← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Refried Beans | Navarro, Scavino, and Meadows, Oh My (feat. Glenn Kirschner) | Jun 6, 2022
00:34:01
Monday, June 6th, 2022 In the Hot Notes: Trump advisor Pete Navarro has been indicted and arrested for criminal contempt of congress; simultaneously, the DoJ told the committee they would NOT be indicting Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for criminal contempt; a Pence aide told his secret service lead that Pence could be at risk the day before the attack on the capitol; and strategy memos prepared for Republican candidates advised them to “ignore guns and talk inflation” after the Uvalde shooting. Follow our guest: Glenn Kirschner
Loading summary
Transcript28 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.
- [00:23]
Unknown Speaker
Refried beans. I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried beans, because maybe they're just as good and we're wasting time.
- [00:46]
Alison Gill
Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Monday, June 6, 2022. Today, Trump adviser Pete Navarro has been indicted and arrested for criminal contempt of Congress. Simultaneously, the Department of justice told the 16 committee they would not be indicting Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for criminal contempt. A Pence aide told his Secret Service lead that Mike Pence could be at risk the day before the attack on the Capitol. And strategy memos prepared for Republican candidates advised them to ignore guns and talk inflation. Three days after the Uvalde shooting. I'm your host, Alison Gill. Hi everybody. Happy Monday. I hope you had a great weekend. There was a lot of news that dropped. We're going to get to most of it as much as we can. We're going might have to put some stuff off till tomorrow, but this week is also going to be a crazy news week with the, with the hearings beginning on June 9, 8pm Eastern Time. You're going to want to be around for that. Dana's going to be back tomorrow with us and she's going to also be back with the good news. We're going to forego the good news today so that she can be here when we read it. And instead I'm going to be talking with Glenn Kirschner, host of Justice Matters and former federal prosecutor. We're going to be talking about the Scavino, Navarro and Meadows thing that happened over the weekend. Also out today, an episode of Muller, She Wrote and a new episode of the MSW Book Club where I cover Ellie Mostahl's instant New York Times bestseller, Allow Me to Retort, you can check those out. And thanks to our patrons, thanks to you, we are able to make these shows happen. And right now we have this program where if, you know, if you want to donate a one year premium feed ad, free feed to someone who can't swing it right now, you can do that. And then you can also sign up to receive a donated one year premium feedback. You get this show, MSW Book Club and Mellor, She Wrote, all ad free plus access to the weekly Zoom meetings and our private online groups and discord and all that cool stuff for discussions. So you can do that by going to patreon.com muller she wrote. All right, we have a lot to get to. Let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes. All right, first up, former Trump White House official Peter Navarro has been indicted on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol. And that's according to the Justice Department and their announcement on Friday ahead of the first televised public hearings of the panel this Thursday. The development was a boon to the committee threatening criminal consequences for a former Trump aide who defied them. But at the same time, the Justice Department revealed it would not prosecute two other higher ranking aides, Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino. Navarro, who was a trade advisor for Trump, revealed he also received a grand jury subpoena from the Department of Justice as part of a probe. And he filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the bipartisan House committee. Navarro, who's 72, was charged with one contempt count involving his refusal to appear for a deposition and the other contempt count because he refused to produce documents to the committee. That's according to the seven page indictment returned Thursday and unsealed Friday. Now, Navarro is the second former Trump adviser to face criminal charges in connection with rebuffing the committee, and his charges mirror those sought by the House, filed by federal prosecutors in November against Bannon after he refused the committee's requests at an initial appearance on Friday afternoon in federal court, he would not shut up. He accused prosecutors and the FBI of misconduct, suggesting that the timing of his lawsuit and the charges against him were part of a race to the courthouse. Navarro did not enter a plea and said he would seek to postpone his June 17th arraignment and criminal proceedings until his civil suit is resolved, potentially running out the clock on efforts by the committee this year, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqi released Navarro on personal recognizance on standard conditions that he notify the court before he travels, and added if the government has acted improperly, they will hold their feet to the fire and make sure there's consequences. But they did not. I want to reiterate that the Department of Justice contempt charges do not exist to compel Navarro to testify. That sort of happened on a Jim Acosta interview with Officer Fanon. He's like, why do you, you know, why do you, what do you think about the doj, you know, failing to compel him to testify. When they talked about Meadows and Scavino not being indicted. These charges don't compel anyone to testify. They just punish them for not they punish them for failing to comply with those subpoenas from the committee to address the Meadows and Scavino declination. It's my personal opinion after talking to many former federal prosecutors, and I'm going to talk to one soon here in a minute when we talk to Glenn Kirschner after the break. That's my personal opinion. The Department of Justice used prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring those charges because both Scavino and Meadows did partially cooperate with the committee. And those charges aren't as cut and dried as Navarro's and Bannon's are. Also, once you charge Meadows and Scavino, the Sixth Amendment kicks in, which would complicate any bigger conspiracy investigation. As Barb McQuaid put it, if they charged them for contempt misdemeanors, they couldn't use informance against them and they'd have the right to know the evidence that is being used against them as well. I have to assume the Department of Justice also subpoenaed Meadows and Scavino for their info, the way they subpoenaed Navarro. You'll notice that they subpoenaed Navarro to hand over all communications with Trump by June 2nd. That's the Department of Justice subpoena, not the 16 committee subpoena. And then they indicted him the next day. Now, that says to me that they realized they'd get nothing from Navarro, so they charged him with contempt because he's a completely useless witness. All right, next up, the day before the mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on January 6. On January 5, the day before Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff called Mr. Pence's lead secret Service agent to his West Wing office, that chief of staff, Mark Short, had a message for the agent, Tim Gables. They said the president was going to turn publicly against the vice president and there could be a security risk for Pence because of it. The day before the stark warning, the only time Short flagged a security concern during his tenure as Mr. Pence's top aide, was uncovered recently during research by this reporter for an upcoming book, Confidence the Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, which is going to be published in October. Mr. Short did not know what form such a security risk might take, according to people familiar with the events. But after days of intensifying pressure from Donald on Pence, to take the extraordinary step of intervening in the certification of the electoral count to forestall Trump's defeat. Mr. Short, Mark Short seemed to have a good reason for concerning the vice president's refusal to go along was exploding into an open and bitter breach between the two men at a time when Trump was stoking the fury of his supporters who were streaming into Washington. Short's previously unreported warning reflected the remarkable tension in the West Wing as Donald and a band of allies, with the clock running out, searched desperately for a means of overturning the election. Trump grew agitated as his options closed and it became clear he was failing in his last ditch effort to muscle his previously compliant vice president into unilaterally rejecting the vote outcomes in key states. This warning about, you know, security threats to Pence also shows the concern at the highest levels of the government about the danger that Trump's anticipated actions and words might lead to violence on January 6th. It's unclear what, if anything, Mr. Gibels, who was the, you know, Tim, the Secret Service agent for Pence. It's unclear what he did with the message, but as Mr. Trump attacked his second in command and democratic norms in an effort to cling to power, it would prove prophetic. As we know, a day after Short's warning, as you know, 2,000 people, some chanting Hang Mike Pence, stormed the Capitol. Outside, angry Trump supporters erected a mock gallows after Pence was hustled to safety. Mark Meadows, White House chief of staff, is reported to have told colleagues that Trump said that perhaps Mr. Pence should have been hanged. Mr. Short was asked about the conversation with Mr. Gables during an interview with the House committee investigating the Capitol riot. That's according to a source familiar with his appearance. New details from the weeks leading up to January 6th will help flesh out how Trump and his allies sought to intimidate Pence into accepting their baseless theory that the vice president has the authority to overturn elections. Now. A spokeswoman for Secret Service didn't respond to an email seeking comment, nor did a spokesman for Pence. Now, Pence said, about five months after the Capitol attack, there's almost no idea more un American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president. A few weeks after election day on November 3rd, it was election Day. A few weeks later, aides to Mr. Pence learned that some in Trump's loose network of advisors were discussing the possibility of January 6, set under statute as the day of the Electoral College certification as a potentially critical date in Trump's efforts to stay in power. Soon, Pence asked his general counsel, Greg Jacob, to write a memo explaining what his powers were during the certification. The memo did not take a clear position, but Mr. Pence's advisors continued to research the issue, ultimately concluding that the Vice President has no authority to dictate the outcome. He can't just throw electoral votes out. But Mr. Pence and his team were faced with regular pressure from a cast of Trump supporters arguing that he did have such power. We've seen a lot of these memos. At the end of December, Pence traveled to Vail, Colorado, for a family vacation. And while he was there, his aides received a request for him to meet with Sidney Powell. Right now. The request to meet with Powell was relayed through Kelly Ward, chair of the Arizona Republican Party. That's according to a person familiar with the exchange. Ward had joined a suit filed by Gohmert, Republican of Texas, that asked a court to say that Mr. Pence could decide whether to accept or reject slates of electors from states during the Electoral College certification. And Jamie Raskin has called that lawsuit that a very important key in the plot to overthrow the government. The lawsuit was asserting precisely what Pence's aides argued he did not have the power to do. Some Pence advisors were suspicious that Sidney Powell wanted to serve the Vice President with legal papers related to that case. Interesting. She's under investigation by the Department of Justice, by the way, and has been since at least September. Mr. Short objected to Mrs. Ward's support of the suit. She relayed to him that they would not pursue it if Trump was uneasy with it. The proposed meeting with Powell never happened. Powell and a spokesman for Ms. Ward did not respond to emails asking for comment. There were other points of friction that left the Pence team on high alert about the pressure campaign. Meadows told Mr. Short that the President was withholding approval of a pot of transition funding for Pence to establish a post White House office. I'd like you to do us a favor, though. That's what the fuck that is. That's new reporting. He was trying to withhold post White House money for him to develop an office. That's extortion. Now, amid the rising tension, Mr. Short reached out between Christmas and New Year's Day to Jared Kushner. That's we know who he is. Trump's son in law and senior advisor. Asking how he could defuse what was becoming an untenable clash between Pence and Trump, Kushner deflected the outreach, saying he was busy. He was wrapped up in bringing peace to the Middle east at one point. And this guy, I think, has been overlooked quite a bit. At one point, John McEntee, head of the Presidential Personnel Office. Remember the guys who used to ice people by hiding Smirnoff Ices in the office? And if you found it, you had to chug it. This fucking guy. He wrote a handwritten note that circulated in the West Wing that seemed to acknowledge that Pence did not think he could influence the outcome of an election. As you guys know, I reported exclusively months ago, the fact that Pence's team's badges were deactivated and he was unable to get into any offices in the Capitol and hide, and that's why he was forced down into the loading dock. No one else has corroborated that reporting. My sources are pretty strong, but McEntee would be the guy to deactivate those badges and that we now know. He had a handwritten note that circulated in the West Wing that acknowledged Pence didn't think he would influence the outcome of the election. It's just very interesting, especially Marc Short telling Secret Service, Pence's Secret Service chief, this could be dangerous. And then of course, we all remember the part where Tim, who Marc Short told about this, pulled up in a car and said, get in a car. And Pence was like, dude, I trust you, but I'm not getting in that car. And we also know that the crime fraud exception email, the one to Rudy Giuliani that Eastman forwarded from Kenneth Cheesebrough, that memo that was supposed to be about having Vice President Pence recuse from counting the votes and not be there and have Grassley take over. And as we know, Grassley said he would be on the 5th. He said, I'll be taking over the thing. And then he quickly walked back his comments. This was all a very big plot. Everyone was involved. Trump also persisted, pushing on Pence, trying to, you know, more direct means of pressuring him. He continued. On January 4, he summoned the Vice President to meet with John Eastman, the lawyer who'd been especially influential in pressing the case that the Vice President could intervene. During that meeting, Eastman appeared to acknowledge that Pence did not have the power to. To arbitrarily settle the election. But he maintained that the Vice President could send the results back to states to reevaluate the results over a 10 day recess. Just delay it for a while. And you remember the email we saw that the committee handed over to Judge Carter? Judge Carter, who decided that Trump and Eastman committed crimes 18 U.S. code 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and 18 U.S. code 1512, obstructing an official proceeding. And in that email, he said, you know, hey, why don't you just violate the Electoral Count act just one little more time and delay the count for 10 days while we. What? Right? What were they going to do? Seize voting machines at gunpoint? There were memos for that. In one of the emails, they say, we're just trying to cast doubt on the results, which seem to be one of the MO's of Trump. Right. Calling up Rosen at the DOJ, saying, just announced that there's an investigation. We just need to cast doubt. Same with the Zelensky extortion. You don't have to investigate Biden and Burisma. Just say you're going to. That's all we need is to cast doubt. Trump tweeted on the morning of January 5th that Pence could reject electors. He had tried to persuade some of his informal advisors outside the White House to go to the Naval Observatory, that's the vice President's official residence, to seek an audience to pressure Pence. That day, Trump spoke with Pence again, pressing him to do what the Vice President said he could not. And it was that day that Mark Short called Mr. Gables Tim into his office. About 1pm Pence released a memo making clear he disagreed with the president about his power to intervene in the certification. The memo was not shared with the White House counsel in advance. The trust between the offices was shattered by then. Soon, Trump's supporters swarmed the Capitol, breaking through doors and windows, disrupting the count. Mr. Gibels rushed Mr. Pence from the Senate chamber and took him to an underground loading dock. The vice President refused to get in the waiting car despite Gibel's repeated urging, believing it would let the rioters and others score a victory against core democratic processes. Pence stayed there for hours until it was safe to return to the Senate chamber, where he insisted on finishing the certification process. And y' all, this is just one of the conspiracies to obstruct the electoral vote count that the committee will illustrate during public hearings, which again begin Thursday, June 9th at 8pm I want everyone to be aware, by the way, that the official Supreme Court decision on Roe could drop that day. And I just want everyone to know it's not a distraction, okay? The Supreme Court isn't trying to distract us from the hearings. The Supreme Court schedule has been set for a very long time, set well before the committee decided to schedule these hearings. This month. Up next and this one was obvious but made my blood boil nonetheless. Several strategy memos and private communications prepared for a variety of conservative candidates and organizations reviewed by Rolling Stone in the days following the Uvalde school massacre were clear. Change the topic to literally anything else and let this news cycle run its course. Quote, Ignore guns, talk inflation, one such memo, written for a top tier GOP Senate candidate, succinctly reads, citing polling data of voter concerns ahead of the critical 2022 midterm elections. Other documents predictably decried liberal desires for gun grabbing and gun confiscation and made it whataboutism type references to gun violence in Chicago. So these memos said talk about Chicago. We've heard Republican senators talk about Chicago and Congresspeople accuse the Dems of gun confiscation and gun grabbing and talk about inflation, gas prices. Change the subject. Let it run its course. It will go away. The people of America are stupid. They will forget. That's what these memos are saying now. On Friday, May 27, three days after the Uvalde shooting, the RNC Republican National Committee distributed a memo, talking points and messages advising to its surrogates and media allies what to say. The email began with some pro forma thoughts and prayers for the victims of their families, then went to thank the members of law enforcement who responded to the scene and killed the shooter. But the bulk of the memo, part of the series of RNC pundit prep that typically lists the party's weekly political priorities, had a conspicuous omission. It did not include any actual talking points about the latest school massacre in the United States, a mass shooting that dominated American media and political conversation, only to be bookended by news of other mass shootings carried out with firearms. The email did detail, however, what you need to know about this week's primary elections and listed the RNC's recommended reading from Fox News, Breitbart, Newsmax, and the Washington examiner on topics such as Joe Biden's failed immigration record. So that's the messaging. So every time you see a Republican talk about Dems wanting to confiscate guns or inflation or gas prices, they've been told to say that by the rnc, funded by the nra. All right, I'll be right back in a minute with Glenn Kirschner. We're going to discuss the Navarro indictment and Department of Justice declination to charge Meadows and Scavino for the same crimes. Stick around. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back.
- [19:38]
Paula Poundstone
Comedy fans Listen up. I've got an incredible podcast for you to add to your cue. It's Nobody Listens to Paula Poundstone.
- [19:46]
Alison Gill
This absolutely ludicrous variety show combines the fun of like a late night talk show, the wit of a public radio program, and the unique knowledge of a guest expert. So brace yourself for a rollercoaster ride of wildly diverse topics. From Paula's hilarious attempts to understand QAnon to riveting conversations with bonafide rocket scientists. You will never know what to expect, but you'll know you're in for a high spirited, hilarious time.
- [20:11]
Paula Poundstone
Comedian Paula Poundstone and co host Adam Felber, they're both Regular panelists on NPR's Classic Comedy Show Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. And they bring that same funny energy to Nobody Listens to Paula Poundstone.
- [20:24]
Alison Gill
Seriously, go check out an episode or two. You will be hooked. A couple of my favorites, Shark Week with Dr. Nick Whitney. So good. And the one we talked about when we had Paula on the beans. It's called the Raw Milk Truth. You don't want to miss it.
- [20:38]
Paula Poundstone
Nobody Listens to Paula Poundstone is an absolute riot. You don't want to miss. Fine. Nobody listens to Paula Poundstone on Apple podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.
- [20:53]
Alison Gill
Hey everybody, welcome back. I'm joined today by my friend, former federal prosecutor and host of justice matters on YouTube, a channel you really need to subscribe to, especially with the 16 hearings just about to start and the Department of Justice investigation into the tippy top of the coup heating up. Please welcome Glenn Kirchner. Hello, Glenn.
- [21:12]
Glenn Kirchner
Hey, A.G. how are you?
- [21:14]
Alison Gill
I'm good and confused after this weekend. So we had a spectacular arrest of Pete Navarro at an airport as he was trying to board a plane to Tennessee one day after he was supposed to comply with the Department of Justice subpoena for additional documents and communications with Donald Trump. And a couple of months after he, about three or four months after he failed to comply with a committee January 6th committee subpoena. And that's what he was indicted for and charged and arrested for for flouting that 16 committee subpoena. But at the same time, we heard about a letter from the Department of justice to the January 6th committee. And it was a declination of prosecution or what did they say? Starting an investigation or a prosecution into Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino. Right. Chief of staff, Deputy chief of staff. And so it was sort of a little bit of mixed messaging that we got over the weekend. And I was hoping you Might be able to clear a little bit of that up for us, as you did in one of your amazing Justice Matters videos that you put out over the weekend.
- [22:23]
Glenn Kirchner
AG I took my stab at the three most likely contenders for why the justice gods gave us a little something one minute and then took it away the next. Because if anybody was deserving of a federal indictment for contempt of Congress, it was Peter Navarro, as was Steve Bannon. But we know four people were referred for prosecution for defying congressional subpoenas. Mark Meadows and Dan Scabino were the other two. So it turns out DOJ is batting 2 for 4. Right. And as I said in my video, batting.500 is pretty darn good if you're a Major League baseball player. Not so good if you're in the business of dispensing justice. Here's my best guess at what the three most likely possibilities are. One, we often act in a coordinated way when we are investigating crime and when we are about to indict people. The most usual example of that is when we're about to indict a whole bunch of gang members. For example, we do what we call a coordinated takedown, where we take everybody down simultaneously, because the last thing you want to do is lock up one gang member only to alert all of the other gang members that, oh, they're coming for us. They can dispose of evidence, they can flee, they can tamper with witnesses. So we do coordinated takedowns. Well, AG we also often do coordinated interviews. So it might be that the Department of Justice not only subpoenaed Peter Navarro for a June 2 appearance and interviewed him and had what we call a come to Jesus with him and said, look, Pete, you either cooperate and tell us about Donald Trump's crimes and your own crimes and the crimes of others, and we can work with you, but if you decline our invitation, we will indict you. And of course, the next day, June 3, the indictment was unsealed. They could very well have had similar meetings separately with Meadows and with Scavino. And they said, look, guys, we're preparing to indict you for contempt of Congress, even though it's more challenging because you have a somewhat more robust executive privilege claim than guys like Bannon and Navarro, but we're prepared to indict you. Do you want to cooperate?
- [24:54]
Alison Gill
And they also partially helped. They might. They gave some documents over to the committee and. And sort of had better lawyers than Navarro in that they, I guess, effectively strung people along for quite some time.
- [25:07]
Glenn Kirchner
Yeah, we. We can call it stringing them along. We can call it engaging with the committee, and I'll talk about that in one second. But let's assume that they had this coordinated meeting with these three individuals. And Meadows and Scavino said, you know what? You got me. I'm tired of covering up Donald Trump's crimes and exposing myself to yet additional criminal liability in the process. I'm ready to cooperate. Now, given who Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino are, maybe that's not the most likely possibility, but it could have played out that way. Now, you're precisely right, AG that there was some information that, look, they were trying to comply. They were coordinating on dates for their appearances. Mark Meadows gave over literally thousands of documents that turned out to be deeply incriminating of Donald Trump. So listen, if they were to indict the chief of staff of the President and the deputy chief of staff, first of all, there is a, an OLC memo. There's always another OLC memo, isn't there? Suggesting that the Department of Justice should shy away from indicting the highest of the high executive branch officials for contempt of Congress if they defy congressional subpoenas precisely because of this robust executive privilege claim that they might have. But let's assume that they indicted Meadows. Meadows would have waltzed in the court, I assume, and his attorney would have argued to the jury, hey, ladies and gentlemen, he gave over thousands of documents that were deeply incriminating of Donald Trump. But when they wanted him to continue to give over stuff, stuff that he assessed might actually have some executive privilege, he said, no, that's not a really compelling defense. But it's what I would call a straight face defense. And you might pick off a juror or two. Now, we're setting aside the fact that that doesn't really apply to him blowing off a subpoena for testimony. But you know what? When defendants give jurors half a loaf in defense of one count, they often apply it to everything. So that's one possibility. The other possibility is that they did not want to, at this moment in time, indict Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for a relatively minor charge, a misdemeanor failing to comply with a congressional subpoena, when they are preparing to indict them for the whole shebang. That's a legal term for the conspiracy to defraud or commit offenses against the United States. That would be like a prosecutor proceeding on a jaywalking charge when they're about to bang somebody out for murder. You don't necessarily want to start with such a Weak minor charge first. So, you know, these are just some of the possibilities and there are others.
- [28:04]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And it's in the code right. To that for prosecutorial discretion. They're advised to go after the more serious charges first. And you know what? I think this could be a sprinkling of all three of those. It doesn't have to be, you know, as you said, it doesn't have to be exclusively one of those three because you know, I could see them all coming into the Come to Jesus meeting and Navarro going, just popping off at the mouth and being a total pain in the ass. But then Meadows and Scavino, who probably have really good lawyers, being like, can we get back to you? Or you know, maybe if we had some more time or you know, doing the thing where they sort of, you know, have to go through the due process of giving them the ability to respond or whatever, you know, the way they jerked around the committee.
- [28:45]
Glenn Kirchner
Yeah.
- [28:46]
Alison Gill
And then also I can see that the DOJ saying, look, this is a pain in the ass case for a misdemeanor. Fuck it, prosecutorial discretion. We're not going to bring these charges and we should inform an interested agency, which is the 16 committee, because that's also in the federal code. Right. Like you should tell them in important cases, anybody else who is interested whether you decline to prosecute. What I found interesting was the vagueness of that letter which says to me that it is what you are saying and then that they are going after bigger charges because if they can't say that in the letter, well, we decline to prosecute cuz we're going after bigger stuff because then they're jeopardizing that investigation because no one writes a letter to Congress with any expectation of secrecy. Hello, Jim Comey. And so I think it could be a little bit of a sprinkling of all of these possible things. Plus as you know, and as you've said, if they went just indicted on these misdemeanor charges for Meadows and Scavina, then the sixth Amendment kicks in and informants can't be used against them and you have to give them all the evidence that you have against them in any investigation that you're working on, which could blow the bigger one as well. So yeah, I think talk a little bit about how it could be a little of all three.
- [30:07]
Glenn Kirchner
Oh, I think it is. I think it's a smattering of all of it. And we know Merrick Garland is an institutionalist. Sometimes I feel like that's a dirty word because we can Stick with our institutions, norms and traditions right up to the end of our democracy if we're not careful. But he is. And I think part of it was this sense of we really don't want to indict a chief of staff and Deputy Chief of staff to the President of the United States, where we kind of have a policy that counsels caution under those circumstances because this issue might recur in the future. Now, I think that's misguided and almost a quaint notion that if the Republicans take control, they will somehow look to this atmospheric precedent. Well, the Dems didn't do it, so maybe we shouldn't do it. Yeah, right. Remember, Newt Gingrich said if the Republicans take power, the members of the J6 committee are going to jail. So we kind of know how the Republicans play. But Merrick's an institutionalist. He does think long term. I don't think that's a bad thing. And so I do think it's a smattering of everything we've been talking about. What I think it's perfectly consistent with, though, is this declination is in large part because more significant charges are coming. Look, what Liz Cheney said just today or yesterday, she said this was an extraordinarily dangerous, well coordinated, far reaching criminal conspiracy by Trump and his allies. So, you know, I've already got the popcorn ready for June 9th. I can't wait to see what Jamie Raskin keeps telling us will blow the roof off the House.
- [31:51]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And if, and you know, at least those bigger charges are being considered, and you don't want to blow that consideration on a 30 day Mando minimum misdemeanor charge for Meadows and Scavino. I think they're much bigger fish than that. So thank you so much. And yeah, and I agree, you know, Matthew Graves might have been the one who decided, you know, it's his office who said, you know what this is, this is going to be a pain in the ass. For what? To charge Meadows and Scavino and we got other stuff going on. Fuck it, you know, who knows? Who knows how it went? I'm sure they had to get approval from Merrick Garland. I doubt that they were at odds with what they wanted to do.
- [32:31]
Glenn Kirchner
No, I don't think they were. And I hope someday ag we get an answer to the question of why did they feel compelled to announce, to do and announce these three things all @ the same time. There is a tactical play there that I've got some ideas kicking around in the back of my head why they did it all on the same day. But these are really just rumblings in my head. I'm not even prepared to jump out and say what I think it is. I hope we get an answer to that question someday.
- [32:59]
Alison Gill
I hope we do too. The best I could come up with is, is that in the code it says that you're supposed to notify the agencies.
- [33:06]
Glenn Kirchner
You have to do it all the same.
- [33:07]
Alison Gill
Right. And it also says should. It doesn't say shall. And yeah. Why the week before the hearings begin? Why not just keep quiet about it? I mean, if your whole fucking play for the last year and a half is to keep your mouth shut, why did you send a letter to Congress you knew would be out?
- [33:24]
Glenn Kirchner
And let me say this, ag doesn't this @ least in part put the contempt of Congress ball back in the J6 committee court? Because let's remember, DOJ couldn't get it done. But Congress can still get it done with its inherent power of contempt. They're not going to, I would assume because they haven't done it thus far. But I can only listen to them complain about DOJ's decision. But so much because they have yet to to take that weapon out of their own dang arsenal.
- [33:57]
Alison Gill
Yeah. But also probably for fear that the Republicans would use their power of inherent contempt and they don't need the Democrats to do it to get to do that anyway. They would do it no matter what. So we will see. So vote and we'll be, we'll be watching on June 9th. Thanks so much. I can't wait to see what happens. I think things are starting to heat up and we appreciate everything that you that you're doing covering this. It's amazing work, everybody. Check out The Justice Matters YouTube channel. Subscribe when you get there so that you can get the latest updates because a lot of them, I have a feeling we are now at the end. We're now at the point where the Department of Justice is starting to subpoena loud recalcitrant howlers, which means they're just about done. So thank you. Thank you so much, Glenn. I hope you enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
- [34:47]
Glenn Kirchner
Thanks, ag.
- [34:48]
Alison Gill
All right, everybody, thanks so much for listening today. We will be back tomorrow with Dana and the good news. If you have any good news, send it in to us@dailybeanspod.com and click on contact. Thanks again to our patrons. It is going to be a hell of a week. So buckle up. And until tomorrow, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet and take care of your mental health. Also, vote blue over. Q. I've been ag and them's the beans.
- [35:10]
Unknown Speaker
Refried beans. I like refried beans.