at the Washington Post. Months of disputes between Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents over how best to try to recover classified documents from Donald Trump's Mar A Lago club and and residents led to a tense showdown near the end of July of last year, according to four people familiar with the discussions. Prosecutors argued that new evidence suggested Trump was knowingly concealing and they urged the prosecutors at the DOJ urged the FBI to conduct a surprise raid, or, you know, search warrant, I should say, at the property. But two senior FBI officials who would be in charge of leading the search resisted the plan as too combative and proposed instead to seek Trump's permission to search his property, according to the four people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Prosecutors ultimately prevailed, thank God, one of several previously unreported clashes in a tense tug of war between two arms of the Justice Department over how aggressively to pursue criminal investigation of a former guy. The FBI conducted a search warrant, a search pursuant to a search warrant, a legal search warrant, on August 8th recovering more than 100 classified items at Mar A Lago, among them a document describing a foreign government's military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities. Starting in May, FBI agents in the Washington field office had sought to slow the probe, urging caution given its extraordinary sensitivity. Some of those field agents wanted to shutter the criminal investigation altogether in early June, after Trump's legal team asserted a diligent search had been conducted and all classified records had been turned over. The idea of closing the probe was not something that was discussed or considered by FBI leadership and would not have been approved. A senior law enforcement official said that the account reveals for the first time the degree of tension among law enforcement officials and behind the scenes deliberations as they wrestled with national security in this case that had potentially far reaching political consequences. The disagreement stemmed in large part from worries among officials that whatever steps they took to investigate the former president would face intense scrutiny and second guessing by people inside and outside the government. However, the agents who typically perform the bulk of the investigative work, and the prosecutors who guide the agents work and decide on criminal charges ultimately focused on very different pitfalls. On one side, federal prosecutors and the department's National Security Division advocated aggressive ways to secure some of the country's most closely guarded secrets, which they feared Trump was intentionally hiding at Mar A Lago. On the other side, FBI agents in the Washington field office urged more caution with such high profile matters, recommending they take a cooperative rather than confrontational approach. Both sides were mindful of the intense scrutiny the case was drawing felt they had to be above reproach while investigating a former president. Now, while trying to follow the Justice Department playbook for classified records probes, investigators on both sides braced for Trump to follow his own playbook of publicly attacking the integrity of their investigation. The FBI agent's caution also was rooted in the fact that mistakes in prior probes of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had proved damaging to the FBI, and the cases subjected the bureau to sustain public attacks from partisans. Prosecutors countered that the FBI, failing to treat Trump as it had other government employees who were not truthful about classified records could threaten the national security of the United States. As evidence surfaced suggesting Trump or his team was holding back sensitive records, the prosecutors pushed for quick action to recover them. That's according to people familiar with the discussions. While the people who described these sensitive discussions disagreed on some particulars, they agreed on many aspects of the dispute. Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the FBI declined to comment for this particular story. Merrick Garland, asked about this report at a Senate hearing Wednesday, said he could not describe the investigation, but added, in his experience as a prosecutor, there's often robust discussion and it's encouraged among investigators and prosecutors. It's not unusual for FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors to disagree during an investigation about how aggressively to pursue witnesses or other evidence. Sure, it's not unusual, but me AG I'm glad that I know it was the FBI that was trying to slow this thing down and even stop it, and it was the Department of Justice prosecutors who were going forward and wanted to do this aggressively, carol Lenning continues. Often these disagreements are temporary flare ups that are debated, decided and resolved in due course. While the FBI tends to have a great discretion in the day to day conduct of investigations, it's up to prosecutors to decide whether to file criminal charges and whether, like the prosecutors, the director of the FBI ultimately reports to the attorney general. The Mar A Lago case was unusual not just for its focus on a former president, but in the way it was closely monitored at every step by senior Justice Department officials. Garland said he personally approved the search of Trump's property. Garland did that over the objection of FBI agents. It's unclear how the investigation may have been reshaped if the two sides had settled their disputes differently. Had the criminal investigation been closed in June, as some FBI field agents discussed, legal experts say it's unlikely agents would have yet recovered the items found in the FBI's search of Trump's residence. Some inside the probe argued that the infighting delayed the search by months, ultimately reducing the time prosecutors had to reach a decision on possible charges. Others contend that the discussions were necessary to ensure the investigation proceeded on the surest footing. That enabled officials to gather more evidence before they executed the search. In November, before prosecutors had finished their work and decided whether to charge Trump or anyone else, he announced his campaign to retake the White House in 2024, leading Garland to appoint Jack Smith to complete the investigation. Prosecutors and FBI agents were set on a collision course in April when Trump, through his lawyers, tried to block the FBI from reviewing the classified records the archives found. That set off alarm bells for prosecutors because it signaled he might be seeking to hide something. In preliminary interviews with witnesses in April and May, including Trump associates and staff, investigators were told many more boxes of presidential records were at Mar? A Lago that could contain classified materials similar in packaging to the boxes shipped there from the White House and to those returned to the archives in January. Again, Trump associates and staff, many more boxes. Now, FBI agents viewed a Mar? A Lago search in May as premature. That's the FBI and combative, especially given that it involved raiding the home of a former president. That spring, top officials at FBI headquarters met with prosecutors to review the strength of evidence that could be used to justify a surprise search. Encountering resistance Brat who's, you know, up there at national security at the doj, agreed for the time being to subpoena Trump. So that's why we got a subpoena on May 11 was because the FBI said, ah, just chill out a little bit. Don't search them quite yet. Now, that might have turned out to be advantageous because then we got surveillance video that we didn't have before. When I say we, I mean the DOJ. So BRAT agreed to subpoena Donald, and on June 3rd, BRAT and a small number of FBI agents visited Mar? A Lago to meet with Trump's lawyer and collect any classified records they had. That's when they did that red weld envelope, 38 classified documents taped up and then produced a letter signed by Christina Bob. Evan Corcoran did this, asserting that a diligent search had been conducted and all classified records had been turned over. Now, some FBI field agents then argued to prosecutors that they were inclined to believe Trump and his team had delivered everything to the government and, you know, to protect the bureau, they should close down the criminal investigation. After they got that red weld envelope with 38 documents, the FBI said, let's slow down, just shut it down. We don't need. He gave you Everything, we're pretty sure. But they said. National security prosecutors pushed back and instead urged FBI agents to gather more evidence by conducting follow up interviews with witnesses and obtaining Mar A Lago surveillance video from the Trump Organization. Uh oh. The government sought surveillance video footage by subpoena in late June. It showed someone moving boxes from the area where records had been stored not long after Trump was put on notice to return all such records. That evidence suggested it was likely more classified records remained at Mar a Lago, despite the claim of Trump's lawyers. It also painted for both sides a far more worrisome picture, one that would soon build the legal justification for the August search warrant. By mid July, the prosecutors were eager for the FBI to scour the premises of Mar a Lago. That's the prosecutors at the doj. They argued that the probable cause for a search warrant was more than solid and the likelihood of finding classified records and evidence of obstruction was high. But the prosecutors learned FBI agents were still loath to conduct a search. They also heard from top FBI officials that some agents were simply afraid. They worried that taking aggressive steps investigating Trump could blemish or even end their careers, according to some people with knowledge of the discussions. One official dubbed it the hangover of Crossfire Hurricane. That's the reference to the investigation into Russian interference in 2016 and possible connections, you know, with Russia and the Trump campaign. As President Trump repeatedly targeted FBI officials involved in Russia's case. There are a lot more details to this story, and Andrew and I are going to cover this on this weekend's episode of the Jack Podcast. So tune in. Next up from Aaron Blake at the Washington Post. In 2021, Matt Gaetz decried what he labeled as a fusion of the interest of the Chinese Communist Party and much of the apparatus of the United States government, unquote. But at a hearing Tuesday, Gaetz cited and entered into the record and an article from a newspaper which the Trump administration designated as a propaganda outlet, apparently without knowing that's what he was doing. The moment added some color to an otherwise relatively uncontentious hearing on oversight of U.S. funding for Ukraine. And even aside from the article's provenance, it was a remarkable document to point to in a congressional hearing. Now Gates, who's emerged as a leading critic of funding Ukraine, asked Under Secretary of Defense Colin Call a number of questions about potential U.S. involvement in Ukraine beyond what's publicly known. Ultimately, he asked about the far right military group in Ukraine. He said, is the Azov Battalion getting access to US Weapons now? Call says he wasn't aware of such a thing. But he asked whether Gates had any information he could address. But, you know, specifically, what do you. What evidence do you have? Gates then asked to enter into the record an article from the Global Times and asked if Call disagreed with it. Call said, I'm sorry, this is the Global Times from China? He asked. Gates said, no, but then checked and said, oh, wait, yes. And he seemed surprised that it was, quote, this is, by the way, what the undersecretary said to him. You know, Mr. Gates, as a general matter, I don't take Beijing's propaganda at face value. When Gates pressed again and Call repeated the statement, Gates responded, fair enough. I would agree with that assessment. And then he moved on. The Trump administration in 2020 designated the Global Times and three other outlets as foreign missions because they are, quote, effectively controlled by the government of the People's Republic of China. This designation recognizes PRC propaganda outlets as foreign missions and increases transparency related to the CCP and PRC government's media activities in the United States. That was Trump's State Department. Some media scholars have likened the Global Times to China's Fox News. The New York Times in 2019 labeled it a 24 hour propaganda machine whose top editor at the time was seen as a combative public voice of the administration of President Xi Jinping and an era of more open rivalry with the United States. Responding to a request for comment from the Post, Matt Gaetz's spokesman, Joel Valdez, said Congressman Gates wanted to ask if the report was true. The panelists said it wasn't and that was a good enough answer for him. He did not address the congressman's apparent surprise at where his source came from. Gates had promoted his question and answer period from the hearing on Twitter. He put it out on Twitter while cutting off that part. I think what's more important here isn't that Gates had a question and this guy, Under Secretary of Defense Call answered it, and Gates was like, great. I think what's more important here is that Gates wanted to make an argument. When you have a gotcha moment with a member of the Biden administration. And I think what's important to note here is that the things that support Matt Gaetz's views are propaganda from the People's Republic of China. That's the important takeaway here, not a simple mistake. That's not really what's at issue here. What's at issue is that Matt Gates's view matches that of propaganda from the prc. Matt Gaetz's opinion about Ukraine matches that of the People's Republic of China. That's the news. The Global Times relationship with the Chinese government aside, there's a substance of the particular article Gates cited while he pitched it as a Global Times investigative report, the piece in question appears almost wholly derivative of other sources. Indeed, as evidence that the azov Battalion got U.S. weapons, the piece cites, quote, public information from the U.S. government and some investigative reports by Western journalists, unquote. Now, the Azov battalion, which has fought alongside Ukrainian soldiers against Russia on the front lines, is a very controversial group. It's been linked to recruiting extremists such as neo Nazis. Some American politicians have pushed for designating it a foreign terrorist organization. The article includes a quote saying American weapons in Ukraine are flowing directly into the extremists of Azov. So it's sort of this narrative that the Democrats and Ukraine soldiers are the Nazis. Do you see where this is going? It's flowing directly to the extremists of extremists of Azov. But it doesn't say where the quote came from. By the way, it appears to be from a blog post in 2018, which in turn cites various other sources that don't have links. One of that post's main sources, by the way, the Atlantic Council digital Forensic Research Lab, said Texas made grenade launchers wound up in the hands of the Azov battalion around that time, but the weapons, quote, were reportedly used only in training exercises and likely returned to arms depots. Another source 2015 Daily Beast article didn't reach a firm conclusion about whether Azov fighters were being trained by US Forces. The Global Times article goes on to cite various experts accusing the United States of inciting conflicts between Ukraine and Russia and being very much conniving with the neo Nazi forces in Eastern Europe. It cites the United States and Ukraine having voted against a United nations resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism and neo Nazism. But it does not explain that is from a resolution frequently pushed by Russia, which many European countries abstain from voting on. The United States has repeatedly said the resolution calls for unacceptable limits on the fundamental freedom of expression and it's a thinly veiled political attack on Ukraine and even a pretext for Russia's invasion. In other words, if you don't know the Global Times background, the article itself has some real red flags. But instead of reading it with the requisite skepticism, a member of Congress decided to ask a high ranking US Government official to respond to it. And the mysterious ailment known as Havana Syndrome did not result from the actions of a foreign adversary. This is according to an intelligence report that shatters a long disputed theory that hundreds of US Personnel were targeted and sickened by clandestine enemies, enemies wielding energy waves as a weapon. The new intelligence assessment caps a years long effort by the CIA and several other US Intelligence agencies to explain why career diplomats, intelligence officers and others serving on US Missions around the world experienced what they described as strange and painful acoustic sensations. The effect of this mysterious trauma shortened careers, racked up large medical bills, and in some cases caused severe physical and emotional suffering. Many of the afflicted personnel say they were the victims of a deliberate attack, possibly at the hands of Russia or another adversarial government. They'll claim that the report contradicts in nearly every respect, according to two intelligence officials who are familiar with the assessment and described it to the Post. You know the CL that's contradicted that those claims are contradicted by this report and in something I consider questionable, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have sent a letter to Fox News. Let me read this letter to you. Dear Mr. Rupert Murdoch, et al. As noted in your deposition released yesterday, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and other Fox News personalities knowingly, repeatedly and dangerously endorsed and promoted the big lie that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election. Though you've acknowledged your regret in allowing the grave propaganda took place, your network has continued to promote, spew and perpetuate election conspiracy theories to this day. The leadership of your company was aware, but they did it anyway. Et cetera, et cetera. I'm paraphrasing now. We demand that you direct Tucker Carlson and other hosts of your network to stop spreading false election narratives and admit on the air that they were wrong to engage in such negligent behavior, as evidenced by the January 6th insurrection. Spreading this false propaganda could not only embolden supporters of the Big Lie to engage in further acts of political violence, but also deeply and broadly weaken the faith in our democracy and hurt our country in countless other ways. Fox News executives and all other hosts on your network have a clear choice. You can continue a pattern of lying to your viewers and risking democracy, or moving beyond this damaging chapter by siding with the truth and reporting the facts. We ask that you make sure Fox News cease disseminating the Big Lie and other election conspiracy theories on your network. Now this is I like this letter. It sounds great. But I am not fully on board with members of the government sending letters to private companies telling them and pressuring them into what to do and not do. Again 100% Fox is wrong and they've done the wrong thing. And they will be held, I think they'll be held liable in these civil suits. And I think there'll be more civil suits to come. I also think that giving Joe Biden's campaign ads to Jared Kushner could be seen as an in kind, an illegal in kind campaign contribution, something of value donated to a campaign. There may be illegal things there. And that is for the Justice Department to work out. That is for the courts to work out in these civil suits. I don't think it's for government officials to do this. I don't see it as much different from the government telling Mike Lee or whoever it was. I think it was Mike Lee from Utah. Could have been somebody else pressuring at and T to bring Newsmax back or else, quote, unquote. Now, there's no or else in this Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries letter. And of course, there is a right and there is a wrong. I'm not both sidesing this. I just, I think the government shouldn't pressure private companies with what to do unless it's. There's a, an investigation, by all means.
- [23:11]
D
Right.
- [23:12]
B
Like when Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the Internet Research Agency, is putting out Russian bot farms onto social media, then, yes, the FBI should be in contact with social media sites to determine best what not to share and what to limit. Yes, that's part of a criminal and a national security investigation. And I do think the Department of Justice should look into some of this FOX News stuff as is that that is their job and it's the court's job to determine these civil suits like the Dominion $1.6 billion case. I just, I feel a little weird about the letters from government officials. It just seems, I don't know. I would love to know what you think, though. So send in your opinions to the Good News segment. Let me know what you think. You can do that@dailybeanspod.com and click on contact. All right, everybody, we'll be back with Cat Calvin. We're going to talk about Spread the Vote and Project id. You don't want to miss it. Stick around after these messages. We'll be right back.
- [24:22]
C
You can always count on Sunday to be the best day of the week. You can sleep in, go off your diet, spend the day in your pajamas and go on, have that second croissant. You know what else you can count on every Sunday? The Martin Sheen Podcast. Join me, your host, Martin Sheen, for beautifully crafted 20 minute programs filled with never before heard stories of my life along with personal reflections and poetry that inspires. And season two begins Sunday, February 1st. The Martin Sheen Podcast is the perfect Sunday relaxing companion. A chance to put your feet up, take a deep breath and enjoy some stress free listening time from the comfort of your favorite easy chair. And that second questant that stays between us. There's no judgment here, so make my podcast your weekly moment of calm as we explore faith, hope and love and what it means to be human. And rest assured, this journey is ever unfolding as I invite you to see what's next with me, Martin Sheen. So let's keep Sunday the best day of the week together and thank you for listening.
- [25:47]
B
Hey everybody. Welcome back. I'm happy to be joined today by the executive director of Spread the Vote plus Project id. She's a voting rights expert, lawyer, an activist, social entrepreneur, and she is making history with her work supporting the nearly 30 million Americans living without a government issued ID. Please welcome Kat Calvin. Hi, Kat.
- [26:08]
D
Hi. Nice to meet you. Thanks for having me.
- [26:10]
B
I am so excited to talk to you because this is like some of the most important work that I can imagine. I have so many conversations with relatives who think that, you know, voter ID laws aren't somehow limitive or, you know, suppressive or oppressive to the vote. And I, and I keep trying to explain in so many ways like that not everybody can get an id and it's very difficult for a lot of us. And that's just one of the aspects of all of this incredible work that you're doing. Tell us about Spread the Vote plus Project id. And you know, as the executive director and founder, tell us why you started this project.
- [26:45]
D
Yes, I'm so glad that. Not glad that you've had those conversations, but glad that you've had them. So you understand the challenge when I'm. Oh Lord. I mean, I could start all the way back in 1965, but I'll start in 2016 when we had the presidential election and it was the first national election that we had after the 2013 Supreme Court decisions, Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a lot of the Voting Rights act, which is when a lot of people found out that RBG was a total badass. Those of us who went to law school were aware of how awesome she was. We're so glad everybody was finding out. But also it was the impetus for the expansion, very wide expansion of voter ID laws. And so after the election I thought, all right, well, we need to do something about this. And you know, there are a lot of amazing organizations trying to fix, you know, voter ID laws or, you know, eliminate them through the judicial system, through legislation, et cetera. But the problem is it just. It doesn't work. In 2013, we started, we had like, maybe four states that had voter ID laws by the. By 20 2013, by the 2016 election, we had 21. And now we're up to 36. So, like, they're not a thing that's going away. And what I realized was, well, we just need to help people get IDs. And so we started and within five seconds realized, oh, this is so much bigger than voting. You can't get a job without an ID or a home. You can't get access to social services. You can't get a night in most shelters or food from most food banks. This is actually about life and death and survival, and voting is just one small sliver of that. And so we started really focusing on helping folks get IDs 365 days a year because they need them to live. And then during elections, we also help them be able to vote. We do education, we do voter turnout, et cetera. And that's why we really expanded our name to Spread the Vote plus Project id, because we really needed to emphasize this is about literally people being able to live, people being able to get off the streets, people being able to stay off the streets, et cetera. And so then in 2020, we launched a 501c4, the Project ID Action Fund, which is working on changing policies. So we have a bill In Congress, the IDs for an inclusive Democracy act, to establish a free federal ID so that all 26 million adults, plus it would actually start 14 and up, can just get an ID. We're actually introducing a piece of legislation in the California State Legislature today in a couple hours. And we'll have a couple of different state legislations this session, and we're really working on changing policy while at the same time we're getting IDs for people on the ground.
- [29:34]
B
I think that's so amazing. And I love the fact that you, you know, when you first just started peeking at the voting problem, that it opened up this whole world of it's not just about voting. And I want to talk about some of the other things that, you know, folks who aren't able to get ID are discluded from. But I wanted to just sort of do some. A little bit of clarification on the voting piece before we move on to that, because, yeah, at Shelby county, they gutted the Voting Rights act in 2013. And I think a lot of people don't quite understand what that means. And correct me if I'm wrong, because there used to be a pre clearance requirement for certain states if they wanted to pass any laws around voting, that they had to get clearance with the Department of Justice. But a lot of the extremists on the Supreme Court were like, no, no, no, there's no more racism in America. Everything's fine, so we don't need to have that pre clearance bit anymore. Did that preclearance requirement when the Voting Rights act was intact, did it include voter ID laws? And is that why we've seen such a huge, like, onslaught of new voter ID laws after that decision in the Supreme Court?
- [30:42]
D
So it included everything. So what preclearance was was that certain states and even jurisdictions. So there were parts of California, there were parts of all sorts of different states. And then, you know, full, full states that were sort of some of the states that had the biggest challenges during and leading to the civil rights era. When they wanted to make any change for an election, they had to go to the Department of Justice. So whether it was voter ID laws, whether it was changing, we have this issue now that we're seeing where suddenly before an election, they'll close certain polling places that happen to be in sort of poor brown areas or whatever, whether they wanted to change different rules about, say, how many weeks you get for early voting, things like that. Right. Like, literally anything that they wanted to change, they had to go to the Department of Justice for through preclearance. And so what happened was when the Supreme Court decided. Exactly. And it wasn't even extremists, it was Roberts, who now feels moderate, you know, but when they said basically like, well, racism's over. We have a black president. Well done, America, they said, you don't have to seek pre clearance for anything anymore. The reason that voter ID laws are the things that we saw really take off at this time is because that was something that the Republican Party had really been testing out in a lot of different states. And they have this. I mean, I rave on and on about how brilliantly strategic they are. I wish maybe little slightly less evil, but they had really worked for a long time on figuring out, how do we make this work? And so literally within two hours of the decision coming down, Texas and Alabama started working on passing voter ID laws in their state legislatures, because they already had the model, they already had the bills, they already knew what they wanted to Do. They were just waiting for the decision and it was something that they knew. And we have quotes and video people saying this. They knew that the numbers were big enough that it would make a really significant impact. Particularly I think people, when we think about elections, people just always think about the presidential election, which I get. But when you're trying to suppress a vote, it's much easier to do it for a state and local elections that have smaller marches of victories, that don't have an electoral college. Right. That don't have all these steps. So, you know, if you have 60 million people voting for president, that's a little tougher to suppress. But if you have 11,000 people voting for sheriff. Right. Or 100,000 voting for city council or whatever, that's a vote that you can just suppress 5,000 votes or fewer. You know, how many elections do we have? A lot that are decided by a tie or by one vote. You don't have to suppress that many votes. And so when you have 11% of the adult population of this country who don't have photo id, that's a really easy way to suppress votes. And so that's one of the reasons that we saw voter ID laws really take off. But it is not the only thing. Right. We've also seen serious restrictions on absentee voting, including now. And the Supreme Court has okayed this, requiring an id, requiring photocopy of id. Right. We're now, now some states are trying to make you get your ballot notarized. You know, we've seen early voting seriously cut back. We've seen getting rid of Sunday voting so we can't do souls to the polls. Right. We've seen a lot of other measures as well that all happened after that section of the Voting Rights act was, was cut out.
- [34:02]
B
Yeah. And it's, it's happening all over. Like you said. And I'm glad that you brought it up. It's not. Wasn't just states, it was certain districts and in what we consider to be blue states as well. But there were more red districts because, I mean, let's be honest about this. It's trying to suppress the vote of marginalized people and they tend to vote Democrat. So, you know, let's. Now we want. I would like for just everybody to vote and just see where the cards fall. But I think the Republicans have learned that if everybody votes, they tend to lose.
- [34:35]
D
Yeah. Well, and it's not just, you know, one thing that I think is important and I always try to point out to folks, is that both parties suppress votes. Because what the people who are suppressing votes are the people who want to stay in power. Right. So one thing that you'll see is that young politicians on either side of the aisle who are not part of the traditional model are trying to get unusual voters to vote for them. Right. Whether they're progressive or whether they're QAnon or whatever. And it is people in power who are generally moderate, who are on both sides of the aisle, very much entrenched in the system. Right. And this not. Who are trying to keep people from voting. Both sides do it in very different ways. Ways Republicans just happen to be more effective at it. But it is very much a measure of people in power trying to stay in power more, I think, in many ways than a measure of particular parties. Right. George Santos would love for young Republicans or people who've never voted before to vote for him who may be impacted by voter ID laws at the same time. That's probably a terrible example, but he's the only person I'm ever thinking about right now. Why is that? I'm obsessed with George Santos because it's such an insane situation that every day I'm like, this can't be. Like, this can't. That. Yep. This is real. Like, I just. I'm completely obsessed with George Santos. But, yeah, it's. You know, it's. It's a power mechanism more than anything.
- [36:00]
B
Yeah. I think I was just making the point that it happens on one side a little more frequently than the other. But, yes, I. I definitely. Your point taken. And, you know, when we talk about primaries, that's different than talking about the general. But, you know, the bottom line is everyone should be able to vote.
- [36:16]
D
Yes.
- [36:17]
B
Who is eligible to vote. And we just. We run into these problems. We run into these laws ever since Voting Rights act went away. So the work that you're doing is so important. I have a question, though. What about addresses? Because I know that there's been a lot of issues with voting laws that say you have to have a physical address. But, like, if. Let's say, a lot of indigenous people live on a reservation, then don't have those physical addresses. They were using PO Boxes, and then they were trying to be disqualified. And I think South Dakota. Maybe South Dakota and other places, too. But I just. It's popping into my head right now.
- [36:50]
D
What.
- [36:51]
B
What do y' all do with these IDs when somebody doesn't have, like, a physical address? Are you. Is there any. Anything that you're doing to sort of remedy that and sort of Push back on that. Like, why do you. You know, not everybody can have a physical address.
- [37:04]
D
So it's. It's sort of different issues, you know, with. It was North Dakota, and, yeah, they were trying to invalidate native IDs, because folks on reservations often don't have physical addresses. I'm. That was specifically because of voting. And it's. It was a. Specifically a thing that you could do because of the way that native IDs are. Are made and the information they do or don't have on them. You see this a little bit. There's some states that put really, like Wisconsin that put really onero requirements on what IDs have to have so that student IDs can't always be used. And so you see that in some cases, but for the most part, other than those very special circumstances, you know, we're helping people get DMV IDs because they need them for everything. And you have to have an address on a DMV id. So we have to go, depending on the state, the hoops that we have to jump through to be able to make sure that we have a resident address and proof of residency, which you have to have in every state to get an ID for someone who's unhoused. You know, there are different things that we can do in each state in order to make that happen, but you can't have a state ID without an address. And so once we get that ID for them, they have the ID that they would need to vote as well.
- [38:16]
B
Yeah, and let's talk about some of those other things too, because you have a program called Vote by Mail in Jail. Tell us about that. Because you've successfully worked with your clients to increase voter turnout from 0 to 40% in the 2020 midterms. And that is a significant amount.
- [38:34]
D
Yeah, so that's. That's two different programs. Yeah. Our average turnout, we get our folks up to 40%. And a lot of that is because we. Everyone who works or volunteers for our organization does it in their own community. We're very consistent about where we go. You know, we've got some, you know, food banks and shelters that we've been going to every week since 2018. Right. So, like, we are there all the time. They know us, and we're helping folks get a thing that they really need. You know, the way that we found out that there was a bigger problem with IDs and voter ID is because when we were talking to people about getting IDs to vote, they were saying, I need a Job and I need a place to sleep at night. That is my priority. And we realized, like, oh my God, of course, like, yes, that's, that's the real issue here. And then once you help people get the thing that helps them be able to have security and feed their children and do these other things, and then you say, hey, can we talk to you about voting? And then you want to talk and they trust you and they know that you're there because you care about their well being. And we're not swooping in in October. And so it makes a really big difference in how we're able to get folks to the polls. We started vote by mail in jail in 2020 because we work with a lot of recently returned citizens, we work with a lot of incarcerated citizens. We work with different jails and prisons trying to get folks an ID as close to their release date as possible so that they're able to immediately get jobs and housing, et cetera. And, and I'm. One thing that we realize is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are currently incarcerated who are eligible to vote, mostly because we incarcerate so many people, free trial, just because they can't afford to pay bail. And then also because we have people who are incarcerated for misdemeanors, which doesn't take the right to vote away. And so we started this program to be able to help folks vote. And in this last election, we were able to help thousands of people actually vote from jail. It is the rules about, like, what you can and can't send to jail. You can't send, you know, a glossy card, no glitter, which that's a rule I think everybody should have. You know, you can only send certain amounts of paper. You can't send a stamp because that is currency. Right? Like there's all of these things. And so we work with representatives who either work in the jails, like, you know, a lot of times there'll be a counselor or a chaplain or something, or people who, you know, we've got volunteers who are in the jails regularly and we create voting guide specifically for incarcerated voters. And we have different timelines for when we get our incarcerated voters registered and things turned in. Because it takes much longer for anything to happen in jail than it does on the outside. But yeah, we really work to help make sure that we're making it as, you know, as possible for people who are incarcerated and are eligible to vote to actually be able to turn into
- [41:13]
B
ballot God, such important work. Also, let me ask you about American Identity Crisis. Tell us about this book.
- [41:20]
D
Yes, it's my first book. I'm so excited. Oh, man, I can't believe it. It comes out in September on Amistad, which is at HarperCollins in print, and they're amazing. And yeah, it is basically this story. It's about the ID crisis in America. It's about how we got here. You know, how did we end up with 26 million American adults who don't have ID? What does it actually look like to not have ID and, you know, what does that process look like to get one and then how we can solve it? Which. Spoiler you could. We could pass our bill, the ID support. I didn't ID support Inclusive Democracy act, which is in Congress. So you already know what's at the end of the book. But, you know, it's really my attempt to help spread the word more and educate as many people as possible about this issue so that we can all work together to fix it.
- [42:09]
B
Yeah. I think there's so many of us who just don't realize because we've had ideas our whole lives, like, how it would impact you to not have it. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.
- [42:17]
D
I never knew. I've had a passport since I was a baby. I got my first military ID when I was 10, and then I got a driver's license when I was 16. So I've literally never gone a second of my life without an id. And so it was not until I started this that I was like, oh, my God. And there's so many amazing case managers and social workers and people who know. And then when the rest of us figure out, they're like, yeah, we've been here. We've been telling you.
- [42:42]
B
That's what we said. Well, I'm really excited for this book. Is the book available for pre sale?
- [42:47]
D
It is. Thank you. I forgot to say that you can go to Katkalvin. It's K A T c a l v-I n.org pre order, and you can buy it there. That takes you to bookshop.org, which is one of my favorite places to buy books. But it's also on Amazon and Target and Barnes and Noble and all the rest.
- [43:03]
B
American Identity Crisis, that's such a great title, too. Absolutely amazing. And finally, before I let you go, where can people donate and help, whether it's time or money or resources, to this project to sp the vote plus the project id, Because I think this is a really great way for people to get involved and help, because not only, like you said, does it help with voting but it helps with so many aspects of life.
- [43:28]
D
Yeah, absolutely. So if you'd like to get involved on the the ID side, either by donating, volunteering, etc. You can go to spreadthevote.org or project id.org and there's donate links, there's volunteer links. If you want to get involved on the policy side, you can go to projectidaf.org for Project ID Action Fund. And there are also places there to sign up to donate, volunteer, and you can help us push forward our policy there. So whatever you're into, we have something for you.
- [44:01]
B
Yes. And you can also contact your representative in Congress and tell them to pass the IDs for an inclusive Democracy Act. Did I get the name of it right?
- [44:09]
D
That was perfect. And yeah, we have a website for that, id, fourid.org, f O R. And yet you can see the text of the bill, you can read more about it, you can see who has already sponsored it in the House and keep track. We're working on getting into the Senate this session and et cetera. And yes, that would be amazing. That is the legislation that's going to change everything.
- [44:34]
B
Yes. And I would recommend you call or write when you. Actually, I know this for a fact because I used to write and receive letters for people in Congress. They read those. So, you know, send it in and tell them you want to see that, see that movement on that. Thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it. Cat Calvin.
- [44:49]
D
Thank you so much, everybody.
- [44:50]
B
Stick around. We'll be right back with the good news.
- [44:54]
E
I'm Brian Caram and I've spent decades covering politics. Now I'm taking you behind the scenes one interview at a time. Join us as each week Brian confronts the issues that matter, posing the questions you wish you could ask. No filter, no agenda, just the truth. We're not here for sound bites. We're here for substance. Join me, Brian Caram. Every week as we cut through the noise and get straight to it. This is just Ask the Question for curiosity will lead us to the facts. Subscribe now on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, when you want answers, all you have to do is just ask the question.
- [45:37]
D
Foreign.
- [45:44]
B
Welcome back. It's time for the good news. Who likes good news?
- [45:47]
D
Everyone.
- [45:48]
B
Then good news, everyone.
- [45:55]
D
Good news, good news.
- [45:56]
B
And if you have any good news, confessions corrections. You want to play what the mutt. You want to send us your story you would tell. Tell me what you think about the Schumer Hakeem Jeffries letter asking a private company to Stop doing something. I just. It's. There's something about it. I just can't put my finger on it. Something about interfering. Something about first Amendment. Because lie. I don't know. Let me know what you think. Send all of your stuff into us@dailybeanspod.com and click on Contact. First up from M. No pronouns. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I just want to send a quick correction on the pronunciation of Brazilian names. As you know, we speak Portuguese down here and Americans tend to err on the side of Spanish pronunciations of our name. Quite Gustavo Ribeiro Telha should be pronounced with a hard English H. It sounds like telia, not tel ha. Should not be pronounced with a hard English H. It sounds like telia, not tel ha. Thank you. Tel tell ya. And then there's a great little link for the pronunciations. Thank you so much for that. I appreciate that. I will do my best in the future. I can't make any promises, but I will. I can promise I will try. Next up from Anonymous Pronouns he and they. Hey ladies of the Leguminati. I love your show and I've been listening since the kitchen table days. Hello. As an inclusive Norse pagan, your mention of the odal rune at CPAC hit hard. Our symbols are appropriated for racism and bigotry by people who don't understand the real history of the culture they come from. Even as somebody who does daily rune polls and post them publicly, I make sure that whenever I'm in public with any of the symbols of my faith, I include a pride pin or my rainbow or hammer patch. Rainbow, hammer patch or oh. Just wanted to take this opportunity to allow people to know we aren't all or even mostly bigots. Of course not. The trough declaration 127 heathens against hate and Thor Hates Racists are good resources for anyone who would like more information on the ways we strive to create an inclusive community. Keep up with the great work. I wish you all the best. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anonymous. The way that I stumbled upon that, and by the way, I was the one who broke the story about the CPAC using the odor as their stage shape, which is a known knockout Nazi insignia along with the ss. And the way that I found that out, and I know where it originates from, is because my friend worked on the Gods of War video game and said we weren't allowed to use that because in Germany that is an outlawed symbol because its association with hate groups. And so that's where my understanding of that entire thing came from. I do. I own runes myself, so I feel you. Thank you for that information. Next up from Non Bird no pronouns given. Non Bird Any chance the beans can join Mastodon? I dropped the bird site when SpaceX reinstated the former guy. Mastodon is much better, but there's no MSW Media there. No plans to yet, but the beans will be on Spoutable. MSW Media is on Spoutable right now at MSW Media pods. Okay, and I am too at Mueller, she wrote. I think I'm at Mastodon, but I don't spend a lot of time there. I'm waiting for a more consolidated server. In any case, thank you for writing in. Next up from Anonymous Pronouns he and Him Good morning AG DG Q Thunderstruck Thunderstruck I'm a military intelligence veteran, Canadian Armed Forces, who gave up the quote unquote dream job after leaving the military to go to my dream school. When I worked in the forces, I discovered my passion for geospatial science. I enlisted when I was 18 and never got a formal secondary education. So to go to my dream school, almost done my first year, and be accepted into this advanced program is a real highlight of my life. That's so cool. I was pretty ignorant of American politics until Trump was elected. I still remember waking up in the morning to my boss's text, oh no, America did a Brexit. Since our intelligence works closely with the Americans. We spent four years worried about if the orange Blob was going to dismantle our agreements considering he designated our country a security threat. I've been out for over a year, but nearly spit my drink out over the documents found at Mar a Lago. Yeah, us too. I've been following your Twitter and podcasts since the Mueller report, but fell off after being disappointed in the end results. Deleted my Twitter because Fuck Musk. I'm so very happy to return to your content with Jack Beans and now clean up on aisle 45. Keep being awesome. From an outside perspective, your country's politics are quite depressing, but you ladies, Andy and the others make it all worthwhile. Thank you Anonymous. Also, I gladly pay pet tax. Here is Coco the white dog, Pablo Brown and wearing my school hat and Bunny the rabbit. My wife rescued each one. She's amazing and if you could send some love to her, that'd be great. Taylor sending you love. Look at the babies and the bun. Hello. Oh, what a great crew. Thank you for sending that in. Ah, the dog in the hat. That's hilarious. The little white dog seems like Coco seems like Coco's got a lot of personality. Thank you for sending that in. All right, next up from Cookie Pronoun. She and her hi, queens. My wife turned me on to you funny ladies, and we listen to you every morning while getting ready for our day. Thank you for making news more interesting for me, but mostly, thanks for your fun laughter. Hopefully this will tickle your funny bones. When my grandson was about 3 or 4 years old, he came running into the kitchen to make this announcement to my daughter and me. Hey, guys, did you know you could stick your finger up your butt? In unison, my daughter and I yelled, go wash your hands.
- [51:29]
D
Oh.
- [51:29]
B
When he was out of earshot, we both laughed so hard, we were crying. Little Guy is now 27 years old, and trust me, he's not amused when we reminisce about that day. Oh, you must keep reminiscing about that day. I have a included pictures of us together from the old days. And now I love him so much. I can't imagine life without him. Oh, my God, look how cute. That's amazing. There he is. I love the shirt. Very cool. Thank you for sending. Yeah, he outgrew you, that's for sure. That's for sure, Cookie. Thank you, everybody, for sending in all of your good news. Please send us all of your good news. We would love to hear it. And again, we'll be here tomorrow, but then we'll be out next week, so I appreciate you. I think Dana will be here tomorrow. If you drop in, you might be able to get to hear a Dana. I'll do my best. We'll see what happens. There's a lot of traveling going on, and things can happen last minute, but that, so far, is the plan. So everybody until then, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health. Vote blue over Q. And bring someone with you. I've been ag and them's the beans. Refried beans. I like refried beans.