← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Refried Beans | Unseal You Next Tuesday (feat. Joan Biskupic) | 4/3/2023
00:47:54
Monday, April 3rd, 2023 In the Hot Notes; Jack Smith has amassed a mountain of new evidence in the documents obstruction case; founding member of Fugees Pras Michel is on trial for his crimes related to the Jho Low 1MDB case; preparations are underway for Donald’s Arraignment in Manhattan this Tuesday; the Manhattan DA’s office sends another heated letter to House Republicans; plus AG delivers your Good News. Our guest: Joan Biskupic
Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:01]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
Hi, I'm Frances Collier. And I'm Angela V. Shelton. And we're Frangela. You know what you mean in your life. The Final Word podcast. Yes, you do. That's right. It is the final word on all things political and pop cultural, where we make real news, real funny, where we inspire you so you can resist. Subscribe and get a new episode of the Final Word podcast each week. It's the news we think you need to hear. That's right. We think you need to hear it. Okay.
- [00:29]
Alison Gill
Yeah.
- [00:29]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
It's what we say.
- [00:30]
Alison Gill
So.
- [00:30]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
That's right. And because all we do is give. Every Thursday, you can listen to our hysterical podcast, idiot of the Week. We round up the stupid. Because you know what? Somebody has to.
- [00:40]
Alison Gill
Okay? All we do is give. 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.
- [01:08]
Refried beans.
- [01:09]
Martin Sheen
I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried beans, because maybe they're just as good
- [01:12]
Alison Gill
and we're wasting time. Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Monday, April 3, 2023. Today, Jack Smith has amassed a mountain of new evidence in the documents obstruction case. Founding member of the Fugees Pras Michelle, is on trial for his crimes related to the Jholo 1 MDB case. Preparations are underway for Donald's arraignment in Manhattan this Tuesday. And the Manhattan District Attorney's office has sent another heated letter to House Republicans. I'm your host, Alison Gill. Hi, everybody. Dana's out. She's going to be out for a while. So it's just me today. Although I do have some pretty cool guest hosts lined up for this week. So just some funny stuff going on over on Twitter. I don't know if you know if you spend any time on Twitter, but Elon had said he was going to take everyone's legacy blue check mark away. He was going to take the stars off of the sneetches bellies on April 1st. And then he didn't. Although he did take away New York Times check mark. The actual New York Times took away their check mark. While, by the way, Fox gets to keep theirs, even though they have admitted to lying about stuff on TV. And so that was supposed to happen April 1st. It didn't happen for everybody. And so today I went to check, you know, if you click on the blue check mark in somebody's bio, you can see whether they're a Twitter blue subscriber, whether they pay for that check mark or whether it's a legacy check mark. It says this is a legacy blue check mark. It could be notable or not. And then the Twitter this is. If you click on it and they're a blue subscriber, it says this account is verified because it subscribes to Twitter Blue. So something happened today, on Sunday where he changed that verbiage. Now, if you click on the blue check mark, whether you've paid for it or whether you're a legacy blue check mark, whether you earned it, it just says this account is verified because it either subscribes to Twitter blue or is a legacy blue check mark. So he's kind of lumped everybody in together. So now you can no longer tell who is verified because they subscribe or who is verified because they were a legacy blue check mark. It's absolutely ridiculous. He's making shit up as he goes along. He's such a narcissist. He thinks that, you know, you ever had that boss, the new boss who comes in and thinks they have all these great new ideas, but they've already been tried out and failed, but they want to do it anyway, and then it fucks shit up. And then you have to say, look, we already tried that. We have the best practices. This is why we do it this way. Now that just seems like what he's doing. He just, he gets an idea, it backfires on him magnificently. Because nobody was going to pay for the White House wasn't going to pay for that check mark. CNN wasn't going to pay for the check mark. Once he took away all the check marks. I certainly wasn't. And most people weren't. They were like, fucking take it. Fine, whatever. Now it'll be the sneetches without the stars on their bellies that are the legacy blue check mark accounts or whatever the fuck. It's so ridiculous. But he just keeps making. So he made that decision. It fucked shit up. People were mad. It backfired on him. So now he's made the decision, I guess maybe not to take away legacy check marks and just call everybody a blue check mark. Well, it's either legacy or Twitter blue. It's absolutely ridiculous. He's like a fucking nine year old. And the wheels are falling. It's like a Tesla. It caught fire spontaneously and the wheels are falling off. So that's happening over on Twitter and everybody is laughing about it. And also later in the show today, I want to let you know I'm going to be talking to CNN senior legal analyst Joan Biskupic. She's been covering the Supreme Court now for over 25 years. She has a new book out tomorrow called Nine Black Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences. So I'll chat with her. And we have tons of news to get to from over the weekend, as you can imagine. So let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes, all right, from Barrett Dawsey and Stein at the Washington Post. Absolutely devastating news for Donald Trump in the special counsel investigation into his obstruction of the government's retrieval of classified documents from Mar A Lago. We knew that boxes had been moved from the storage room downstairs thanks to surveillance footage subpoenaed by the Department of Justice. But what we are now learning is that Jack Smith apparently has evidence that Donald looked through some of those boxes himself. This is a significant development in the case. Let's read some key passages from this amazing story. Amazing reporting from the Post. In the classified documents case, federal investigators have gathered new and significant evidence that after the subpoena was delivered, Trump looked through the contents of some of the boxes of documents in his home, apparently out of a desire to keep certain things in his possession, according to people familiar. Investigators now suspect, based on witness statements, security camera footage and other documentary evidence, that boxes, including classified material were moved from a Mar A Lago storage area after the subpoena was served and that Trump personally examined at least some of those boxes. In addition, authorities have another category of evidence that they've got. They consider it particularly helpful as they reconstruct events from last spring emails and texts from Molly Michael. She's an assistant to the former guy who followed him from the White House to Florida before she eventually left the job last year. Michael's written communications have provided investigators with a detailed understanding of the day to day activity at Mar A Lago at critical moments. Investigators have also amassed evidence indicating that Trump told others to mislead government officials in early 2022, before the subpoena when the National Archives was working with the DOJ to try to recover a wide range of papers. The Post says here that might not constitute a crime, but I say it does. Obstruction has to be against an official proceeding and the National Archives has cops and investigators. So prosecutors have collected evidence that Trump ignored requests from multiple advisers to return the documents to the Archives over a period of a year. He ignored requests from multiple advisors to do that Then he asked advisors and lawyers to release false statements, claiming he'd returned all the documents. And then he grew angry after being subpoenaed for those same documents. Investigators also have evidence that Trump sought advice from other lawyers and advisers on how he could keep documents after being told by some on his team that he could not. According to people familiar, they have collected evidence that multiple advisors warned Trump that trying to keep the documents could be legally perilous. So he knew. Now, investigators have also asked witnesses if Trump showed a particular interest in material relating to General Mark Milley, that's chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And how do they know that? Were some of the documents found in his desk documents about Mark Milley? Well, here it says prosecutors have been asking witnesses if Trump showed classified documents, including maps, to political donors. Did the donors know that he had some interest in Millie documents? Can he show classified documents to donors? I mean, it's just the amount of evidence here is overwhelming. And I'm going to talk about the implications of this evidence in depth with Andy McCabe on the next episode of the Jack podcast, which you can listen to for free. There's a new episode out now, but this information won't be coming out until the next episode of Jack, along with whatever other Jack Smith news we get this week. It's already heating up to be pretty interesting on the next episode, which comes out next Sunday. All right, up next from Carol Lenning et al at the Post. Former President Trump plans to fly to New York Monday and stay the night before appearing in a specially secured Manhattan courthouse to be arraigned on still unspecified criminal charges. An advance team of Secret Service agents, mostly comprised of New York field office agents, conducted a site tour of the courthouse Friday to map Trump's path in and out of the building. Please, no ramps or umbrellas. An official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that dozens and dozens of agents will be required to secure the former president's travel between Mar A Lago and his Florida home and private club and New York. Now, according to some reports, he was supposed to come on Thursday, but Secret Service said that that was too fast, which doesn't make any sense. But whatevs, the next step in the criminal proceeding is Trump's arraignment, which multiple people involved with the plans have said will happen on Tuesday afternoon, 2:15 p Eastern Time. The former president will be fingerprinted, photographed, and then brought to the courtroom of Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchand upon surrendering before the proceeding, where he is expected to enter a not guilty plea during arraignment if the charges have not already been unsealed. They will be unsealed at the time of arraignment. Multiple news outlets have asked they've petitioned Judge Merchand to unseal the charges ahead of of the arraignment for the reason being the public's right to know. Intense public, you know, need to know. Now. In securing Trump's safety, Secret Service agents will be primarily responsible for his entry to and exit from the courthouse. Now a court security officers will manage the former president's movements once inside the building in the company of Trump's security detail. And New York police officers will secure the outside streets surrounding the courthouse and along Trump's motorcade route through the city. The streets around the courthouse will be blocked off to traffic and street parking will be suspended. Court security officers who had scheduled vacation days or time off have been asked to report for duty anyway. No vacation for you. All hands on deck. So that's what's happening Tuesday. Tomorrow, 2:15pm Eastern in New York. In a related story from Axios, the Manhattan district attorney's office, in a letter on Friday urged House Republicans, committee chairs for some of the House Republicans to denounce former Trump's harsh rhetoric. The letter comes a day after a New York grand jury voted to indict him, prompting a bombastic reaction from the former guy. The letter to the Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan and Oversight Committee Chair James Comer and House Administration Committee Chair Brian Steele cited Trump's warning about death and destruction in response to an indictment. You could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury. That's what Bragg's general counsel Leslie Dubeck. Instead, she said, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Trump's efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations that the office's investigation is politically motivated. They keep calling it Soros backed, and the truth of the matter is Soros gave a million dollars to a political fund that then divvied it up amongst Democrats in New York. So Soros never directly contributed to Alvin Bragg's campaign. Dubeck then urged the trio of Republicans to refrain from these inflammatory accusations and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference. The letter also aimed to counter the reaction of Trump's Republican allies in Congress to the indictment. Quote, like any other defendant, Mr. Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court and avail himself of all processes and protections that New York State's robust criminal procedure affords, she wrote. Also, she continues saying, what neither Mr. Trump nor Congress may do is interfere with the ordinary course of proceedings in New York State. So that Leonard went out. It's a five page letter. I highly recommend you read it. It's pretty incendiary. All right. For those who've been listening to my murder board dot connecting since the early days of Mueller, she wrote. We are now in the early stages of the trial of one pros. Michelle this is from Paul Duggan at the Post. A quarter century ago, as a member of the pioneering hip hop trio the Fugees, Pras Michel basked in the glow of two Grammy awards the group received for its mega platinum 1996 album the Score. This was the peak of his celebrity. After he, Wycliffe, Jean and Lauryn Hill Split up in 97, Michel's solo career waned. He was running out of money. He shifted to other profit making ventures, including a prosecutor said Thursday, illegally funneling $2 million in stolen foreign money into a U.S. presidential campaign. It was Obama's campaign and scheming to quash an FBI investigation of the corrupt Malaysian financier who supplied the cash. Pras Michel, who turned 50 last fall, was rap royalty back in the day. Now, clad in a dark suit and a striped tie, he sat in a federal courtroom in Washington on trial in one of the many legal cases arising tangentially from a gargantuan crime, the looting of roughly $4.5 billion with a B from Malaysia's state owned investment and Development fund, known as 1mdb. The scandal has touched scores of people, some famous whose names are likely to be heard in testimony in U.S. district Court over the next month. Leonardo DiCaprio, Kim Kardashian, Steve Wynn, the casino guy. Many people have become entangled in this money, wittingly or unwittingly, in what authorities say were plots to launder vast sums of pilfered money, gain influence in the White House during the Obama and Trump administrations and short circuit, a years long Justice Department probe related to Malaysian embezzlement. Some defendants charged in the sprawling investigation have made deals with prosecutors, one of them, Elliot Broidy. He was described by Lockhart in court as the Fixer, she said. The Fixer sought to use his access to President Trump in 2018 to advance one of several criminal conspiracies tied to the thievery in Malaysia after Broidy pled guilty in the case admitting to illegally lobbying for foreign nationals. Trump pardoned him on his last full day of his presidency. Pras Michel has pled not guilty to a 12 count indictment that accuses him of money laundering, campaign finance violations, acting as an unregistered agent for foreign nationals, witness tampering and lying to banks in one scheme. In 2012, Michelle received almost $18 million from Joe Low, the Malaysian financier. Authorities have described Low as among the looters of the Malaysian Sovereign Wealth Fund 1 MDB. They say he used the stolen money to pay for a lavish lifestyle in the US including bacchanalian parties with celebrities, supermodels and movers and shakers in New York and Hollywood and elsewhere. He met Jho Low, met Pras Michel at a Manhattan nightclub. Jho Low, now charged with numerous federal crimes himself, is a fugitive from justice believed to be in China. In court filings, prosecutors said Jho Low cozied up to DiCaprio, allowing the actor to gamble on his tab at a Las Vegas casino, giving him pricey artwork, a Picasso, namely, which he had to give back, and arranging financing for the 2013 movie The Wolf of Wall Street. DiCaprio starred in that film. He was also co producer. By 2017, however, the Fast living financier was under investigation in the United States and other countries in connection with the 1mdb embezzlement. Quote, Lowe was in trouble and Lowe needed help. That's what Lockhart said in her opening statement. So he turned again to Prasmichel. This is where Broidey the fixer came in, Lockhart said. After Trump took office in 2017, Broidey was named deputy finance chair of the RNC under Steve Wynn, the casino mogul who was the finance chair. And as Prasmichel tried to come up with a way to assist Jho Low, he was introduced to Elliott Brody by an acquaintance. According to the indictment, Lockhart said the fixer, Broidy, for a price, agreed to urge federal officials to shut down the Justice Department's one MDB related investigation of Jho Low. The conspirators deal with the Malaysian money man, quote, an $8 million retainer fee up front and an additional $75 million success fee if the matter were resolved within 180 days or 50 million if the matter was resolved within a year. That's what the indictment says. It says their written contract was disguised as a legal fees agreement for helping Lowe with a civil forfeiture case. The true purpose, though, was to secure Broidey's services, to lobby the administration and the Department of Justice to end the investigation. While that effort failed, Lockhart said the conspirators took another approach to help Jho Low. This involved a labyrinthine plot to curry favor with the Chinese government in hopes that Beijing would assist Jho Low in resolving his global legal woes. And to that end, Broidy again lobbied the Trump White House, this time seeking the deportation of Guo Wengwei. That sounds familiar. He's the yacht guy where Bannon was arrested. It almost worked. She said the fixer himself met with the president at the White House seeking Guo's extradition. Ultimately, even though Guo wasn't deported, Michelle received over $70 million from Jho Low. Guo has since been indicted by a federal grand jury in New York on an unrelated financial fraud case. That's all happening. All right, everybody, I'll be right back with Joan Piskupic. We're gonna discuss her new book, Nine Black Robes. Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back.
- [19:04]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
Hi, I'm Frances Collier. And I'm Angela V. Shelton. And we're Frangela. You know what you need in your life? The Final Word podcast. Yes, you do. That's right. It is the final word on all things political and pop cultural, where we meet, make real news, real funny, where we inspire you so you can hashtag resist, subscribe, and get a new episode of the Final Word podcast each week. It's the news we think you need to hear. That's right. We think you need to hear it. Okay.
- [19:32]
Alison Gill
Yeah.
- [19:32]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
It's what we say.
- [19:33]
Alison Gill
So.
- [19:34]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
That's right. And because all we do is give. Every Thursday, you can listen to our hysterical podcast, Idiot of the Week. We round up the stupid. Because you know what? Somebody has to.
- [19:44]
Alison Gill
Okay. All we do is give. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. I'm happy today to be joined by CNN senior legal analyst, Supreme Court expert. She's been covering the court for 25 years now, and she has a new book out called nine Black Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences. Please welcome Joan Biskupic. Hi, Joan.
- [20:11]
Hi, Alison. Great to be with you.
- [20:13]
I am really excited to talk to you about this book. I love this book. You know, I've been discussing the push to the right on the court that's been going on for a very long time for a while now on this show. I know. I've spoken to folks like Ellie Mistahl and Ellie Honig and other people who watch the court and something about your book that really struck me is how it's put together. And I was wondering what, what kind of prompted you to write this book? What was it that you wanted? What message did you want to get out?
- [20:48]
I first came up with the idea back in late 2019 after I had finished my book on the Chief justice and I had sort of run out of interesting individual figures who I wanted to get into. And I thought a little bit about doing a group portrait because I could feel that they were under a lot of pressure from Trump. By then we had had two of the Trump appointees on, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. And I could. My original idea, Alison, was to sort of look at the court from the inside, the maneuvering within chambers, the pacts made, the deal making and how they, how they came up with decisions at a time when they were under such political pressure. So that was my original idea. But then what happens is that we have this unusual situation in 2021 and 22, first with COVID and the Trump effect just becomes deeper and deeper with his third appointment after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And then all of a sudden we've got Dobbs center stage. So I was going chronologically, as you can tell, but once the court accepted the Dobbs case, I said to my publishers, look, I'm not going to be able to submit this manuscript on time. I need to wait to see what they've done. And as I was preparing for that case and doing that for my regular old daily work at cnn, I realized that I had laid so much of the groundwork in the book, even though this book wasn't going to be about abortion. We had had that, as you probably remember. Well, in 2020, we had had the Louisiana abortion case, and it was an important case, but it was nothing compared to what we got in Dobbs. And the interesting thing was when I bought some time through the publisher to not submit this until the first week in July when we had gotten the abortion ruling, whatever that was going to be. And I thought, oh my God, am I going to have to rewrite much? But I realized that I'd actually seen things I didn't know I saw. I was one of those people, Allison, who kept saying, maybe the chief is going to be able to pull something out. Maybe the chief is going to get Kavanaugh to come over for some sort of middle ground ruling. And I know abortion rights activists don't even think about a decision being middle ground if it were to uphold Mississippi's 15 week ban. But it would have been a lot better than what we all got. So I was originally prompted with trying to bring people inside the court. So much was being written about the Trump effect on politics, on the nation's psyche, and so much of what was happening in America. And I wanted to use the sort of access I have to bring people inside. And then it turned out that the court, frankly, gave me a much better story. In fact, the title, Nine Black Robes, was just a working title that I never really was high on at all. I thought, I don't know if I like this, but by the time we got to Dobbs, it just felt like the right kind of title.
- [23:53]
Yeah. Cause you said you were sort of, like, laying out the road, the path, you know, to where we are now with decisions like the Dobbs decision. And, you know, when I read Ali's book, you know, he said that the Dobbs Court, it looks more like the Dred Scott Court than the Loving Court. The only difference is that they have the Federalist Society giving them talking points, which I thought was a very fascinating way to lay this out. And, you know, talk to Mary Trump about, you know, in her book the Reckoning, going all the way back to Reconstruction, and how the Court has been since then. But you also talk about some of the history of the potential leaks in the Supreme Court, particularly with the LGBTQ Title VII decision and Alito's scathing dissent there that. That you quote in. In your book. And to me, that. Just that, like, when you talk about laying the path to where we are now, I mean, I can't think of a better path than that. Talking about the leaks, talking about Alito's dissent, talking about that decision, and that the potential leak may have been to put public pressure on the Court. Talk a little bit about about that and how that. How. How we have now, like, sort of come full circle.
- [25:01]
Sure. And what you're referring to is when some of us heard a bit in early 2020 that the LGBTQ Title VII case was going in favor of the petitioners who wanted expansion. Well, actually, it was the company's challenge in favor of gay rights advocates and employees who wanted expansion of Title vii. And that was originally. Information was passed on to a few key reporters, but the Wall Street Journal ran with it in an editorial and used its editorial to put pressure on conservative inside not to do anything big and expansive on Title vii. They had no effect on that. But Ed Alito was so angry about that moment. He was angry at the fact that the Chief and Justice Gorsuch joined with the four liberals at the time to have a more expansive reading of Title VII to cover people who want to challenge any kind of action in the workplace based on discrimination arising from sexual orientation or gender identity. So you have some leaks already coming out back then. And you have, as you just said, Alison, Justice Alito being so angry at how that decision in Bostock had gone on Title vii. And then we get up to the time of Dobbs, and I remember so well everything that happened in late April up to May 2, the day of, the day of the leak. First, we had another editorial in the Wall Street Journal speculating on the fact that maybe the chief was sort of enticing someone like Brett Kavanaugh to come over to this ground of upholding the Mississippi ban but not eviscerating Roe. And I remember at the time thinking, the Wall Street Journal has a pipeline to the court. I had known that from before, and I don't know if you remember that editorial, but it was one that got my attention. I thought, I wonder if something's happening?
- [27:14]
Oh, I do. It reminded me of the Hobby Lobby stuff that went on.
- [27:19]
Right? Yeah, Bostock, Hobby Lobby. Things that were. We start to hear. And I have to say, I will admit that I often find out before a case is decided where things are going, but I never write about it because I know that at the very last minute things could change. And plus, I'm usually getting information from just like one or two chambers. And you know, there are nine of them. You need, you need to know like, where everybody, at least, where at least five are. So, so that gets us up to late April and people are still wondering what could possibly be happening in Dobbs. And I know you remember that when they took this case, they told us they were only going to be deciding whether Mississippi's ban at 15 weeks violated Roe's viability firewall. You know, that government could not interfere with the right to abortion up to the point of viability. And that's when the fetus can live outside the womb. But, you know, so many of us thought that we were only like in the territory of the Mississippi statute, not, not, you know, all of all of Roe being reversed. But that's, that's where they had what they had voted on in December after the oral arguments in late 2021. So we find out that we start hearing these inklings and then of course, you get this leak, which truly was unprecedented, even though people have talked about other leaks. But to get a 98 page document that finished from, from that Point of the negotiations was just stunning. And as you said, Justice Alito had been so furious about the law. Last one where the case was going, but this one, he clearly had everyone on board. And I think he probably would have kept Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh irrespective of the leak. But once the leak was out there, it locked them in.
- [29:01]
Right. And that's sort of where I was at, too. Like, this seems like an effort to lock these votes in. But, you know, we still don't know anything about the leak because it was not really truly investigated by the court or by the marshal. And then we found out the monetary conflict of interest between the person who came in to give their thumbs up on how the whole investigation went, which was interesting. But I want to talk a little bit about how we got here, because, I mean, the court's been on this road since forever. But specifically, and particularly with what you call the triumvirate of Don McGahn, Mitch McConnell, and Leonard Leo, the three biggest influences on the shape of the court today. And you write about it. So tell us about that.
- [29:47]
And that is what's different. When I started covering the court full time for the Washington Post Back in 92, I remember I wrote all the time about five, four rulings. And the five conservatives were winning a lot. But those conservatives were so different than today. Two of them were Justices Sandra Day o' Connor and Anthony Kennedy, who today would look downright liberal, you know, compared to where we've. We've gone with the Federalist Society. But that's because of, you know, Justice Kennedy and o' Connor were not screened by the Federalist Society. They were not screened by Don McGahn. And they were, you know, Mitch McConnell was around, but Mitch McConnell wasn't quite on the tear that he went on after in the post Bork era. As you know, from that, that chapter. I talk about Mitch McConnell taking the floor in fall of 1987 after the Senate has voted, is about to vote down Robert Bork, and he essentially says, you will rue this day. I will remember. I will remember. And he certainly did remember. And he pairs up with Don McGahn, who is like a generation younger, but yet grew up with the Federalist Society. You know, in, in college and law school. In fact, Don McGahn speaks about how his father made him watch the Bork hearings, and then he in college watched the Clarence Thomas hearings, and that was very energizing for him. And then talk about being energized. You take someone like Leonard Leo, who just basically came on the scene, you know, in the late 80s, early 90s, about a decade after the Federalist Society was founded. But he comes in with his power of networking and money raising, big money raising. And I think his, his title had been like executive vice president, whatever his title was, he was, he was really running things and he was generating more money for the Federalist Society agenda. And also he was just, he is so great at networking. And he's always been close to Mitch McConnell. And he remembered Don McGahn from when Don McGahn was president of his law school Federalist Society chapter. And they were all perfectly positioned to enable Trump when he came in. In fact, Donald Trump basically turned it all over to Leonard Leo and Don McGahn the night of Justice Scalia's death on February 13, 2016. Don McGahn, first of all, Leonard Leo is right at the center of this because he gets a call from somebody in the Scalia family saying what's happening. He immediately tries to get Mitch McConnell. He is in touch with Don McGahn. Don McGahn immediately calls Donald Trump and says, take advantage of this Republican debate that was going on that night to talk about how the Senate should stall, stall, stall, delay, delay, delay. And that's exactly what happened.
- [32:38]
Yeah, yeah. And, you know, I've been meaning to ask an expert about this because I still don't know the answer. I'm going to shift gears here on you a little bit. There was some video after Kavanaugh was nominated of Justice Kennedy and Donald Trump having an exchange. And Justice Kennedy seemed really upset at something that Donald Trump said. And we've all been trying to figure out what that was. But everyone seems to, whether it was untoward or not, everyone seems to have some suspicion about the retirement of Justice Kennedy. And I was wondering what you knew about that, if anything, or if you had any insight.
- [33:21]
Okay, I think that's an excellent question because there was also a lot of talk about Justice Kennedy's son being so close to one of the Trump sons. And, you know, they were, they were all.
- [33:30]
And he worked at Deutsche Bank. He was the high risk Deutsche bank lender was responsible for lending Trump millions, Billions.
- [33:36]
That's right. They all knew each other from the New York scene. And I'll say this about Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy wanted one of his clerks on the court, of course, and he always was very fond of Brett Kavanaugh. But Don McGahn was also a longtime Kavanaugh person. And Don McGahn, you know, they were old friends. And Don McGahn really was the one who made sure that no one else was in serious contention against Brett KAVANAUGH back in 2018. But why did Anthony Kennedy retire? I know that some people believe he retired to guarantee Brett Kavanaugh having that seat. I know that Justice Kennedy was ready to retire. He was, you know, let's see, he was born in 1936, and here we are in 2018. You know, so he's, he's into his 80s, he's tired, he's showing some weariness and age on the bench. You know, I want to be careful about how I speak about someone, you know, who is older. And maybe I believe it was time for him to retire. And I think he and his family thought it was time for him to retire. And one thing I will point to is that other justices who've left the bench tend to take on lower court cases or tend to take on book projects. And right now, just as Kennedy isn't doing any of those things, he is speaking on occasion. But I think he was ready to pull back from real full time work. So I think it was time for him to retire in his own mind, given his age and just how he was feeling about the job. But I also think, I don't diminish the idea that he wanted someone like Brett Kavanaugh in there and he had partners. Don McGahn wanted Brett Kavanaugh, and Don McGann hung in there with Brett Kavanaugh when the going got rough.
- [35:31]
Yes, they sure did. I was like, you know, they could easily just solve all this by switching their nomination to Amy Coney Barrett. And they didn't.
- [35:39]
That's right. That's right. They had her in the back pocket with the idea that, you know, they, they thought in the most basic terms, you know, when the woman retires, then we have this other woman ready kind of thing. But, you know, Justice Kavanaugh had really worked very hard to stay positioned and as you referred to the triumphant chapter. But I, I kind of lay out his abortion decision on the D.C. circuit. That certainly got the attention of conservatives who wanted to make sure that he would be in their camp on abortion rights.
- [36:16]
Yeah, yeah, definitely. Before I let you go, one of the interesting parts here of the book that really stood out to me was the bit about the bitterness among some of the justices after Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death and how her belongings were handled. Can you talk about that?
- [36:33]
Yes. She, you know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was just holding on as long as she could. Obviously, you know, it was when I went back and tracked all the doctor's appointments she had in 2020. And you know, this was after she had so many different bouts of cancer, the lung cancer, the pancreatic cancer, the rectoral cancer. She just had so much, so much cancer that she kept having to fight off. And I went to see her in January of 2020, literally and figuratively. Yes, that's right. I went to see her in January of 2020, right before COVID So I was meeting her in person in her chambers and she had just had a scan and she was cancer free. And she was saying how happy she was about that. But then I found out that within about six weeks it had reappeared. So some of her colleagues knew how sick she was getting. But remember, they weren't meeting in person at this point because now as we move into spring of 2020, she's feeling, she's just having so much more go on. And she's going to the hospital and finally, on September 18th, she does die. And her staff, which had been working with her, trying to keep her up to speed on cases as she was up to speed on cases by bringing her resettr home briefs to the hospital, trying to just help her along in these final weeks and months. The staff was just really exhausted. And then they helped plan this funeral. So they finished the funeral, the memorial services, you know, where thousands of people had come to town and suddenly they're asked to clear out of the chambers. And that was very upsetting to many people in the court. And there was already so much bitterness about how quickly things were happening. Obviously the three liberals who were left just saw as their life was going to pass before them because a 6 to 3 court is just so different than a 5 to 4 court. And they knew that. And then they saw how quickly Donald Trump was going to be able to push Amy Coney Barrett through the Senate. And they were still, they still hadn't gotten over, of course, the treatment of Merrick Garland back in 2016, when Mitch McConnell had so stalled on President Obama's choice of Merrick Ireland to succeed Scalia, when there were months and months and months before the election. And this was just literally a few weeks before the election.
- [39:05]
Yeah. Wow. Yeah. And we were all devastated by that. And we were reeling from COVID and the threat of a 6, 3 court. Absolutely. Because as you say, that sort of relegated the Chief justice to a dissent position from then on out. So it's going to be interesting to see how and if and what he does to try to even preserve a modicum of decent legacy for this court that he, that he oversees.
- [39:37]
Well, can I just mention one other thing about him real quick, because I know, of course, you know, he still, even though he obviously didn't get what he wanted in Dobbs, and there have been other times when he, he has been now in the dissent with the, with the three remaining liberals. But remember, John Roberts is still very much getting exactly what he wants on things like race and religion and the reigning in of regulation. Exactly right. So I always try to mention that because John Roberts has a lot of different agendas going on and some of them are still being maximized.
- [40:13]
Yeah, that's very true. Although I think more people believe that chocolate milk comes from brown cows than support or approve of the Supreme Court in this day and age. All right, well, thank you so much. Can you tell everyone when the book is available and where they can find it?
- [40:31]
Sure. Thank you, Alison. This has been fun. It's called Nine Black Robes. Publication date is April 4th. Please buy it at your favorite bookstore or order it online at your favorite site. And I hope you enjoy it. And I really enjoyed our conversation today, Alison.
- [40:48]
Me too. Thank you. You can also pre order it right now if you'd like. And everybody make sure to follow Joan at the socials and look for her book out April 4th. Joan Biskupic, I appreciate your time today.
- [41:00]
Thank you everybody.
- [41:02]
Stick around. We'll be right back with the good news.
- [41:05]
Martin Sheen
Filming the Way on the Camino de Santiago de Compostela was one of the most important and rewarding experiences of my life. And it was by far the most satisfying role of my career. The Way was filmed in 2009 over an eight week schedule and followed the pilgrimage route from St Jean Pierre de Port in the French Pyrenees, across northern Spain to Santiago and then on to Muchia for the final scene. And the entire production was a family affair. Those are the opening lines of a story I share, and they reflect the very heart of my podcast. And through sharing autobiographical stories and inspired poetry and personal reflections, that is the theme I find myself exploring again and again. But I do so in the hope that it sparks listeners to see how it relates to their own lives and their own story of discovery. So please join me each Sunday for a beautifully crafted 20 minute journey of personal exploration. I'm proud to announce that the Martin Sheen Podcast, Season two. I've often said if it's not personal, it's impersonal. And that is how I choose to approach my podcast, with all its contents, from storytelling to poetry and book selections. Each unique episode is a journey we will share together. And I think it's important you know that I have no intention of leaving who I am at the door with this podcast. Anyone who knows me knows I cannot tell a personal story that doesn't have at least some social justice connection at its core. I have my convictions and issues that draw on my empathy and compassion. Frankly, that's what drives and informs my conscience and makes me who I am. How could I bring any less to this endeavor? So tune in Sundays as I invite you to follow, subscribe and and receive notifications about what's next for me. Martin Sheen oh, and for more information, please visit them martinsheenpodcast.com and thank you again
- [43:14]
Alison Gill
everybody. Welcome back. It's time for the Good news.
- [43:17]
Good news everyone.
- [43:19]
Then Good news everyone. Good news, Good news. And if you have any good news confessions Corrections A shout out to a local business in your area. A shout out to a loved one. You want to send me your pod pet pics? We want to play what the Mutt with us. If you have a adoptable pet in your area. If you don't have a pet tax to pay, anything you want to send us at all, please send it to us@dailybeanspod.com and click on contact. I'm especially loving the people who are putting the non destructive tape boxes and squares on their floors for their cats to sit in. It's so fucking funny to me. All right, first up, temporary Texans Pronouns they and them Salutations Legume Squad Double featured today with an extremely adoptable what the Mutt we're fostering in North Texas, Oklahoma area. A Cygnus is a full contact snuggle master who loves flopping on stationary humans and never complains about being human handled into a cuddle. He's a loyal protector of whoever he's currently giving food whoever is currently giving him food and a bed and he's overjoyed to see any of his prior caretakers. Would be a fantastic companion for a person just moving to a new area or leaving a fuller house who enjoys dog snuggles but may appreciate having an alert defender with a full bodied bark protecting the homestead. It's about 75 pounds and maybe a surprise in his DNA file. Look at this baby. Well, he's definitely got some pity in there. Maybe some staffy, maybe a little lab some chow. I mean he's just beautiful. Those eyes, they're like little jewels. All right, what do we got? Pitbull, Border Collie, Bulldog and Super Mutt. All right, I got one I got one right. What a beautiful baby. All right, thank you very much for that. And if you are interested in Cygnus, you can look him up. C Y G N U S at Emily's Legacy Rescue in Wichita Falls, Texas. Alrighty. Next up from Francine Pronoun. She and her oh, what a week for the Leguminati indictment for Donald and an all in frog orgy I stumbled upon in my sister's neighborhood. There had to be about a thousand frogs and as you can see, they're getting their frog freak on even more spectacular. Donald has been held accountable. Bathe in all the glory. Look at all these froggos. Oh, thank you so much for that, Francine. I appreciate you. Next up, from Tony. Pronouns he and him. Hello, beans warriors. Tony here again. I was at the Trans Day of Visibility rally. Wow. Just wow. It was amazing, awesome, fabulous and wonderful. Over a thousand trans, gay, bi, intersex kids with siblings, parents, grandparents, allies were all there. There was so much fierce love for themselves and each other. So many bright and colorful flags and signs. Little kids with rainbow painted faces, one child with flowing butterfly wings running around. I carried my giant American flag and pride flags snapping in the wind with one veteran. A parent supporting her queer teenager said I put her old unit to shame by carrying a bigger flag than they carried on parade. She thanked me for showing up and said if I needed a hand in the wind, she'd have my back. Speakers included organizers Faith Corallo, singer and transray activist Ryan Cassada, human rights campaign director Kelly Robinson and many others. A number of young people told stories of their struggles and triumphs as Trans2 Spirit, Intersex and others. Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey was there shaking hands and taking selfies. There was such a spirit of defiance and courage and determination to support and defend each other. As an old cishet white guy, I was there to stand for my kids and all the kids under attack. And I got so much love back. I'm still high. It is so amazing seeing young people having the courage, self, love and integrity to step out in their true selves in spite of the hatred and hostility thrown in their way. I feel as if some of the despair and fear I've been feeling was purged away. I'm so grateful for what I was given. Yesterday while I was in dc, I got a text from one of the people I stood with at Wadsworth asking if I would be in Chardon, Ohio Saturday to support the Drag Queen Story hour there that was under threat from proud boys and Nazis. As it happens, the Chardon event was peaceful. Only a dozen or so haters showed up, and most of them melted away when the rain started. The best chant of the day. We're here, we're queer, we're fabulous, and don't fuck with us. Until next time in love and resistance. Oh, these photos. How wonderful and how amazing. It's got to be so good for the soul. There you are with the flag. I love your overalls, dude. This is so wonderful and beautiful. Oh, that last picture with the capital in the background and your flags. Tony, thank you so much for this and thank you for standing with the LGBTQ community. All right, next up from Danielle Pronoun. She and her hello Beans Queens. I am a psychologist who works with transgender youth, and I wrote in once before about my frustrations with the way media covers the issue of pediatric gender affirming care. Well, my good news today is that Vox recently published a piece that finally says all the things I've been waiting for. The article is titled Trans People Deserve Better Journalism. We'll have the link in the show notes. I also want to thank my wonderful partner, Brian kitchentable Days listener. Hi, Brian. Who not only introduced me to the Daily Beans, and when I was wondering how to spread visibility for this article, he immediately suggested sharing it with the amazing Daily Beans community. Thank you AG and DG for all the work you do. It really keeps us going. I could not find our masking tape, but for Pet Tax, I submit two photos that show that if a square object exists, our Khaleesi will sit on it. Mother of dragons, Queen of sitting on squares. Oh, she's beautiful. Maine Coon. There she is on a book. Oh, she's so pretty. There she is on something else shaped like a square. Thank you so much for that. We'll definitely share this article out from Vox. Danielle, I appreciate you sending that. Next up from Christy Pronoun. She and her hello beautiful Beans Queens. I came home from work the other day to the wonderful news that an indictment happened. I just want to take this opportunity to thank you and the rest of the Beans crew for all you do to keep us informed with the truth. I used to be fearful of speaking up and standing up for my political views in my deeply red state, Ohio. Jacketless Jim Jordan's district, no less. Then I found the Daily Beans in MSW Media and everything changed. For Pet Tax, I've included three photos of my dog Sadie, or as I call her, Tater Tot. One with her favorite toy, lamb chop. Oh yeah, my Olive loves her lamb chop. One in the onesie after her spay and the last one of her eye surgery to correct a plugged tear duct. I have a misheard lyric to share as well. While driving in the car with my then young son, the song Taking care of business came on the radio as I was singing along. He joined in by singing bacon carrot biscuits every day Bacon carrot biscuits every way I'll be baking carrot biscuits now that everyone's gonna say that that's a wonderful. Carrot biscuits sound delicious. If you have any, send them my way. He's 34 now. I haven't let him forget it yet. Good. Oh, look at this little angel. The onesie is so cute. Aw. And the cone of shame, the eyebrows on this baby. Thank you for sending that in. And thanks to all of you for sending in the good news. I think the news is gonna keep getting better and better, but I always want to hear your good news. So send it to us@dailybeanspod.com and click on contact. It's gonna be a hell of a week. I know I say that every week, but every week it's true. I'll be here with you. I'll have some fun. Guest hosts and I will be back tomorrow in your ears to get ready for the arraignment. We'll see how it goes, 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. April 4th, last day to vote in Wisconsin. Go vote Wisconsin. Go vote Wisconsin. I've been ag and them's the beans.
- [51:29]
Refried beans.
- [51:30]
I like refried beans.