← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Refried Beans | Smoking Out The Kush (feat. Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis) | 9/1/2023
00:49:45
Friday, September 1st, 2023 In the Hot Notes: the first Proud Boys’ sentences come in at HALF the recommended time by sentencing guidelines; Representative Jamie Raskin asks Rep Comer to subpoena Jared Kushner after failed attempts to retrieve documents regarding his $2B Saudi payout; several filings are made in Fulton County about the speedy trial considerations and removal of Meadows’ case to federal court; the jury in 1/6 fugitive Brandon Fellows’ case reaches a guilty verdict after submitting a note asking whether the defendant has their personal information; the Biden Administration seeks to close the gun show loophole; conservatives draw up a plan to dismantle to government if Trump wins; Governor Brian Kemp denounces the removal of Fani Willis from office; plus Allison and Dana read your Good News.
Loading summary
Transcript127 lines
- [00:00]
A
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.
- [00:24]
B
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.
- [00:32]
A
With swearing. Jelly beans.
- [00:36]
C
Jelly beans. Jelly beans. Daily Beans.
- [00:46]
A
Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Friday, September 1, 2023. Today, the first proud boys sentences come in at half the recommended time by sentencing guidelines. Representative Jamie Raskin asks Rep. Comer to subpoena Jared Kushner. And after failed attempts to retrieve documents regarding his $2 billion Saudi payout, several filings are made in Fulton county about the speedy trial considerations and the removal of Meadows case to federal court. The jury in the January 6th Brandon Fellows case reaches a guilty verdict after submitting a note asking whether the defendant has their personal information. The Biden administration seeks to close the gun show loophole. Conservatives draw up a plan to dismantle the government if Trump wins. And Governor Brian Kemp denounces the removal of Fani Willis from office. I'm Alison Gill.
- [01:36]
C
And I'm Dana Goldberg.
- [01:41]
A
Hey, Dana. Happy Friday.
- [01:43]
C
Happy Friday to you. Oh my God, it's the end of the week again. How did this happen?
- [01:47]
A
Yes. And the end of the month.
- [01:49]
C
Oh, that's true. Yeah.
- [01:51]
A
And we do have a patron happy hour today at 4:00pm Pacific, 7 Eastern, if you are a a patron of the Daily Beans. So you can join us for that. If you want to become a patron, you can do that by going to patreon.com mueller, she wrote. Later in the show, I'm going to be joined by MSNBC and CNN contributor and law professor at Georgia State University, Anthony Michael Kreiss. And we're going to discuss the Fulton county motions to sever along with Brian Kemp's denouncing the talk of removing Fani Willis under that new Georgia state law that everybody's worried about.
- [02:25]
C
Yep.
- [02:27]
A
There's also some new filings for Trump to sever his case along with Fani Willis and Meadows weighing in on whether one overt act being part of his job is enough to move the whole shebang into federal court. And Fani Willis says no, it isn't. The opposite is true. In fact, if one overt act is not part of his job, that's actually more than is needed to keep it in state court by the very nature of the RICO statutes, because you'll remember my discussion with Dave Aronberg on this show and that no overt acts are required to be proven for any member of the conspiracy. If they entered the conspiracy, they're part of the criminal enterprise and responsible for overt acts of all of the members. So even if it can't be proven that Meadows did any of his overt acts, if he's party to the conspiracy, he can be put away for acts totally unrelated to him, like the intimidation of Ruby Freeman. And we'll discuss that in detail on the next cleanup on aisle 45 as well. And remember, Dana, remember the oath keeper Brandon Fellows, who Trump judge Trevor McFadden held in contempt for being a dick in court the other day?
- [03:30]
C
Absolutely. Yep. Yep.
- [03:31]
A
And he just locked him up for five months for contempt. That had nothing to do with his verdict or the crimes he was charged with. Well, today the jury wrote a note to the judge asking that since Brandon Fellows represented himself, would he have the juror's personal information? You know, they're clearly worried about retaliation.
- [03:51]
C
Of course, that's a fair question.
- [03:53]
A
And the judge said he would have access to limited information about the jurors. But that didn't seem to play any part because they came back and found him guilty on all three counts, including obstructing an official proceeding which carries that 20 year maximum sentence. So there we go. Now we have a lot of news to get to today. And one thing that we aren't covering today, but we will cover on the beans on Monday is Justice Thomas has now revised his bullshit financial disclosure forms to include all the property that Harlan.
- [04:23]
C
Crow bought, of course he has from.
- [04:26]
A
Him and all of his private jet trips. And we'll talk about that on Monday's beans. But we have other news to get to today, so let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes. On Thursday, Trump Judge Tim Kelly sentenced proud boys Joseph Biggs and Zach rail to 17 and 15 years, respectively, about half of the recommendations from the Department of Justice who used the sentencing guidelines. Biggs and Rail are two of four proud boys found guilty earlier this year of engaging in seditious conspiracy to keep Trump in power by force. The case was one of the highest profile prosecutions of the thousand plus lodged against participants of the riot, the judge said. I probably will never sentence someone to 15 years below the guidelines in my entire career after this. Kelly. He said that he took the bench in 2017, by the way, but he said he believed the recommended sentences Overstate the crime.
- [05:20]
C
Oh, boy.
- [05:21]
A
Oh, boy. In both cases, judges applied enhancements for Oath Keepers and Proud Boys for terrorism that pushed the punishment ranges they must consider higher. But Kelly said his sentences would have been the same regardless of that ruling. Quote, it's not my job to label you a terrorist, and my sentence today won't do that. That's what Kelly told Biggs. That's for other people to argue about who I know who and when. When he called it a miracle that more people weren't killed on January 6, the judge said there was nothing to suggest the Proud Boys planned anything akin to bombing a battlefield killing spree or trying to blow up a skyscraper. Unquote.
- [05:59]
C
Wow.
- [06:00]
A
Yeah, wow. The Justice Department argued that Biggs and Rail were engaged in terrorism in coordination with former Proud Boys chairman Henry Enrique Tarrio, who is set to be sentenced this coming Tuesday. Quote, they aimed to intimidate and terrify not just lawmakers, but also the rest of the country that they didn't agree with and make them yield to their political point of view. That's Assistant U.S. attorney Jason McAuliffe in court. That's no different than the act of a spectacular bombing of a building. But Judge. Judge Kelly disagreed. I guess, quote, I know that I messed up that day, but I'm not a terrorist. That was Biggs. My curiosity got the better of me.
- [06:37]
C
Oh, boy, Mike.
- [06:39]
A
And I'll have to live with that for the rest of my life. That's what he said he'd been planning for. J. He said like he. He's been planning for January 6th to be his last outing with the Proud Boys, and that his statements about killing lawmakers were a way to just vent anger over being injured in combat. As a veteran and learning that a young family member had been abused, Quote, I used that rhetoric to cope and not take violent action is what he said. Used his daughter as a shield. Today, defense attorney Norm Pattis argued it was harsh, those sentences for the Proud Boys. It would make people afraid to go to protests for fear if they become violent, their speech might be used against them. And he warned that long sentences would create a martyrdom syndrome among antigovernment activists, akin to the deadly 1993 siege near Waco, Texas. After the riot, Biggs lied to the FBI, saying that he wasn't at the Capitol. Then. He. He was, but never went inside. He also encouraged other Proud Boys to delete any potentially incriminating messages. After Tarrio's arrest, like several other Proud Boys, Biggs was in contact with federal agents in advance of January 6, but only provided information about the group's enemies on the left. According to court records, the government argued that Rael deserved a particularly heavy sentence because he sprayed police officers with chemicals and then lied about it on the stand. He also recruited members in advance of January 6th by sharing videos online of violent confrontations with counter protesters. Rael in particular, and these defendants generally knew the effect that they had on the people they referred to as the normies. That's Assistant U.S. attorney Eric Kennerson. These defendants are lucky that January 6th did not turn into a mass casualty event. Both men are disabled veterans, but they lost their military benefits. Good. When they were charged, both cried in court when talking about the daughters they will leave behind when they go to prison. I personally hope the Department of Justice files notice that they intend to appeal these low sentences the same way they did with the Oath Keepers.
- [08:37]
C
I hope so as well. Thank you, ag. Now today, Rep. Jimmy Raskin, who we love and adore, he's the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. He sent a letter to Chairman James Comer as part of the Committee Democrats investigation into the billions of dollars Jared Kushner's investment firm, which is called a Fin Management LLC Affinity, has received from Gulf monarchies. That's including $2 billion from Saudi Arabia. Now, the letter urges Chairman Comer to compel the production of documents in light of Mr. Kushner's continued refusal to cooperate voluntarily. This is subpoena stuff and this is a quote. I am encouraged by your recent acknowledgment that what Kushner did cross the line of ethics and your repeated assertions that our committee is investigating foreign nationals attempts to target and COERCE High ranking U.S. officials, their members, by providing money or other benefits in exchange for certain actions. In light of these concerns, I urge you to pursue a serious and objective investigation by issuing a subpoena to Affinity and requiring the firm to comply with my February 15, 2023 request for documents regarding its receipt of billions of dollars from Gulf monarchies shortly after Mr. Kushner left a senior White House position he used to reshape US Foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia and the Middle east in Saudi Arabia's favor. A request you have thus far allowed Mr. Kushner to ignore and defy. That was from Jamie Raskin. Now the letter follows Chairman Comer's appearance on CNN in which he acknowledged that Kushner and I quote, crossed the line of ethics by accepting $2 billion from the Saudi government in his private investment firm two months after he left His White House position, a role which allowed him to shape the Middle east policy. This is confirmed by the guy he's asking him to subpoena. Now, Chairman Comer also asserted that committee Republicans will investigate foreign nationals attempts to target U.S. officials for political gain. Since committee Democrats launched this investigation in the 117th Congress, additional facts have come to light that have added the actual and potential ethical violations posed by Mr. Kushner's specific conduct. So I hope they nail this guy. The wall, first of all. Now, according to public reporting, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar each also invested 200 million with Affinity. That's Kushner's. That's what we're talking about. His LLC. In March of 2023, Affinity reported that it had over $3 billion of assets under management. 99%. 99% of which was attributed to clients who are non United States persons. That's a lot of fucking foreign money. Chairman Comer has previously stated that he doesn't disagree with the Democrats and their criticism of the previous administration. He's also said that this committee will, and I quote, have some questions for Trump and some of his family members, including Jared Kushner. Committee Republicans cannot claim to be investigating foreign nationals attempts to target and COERCE High ranking U.S. official family members by providing money or other benefits in exchange for certain actions. Without examining the former administration's plethora of foreign financial entanglements. For example, AG President Trump's receipt of millions of dollars from foreign governments while he was in office, which is a blatant violation of the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution. And then we have Ivanka Trump's corresponding receipt of fast track trademark approvals from China and Japan while she was serving as a White House senior advisor. Now, today's letter follows committee Democrats repeated requests for information regarding foreign payments to Affinity, including requesting Chairman Comer's support in their investigation. So we've been asking them to investigate the kiddos and it looks like it's actually going to happen.
- [12:23]
A
Well, you know, Jamie Raskin and the Dems have been, but you know, the Republicans are now in charge of the 118th Congress and they are the only ones with subpoena power. And so Raskin is writing this letter saying, please, could you subpoena, can we please subpoena these guys? I don't think Comer's gonna do it personally, which is why we need to take the House back, because then we can. I agree. All right. From the Associated Press. With more than a year to go before 2024 and that election, a constellation of conservative organizations is preparing for a possible second White House term for Trump, recruiting thousands of Americans to come to D.C. on a mission to dismantle the federal government and replace it with a vision closer to his own. Led by the long established Heritage foundation think tank and fueled by former Trump administration officials, the far reaching effort is essentially a government in waiting for the former president's return or any candidate who aligns with their ideals and can defeat Joe Biden. With nearly a thousand page quote, Project 2025 handbook and an army of Americans. The idea is to have the civic infrastructure in place on day one to commandeer, reshape and do away with what Republicans deride as the deep state bureaucracy, in part by firing as many as 50,000 federal workers.
- [13:39]
B
Wow.
- [13:39]
A
Quote, we need to flood the zone with conservatives. That's Paul Danz, director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project and former Trump administration official who speaks with historical flourish about the undertaking. He's a fucking fascist. Quote, this is a clarion call to come to Washington. People need to lay down their tools, okay? And step aside from their professional lives and say, this is my lifetime moment to serve. The unprecedented effort is being orchestrated with dozens of right flank organizations, many new to D.C. and represents a changed approach from conservatives who traditionally have sought to limit federal government by cutting federal taxes and slashing federal spending. Instead, Trump era conservatives want to gut the administrative state from within by ousting federal employees they believe are standing in the way of the President's agenda and replacing them with like minded officials more eager to fulfill a new executive's approach to governing. Basically to break the law.
- [14:35]
C
Right.
- [14:36]
A
While many of the Project 2025 proposals are inspired by Trump, they're being echoed by other rivals like DeSantis and Ramaswamy. And they're gaining prominence among other Republicans. And if Trump wins a second term, the work from the Heritage Coalition ensures the President will have the personnel to carry forward his unfinished White House business. Quote, the President, day one will be a wrecking ball for the administrative state. That's Russ Vaught, a former Trump administration official involved in the effort who's now President at the conservative center for Renewing America. Much of the new president's agenda would be accomplished by reinstating what's called a Schedule F ban.
- [15:12]
C
Right?
- [15:12]
A
A Trump era executive order that would reclassify tens of thousands of of the 2 million federal employees as essentially at will workers.
- [15:19]
C
Oh, my good.
- [15:20]
A
Who could just be fired, right?
- [15:22]
B
Wow.
- [15:23]
A
This is why they had to move my job across country, right? Because I was schedule F. They couldn't just fire me at will. They had to get me to quit.
- [15:31]
C
Oh, got it.
- [15:32]
A
So Biden had rescinded the executive order upon taking office in 2021, but Trump and other presidential hopefuls vow to reinstate it. There's a top to bottom overhaul of the DOJ planned as well, particularly curbing its independence and ending FBI efforts to combat the spread of disinformation. This is Goebbels level shit. It calls for stepped up prosecution of anyone providing or distributing abortion pills by mail. It's this kind of shit. There's proposals to have the Pentagon abolish diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, what the project calls the WOKE agenda, and reinstate service members that were discharged for refusing the COVID 19 vaccine. A chapter written by Trump's former acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security calls for bolstering the number of political appointees and redeploying office personnel with law enforcement ability into the field to, quote, maximize law enforcement capacity. So they want to shut down the government, get rid of anybody who disagrees with them, fire people at will, make more people appointable by the president, and then send out cops to enforce it.
- [16:37]
C
Wow, this sure sounds like, I don't know, a play from Putin's playbook. I mean, my God, if you look.
- [16:42]
A
At it, yeah, it's terrifying. At the White House, the book suggests new administration should reexamine the tradition of providing workspace for the press corps and ensure the White House Council is deeply committed to the President's agenda. So the White House Council would no longer work for the people or the White House. They would work for the president, and the press corps would be eliminated. The Heritage Coalition is taking its recruitment efforts on the road, crisscrossing America city to city, to fill these federal jobs. They've staffed the Iowa State Fair this month, signed up hundreds of people. They're building out a database of potential employees, inviting them to be trained in government operations. It's terrifying.
- [17:21]
C
My God, it really is. And the other thing, and I don't know if this was covered yesterday, I apologize. Oh, I was with you yesterday. Forget that. It's been one of those days. I watched one of Rachel Maddow's clips, and Trump's basically telling people he. He's going to be using this as this election to keep him out of prison. He's saying these things out loud. So this is what he wants to do, which means he's going to do everything in his power to win the election, including stealing it again, to stay out of prison. And it doesn't. If he, God forbid, gets back in there, he may never leave. Like this election could be the last election. Exactly. Exactly. So we're serious about all this stuff.
- [17:56]
A
But.
- [17:57]
C
All right, Ag Last one. In this segment, the Department of Justice today it announced it has submitted to the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking that would clarify the circumstances in which a person is, and I quote, engaged in the business of dealing in firearms and thus required to obtain a license and run background checks. Good thing. The bipartisan Safer Communities act, which is BSCA, enacted June 25th of 2022. What that did is it expanded the definition of engaging in the business of firearms dealing to cover all persons who devote time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through repetitive purchase and sale of firearms. Okay. On March 14th, Joe Biden issues Executive Order 14092. What that did, among other things, by the way, that he issued, it directs the Attorney General to develop and implement a plan to clarify the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms and thus required to obtain a federal firearms license. Now, today's proposed rule would amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the ATF as we know regulations. It would amend the regulations by, among other things, conforming ATF's regulations to the new BSCA definition and further clarifying the conduct that presumptively requires a license under that revised definition. And this is a quote. The bipartisan Safer Communities act was passed by Congress to reduce gun violence, including by expanding the background checks that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. That's from Attorney General Merrick Garland went on to say, this proposed rule implements Congress's mandate to expand the definition of who must obtain a license and conduct a background check before selling firearms. Went on to say, an increasing number of individuals engaged in the business of selling firearms for profit have chosen not to register as federal firearms licensees and that's required by law. This is from ATF Director Stephen Dettelbach, who went on to say, instead, they have sought to make money through off book illicit sale of firearms. These activities undermine the law. They endanger public safety, they create significant burdens on law enforcement and are unfair to many licensed dealers who make considerable efforts to follow the law. Now, the Gun Controls act exceptions. The license requirement exists to allow all law abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights, not to facilitate the intentional evasion of the background check system. This now proposed rule would clarify the circumstances in which a person is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms and thus required to obtain a license and follow the laws Congress has established for firearms dealers. Very important part. Now to increase compliance with the statutes Congress has enacted, the proposed law identifies examples of conduct that would in certain circumstances be presumed to qualify, qualify as engaging in the business of dealing in firearms and thus to require a federal firearms license. And in addition to implementing the revised statutory definition discussed above, the proposed rule would help to clarify the circumstances in which a license is or is not required by, among other things, adding a definition of, quote, personal firearms collection to ensure that genuine hobbyists and collectors may enhance and liquidate their collections without fear of violating the law. I understand that part. Now, the proposed rule would also provide valuable guidance to the community of federal firearm licensees by addressing the lawful ways in which former licensees may liquidate business inventory upon termination of their license and clarifying how a licensee can lawfully transfer a firearm to another licensee. So this is a big thing. This is a big step. I mean, it's a step in the in and hopefully making this a little bit safer and that people aren't evading the law to just sell firearms willy nilly because that's what it feels like some of them are doing.
- [22:04]
A
Well, part of the gun reform legislation, bipartisan, that was passed in 2022. And this covers the gun show guys, right? Yeah, because before you didn't need they weren't considered licensed firearms retailers or dealers, so they didn't have to do background checks at gun shows and they did, you know, and, and that's just, you know, bullshit. So this new rule is going out through the atf. They're going to redefine what it means to be a licensee. And so this is going to help quite a bit.
- [22:32]
C
Wonderful.
- [22:33]
A
All right, everybody stick around. After the break, I'll speak to Professor Anthony Michael Kreis about the ins and outs of Georgia law. You don't want to miss it. Stay with us after these messages.
- [22:43]
C
We'll be right back.
- [22:45]
A
Hey everybody, it's ag. And if you enjoyed our recent Daily Beans episode called Red Pill Mill with Pulitzer Prize finalist and historian Garrett Graf, then you should definitely check out his chart topping and Peabody Award nominated podcast, Long Shadow, which recently dropped a brand new seven part series called Breaking the Internet. The new season charts the evolution of the Internet from the optimistic days of the dot com boom to our present moment featuring memes and moments, you know, like when the world became transfixed by the color of a dress and others that you don't but should like how people sent death threats to the woman who posted that meme online. The podcast both scales the heights of Internet virality and plumbs the depths of social media's depravity. From Long Lead and prx. Long Shadow is the story of mankind's greatest invention and it's also the story of the biggest crisis facing society today. So don't miss out. Follow Long Shadow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you're listening now. You'll be glad you did. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. So there's a lot going on down in Georgia with filings, flurry of filings, all sorts of legal questions. And to help sort it out, I'd like to welcome law professor from Georgia State and also a contributor to CNN and msnbc. Please welcome Anthony Michael Kreiss. Hi, Anthony.
- [24:05]
B
Hey, how are you? It's good to be here.
- [24:06]
A
I'm so excited to talk to you. You are one of a handful of locals who, who I have told everyone who follows me on Twitter to please follow because the information that you all get is I think first, you get it first and also you understand how to analyze it best. And my first question for you is we've got now motions to sever, including the latest from Donald Trump himself. And this is the Fulton County RICO racketeering case. This is the plot to steal the election in Georgia or overturn the election results or interfere in the election. So we've got him wanting to sever. We've got Sidney and the cheese, which is who Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebrough wanting speedy trials. We have people who don't want speedy trials. And I wanted to sort of figure out how to sort all this out when you have a RICO case like this, because it seems to me that the people who want a speedy trial have to get a speedy trial. The people who don't want a speedy trial, you can't force them to have a speedy trial. So are we headed to splitting this up?
- [25:10]
B
I think where we're headed is towards two buckets of cases. So obviously the folks who have invoked their speedy trial rights will have that right adhered to and, you know, respected by the court. So we'll be looking at a trial in the fall. And then Fani Willis seems to have wanted a trial in March or at some time in the spring for Donald Trump and everyone else. And so she seemed to be initially very comfortable with that six month timeline. I think the bigger question is, what timeline does Donald Trump want? And, you know, let's be realistic. He doesn't want anything, you know, sooner than he absolutely has to. But ultimately, all these questions about severance and timelines and who goes, when and where are up to Judge Scott McAfee. It's his judicial discretion that matters here. And the other kind of quirk in all of this is this question of federal removal. So what cases might get removed federal court, which ones may not? There's some, you know, issues that have to be resolved there as well. So we could have two different batches of Fulton county cases and another batch of a federal case, or we might just have different Fulton county cases going on in a couple of different stages.
- [26:26]
A
And I'm assuming Fani Willis is prepared for all this. She's thought of all these eventualities. I mean, how could you not? But I'm wondering too, you know, talking about, you briefly mentioned the removal to federal. I know that Judge Jones, who's the federal judge that will make this decision in that district, has asked the sides to tell him if one overt act is part of Mark Meadows job, can that mean removal for everything or does it have to be all the overt act acts? And my very first thought when he said that was, well, could Fani Willis just strike that overt act? Because she's got 161 overt acts and 34 of them are predicate to racketeering. And you only need two. So, you know, and it doesn't have to be too related to you either. It can be two. Over on the Ruby Freeman intimidation thing, that takes everybody down for rico. So I was wondering, do you think that this has a good chance of being removed? But also, I kind of saw that as a way for Fani Willis to weigh in here with Judge Jones.
- [27:33]
B
Well, one of my colleagues believes that kind of striking or revisiting the indictment might be the way to go. I don't know. I mean, to be clear, my area is election law, constitutional law, and kind of federal jurisdiction. So certainly I have a lot of expertise that overlaps with the criminal law aspect of things, but not really the in depth RICO analysis. But that being said, what's important, I think, for everyone to remember in terms of federal removal is that there needs to be a colorable claim for a federal based defense. And so even if, you know, there's a handful of acts that might be perfectly lawful or authorized under federal law or related to a federal interest that Mark Meadows did either, you know, completely on the up and up or, you know, kind of half on, you know, half legitimately and half maybe with an eye towards something not, not entirely lawful. You know, at the, at the end of the day, he still has to show that his Supremacy Clause has a. Has a likelihood of success on the merits in order to remove. So there's a lot of. Right. There's a lot of action that might happen there. The big thing I think for me that I would love to communicate to the public is that this is really in many respects a novel issue because it's not oftentimes that we get criminal based, you know, criminal law removal issues in federal court. It's not very often. Right. That we have 19 different defendants who are doing all sorts of different things involved in a particular case. And Georgia rico, you know, it's. It is a unique law. It's not as narrow as the federal law. It's basically a very broad conspiracy statute, which is why it's being used here. And so I, I don't envy Judge Jones. I think that there's going to be a lot of time and, you know, thoughtful consideration put into this opinion because it is somewhat novel. And it's also, I think, just given how very different this is in terms of, like, in the totality of the circumstances, it's somewhat sui. Generous. Right. In other words, it's just different. And so I think Judge Jones recognizes, as I do and as many of us do, that there might be just a different precedent he sets here because he's ruling on something as a matter of first impression. So I don't envy him. I think it'll take some time and, you know, we'll see how it all shakes out.
- [29:51]
A
I don't envy him either. A speedy trial question for you. I want to go back to the speedy trial thing, not only its impact splitting this trial up, what the impact will be on the prosecution, but for federal speedy trial. Jack Smith, for example, has invoked the speedy trial in the very simple and straightforward indictment of Donald Trump all by himself with four counts. And to get that March 4th trial date that he was just awarded, I guess, is one way to put it. But that was the trial date that they received. And his argument is that, sure, the speedy trial is a defendant's right, but it is also the public's right to a speedy trial. Is that the same with the Georgia speedy trial law or rules, do you know, I mean, or is it just the defendant's consideration? Because I know they have the right to be tried either this court session or before the end of the next one. And so I haven't heard anything about whether the public has a right to a Speedy trial. Although that would be the opposite argument for a lot of these things, except for those who don't want a speedy trial. Like, can Fannie Willis come and say, I want all 19 in October 23rd because the public has a right to a speedy trial here, or is that just a federal consideration?
- [30:59]
B
Yeah, that. That's a. That's something that I, you know, again, not as a criminal expert, don't know too much about, but what I can say that I think is the purpose of the Georgia speedy trial provisions. It's. It's really, you know, I, you know, you'll hear Donald Trump. Right. Resist having a trial earlier and sooner because, you know, they want more time. They want more time. They want more time. And I think there's a lot more political considerations there than there are legal. But, you know, the reason why speedy trials are just so important, you know, it's. It's. It's really because people's memories get, you know, foggy and evidence, you know, kind of gets stale. And, you know, it's really to the advantage of the defendant, right, to have that their trial held as soon as possible. So provided that they have the ability and the resources and time to do so. So, you know, I'll leave to others what, you know, the kind of overarching purpose is for a speedy trial. Now, I'll put my political scientist hat on for a second and. And say this. You know, I do think that there is a public interest. Right. Again, I don't know. Right as. Not as a legal matter, but as a kind of pure political matter. I think it is important for people to know what the facts are, know what the evidence is. I mean, of course, we all know the big, you know, themes. We know the big, you know, smoking gun pieces of evidence that. That's all been out in the public. But, you know, there's a whole trove of things that we probably don't know about. And so I think that, you know, we're having these conversations, again, removed from the legal questions. There's something different about Fulton County. In Fulton county, we. We have a general tendency and a kind of predisposition towards telev. Televising everything. In fact, Scott McAfee, the judge here, said today that these proceedings will be televised. So that's really important for the public, right? Not. Not in terms of timing per se or just alone, although I think it's. I think people should want to know this before the election. But there's a different element here in. In Fulton county court than there is in the federal court where we can, you know, the public can tune in and watch and to make a decision for themselves on this evidence. And, and I think that that's really important. It makes Fulton county different. And in some ways, you know, this case is special in that, in that sense.
- [33:12]
A
Agree 100%. I look forward to that. Yeah. And it's going to be streamed on YouTube. I think I read in the order and it's very different. I was just in Judge Chutkan's courtroom. Couldn't even have your phone anywhere near you. It had, it was. And there was nothing that, you know, could be televised and there is nothing that could be televised. Unless, unless, of course, Chief Justice John Roberts comes out and makes a different declaration for this particular trial. And I'm interested to see how the DA argues for trying everyone in October. She may use those arguments about the public's right to a speedy trial and memories fade, et cetera, the longer we wait. And of course, you know, Donald Trump will want 2026, I don't think, I don't know. It's going to be interesting to see how it goes down. Before I let you go, at the top of the interview, we talked about all of these different motions and there might be two buckets of, of defendants here. You know, one with a speedy trial, one with not a speedy trial, and then people who aren't in the federal, who don't get removed to federal. How does that impact negatively or positively the prosecution? Like I said, I'm assuming she's prepared for all of this. But isn't it? I mean, she wants them all to go at once because it's easier to present the case all at once. But are there other considerations like having the lawyers go first and that hindering some sort of a advice of counsel defense or anything like that? What are your thoughts?
- [34:33]
B
Well, I think the, the, it's a double edged sword perhaps. So on the one hand it gives Donald Trump a preview of exactly what's coming his way and some of the evidence, you know, that, that, you know, how the evidence will be deployed and the theories of the case and the narratives that are presented, which can be somewhat of a, of a boon to his defense. Although, you know, I'm skeptical that there's a heck of a lot out there in terms of what the strategy is going to be that Donald Trump is not already aware of and his team, but that's certainly, you know, that plays to their advantage. At the same time, Fani Willis will have the ability to fine tune arguments and you know, make adjustments going forward, which could also be to Donald Trump's detriment. So I think it kind of cuts both ways. I think the real danger for Fani Willis is this, that if there are, we'll just say, for the argument's sake, two buckets of cases, right. These early speedy trial cases, and then Donald Trump and everybody else, you know, getting charges to stick with convictions on most or if not all of these counts, will really be important for shaping the narrative. It doesn't matter as a very technical legal sense when it comes time to try Donald Trump, but it certainly, as a political matter, I think can. Can shift how these things get discussed. It'll also certainly affect how Donald Trump and his lawyers talk about this case. Right. Losing in these early trials would be really, really damaging, I think, for the credibility of future proceedings. So. And again, legally not relevant, but as a political matter, certainly a consideration and a worry that I think is probably more potentially problematic than any. Right. Kind of, you know, technical, evidentiary based concern.
- [36:20]
A
Yeah, I hadn't thought about that. That's a really good point. Something to keep an eye on. And before I let you go, Governor Kemp today said he would not support a commission to remove Fani Willis under that new Georgia law. Everybody's concerned about. Is it up to him?
- [36:34]
B
No. So here's the upshot of what, you know, I mean, I think. I think it's important to give Governor Kemp kudos where they're earned. And in this particular instance, he rejected the idea that the General assembly should come at a special sess to either impeach Fani Willis or investigate Fani Willis or defund Fani Willis or the very few dollars that, you know, her office get from. From the state. And, and he also, I think he made it very clear that as of today, he sees no indication that the prosecution that she's pursuing here, you know, implicates any kind of prosecutorial misconduct. And so what he did say that I think is just important again, as a political matter is to suggest that the, you know, some of the Republican state senators who have said they really want this new prosecutorial oversight commission to investigate and discipline Fannie Willis, he kind of, you know, at least drew a line in the sand to the extent that he has some political authority. Right. To do so or political influence in Georgia. Right. And so by saying, no, this is not, you know, this is not really factually based. It's not proper, and we should let the process play out. So, you know, on the one hand, no, he has no direct influence over this commission whatsoever. But he did, I think, take a very strong stance today to suggest that whatever happens needs to be, you know, kind of watched carefully, but that the process should unfold and that there's nothing untoward about what's happened so far.
- [38:08]
A
And what about speaker of the House, who also doesn't think that this should go down? Maybe he's got more direct impact.
- [38:13]
B
Yeah, certainly the speaker of the House has more direct ability to constrain the House members from trying to either convene in a special session or introduce articles of impeachment. I mean, it's just not going to happen. I think what's very important for folks to know is that the Georgia State Senate and the Georgia House of Representatives are very different bodies. The Senate is much more Right. Right leaning. You know, there's a handful of voices who I think are trying to kick up some trouble because they can not, because they have the influence to actually influence anything. And so while it's important to again, in particular press back against, I think, rhetoric that leans into right. Kind of political violence that we really need to condemn and condemn harshly. And there has been some of that going on in terms of actual, you know, threats to Fonnie Willis's ability to see this, you know, see these cases through. I mean, I think, you know, it's probably a non starter in Georgia just because again, you know, the, the governor and the governor, the secretary of state have all been, have both been kind of on the same page and the speaker of the House on this question. So I, I think, you know, barring some radical change for, you know, that comes out of left field, it'll probably stay, you know, that'll probably be the course they'll continue to take.
- [39:32]
A
Well, professor, thank you very much. You know, this has been really, really helpful. This cleared up a lot for me and I appreciate your time. Legal analyst for CNN MSNBC law professor at Georgia State, Anthony Michael Kreiss. Again, I appreciate your time and I hope to see you back on the show again.
- [39:47]
B
Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for having me.
- [39:48]
A
All right, everybody, stick around. We'll be right back with the good news. Everybody, welcome back. It's time for the good news. Who likes good news?
- [40:02]
B
Everyone?
- [40:03]
A
Then good news, everyone.
- [40:12]
C
Good news. Good news.
- [40:13]
A
And if you have good news, confessions, corrections, frog, orgy photos, baby photos. We both love both of those, by the way. And now if you have any photos of yourself canoodling with a burro or a donkey as Dana did that today.
- [40:29]
C
I do.
- [40:29]
A
I would also like to see photos of that.
- [40:32]
C
His name is Eeyore. And he was the cutest little donkey.
- [40:34]
A
Aw yeah. Any pod pet tax photos you can send us? And of course, if you can't pay your pod pet tax, you can send us an adoptable pet in your area. Shout out to somebody you love. Woobie story. What the mutt. What the heck? Whine. Find a cat. Anything you want to Send to us. DailyBeansPod.com is where you do it. You just click on contact. First up from Brian. Pronouns. He and him as a resident of Nebraska. Okay, this is gonna be so cool. I already know because of that crowd that I saw at women's volleyball. We don't get a ton of good news in Nebraska, but on Wednesday the 30th, we did. The University of Nebraska women's volleyball team set a world record for the most attended women's sporting event in history. 902003 fans piled into Memorial Stadium to watch Lincoln, Nebraska beat the team from Omaha. Pet tax is a pick of our sphinx cats, Canood Keanu reeves and Leonudo DiCatrio.
- [41:31]
C
Amazing that.
- [41:33]
A
And we'll have a link to the Nebraska setting that world record. They normally play in a stadium of about 8,000, but this time they played in that monster stadium, Memorial Stadium. 92,000 people were there to watch.
- [41:46]
C
This video is incredible.
- [41:49]
A
It truly is. Okay, look at these babies.
- [41:51]
C
First of all, I know I'm fascinated by these cats. Absolutely fascinated by them.
- [41:56]
A
Hehe little nakeys.
- [41:57]
C
Oh my God. Very cute. All right, this is her, Margaret. Pronouns. She and her hey gdg, pod pets and the gumanotti. I shared the good news this past spring about my deaf daughter Jane advocating for herself with her insurance company to get her cochlear implants upgraded. On July 1, Jane received her bachelor's degree in accounting and has a job lined up with a major accounting firm. Go, Jane. My husband and I are incredibly proud of her accomplishments, so I thought I'd share them with y' all for pet tax. Sharing a photo of our calico kitty sleeping on a manuscript because Rectangle.
- [42:29]
A
Yeah. Oh, hi, pretty kitty. And congrats, Jane. That's awesome.
- [42:36]
C
It sure is.
- [42:37]
A
Thanks for that update, Margaret. From Anonymous Pronouns. She and her longtime listener. I just love the hope you bring to us every day. I have a little hope to bring as well. Many people know that Americans have been relocating to the red state of Florida in great numbers. My husband and I are now empty nesters and we have recently moved to Florida from a blue state. Our reason to be closer to older parents as well as that he grew up in Florida and has had enough of cold winters. I'm going to need to find my people, but I'm hopeful they exist. Oh, they do. I constantly remind myself that the state went for Obama both times. So I just want to inform listeners that not all people in transplants in Florida are Republicans and Trumpers. I am hopeful too that DeSantis is going to eventually be replaced by someone of reason who can undo his terrible policies. We are proudly blue voters and we won't give up sharing pictures of our 11 year old rescue Maya we've had for nine years. She came to us having had some previous trauma which left her with a damaged back leg that doesn't bend. She's also so loving and loyal and seems to smile and say thank you every single day to us with her kind eyes. Oh, thanks again AG&DG for all the hope you bring to the world. And if anybody knows any, like Florida blue meetup groups, send them in. Yeah, we'll get that nickname.
- [43:56]
C
Oh, yeah, I think that's a great idea.
- [43:58]
A
Look at this.
- [43:59]
C
I mean, at this point, someone could in the Republican party run against DeSantis, who just isn't such a fascist, and become the governor. I mean, they have an opportunity right now to. I mean, obviously I'd love a Democrat in the position, but right now, Florida. So gerrymandered. Actually, it's a state. It's a state election. But my point is, with all of that garbage, someone could beat DeSantis because he's such a fascist right now and just be a more reasonable Republican if any of them are still out there.
- [44:26]
A
Yeah, he's just so terrible. But I think the Dems can win. I mean, Disney.
- [44:31]
C
Yeah, you.
- [44:31]
A
You with the rat. Dude with the rat. You get the ears.
- [44:36]
C
That's right.
- [44:36]
A
That's what they say.
- [44:37]
C
Something like that. All right, this is from Jane. This is from Jane. Pronouns, she and her. I wanted to thank you both for explaining more about gender affirming care and some of the issues families are facing, especially when they're being denied access. I know I'd love to hear more from doctors, families, et cetera, so I can be a better informed ally. So perhaps a suggestion for interviews on the beans. I think that's a great idea. Until this week, I never knew precocious puberty was a thing for pet tax. I'm enclosing pictures of Boq and Tewy, the two hummingbirds. Now, these are the reason I say the letters is because they stand for something. AG and I are going to have to Guess these are two hummingbirds that have claimed territory in our backyard. BOQ is the bigger one who is not shy about posing for pictures. And TUI is the smaller shy one who is difficult to capture on a camera. Both of their names are acronyms. Can you figure out for what Jane doesn't say, by the way, in this submission? So we're just going to say some out, but boq and of course my name, my brain immediately goes to big old queer. But that's probably.
- [45:37]
A
Yeah, me too.
- [45:39]
C
And then tew Y. Did you come up with anything for tew Y?
- [45:44]
A
No, I. I didn't. Let's see if. If TUI is the.
- [45:50]
C
The shy one it doesn't like.
- [45:51]
A
Smaller shy one. B, O, Q. And here's T, E, W, Y. Okay, well, they're hummingbirds.
- [46:00]
C
I can't.
- [46:01]
A
Yeah, I know, I know.
- [46:02]
C
We might have to think about this or we'll.
- [46:04]
A
Got me.
- [46:05]
C
Well, we'll do some guesses maybe on Monday. Have these come through?
- [46:08]
A
Yeah, right back in, James.
- [46:10]
C
Oh, my God. Also, I think the listeners, if you wanted any names for BOQ and the other bird is tew Y, this might be a good submission and good game to play with these hummingbirds before we give out their actual names.
- [46:22]
A
Yeah, everybody, what do you think they stand for? BOQ And T E W Y. Big old queer was the first thing that popped out to me too.
- [46:30]
C
That's because I'm a big old queer. And the submission ends by saying. And also Dana, my youngest grand a five month old. Oh, this is for Dana, my youngest grand a five month old chunky butt that already knows how sassy cute he is. And he is. Look at this Michelin armed little baby.
- [46:48]
A
And the tongue is out. And he's got a chunky shirt on. And that's just the cutest baby. I love it.
- [46:53]
C
I wonder what teeth. All right, I'm gonna think about this though.
- [46:56]
A
Yeah, send in your guesses. Leguminati for the. For the acronyms B, O, Q and T, E, W, Y. Next up from Phil, Pronouns, he and they. Hello to the queens of the fabulous beans. As one of the few Americans who made good on my promise to move to Canada after the orange guy got elected, I thought I'd share some pictures from Montreal and Ottawa. Pride. Many Canadian cities hold their pride celebrations in August to commemorate the anniversary of the first queer march on Parliament in 1971. I'm proud to march with my employer, a large company that celebrates pride because it's the right thing to do, not because they see rainbow dollar signs. We're wrapping up Ottawa's 2SLGQIA 2 celebration. Most Canadians put two spirit folks at the front of the acronym as a way of acknowledging. I see two SL2s. LGBTQIA. Two spirit folks at the front is a way of acknowledging that force fitting people into our modern terminology is yet another act of forced assimilation of indigenous people. More important than the fun of Sunday's parade, we had a turnout of over 3,000 for Friday's trans Rights march. Sadly, Canada's starting to see some of the same transphobia afflicting the US The Allies still seem to have the bigots outnumbered up here, but we have to remember that pride is still a protest and we won't stop fighting until everyone has the freedom to live as their authentic selves. Very well said.
- [48:17]
C
Very well said.
- [48:18]
A
For tax, I'm including a pic of my furball Sophie, who moved up to Canada with me and has kept me sane through these crazy times. Happy Pride. Keep doing what you do. Look at these great photos.
- [48:28]
C
Oh, these are fantastic.
- [48:30]
A
Oh, and look at this floofy tux. Very adorbs.
- [48:33]
C
Oh, very adorbs indeed. Looks in this sign. First they came for the trans people and I spoke out because I've read the rest of the poem.
- [48:43]
A
That is a great sign.
- [48:45]
C
This is fantastic.
- [48:48]
A
Absolutely.
- [48:49]
C
Phil, thank you for this.
- [48:50]
A
Yes. And thanks for everyone's submissions. All the Podpet tacks and the Bibi, the little chunk of Bebe photo. We appreciate you all. If you have any good news you want to send in, you can send it to dailybeanspod.com and click on Contact. And by the way, we got a ton of people who want to sponsor patrons just from yesterday's show who went in and paid 36 bucks to buy a year of premium feedback and a premium subscription for people who can't swing it. So remember, if you couldn't afford it because you were on the fixed income there and you wrote into the good news, you can now go in there and get your name on the wait list and you'll probably get to become a patron because of the kindness of our other patrons and other folks. If you want to do that, you go to dailybeanspod.com and scroll down to Patrons helping patrons. And that's where you can either sign up to get a free one year premium subscription or give a one year premium subscription. We love you guys so much. The response this community is just so fucking cool. I have to tell you.
- [49:49]
C
It is an incredible community.
- [49:50]
A
Oh, I love you guys. All right. It is the weekend. We will have an episode of Jack out on Sunday. I will be trying to do a, you know, one of those unscripted, unedited raw beans weekly wrap up things this weekend. Also, we will be doing a Pete's in. Pete's in like Portugal right now, but he's going to be with me to record a bonus episode for cleanup on aisle 45 patrons. All sorts of stuff happening this weekend, but Dana and I will be back in your ears on Monday. Until then, or wait, do you have any final thoughts? I don't even.
- [50:22]
C
Oh, no. No, I don't. Other than if you do get a chance to ever hug a donkey, do it. And that's not a euphemism for anything. Hug a donkey.
- [50:30]
A
Hug a donkey, do it. And until Monday, 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.
- [50:37]
C
Take everyone and your parents with you.
- [50:39]
A
And donkeys. I've been AG and I've been DG and them Sabines.
- [50:43]
B
Refried beans.
- [50:44]
A
I like refried beans.