Glenn Kershner (3:43)

I would imagine you're right. And I think these are going to keep. They're starting, they're setting precedent. I mean, the bottom line is Bannon's case with precedent. And this is going to start rolling in and if you don't show up, you don't turn over the receipts that we asked for, you're going to get arrested.

Alison Gill (3:56)

Yeah. And so they probably maybe met with the Justice Department lawyers, some of the lawyers for the House, and said, hey, if we put Meadows in, are you going to indict him too? Or was Bannon like a one off deal? Because Bannon doesn't have any claim to executive privilege. Meadows might have, case by case, executive privilege claims. And so that maybe they were waiting to see, I don't know. This is all speculation. So let's just wait and see what happens. But until then, we have other news. So let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes. All right. As I was talking about there in the discussion part of the show, Rolling Stone obtained text messages that show the coordination between the January 6th attackers, the US Capitol to former President Trump's White House. According to the report, rally organizer Amy Kramer was focused on food instead of what was happening down the street from the hotel she was staying at, which, by the way, is the Willard, among other things. Kramer is the founder of Women for America first and is a longtime Tea Party activist. Kramer's Text messages made it clear she was speaking with the White House for events that happened after Trump's loss in November. First, she hosted the March for Trump bus tour that would come to Washington to protest the President's loss. Quote, for those of you that weren't aware, I have jumped off the tour for the night. I'm headed to D.C. i have a meeting at the White House tomorrow afternoon, and then we'll be back tomorrow night. She wrote that in text messages to followers. Rest well. I'll make sure the President knows about the tour tomorrow. She went on to explain that she and her daughter Kylie seemed to indicate that they were in communication with the Trump team. Chris Barron, spokesperson for the Kramers, claimed all of the messages that Rolling Stone has are fake news.

Glenn Kershner (5:31)

And whenever someone calls something fake news, it's usually real.

Alison Gill (5:34)

Quote, you are printing things that are 100% factually untrue that we can prove are not true. You are printing things that are absolutely factually untrue. And beyond being factually untrue for anyone who knows Amy, are likely hilariously preposterous. When Rolling Stone asked for specifics, he refused to answer, merely repeating that they dispute the report. In another text. On December 13, 2020, Kramer told the group she was still waiting to hear from the White House on the photo op with the bus. She explained that she didn't have the permits yet, so they couldn't tweet the event would be at the Ellipse until it was confirmed. Quote, we are following POTUS's lead, she said. A text message from January 3 between activist Dustin Stockton, who was just subpoenaed, and Kylie, Amy Kramer's daughter, made it sound as if there was a blatant coordination. She told Stockton that handling rally credentials for VIP were being organized with a combination of us and the White House. I imagine Stockton, like I said, is the one leaking these texts. He has spoken behind closed doors with January 6th committee. He's got a subpoena now. And most interestingly in this report that I notice, it's the leaker here. Whoever the leaker is told Rolling Stone they were speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect the ongoing investigations, plural investigations. And since there's only one congressional probe, that leaves law enforcement another clue that the DOJ is in fact investigating the higher ups. According to Liz Cheney, they've spoken to nearly 200 people behind closed doors. The fact that they're conducting these probes outside of the public eye is another huge clue that there are criminal investigations happening. Whether they're the inspector general or the Department of Justice. It's probably the FBI conducting the interviews. I'm still convinced that the Department of Justice is investigating, and they're probably waiting for the inspector general or congressional criminal referrals before they start going after the big dogs. We do not know if the inspector general or Congress has made any criminal referrals, but they most certainly have the text messages reported by Rolling Stone. And if they have them, I imagine the Department of Justice has them. And, Dana, you know, I said that I thought Stockton had already spoken to the committee, but they're subpoenaing him now. There was a report a couple of days ago saying that Liz Cheney had said a lot of the people were voluntarily speaking with him, but asking for subpoenas for cover. So they might have had a preliminary or informal interview. And now they're providing the subpoena for.

Glenn Kershner (7:57)

Legal cover because shit's about to get real. Even more real. This next story, I just want a little bit of a warning. Some of you have heard about this. Some of you have watched the video. I ask you, BEANS listeners, that when you hear the story, please do not try Google to go find these videos. They are very, very hard to watch and quite painful. So please, if you can, you don't need to do that. But this is about the tragedy in Wisconsin. The lone suspect in Sunday's Wisconsin parade tragedy intentionally drove his maroon SUV through barricades into a crowd of people celebrating the Waukesha Christmas Parade, which resulted in killing five individuals and injuring 48. Now, that's from the Waukesha Police Chief, Dan Thompson. That was said on Monday. The five people killed ranged from 52 to 81 years old. And that's from Thompson. The police chief acknowledged the heroism of onlookers at the scene, saying first responders and residents worked together to triage the victims and get them as stable as possible. Authorities in Wisconsin have identified the driver of a red SUV they say drove into the Waukesha Christmas Parade as Darrell Brooks Jr. He is 39 years old. Now, Waukesha Police Chief Dan Thompson said it is believed that Brooks, 39, he acted alone. He is the lone suspect in this situation. This incident and the other news out of this is that Brooks was actually involved in a domestic disturbance just prior to driving the SUV through the parade Sunday afternoon. News has come out that he was fleeing some sort of a knife incident is what the news is saying. Police want to make it clear there was no pursuit leading up to the incident. So what it appears is that as he was Fleeing, I can only assume ag is that he went to go down a street and was sort of. He realized that he couldn't get out, and so he continued to go forward through the crowd. It just took seconds for a family friendly event to devolve into a scene of confusion and carnage. The SUV plowed into a Christmas parade in Wisconsin, as we said. How many people were injured? Several of them children. So far, there's no known connection to international or domestic terrorism. It does not appear to be connected to the recent verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, which is just about an hour away. And the suspect has been charged with five counts of intentional homicide. It's really interesting that this specific one is saying that it was intentionally went through the crowd, but that's what it appears to be from the videos. He had a choice. He could have stopped his vehicle. He chose not to. And it was. It's a horrific situation. There's a lot of families that are in mourning and that are trying to figure out the chaos of the day and that are hurting. So we keep all of them in our thoughts. As the holidays approach. It makes something like this even harder than normal.

Alison Gill (10:38)

I'm also trying to figure out if he was arrested earlier that day for domestic violence, why he would let go. I'm assuming those details will come out.

Glenn Kershner (10:51)

As we know more. Yeah, absolutely.

Alison Gill (10:52)

I have a. I have very personal experience with that, so I'm very. I mean, I'm not any more interested to hear about it than anyone else, but wondering why the cops let him go. It's a big question for me. And the Trump Organization owns an office building at 40 Wall street in Manhattan. And in 2012, when the company was listing its assets for lenders, it said the building was worth 527 million, which would make it among the most valuable in New York. But just a few months later, they told the property tax collector that the building was worth 16.7 million. 527 million for lenders, 16.7 million for the tax man.

Glenn Kershner (11:32)

I sense a pattern here.

Alison Gill (11:34)

That's less than 1/13, and that was just a year later. That property is now under scrutiny from the Manhattan District attorney and New York Attorney general, along with several others like it. Like this building, for which the Trump Organization gave vastly different value estimates. And that's according to public records and people familiar with the investigations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing inquiries after the indictment of the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, Weisselberg, this summer for income tax fraud. Prosecutors now appear to be examining whether the company broke the law by providing low values on to property tax officers while using high ones to garner tax breaks or impress lenders. The answer is yes. Proving it's different, though, right? But New York Attorney General Letitia James has said she's considering a lawsuit, and prosecutors in the Manhattan DA's office have also convened a new grand jury, which could vote on criminal charges. And that's according to the people familiar with the probes. Among the other properties under scrutiny, the California Golf club, which he valued the same parcel of land at $900,000 and 25 million, depending on the intended audience 900 grand, 25 million. And in a state in suburban New York for which the valuations range from 56 million to 291 million. That's the one that Maddow kept talking about. The valuations were all given within five years in the five years before Trump won the presidency. And that makes me wonder, what ongoing crimes did he commit along these lines that we don't not yet know about? Because the statute of limitations for the old ones has probably expired. But if the scheme continues, the statute of limitations clock doesn't start ticking until the end of criming. So I imagine the DA has more recent tax returns and documents, maybe from Mazars, showing the Trump work has continued to wildly vary valuations to defraud the United States. But here's the hard part I mentioned proving the discrepancies are criminal because they were intended to defraud the United States. Real estate appraiser said it was highly unusual for any property owner to give such widely different values for the same property during the same time period. Quote, this is way, way beyond anything that's believable, said Norm Miller, a professor of real estate finance at the University of San Diego who has appraised properties for 50 years. I've never seen anything with a gap that extreme. But extreme is not the same as illegal. Legal experts said that if prosecutors want to prove a crime, they have to do more than simply prove Trump's valuations were wrong. Is it overly optimistic? Is it an enthusiastic perception? That's Robert Masters, former top aide of the district attorney in Queens. Does that make it a lie? Masters said prosecutors would probably need to show that the figures were wrong on purpose, falsified deliberately with an intent to deceive a lender or the government. Master said that may require a witness on the inside who could explain the decision making behind the numbers or maybe some Mazars documents. Remember how I said, it's not the taxes, it's something else. It's communications between an accountant and an accountee. Well, we will keep you posted.

Glenn Kershner (14:20)

Absolutely. And I would love to see those communications because whoever evaluated those, I would love to see that it was the same person. Wouldn't that be great if it was the same person that said the 17 and then the other 250 and it was just John Smith that was like, I'm going to sign off on both of these and just messages. It would be lovely. This is really interesting because this is rats, you know, fleeing a ship, but they're still rats. Two Fox News Contributors have Quit Over Tucker Carlson Special on January 6th the trailer for Tucker Carlson Special about the January 6th mob at the Capitol landed online on October 27th. Now that night, Jonah Goldberg sent a text to his business partner Stephen Hayes. He said, I'm tempted just to quit Fox over this. Hayes said, I'm game. Totally outrageous. It will lead to violence. Not sure how we can stay. And so if there's two people at Fox News saying this could lead to violence, there's a good chance it could. The full special Patriot Purge appeared on Fox's online subscription streaming service days later. And last week the two men, both paid Fox News contributors, finalized their resignations from the network. Now in some ways, their departure should not be surprising. You know, it's simply part of the new rights mopping up operation in the corners of the conservative institutions that still house pockets of resistance to the former guy's control of the Republican Party. Now Mr. Goldberg, who is the former National Review writer, and Mr. Hayes, a former Weekly Standard writer, they were two stars of the pre Trump conservative movement. They clearly staked out their positions in 2019 when they founded the Dispatch. And that is an online publication that described as, quote, a place that thoughtful readers can come for conservative fact based news and commentary. It now has nearly 30,000 paying subscribers. So they branched off from Fox, it seems, during that time and wanted to make sure that people were actually getting the truth. And apparently this little documentary from Tucker Carlson has pushed them right over the Fox edge. So they are done with the network.

Alison Gill (16:19)

And that's really interesting too when you think about how they had before they were like fact based news and commentary and now they're like, nope, they're quitting. It'll be interesting to see how many of those 30,000 paying subscribers abandon ship because they're Trump supporters. We'll see.

Glenn Kershner (16:35)

Yeah.

Alison Gill (16:36)

And quick update here, crew. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is suing the Department of Justice following its failure to respond to Cruz FOIA request for records of conversations involving Barr, including conversations with Mark Meadows, Senator Mitch McConnell, and meetings at the Department of Justice and White House with Trump. Obviously. What I'm wondering is if the Department of Justice is investigating Barr now, if Merrick Garland is investigating these conversations. And we know the IG is looking at, like, Clark and Eastman and stuff like that. I'm wondering whether they'll respond to the FOIA request by saying they can't hand over the communications because they're part of an ongoing investigation, which is a legit FOIA exemption. That would be a really roundabout way for us to find out that the Department of Justice is investigating the couple.

Glenn Kershner (17:25)

Absolutely.

Alison Gill (17:26)

Anyway, we'll let you know what happens.

Glenn Kershner (17:28)

However we get there. I don't care how we get there. I just want to fucking get there, you know?

Alison Gill (17:32)

Yeah, yeah. And I talk about, when are we going to fucking get there? Right after this with Glenn Kershner, host of Justice Matters. Because we're all like, you know, on the one hand, we have to go through this properly. We have to follow the rule of law. We have to cross T's, dot the I's, because if we lose this case, America's over.

Glenn Kershner (17:49)

Absolutely.

Alison Gill (17:50)

On the other hand, we don't have a lot of time.

Glenn Kershner (17:52)

Yeah.

Alison Gill (17:52)

And so we're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about that next. Stick around after these messages. We'll be right back, everybody. Welcome back. Happy to be joined today by my friend, host of Justice Matters. Please welcome Glenn Kershner. Hey, Glenn, how's it going, AG it's going well.

Dana Goldberg (18:13)

How about with you?

Alison Gill (18:14)

I'm, I'm good. I feel like we're just all in this holding pattern and we have been for quite a while and we're starting to see some judges and not starting. This has kind of been going on, we know, with Chief Justice Beryl Howell having some words about the amount of money that we're having to spend to protect ourselves against another thing like this and how the restitution has been very low. But in some sentencing, some of the judges have been more recently, other judges have been very vocal and vociferous about the sentencing that's being proposed and the restitution that's being proposed by federal prosecutors. For example, we had a judge this week, Amit Mehta, who many people are familiar with, throughout having been with us and listening for the past several years, had said that Trump was responsible for the insurrection. And I mean, we know that, but it's kind of big when a judge says it.

Dana Goldberg (19:07)

Yeah, it's big. And it's unusual because judges will typically saw the legal wood in front of them. Whatever case they're handling, whatever issue is presented in that case, they pretty much stick to that. But, you know, the judges, I think, see the other crimes that have gone on kind of in the harsh light of day by Trump and his criminal associates, and frankly, how they play into the culpability of what Judge Mehta calls the pawns, Donald Trump's pawns, his foot soldiers of the insurrection. And Judge Mehta is not wrong in two regards. First of all, I pulled out the Politico article that quotes him because it really was a pretty dramatic statement by Judge Mehta when he placed blame for the January 6 Capitol attack squarely on Donald Trump. And he said to the defendant, whose name was. Last name was Lolos. Lolos. I hope I'm pronouncing his name right. He said, look, you didn't purposely come to Washington, D.C. to storm the Capitol. You know, the fact remains that you and others were called to Washington, D.C. by an elected official, prompted to walk to the Capitol by an elected official. You were told lies. You were told falsehoods. You were told our election was stolen, and it clearly wasn't. In a sense, Mr. Lolos, I think you were a pawn, a pawn in a game directed and played by people who should know better. In other words, Donald Trump. That is a really unusual thing for a judge to do, talk about the criminal culpability of others who are not directly before the court. However, you know, I've been talking about this for a while, AG and I know you have as well. Donald Trump, in a very real sense, is responsible for what the insurrectionists did. He told them to do it. He directed them. And that does factor into their culpability. It doesn't give them a legal defense to the crimes they committed, but it does impact how punishment worthy they are. Do they deserve 41 months in prison like that foolish Qanon shaman Jacob Chansley just got? Or do they deserve probation or somewhere in between? And when you realize that these people, many of them, acted on what they believed was the command by the President of the United States, and they were told that they should act because their vote had been stolen, their election had been stolen, their president was being stolen from them, and if they don't fight like hell, they won't have a country anymore. People who are not thinking, people might listen to that and say, I have to do what's right. What my President just told me to do that absolutely impacts the sentencing in the insurrection cases, and it will also impact the trials once these cases start to go to trial. And that leaves me very concerned.

Alison Gill (22:14)

Yeah. And talking about chansley, who got 41 months, I think that's 10 months fewer than the prosecution had recommended. But I guess he did early on cooperate, pled guilty to obstructing Congress. Right. And I think that that also plays in. And you and I have talked about this before, you on justice matters and us together, that that also goes toward building a case of culpability to the president. Right. It was like, oh, they're going to. Okay, he's going to plead guilty to obstructing Congress. That insinuates or infers that whoever led this obstructed Congress. Right. Do I have that right?

Dana Goldberg (22:55)

You have that absolutely right. All of these pleas are building blocks in a case that must be brought against Donald Trump for seditious conspiracy, for inciting an insurrection and rebellion. And I maintain, you know, I've tried cases that were a lot harder to prove than it would be to prove Donald Trump incited and insurrection.

Alison Gill (23:18)

Yeah. And the fact that these are building blocks and seemingly deliberate building blocks, along with a few other clues, still leads me to believe that this will be prosecuted at the highest levels. I know that a lot of people are losing and have lost faith, and I want to talk more about that with you, but I have to take a quick break. Will you stay with me?

Dana Goldberg (23:34)

I will.

Alison Gill (23:35)

Thanks. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back, everybody. Welcome back. We're talking with the host of Justice Matters, Mr. Glenn Kershner, former federal prosecutor out of the D.C. u.S. Attorney's office. And despite months and months of stonewalling by Republicans in the Senate, we now have a DC US Attorney. And it was a week after that DC US Attorney took his place that we saw the Bannon indictment. And it made me think, because we were positing prior to that happening, maybe they're going to wait for the guy to get there. Maybe they're waiting for the guy to get there. And then, of course, we got the new guy, Damian Williams, in the Southern District of New York. And then we saw some indictments coming out, particularly the two Iranians who posed as proud boys in what Trump and Rick Grinnell called an effort to help Joe Biden. But we all know that that's not the case. So it seems to me with that things are moving along. It seems to me that since I mentioned before the break the building blocks seem deliberate to charge the higher ups and those who incited the riot. And you pair that with some of the information that we're getting out of the January 6th Committee to People who have been cooperating in that investigation, most recently that Amy Kramer was in direct communications with the White House in that new Rolling Stone piece, and they're speaking on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing investigations. Plural. And there's only one congressional investigation leads me to believe these are just more clues that they are or will or do intend to go after the leaders. They're just building a very slow and methodical. Perhaps to our detriment, the slowness and methodicalness of it, but a very slow and methodical case because it's a can't lose case.

Dana Goldberg (25:29)

And if public safety weren't at risk, ag. If democracy weren't hanging on by a read, I would be fine with the Department of Justice taking all the time it needs to perfect its case, build the most beautiful, you know, the case that is as bulletproof as you could make it. God bless you. Because we all know federal prosecutors are scared to death of losing a case. They don't want the embarrassment, you know, oh, the humanity. I lost cases. I brought tough cases. I won some. I lost some. But every one I brought, I brought because it was righteous. I brought because I was trying to vindicate the rights of the victim and trying to protect the community. So I appreciate doj. Look, it's unprecedented, right, going after a former president who committed buku crimes. Buku is a legal term against the United States. Right. But at some point, you have to say, because Donald Trump remains out there and the Republicans remain behind him, and he continues to try to undermine, if not end, our democracy, public safety is at risk, and you have to move out. Once you have probable cause to arrest. You need to be assessing every single day whether it's time to make the arrest or is it time to continue to perfect your case in the grand jury. Listen, I maintain it was time to make the arrest on January 21, based on Volume 2 of the Mueller report and all of the obstruction of justice crimes Donald Trump committed. That's when he should have been arrested, but he wasn't. But like you, I take faith in all of the building blocks that we see. I still believe the Department of Justice will indict Donald Trump. You know, you have three jurisdictions right now that it's hard to predict where the first indictment might drop. You have New York, you have Georgia, and you have the federal government. Unfortunately, Nobody looks at this like a tortoise and a hare. They're looking at these three jurisdictions like the tortoise and the snail and the sloth. I mean, who is going to move out first and hold Trump accountable?

Alison Gill (27:44)

Yeah. And that's sort of why I brought up the fact that the D.C. u.S. Attorney got there November 5th, Southern District of New York U.S. attorney got there October 10th. And very new. Right. And that doesn't mean, you know, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have to wait for new. Generally, they don't wait for new U.S. attorneys. Although maybe they were. That was their thinking. Garland got there in March. They were making the nominations shortly after that. But then we didn't predict or didn't know that Cruz and Hawley and the rest of the seditionists in the Senate were going to put the kibosh on getting these guys in their positions. But I have seen more indictments coming out of these offices. And as we know, the D.C. u.S. Attorney's office would be the one handling the volume two Mueller report obstruction of justice charges. And the Southern District of New York would be handling if they decided to reopen the Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, who's a free man as of today case at individual one. Prosecuting Individual one. How much harder is it to reopen a case that's been closed because they closed that case, Southern District of New York in the courts? And I know a lot of people are saying we need to get that done. And the statute of limitations in my mind has not expired because those payments were made back to Cohen going on into August of 2017. How much harder is it to reopen a case that you've closed than it is to just bring a case like obstruction of justice that would come out of D.C. u.S. Attorney's office legally?

Dana Goldberg (29:11)

It's not hard at all because all it takes is an assessment by new prosecutors eyeballing the evidence and saying, listen, there is unfinished business here. We need to reopen, reinvestigate, and if appropriate, indict. It's hard politically. It shouldn't be hard politically, but the reality is that will inspire all sorts of attacks with claims of political revenge and retribution and this. But, you know, if it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. Let the attacks come. So legally speaking, it's easy to reopen and give a relook to cases that were previously closed. We did it all the time in our murder practice in D.C. we had cases that were closed out for lack of evidence. Then guess What? I get a call from somebody in the Bureau of prisons, hey, Mr. Kirschner, I'd like a sentence reduction. I can close a couple of murders for you, bring them on in on a writ, reopen those cases, and let's get rolling. So it's not hard to do legally. It can be a challenge politically.

Alison Gill (30:13)

Now, isn't it true that sometimes prosecutors across offices or within an office will say, we're not going to prosecute on that? It's a little harder to get intent on that. We're going to prosecute on this. I'm thinking the Manafort tax crimes, right? Like, we've got enough for, you know, defraud the United States, conspiracy against the United States when he handed off of that polling information to Konstantin Kalimnick. But we're going to go for the tax stuff. It's just so much easier. Open and shut case. What I'm wondering is, if you've got these three cases, obstruction of justice, Mueller, Volume two, Stormy Daniels in the Southern District of New York, and then insurrection in the Department of Justice, how do you weigh. Because to me, it seems like the easiest of all is the obstruction of justice stuff. But then how do you weigh the importance of bringing insurrection charges? Or, you know, like, what might those discussions look like? Like, we're not going to do the insurrection for Trump, we'll do it for the DOJ guys and Southern District, don't worry about the Stormy Daniels thing, because we're going to go with obstruction in the D.C. u.S. Attorney's office. It's the easiest case. Or is everyone just, like, prosecuted all because you and I have talked about this a lot. It's that the accountability of the insurrection is just as important as following the rule of law. So to me, it would be like, I think that getting him, though you say you've prosecuted on less, it's probably a more difficult case to get him on incitement of the insurrection than it would be to get him on the obstruction of justice charges in volume two of the Mueller report. But it might be more important. Do they weigh that?

Dana Goldberg (31:45)

Absolutely. Great question. Because I think at the end of the day, an attempt by a president to unlawfully unconstitutionally retain power and essentially overthrow our democracy and negate a free and fair election, that has to be prosecuted. Because if it's not, if it's not, Donald Trump will stand up every day and say, everything I did was not only lawful and appropriate, but the Department of Justice has co signed it. They have given me their stamp of approval by not bringing criminal charges, because if it was a crime, goodness knows DOJ would have prosecuted me. So. But, and then to answer the more fundamental question, we have bad guys who commit lots of different kinds of crimes, and we coordinate not only within our office, but with other jurisdictions in a perfect world to say who's got the strongest case, who has the greatest likelihood of conviction, whose victims need to be vindicated. And you try to make some common sense decisions and put your best foot forward with your strongest prosecution. That happens all the time. It does get more complicated when it's the feds and it's New York and it's Georgia. I hope all of those jurisdictions are communicating with one another and coordinating. There's nothing wrong with it. And you did list some of the obvious crimes of Donald Trump, right? The campaign finance violations, the insurrection, the obstruction of justice in volume two. Let's not forget, though, there was still extortion and bribery of President Zelensky. There was still across the board of obstruction of Congress by telling all of his executive branch officials, do not comply with lawfully issued congressional subpoenas. No, no, no. I'm not saying invoke a privilege. I'm saying don't comply. That is lawless. That is transparently lawless. There was witness tampering of Ambassador Yovanovitch. There is homicide liability for avoidable COVID deaths. I mean, it goes on and on and on. I had a dream last night. This tells you I got to get better dreams. And it was literally about the Department of Justice putting all of that one massive indictment against Donald Trump. Where does Donald Trump go with that? I mean, he can scream political revenge all he wants, but those crimes that you and I have been discussing are all sound, are all supported by the evidence and could all be indicted. Now, indicting them in one indictment is a challenging proposition because there would be motions to sever because they weren't properly included in one indictment. Fine. We can litigate all of that. But can you imagine if the Department of Justice took the principled position that it's so important to our democracy that we hold a criminal president accountable, that they indicted all of his crimes that were supported by the evidence? I mean, that is sort of what we should expect.

Alison Gill (34:54)

Yeah. And, you know, I've said, I've posited very optimistically that the obstruction of justice crimes, the 2016 crimes, and the big lie and Covid and the coup and the insurrection are all the same scheme, all the same criminal scheme. Maybe not Covid. Maybe that's a separate thing. However, you know, people why? Why don't we have the obstruction of justice charges? I'm like, maybe they're getting rolled up in the entirety of this criminal scheme to overthrow the government. I'm not sure. But I had a dream last night, Glenn, that I was Attorney General and I was being waylaid and sort of kneecapped by all sorts of different people trying to prevent you from doing things. Kind of almost like GSA Emily was there making my life really hard. And what ended up happening was we decided, forget the Stormy Daniels stuff, we're going to indict now with the new D.C. u.S. Attorney on the obstruction of justice stuff and continue to look into the insurrection as superseding indictments. But we have to do something soon. And we can't wait until. Because that incitement of the insurrection, it's not going to happen soon. If it happens, it's not going to be soon.

Dana Goldberg (36:14)

Yeah, no, but it has to be done. And I mean, the closer we get to the 2022 midterms and God forbid the 2024 presidential election, the more there is going to be that reluctance that, well, we don't want to upset election apple carts too close in time. I mean, all of this stuff now that didn't seem to stop Jim Comey talking about Hillary's emails endlessly. I mean, when I look back at that, because I wanted to believe Jim Comey, it was all born of good intentions. But the more I look back at it, it was just flat out insanity. And it proves that you don't let every person decide for themselves what the norms and the rules should be. You stick with the darn norms and the rules and you let the chips fall. Because at least then you can say we stuck by our guns. We acted the way our policies, our procedures, our rules and our regulations demand we act. Because once you lose that claim and that protection, well, then we are adrift, subject to everybody's gut sense of what they should do. And that's what gave us Donald Trump. In part, yeah.

Alison Gill (37:26)

And a lot of folks are angry that the January 6th committee is holding these depositions and getting all this information behind closed doors. Over 200 people now. And that's, I'm sure, where these text messages from Amy Kramer came from with the Stockton guy, who's friends with his. With her daughter, et cetera. And they were texting back and forth leading up to the insurrection. But I think that that is the fact that they're doing all this behind closed doors is a hint that they're trying to preserve future criminal prosecution. And that again, is. I'm glad about that personally, because you know, as a prosecutor, how difficult it can be to unwind shitty public testimony when you're trying to criminally prosecute someone. So that's what I think. I think maybe Garland's waiting for, if he doesn't already have the DOJ inspector general report that started on January 25th, looking into Clark and that group of folks, bar even, and then waiting for the Congressional Committee to make their criminal referrals, which I hope they will, if they haven't already. But I just want to kind of reassure everybody that, yes, we are pushing to win and hold the House in 2022, but in the case that we don't, the January 6th committee can hand these referrals off to the Department of Justice, who will be there for the following two years after that.

Dana Goldberg (38:43)

Yeah. And the Republicans, if they take control in 2022 of the house, frankly, that will only up the ante for the Department of Justice to move out on criminal indictments. But I'm of two minds.

Alison Gill (38:55)

They haven't already.

Dana Goldberg (38:55)

If they haven't already. I'm of two minds with respect to the behind closed doors aspect of what the Select Committee is doing. You know, I see it in part as sort of comparable to a grand jury investigation, which is secret. And it's not until the trial that you then out the testimony, you expose it to public view. I am hoping that what they're doing is locking it in in as pristine a fashion as they can behind closed doors. Then they will show us the highlights by recalling those witnesses and then put on the show for the American people that the American people need to see about what went on concerning January 6th. But here is the flip side of that coin, which is less rosy. And that is when I was prosecuting and I had other organizations interested in getting their hands on my witness, whether for civil suit or something that was going on in city council in D.C. i never, ever, ever wanted anybody touching my witnesses until they were done testifying before the grand jury, end that trial if I could help it. So I am uncomfortable that prosecutors, now, I don't know this for a fact, but if prosecutors are not the first ones to present every important witness to a grand jury and lock in that sworn testimony, I get concerned that politicians in the Select Committee are creating sworn testimony and developing records that might be great for a congressional inquiry, but might be less great down the road for a prosecution. So that is the continued concern I have.

Alison Gill (40:28)

Yeah, same. Same right. Right there with you on that. And yeah, we'll see what happens. But that's, that's exactly what they did in the impeachment was they got they deposed and behind closed doors and everybody was like, why? And then they come out with this beautiful all in one case, which I thought was open and shut and which, you know, I mean, we impeached him twice. Was just the senators who, who didn't. But that was another example of, we know that the Senate's not going to convict, but we have to do this because it's the right fucking thing to do for this country. Absolutely. We can't let this precedent slide. And the DOJ shouldn't let it slide either. Thank you today for talking to me. Tell everybody in case they already don't know where they can find you.

Dana Goldberg (41:09)

They can find me over on YouTube Justice Matters with Glenn Kershner daily video every day, seven days a week. They can find me over on Patreon, which is where Team Justice Proper meets. And we work on, you know, democracy projects, grassroots projects. We have a great group of people over on Patreon. That's where people can go and kind of support our all volunteer efforts here and, you know, Instagram and Facebook and Twitter all day and night trying to answer questions. So put my name in and I'll pop up on some social platform or another.

Glenn Kershner (41:42)

Awesome.

Alison Gill (41:42)

Thanks very much, Glenn. It's Glenn with two ns for those unfamiliar. Thank you so much, host of Justice Matters. Appreciate your time today.

Dana Goldberg (41:49)

Thanks, Ag.

Alison Gill (41:49)

Everybody, stick around. We'll be back with the good news. Everybody, welcome back. It's time for the good news.

Dana Goldberg (42:04)

Who likes good news, everyone?

Alison Gill (42:07)

Then good news, everyone. And if you have any good news, please send it to us@dailybeanspod.com and click on contact. I want all Halloween photos, all Thanksgiving photos, holiday photos, kids, grandparents, dogs, pets, cats, birds, whatever, whatever you have. And also what you're thankful for, love to hear. We're also going to see a little bit later if Dana has any final thoughts.

Glenn Kershner (42:32)

Oh, God, the stress of it. I was just thinking about that and now. Damn you, Ag. You know what I would also love if anyone, if this is okay for me to step forward like this, but if you have any traditions, Thanksgiving traditions, or recipes that your family has always loved, but if anyone else saw them, they would be horrified. But they're delicious. I would love to know what those are like, things you've just done every year and you figured out they work and your family does them. Even if it's some people's families, they will forever do the canned cranberry sauce. No matter how fancy the rest of the dinner is, it's still that, you know, that sauce that just a big chunk, like whatever it is that you cannot live without at Thanksgiving. I would love to hear that.

Alison Gill (43:14)

Which is the only acceptable cranberry sauce.

Glenn Kershner (43:16)

It's delicious.

Alison Gill (43:17)

It gives you the lines with which to make cuts. I mean, how do you. How do you not know that is the proper canberry sauce?

Glenn Kershner (43:25)

My mother would be horrified, but I agree.

Alison Gill (43:27)

Yeah. And any other interesting or weird traditions that you have would love to hear about it. My friends. I've got a good group of friends that do fake scenes on Wednesday with, you know, just friends. How about that for people who are traveling or, you know, because back in the day, comedians were on the road a lot. So true. Yeah.

Glenn Kershner (43:44)

Back before that global pandemic, we used to be gone a lot during the holidays.

Alison Gill (43:48)

Yeah, it would be just whoever was sort of in town and, you know, truth be told, a lot of industry folks and comedians and performers are on the road during the holidays, so interesting traditions come up. All right, I'm going to start with the first two here. And the first one's from Evan. Pronouns he and him. Thankful, Ag and Dana. I discovered the beans a few months ago. And Jesus. Do you guys get it right? Huh? You model the appropriate anger, but also self care with all the nuggets of joy from you and your subscribers. It's been a shit few years for me with aging family, depression, and all kinds of health issues. And this orange shit weasel is a cherry on top of the shit sundae. I feel more grounded, though, after every episode. Thank you. You're welcome, Evan. Thank you for the kind words. And from anonymous pronouns, he and him, we finally decided to get our hardwood floors redone by professionals. Oh, good. Thank you. I'm thankful for the easy to work with folks who are doing the work. And I'm thankful we have a patch of grass in the backyard just big enough to pitch a tent on for the next few days. This should be fun. I'm sure the cats will like it better than a hotel.

Glenn Kershner (44:50)

Oh, my God. This is brilliant, though.

Alison Gill (44:53)

They're camping in their backyard while their floors are getting done. Awesome.

Glenn Kershner (44:57)

I mean, I love that. What an adventure.

Alison Gill (44:59)

Awesome.

Glenn Kershner (44:59)

We used to camp in our backyard in a tent, and the floors weren't even getting done. We were just like, hey, do you want to sleep out back? And so we'd go sleep out back. All right. This is from Darcy Pronoun. She and her Good morning, A.G. and the rest. I have shit kids Save for you. Now, the reason it's recently even more hilarious requires being aware of the satirical birds aren't real conspiracy. Now if you aren't aware, there's the website, which is Birds aren't real. Ever since this started a few years ago, I just about die with laughter every time I see a reference. And this is why when my oldest daughter was about 14, she was in a car with me while we were in the school pickup line to get her brother. It was a lovely spring day and we had the windows rolled down and a robin landed next to the car and kind of tilted its head and looked up at me. Now being me, I said, hi Robin, welcome back. Or something similarly embarrassing to a 14 year old. Now my daughter rolled her eyes in that way that only a 14 year old girls can do and said nice mom. In that sarcastic voice that only 14 year old girls have when their mother is terribly uncool and must be informed of her uncoolness. In response, I said, what? You talk to birds too? I got another eye roll and she retorted immediately with nu. Cause I know that birds aren't real. I laughed so hard I cried. And it's because a classic tell everyone new boyfriend story. But now it's even better. I included pictures of our year old puppy Pepper, who is a boxer healer mix. Her snoot is quite boopable as you can see. Thanks for all you do. It definitely keeps me from screaming into the Twitter void as much.

Alison Gill (46:36)

Oh, I get it. It's a classic tell every new boyfriend story. Okay, so every new boyfriend she has, I talk about the birds aren't real.

Glenn Kershner (46:43)

And that is a boopable nose. Look at the last picture.

Alison Gill (46:45)

Boop. Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. And what a beautiful. Where is that? Does it say?

Glenn Kershner (46:51)

No? It's pretty though.

Alison Gill (46:52)

It's beautiful. Pepper pamper boxer. Thank you for that. That's amazing. And next up, from Jeff, pronouns he and him. Dear Beans Queens, A few years ago I left a career in New York City and returned to my childhood home of Rat's Ass, Texas. Both my parents were in the early stages of dementia and I wanted to do what I could to make their final years safe and comfortable. That's wonderful. As if watching my mother and father slip away into childish oblivion wasn't heartbreaking enough, my country lost its mind and awarded the presidency to an aging lothario with a dorky combover and orange clown makeup who stood on stages and rambled about toilets, cancer causing windmills and super duper hydrosonic missiles in short, a president with all the gravitas of Porky Pig. Two things in particular helped me endure the loss of my parents and the reign of Captain Comover. First, listening to the podcasts like yours gave me a sense of community during a difficult and lonely time. Second, I adopted a rescue kitty named Murtaugh who has made me laugh and gave me companionship through some dark years. Having spent so many lovely mornings with him in my lap while I sipped coffee and listened to your show, the least I could do was send you a few photos. As you can see, in addition to being a great lap cat, Murtaugh is something of a box freak. During the lockdown, I ordered a lot from Amazon, so little Doofus was in box heaven. I hope you enjoy these pics of my bff. I hope you accept my sincere thanks for sharing day after day your intelligent take on current events and for steadfastly fighting the good fight.

Glenn Kershner (48:17)

What a beautiful submission too, Jeff. Thank you for that.

Alison Gill (48:21)

And Murtaugh. Murtaugh. Murtaugh.

Glenn Kershner (48:26)

Does love a good box. Oh, I mean, trust me, I get it. I get it, Kitty. I get it.

Alison Gill (48:34)

It's got a man face though. Yep, just saying.

Glenn Kershner (48:37)

All right, well, it's a man face in a box. All right. This is from Aaron from Tennessee. Pronouns he and him hi Beanies listener Since the near beginning, Episode three of MSW was my first my good news. Also a thank you. But hold tight. With Thanksgiving coming up, a lot of people will be seeing family for the first time in a long time with whom we disagree with politically, including myself. While I love my parents and their many siblings dearly, there are a few things in politics we agree on for background, my mother and 12 siblings were raised Catholic and very Republican. My father and his five siblings are American born, but he spent his infancy in France and the rest of his adolescent life in the USSR until he was 16, during what is now called the Russian era of stagnation, the early 1970s. As a result of his upbringing, my father in particular has a distaste and distrust of anything that even remotely resembles socialism. He is somewhere between Tea Party and Libertarian, although he also buys into a few QAnon conspiracies. To make matters worse, he's what I call a master debater. He always seems to have studies and statistics that support his arguments on hand and at any given moment, whereas I always have to search the Internet for where I got my information in order to support my side of any debate. Even when I know I'm right, he wins the argument. However, due to continued listening of your podcast, I've begun to not only win some arguments, but I've been able to find common ground on certain topics and even sway them to my side on others. Congressional stock trading limitations, pharmaceutical price gouging, and the importance of public transit are a few of the issues we agree on at long last. In addition, my mother in particular has come around on several social issues, including LGBTQ rights, criminal justice, and climate. It took three glasses of Merlot for her to admit to me that she voted Democratic in the last two presidential elections, not on political grounds, but moral ones. After 20 years, I finally felt comfortable coming out to her as bisexual and she accepted and respected every ounce of it. Now, as for my father, he has a long way to go, but has admitted that some of the people in the former guys circle an old cabinet are wackadoos and feels like there are a few financial crimes that may have occurred near his presence. My little sister has remained apolitical this entire time, but knowing her, she would have been a Sanders or Warren supporter if she had been old enough to vote. Now, my parents and I still disagree on many things, and there are still very much Republicans, but progress is progress and I cherish little victories. I couldn't have done it without you, your guests, and your team keeping me in the know and prepared these past few years for POD pet tags, I'm attaching two pictures of my cat, Simie, short for Simeon. I guess that's Simi, short for Simeon. I found her at one week old. Yeah. Stranded and starving while I was working in the Sequoia National Forest in the summer of 2020. Probably abandoned by a breeder. She is the sweetest and cuddliest and the epitome of chaotic good. And look how sweet.

Alison Gill (51:36)

What a beautiful baby. The second photo.

Glenn Kershner (51:40)

Oh my goodness.

Alison Gill (51:41)

Kind of derpy.

Glenn Kershner (51:43)

Oh my goodness, Erin, I love this entire submission. I mean, it just gives me hope. Like, you can start to have conversations. People can change. Even after years of indoctrination with certain ideologies, it can happen. I mean, it's a beautiful thing. And for those of you listening, if you know this is you're going home for the holiday and it's just going to be a shit show. Put a child lock on Fox News just while you're there. Maybe don't take it off before you leave. And maybe they can't turn it on while you're having Thanksgiving dinner. I should have saved that for my final thoughts. God damn it.

Alison Gill (52:16)

Maybe next time. Oh yeah, tune in tomorrow. Yeah, we used to do this thing Dana with the old Mueller, she wrote where we would have if you're going home for Thanksgiving, grab your parents and aunts and uncles and cousins, get their phone, get their cell phone or their tablets and go on and subscribe to Mueller, she wrote, and the Daily Beans.

Glenn Kershner (52:45)

Brilliant.

Alison Gill (52:45)

Clean up on aisle 45. It helps our subscription numbers. It helps us, you know, it helps with charting so we can out chart Hannity and the like and get the fascists off the list. But it also is just great where shit will just pop up on their phone like totally. Daily Beans. Oh, this must be something I like. And then, ha ha. Democracy. All right, no final thoughts then.

Glenn Kershner (53:07)

Well, not anymore.

Alison Gill (53:09)

Join us tomorrow to see if Dana has any final thoughts. Until then, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, and take care of your mental health. I've been AG and I've been DG and them's the beans. The Daily Beans is written and executive produced by Alison Gill with additional research and reporting by Dana Goldberg and Amy Carrero. Sound design and editing is by Desiree McFarland. Web design by Joel Reeder with Moxie Design Studios. Music the Daily Beans is written and performed by they Might Be Giants and the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator owned podcasts dedicated to news, politics and justice. For more information please visit mswmedia.com.