Alison Gill (5:39)

Now, I'm an atheist, but it's so important for us to know and recognize that there are so many good and loving people of faith and of all religions here. So thank you to the Reverend Marianne Edgar Buddy for that reminder and for the bravery necessary to speak directly to Donald Trump in the face of his first day of brutal authoritarian actions. That bravery has not gone unnoticed. All right, everybody, let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes. All right, first up, from Courtney Kuby at All at NBC. Senators have received an affidavit Tuesday from the former sister in law of defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth in which she says his behavior caused his second wife to fear for her safety. The receipt of the affidavit comes after the Senate Armed Services Committee staffers were in contact with Hegseth's former sister in law for several days. The former sister in law, Danielle Hegseth, submitted the affidavit in response to a January 18 letter from Senator Jack Reed, Democrat from Rhode island, seeking a statement attesting to your personal knowledge about Mr. Heth's fitness to occupy this important position. Reed, who's the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked Danielle Hegseth to detail what she knew of, quote, instances of abuse or threats of abuse perpetrated against any other person and mistreatment of a spouse, former spouse, or other members of his family, among other requests. Reed said in a statement Tuesday, quote, as I have said for months, the reports of Mr. Hegseth's history of alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and public misconduct necessitate an exhaustive background investigation. I have been concerned that the background check process has been inadequate, and this sworn affidavit confirms that fact. He added that, quote, the alleged pattern of abuse and misconduct by Mr. Hegseth is disturbing. This behavior would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being confirmed, as the secretary of defense Daniel Hegseth describes in the affidavit, allegations of volatile and threatening conduct by Hegseth that made his second wife, Samantha, fear for her safety. Two days before Congress received the affidavit, NBC News reached out to the Hegseth family, specifically Hegseth's second wife, Samantha, to detail some of the allegations contained in the affidavit and asked for comment. In an email response Monday, Samantha Hegseth said, first and foremost, I have not and will not comment on my marriage to Pete Hegseth. I do not have representatives speaking on my behalf, nor have I ever asked anyone to share or speak about the details of my marriage on my behalf, whether it be a reporter, a committee member, a transition team member, etc. She added, I do not believe your information to be accurate and I have cc'd my lawyer. Asked what information was not accurate and for comment on the affidavit. She replied Tuesday, quote, there was no physical abuse in my marriage. This is the only further statement I will make to you. I have to let you know that I am not speaking and will not speak on my marriage to Pete. Please respect this decision. A lawyer for Hegseth, Tim Parlator, dismissed the allegations, quote, sam has never alleged that there was any abuse. She signed court documents acknowledging that There was no abuse and recently reaffirmed the same during her FBI interview. Belated claims by Daniel Dietrich, an anti Trump far left Democrat who is divorced from Mr. Hegseth's brother and never got along with the Hegseth family do nothing to change that. After an acrimonious divorce, Ms. Dietrich has had an axe to grind against the entire Hegseth family, he added. Ms. Dietrich admits that she saw nothing, but is now falsely accusing Sam of lying to both the court and the FBI because of a private undocumented statement she allegedly made 10 years ago. Interesting. I was also bullied out of testifying against an abusive spouse, so I kind of know what this is like. Both Pete Hegseth and Samantha Hegseth signed a 2021 court document saying neither parent claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse, Danielle Hegseth said in the affidavit, a redacted copy of which has been reviewed by NBC. Quote, I have chosen to come forward publicly at significant personal sacrifice because I'm deeply concerned by what Hegseth's confirmation would mean for our military and our country. She adds that part of her reason for coming forward is, quote, because I have been assured that that making this public statement will ensure that certain senators who are still on the fence will vote against Hegseth's confirmation. But for that assurance, I would not subject myself or others referred to in this statement to the public scrutiny this statement is likely to cause. The allegations in the affidavit paint a picture of Hegseth's strained relationship with Samantha. The two married in 2010 and divorced in 2018. They have three children. Danielle decided to speak with the committee staff after consideration, sources said. But she notes in the affidavit that she had detailed the allegations in it to an FBI agent in a December 30, 2024 interview conducted as part of its background investigation into Pete Hegseth, the committee's Republican chair and Democratic ranking member were not told about the information Danielle provided to the FBI when the Trump transition team briefed them about the results of Pete Hegseth's background check prior to the hearing. So that was almost kind of the buried lead here that the FBI was told about this by Danielle Hegseth on December 30th. And the Trump transition team, they didn't include it in their brief. That's pretty stunning cover up. Separately, Arthur Schwartz, an advisor to Hegseth and a paid consultant to the Trump transition, said in an email Monday, even SASC Democrats found these allegations to be too flimsy to raise with Mr. Hegseth or their Republican colleagues on the committee, which says a lot about both the allegations and NBC's standards for publication. Schwartz didn't respond to an email Tuesday asking for comment on the existence of the affidavit. In the affidavit, Daniel notes that much of what she knows about Samantha's situation she learned from her around the time of the events in question. However, I trust what Samantha told me for the reasons stated above, most critically because it was consistent with what I personally observed of Hegseth's erratic and aggressive behavior over many years. Three days after Hegseth's confirmation hearing before the Armed Services Committee, some Democratic staffers heard information now contained in the affidavit directly from Danielle for the first time. This development comes after NBC News and other media organizations have reported concerns about Hegseth's drinking. If confirmed, Hegseth will take up a major position on President Donald Trump's Cabinet, overseeing the Department of Defense. The allegations raise new questions about the scope and thoroughness of the FBI's background check of Hegseth, what members and staffers of the Armed Services Committee knew and when, and what the Trump transition communicated to the committee before last week's confirmation hearing. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I said a week or so ago when the FBI background check into Hegseth wasn't thorough because multiple members hadn't been interviewed. They had. Multiple members of his family had been interviewed. The FBI communicated that to the Trump transition team, but the Trump transition team did not communicate that to the Armed Services Committee. After his committee voted along party lines Monday to move Hegseth's nomination to the full Senate Chairman Roger Wicker was asked whether he's concerned about more allegations against Hegseth coming to light. Quote, I think all of you probably heard a whisper of a rumor earlier today, which was anonymous, unsubstantiated, and was contrary to some court documents that had been placed on the record in the hearing. A Senate vote on Hegseth's nomination is expected as early as Thursday. To be confirmed, Hegseth would only need a simple majority, or 51, of the Senate's 53 Republicans. And from Matthew Chapman at Raw Story, the FOP Fraternal Order of Police, one of the nation's largest labor organizations for cops, endorsed Trump, but now that he has pardoned hundreds of people convicted of attacking police, they have nothing to say on the matter, according to SV Dot of the Huffington Post. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. The group flatly rebuffed his request for comment. Huh. The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Trump for president. They congratulated him on his win in November. That's what date posted or dot posted on Twitter. Here is what they had to say when I just asked them about Trump releasing hundreds of violent felons who assaulted cops. Quote, we don't have a statement about that, unquote. Trump promised throughout the campaign and during the presidential transition to pardon people convicted of crimes related to January 6th. And in recent weeks, he and Vice President J.D. vance had suggested he would review cases individually, possibly to limit the pardons to only those convicted of nonviolent offenses like unlawful picketing or trespassing. However, on his first day in office, Trump instead issued a blanket pardon for around 1500 people, including not just those who attacked police officers, but the ringleaders of paramilitary organizations like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who were convicted of seditious conspiracy against the United States. The move has left even some Republican senators scrambling to distance themselves. And Rep. Thom Tillis said the pardons could create precedent that, quote, police officers could potentially be assaulted and there's no consequences, and that the release of certain rioters could pose a legitimate safety question here on Capitol Hill, unquote. All right, next up from Ryan Riley for NBC. He's, you know, the author of Sedition Hunters. We've had him on the show a couple times. A conservative activist who has been on the board of A group supporting January 6th defendants has been named to head the US Attorney's office for the District of Columbia, the federal prosecutor's office that has overseen the hundreds of cases brought in the Capitol siege investigation. Ed Martin will be the interim chief, Trump Justice Department official Chad Gilmartin told NBC News. Martin was a prominent member of Stop the Steel. In a speech at the Capitol on January 5, he called on die hard true Americans to work until their last breath to Stop the steel. On January 6, Martin tweeted that he was at the Capitol and said the crowd was rowdy but nothing out of hand, and then tweeted, Like Marty GR in D.C. today, love, faith and joy. At the time of Martin's tweet, rioters had breached the building and Ashley Babbitt had been shot. On the other side of the Capitol, one January 6 rioter would soon drive a stun gun into an officer's neck during the brutal battle at the Lower West Tunnel. That officer, I believe, is Mike Fanone. Martin was on the board of the Patriot Freedom Project, which advocated for January 6th defendants and held fundraisers at Trump properties, including events where Trump spoke. Last year, Martin was named deputy police director of the platform committee for the Republican National Committee. So he is also dropping all the cases, most of the cases that haven't even been brought yet against insurrectionists, including ones that assaulted cops. And yesterday we talked about the lawsuits, four lawsuits over Doji Dodgy Doge. And today from KARA SCANNELL @ CNN, two dozen Democratic led states and cities are challenging Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship in court, a major constitutional challenge to one of the White House's signature policies. The lawsuits allege that a Trump executive order signed Monday violates the 14th Amendment, which gives the constitutional right of citizenship to all children born in the United States, quote. Despite a president's broad powers to set immigration policy, however, the citizenship stripping order falls far outside the legal bounds of the president's authority. That's what the lawsuit says from 18 states, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. This case could end up becoming the first major Supreme Court Showdown for Trump's second term agenda. The 18 states filed in a Massachusetts federal court, which means any appeal of a ruling from that court will come up through the 1st U.S. circuit Court of Appeals, where all the judges are Democratic appointees. The Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship in the past. And there is also a new federal law passed by Congress predating the 14th Amendment's 1868 ratification, establishing that children born in the US on US soil are entitled to citizenship. The president's entitled to put forth a policy agenda that he sees fit when it comes to birthright citizenship, something that's been part of the fabric of this nation for centuries. That's been in the Constitution for 157 years, since the Civil War. That's been upheld by the Supreme Court twice. The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, rewrite the Constitution and upend the rule of law. That's New Jersey Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who's co leading the new lawsuit. Also Tuesday, the attorneys general of Washington, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois brought their own lawsuit on the West Coast. It was filed at federal court in Seattle that is within the 9th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals, a traditionally left leaning court that has become less liberal in recent years. Though both suits are seeking a preliminary order blocking the policy before the Trump administration can take steps to implement it. Similar lawsuits targeting Trump's order were brought by the ACLU and immigration rights groups on Monday. The order prohibits federal agencies from issuing documents that affirm U.S. citizenship or recognize documents claiming to recognize U.S. citizenship. Now it applies to children born starting 30 days after the issuance of the order. The children covered under it are those born on US Soil to parents who are either unlawfully present in the US or in situations where the mother is temporarily in the United States, like on a visa, and a father who's a non citizen. The order hinges on the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th Amendment. Some immigration hardliners have argued that children of undocumented immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and shouldn't be considered citizens under the Constitution. Legal experts previously told CNN they were skeptical such an argument would fly in court, arguing that such the relevant language was aimed at children of foreign diplomats who were subject to US Laws and at situations where a foreign nation has invaded and is occupying part of the country. Both the ACLU and the attorneys general have described bringing their challenges as an easy call legally believing that the merits weigh heavily on their side. It may be one of multiple Trump immigration policies that get challenged in court. With Trump long forecasting for years his desire to end birthright citizenship, his opponents have had months to prepare these legal challenges. Among plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit are expectant parents who may be deemed to be covered by the order. According to the complaint, the states in their own lawsuit say that at least 150,000 children born to two parents without legal status would be denied citizenship by the order. They argue that their systems would be burdened by being required to take on greater financial roles to provide services since non citizens can't access federally funded health care, education and other services. Quote under the order, such children born after February 19, 2025, who would have been unquestionably deemed citizens had they been born two days ago, will lack any legal status in the eyes of the federal government. They will be deportable, and many will be stateless. The impacted children, the states argue, will lose their ability to access myriad federal services that are available to their fellow Americans. And despite the Constitution's guarantee of their citizenship, they'll lose their rights to participate in the economic and civic life of their own country, to work, vote, serve on juries and run for certain offices. The challenge brought by the smaller groups of states in Seattle raised similar arguments about how those states could be burdened by the loss of federal funding if the order is allowed to take effect. And I I had figured that the, quote, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, unquote, would be what Donald Trump will try to argue. So we'll see how that goes. And Admiral Linda Fagan has been removed as the Coast Guard commandant. This is from The US Naval Institute website, the acting Secretary of Homeland Security removed the Coast Guard commandant from her position. According to a message to the service reviewed by USNI News and All coast, which is a message to all members of the Coast Guard, announced the relief of Admiral Linda Fagan to the service. The message did not give a reason for her removal. Quote, under my statutory authority as the acting Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, I have relieved Admiral Linda L. Fagan of her duties as Commandant of the United States Coast Guard. She served a long and illustrious career and I thank her for her service to our nation. That's all it says. Fagan was the first female commandant of the Coast Guard. She assumed duties as commandant on June 1, 2022. A senior Department of Homeland Security official told USNI News in a statement that Fagan's termination was actually due to leadership deficiencies, operational failures and the inability to advance the strategic objectives of the U.S. coast Guard. Fox News first reported this termination. Vice Commandant Admiral Kevin Lundy will take over as acting commandant. According to the all coast message, Lundy confirmed he took over as acting commandant in a message to the service, quote, our duty to our nation and the American people we serve remains unchanged and the Coast Guard remains semper Paradis. Continue to execute our mission and operations with excellence. We are renowned for. That's what his message said. The senior DHS official gave five reasons for Fagan's relief. DHS found that Fagan failed to address the border security threats, including interdicting fentanyl and other illicit substances. Law enforcement is part of the task of the Coast Guard. A September Government Accountability Office report found that the Coast Guard's recruiting issues and aging fleet were hampering the service his ability to police drug smuggling. In November, the Coast Guard seized more than 29,000 pounds of illicit drugs with a street value of nearly $336 million. DHS also linked Fagan to recruiting shortfalls, adding that she did not bring innovative strategies to address retention challenges. Recruitment is getting better, with the Coast Guard exceeding its goals in the last fiscal year and on track to meet its goals this year. That's Command Master Chief for the Coast Guard Pacific area Maria D'Angelo, talking to the audience at a Surface Navy association national Symposium pan panel last week. Boot camps already filled until the second week of April, he said. So that's not true. But it will take three to five years of meeting recruiting goals to heal the gaps. That's what D'Angelo said. To account for the gaps in people, the Coast Guard introduced the Force Alignment Initiative which saw service temporarily shut down some stations that many had overlapping areas of response that allowed the service to force multiply to the units that needed people. The senior DHS official also pointed to delays and cost overruns in acquiring icebreakers and helicopters as one of the reasons for Fagan's relief. The Coast Guard's current icebreakers are aging and have suffered problems that prevent them from meeting mission requirements. The Coast Guard is in the process of acquiring a commercial icebreaker, which will take two years to convert. The Coast Guard's first polar security cutter, the USCGC Polar Sentinel, is expected to be delivered in 2028, a delay of three years. Besides, people funding is one of the Coast Guard's biggest concerns. Fagan called for an increased budget going from 14 billion to 20. Vice Admiral Andrew Tiongsin, commander of Coast Guard Pacific Area, echoed those calls in his speech at SNA last week. The lack of funding has led to issues with an aging fleet. The fourth reason listed for Fagan's dismissal? Excessive focus on dei, which diverted resources from mission initiatives. That's according to senior DHS officials. And the last reason was mishandling and cover up of Operation Fouled Anchor, which was the investigation into sexual assault and harassment at the Coast Guard Academy. A House Committee on Oversight and Accountability memo found that the Coast Guard withheld the operation from Congress and the public. In the statement, the senior DHS official wrote that the mishandling eroded trust in the Coast Guard among the public and guardsmen. Fagan, who was the first woman in the Coast Guard to receive four stars, served as vice commandant before the Biden administration tapped her to lead the service. She also served as the head to the Coast Guard Pacific area before she took over as the Coast Guard's number two officer. And some good news from democracy Docket the US Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case brought by Montana Secretary of State Christy Jacobson, a Republican who was seeking to revive two voter suppression laws targeting new voters and indigenous voters. The laws were struck down by a trial court in 2022, and last March the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The U.S. supreme Court's decision today means the laws will remain permanently blocked. In 2021. Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed several new voting restriction bills into law. Gianforte cited election security, though the changes came after the state law saw a turnout surge in 2020. The Montana Democratic Party and other organizations filed lawsuits, ultimately consolidating into one arguing that the laws violated the Constitution. SB 169 narrowed the types of voter IDs permitted, in particular limiting the use of student IDs. The law required voters without a government issued photo ID or a state concealed carry permit to produce two forms of identification to vote. Voting rights advocates described SB 169 as a modern day poll tax because of the financial barriers to low income Montanans that they have to pay for these government issued IDs. HB 176 eliminated election day voter registration in 2004, Montanans approved same day voter registration as a ballot measure. The voters wanted it to have the legislature and governor end it, a voting rights advocate said, was a slap in the face. Then there was HB530. It banned certain types of ballot assistance, including paid absentee ballot collectors. Opponents of the law claimed this disproportionately harmed voters in Indian country. Then there was HB 506, which prohibited mailing ballots to new voters who would be eligible to vote on Election Day but are not yet 18. After years of litigation, in March 2024 the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court decision striking down all four laws for violating the state constitution. On Aug. 24, 2024, Jacobson appealed the state Supreme Court's decision on HB 176 and HB 530, pursuing a version of the controversial and rejected independent state legislature theory in her ARG that the state Supreme Court interfered with the legislature's authority. Isl, as we know, is a radical legal theory stemming from right wing interpretation of the Constitution's election clause. The theory contends that state legislatures, and only state legislatures can regulate federal elections. In effect, this suggests courts, governors, citizen led initiatives and state constitutions have zero authority to check the legislature's power over election rules and congressional redistricting. The landmark 2023 Moore v. Harper decision, the U.S. supreme Court rejected that theory. Chief Justice John Roberts majority opinion declared that Elections clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections and does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review. In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Jacobson asked the Court to create a test to determine a state court's decision exceeds its ordinary judicial review duties and crosses the line to intrude on a state legislature's role in setting election rules. The Supreme Court chose not to dive back into this with today's declination. The Court's decision ensures all four voter suppression laws will remain permanently blocked. The U.S. supreme Court is expected to decide in the next few weeks whether it will hear three other voting rights cases this term make sure you follow democracy docket to stay on top of that. All right, everybody, it's time for some good trouble. Today's mission, should you choose to accept it, is to urge President Trump and Congress to prevent cuts to SNAP and protect nutrition security programs. This is from the SF Marin Food Bank. With new presidential administration and new Congress, it's critical we raise our voices to protect those who rely on food assistance. Please take a stand alongside the Food bank and our partners and urge the Trump administration and your members of Congress to prevent cuts to SNAP and strengthen and protect food security programs in the Farm Bill. Your elected leaders need to know what's at stake for our more than 5 million California neighbors who rely on federal nutrition funding to put meals on the table. With the cuts currently being proposed, Californians would lose $3.59 billion in SNAP benefits, reducing the already inadequate benefits for many older adults, people with disabilities and families with children. We must strengthen, not cut, critical food benefits for households facing hunger. Together, we can make our voices heard and urge our elected leaders to prevent cuts to SNAP and strengthen and protect critical nutrition security programs on which so many of our neighbors rely. Please send a message to Congress today. There will be a link in the show notes to sign that petition and send your message. All right everybody, we'll be right back with the editor in chief of the Contrarian, Jen Rubin. Stay with us. These messages.

Jen Rubin (31:33)

We'll be right back.

Alison Gill (31:36)

Hey everybody. Want to bring the most interesting wines to your next dinner party and impress all your guests? Well, Naked Wines connects you directly with independent winemakers from around the world, delivering incredible bottles with unique stories straight to your door. It's not just wine, it's a journey into artistry and passion behind every bottle, creating an unforgettable experience. And by cutting out the retail middlemen, Naked Wines offers vineyard to doorstep Delivery up to 60% off traditional store prices. That means you're not only enjoying exceptional wine, but you're supporting talented winemakers globally. With over 15 years of experience and a mission to back more than 90 winemakers worldwide, naked Wines makes it simpler to savor premium wine without the big price tag. I recently shared a bottle of their Jen Pfeiffer the Rebel Tempranillo with friends. It was an instant hit. Rich flavors. It sparked a great conversation, perfectly complimented our meal. No stress about what to serve, just the joy of enjoying something awesome. Naked Wines takes all the guesswork out of wine shopping, leaving you free to focus on creating memorable moments. And best of all, there are no membership fees and no long term commitments Just access to fantastic wine every time. Whether you're hosting a gathering or unwinding after a long day, Naked Wines has exactly what you're looking for. Now is the best time to join the Naked Wines community. Head to nakedwines.com DailyBeans Click enter voucher and put in code DailyBeans all one word for both the code and the password. For six bottles of wine just $39.99 with shipping included. That's a discount of $100 on your first six bottles. Again, go to nakedwines.comDailyBeans and enter the code and password. DailyBeans for six bottles of wine for $39.99 and do you ever look at the clock and realize it's dinner time and you still have no idea what you're gonna cook? And before long you're stuck with a rushed, unsatisfying meal or ordering for a delivery service? Well, Home Chef has changed all of that for me. It's a service that brings fresh ingredients and meal kits right to your door. Takes the guesswork out of dinner time. Users of leading meal kits have rated Home Chef number one in quality, convenience, value, taste and recipe ease. For a limited time, Home Chef is offering you 18 free meals plus free dessert for life and of course free shipping on your first box when you go to homechef.com dailybeans with everything pre portioned and clear with foolproof instructions, I was able to create a restaurant worthy meal without spending hours in the kitchen. Its convenience meets flavor in the best possible way and Home Chef offers fresh Chef curated recipes designed to fit your schedule. From classic meal kits to speedy 30 minute recipes and my favorite microwavable options, there's a solution for every dinner need. They have 30 plus weekly choices to ensure variety for all dietary preferences and their five ingredient meals are ideal for those nights when you need something quick but satisfying. Home Chef also saves more than just time. It's easy on your wallet. On average, customers save 86 bucks a month on groceries, proving you don't have to spend more to eat well. And I was blown away by the latest thing I had. Home Chef's Fried chicken with Cordon Bleu sauce. The chicken was crispy but also juicy and the cheesy sauce tied everything together perfectly. It was National Cheese Day after all. It has creamy mashed potatoes, flavorful garlic, garlicky broccoli on the side. It was pure comfort food. It was easy to make and totally worth it. I loved it. So for a limited time, Home Chef is offering you 818 free meals plus free dessert for life. And of course, free shipping on your first box. Just go to homechef.com dailybeans that's homechef.com dailybeans for 18 free meals and free dessert for life. You heard that right. Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. Let me read to you the about section of the new media platform called the Contrarian. It says democracy faces an unprecedented threat from an authoritarian movement built on lies and contempt for the rule of law. The first and most critical defense of democracy. A robust, independent free press has been missing in action. Corporate and billionaire media owners have shied away from confrontation, engaged in false equivalence, and sought to curry favor with Donald Trump. It is hardly surprising that readers and viewers are fleeing from these outlets. Americans need an alternative. The Contrarian is that alternative. Unflinching, unapologetic and unwavering in its commitment to truth telling. The Contrarian contributors may not agree on all issues and in fact enjoy lively debate. But we share an unequivocal determination to defend our fundamental freedoms and the values essential to a pluralistic democracy. That is the about section of the Contrarian. And joining me today to talk about this new venture is the editor in chief of the contrarian. She spent 15 years as a contributor to the Washington Post, but just recently left that publication. Please welcome my good friend Jen Rubin. Hi, Jen.

Jen Rubin (36:22)

Hi. It's so nice to be here. Alison. Thank you for reaching out.

Alison Gill (36:25)

Of course, I, I, of course I had to talk to you. I mean, we've been talking about the perils of, of corporate media for quite a while now. And our, our worst fears have, have kind of been realized here. So with the capitulation from ABC and CBS and the Washington Post not publishing the Harris endorsement, we saw some of the same kind of shenanigans over at the LA Times. Talk a little bit about leaving the Post because you were there for a really, really long time. 15 years, I believe.

Jen Rubin (36:56)

Almost 15 years. Yeah. A little over 14. You know, it was on one hand a very difficult decision and on the other hand, not so difficult. It was difficult because there were, and still our group, a tremendous number of fine journalists, fine editors. And I have to say, when I was asked to join the post 14 plus years ago, it was the greatest thrill of my professional life. Going to work for an institution like the Washington Post that was not only renowned in Watergate, but for dozens and dozens of years of fine coverage. Pulitzer Prize winning, Peabody Award winning coverage was just a thrill. But as time has gone on. And most clearly this year, it has become very clear to me that there's a fundamental conflict at the heart of corporate or billionaire owned media, and that is the owners of these outlets use the media or neglect the media, as the case may be, in deference to their own financial interests. One of the big no nos of journalism is that it shouldn't be used for the owner's own pecuniary interests. And in fact, if you go back to the founding of the Washington Post, Eugene Mayer wrote out seven principles, one of which was you don't use the paper for your own financial gain. And so when you see things like the owner of the Washington Post squash an endorsement, when you see him give a million dollars to Donald Trump and then you see him yucking it up with Donald Trump on the dais yesterday at the inauguration, something is wrong. Something is fundamentally wrong. And it's not just at the Washington Post, frankly. You saw a bunch of other new media folks up there as well with Mr. Bezos. But you see the settlement from ABC, now there's word that CBS may settle a suit. You see this effort by many in the broadcast, in cable media to try to reach out and include new voices. Well, Scott Jennings is not a legitimate journalist. His credibility is nil. And by doing that, CNN normalizes the lies, treats Trump as just another Republican, these people with just another different views than you and me as opposed to drawing the line on truth, on democracy. And I felt like something was really, really missing. And my dear friend Norm Eisen and I have been talking about this for years. And as things were going from bad to worse at the Washington Post, we continued to talk. And obviously with the election of Donald Trump, we're now at this enormous inflection point. On Monday, we saw this torrent of unconstitutional, illegal, inhumane, really disgusting executive decrees. And I knew that this was coming. And I felt like there had to be some place where people who were unabashed, pro democracy people didn't engage in this false equivalence, didn't try to normalize them, didn't mints around the edges, but were really strong in terms of standing up to this, calling out the media, calling out the enablers, calling out Republicans and Democrats who are not addressing the issue. And Norm also had another idea. He was once the ambassador to the Czech Republic and developed as a good friend Vaclav Holophel, who is a great Czech playwright. And one thing that he impressed upon Norm was that you have to fight authoritarianism not only with politics and law, but with culture. With humor, with solidarity, with community. And we were determined that we weren't just going to do the politics and the law. We have some of the greatest contributors, Larry Tribe, all sorts of barbarians, Barb McQuaid, Joyce Vance.

Alison Gill (41:09)

I mean, yeah, it's an incredible list.

Jen Rubin (41:11)

It's just an all star cast, but we also have young tiktokers. We also have a cooking show which is going to make its debut on Friday. We're going to have film, we're going to have fashion, we're going to have popular culture. We have a lot of humor. And Norm and I yuck it up quite a bit in our coverage of the inauguration. We just had a lot of fun with it. Trump is worthy of being mocked, and he wants us all to treat him with great deference and treat him like a serious character. And together with George Conway, we just mocked and satirized him endlessly. We then had some very serious guests, like the historian Jonathan Alter, to kind of put this in context. But we think we have to do all of the above. And in the midst of this pretentious, somber treatment of the inauguration from the major papers, we thought something else was warranted. And so we are just thrilled that this has resonated with a lot of people. And we just want to keep going and keep growing and keep building this community because that's what it's going to take to get through this.

Alison Gill (42:22)

Yeah. And I know it must have been difficult to see what was happening in all those discussions that you had with our good friend, the ambassador Norm Eisen over the years, because one of the thrills of my lifetime and probably one of the biggest things I've ever done to affect policy and affect change was when the Washington Post wanted to publish my opinion piece about when the Dobbs decision leaked before Roe was overturned. And I wanted the Pentagon to take action. And after that piece was published, the Pentagon did take action a few months later. And it was truly an honor to be part of such a, of a paper and an outlet with such a rich history of speaking truth to power and that all sort of disintegrated. Talk a little bit about that. You said you've been talking to Norm about it for years. It didn't happen overnight. I think it really started to happen when what's his name, Will Lewis, is that the CEO and publisher's name, came in from, you know, Murdoch papers. He was scandalized over in Europe for using journalistic techniques or trying to cover up journalistic techniques that are not part of our ethos here in The United States. But that seemed to be the beginning of. Of the end for. For that particular publication and. And everyone else. It seemed like dominoes. They all just started to. To fall into line.

Jen Rubin (43:46)

You know, I'm very hesitant to try to finger the blame, because I'm sure Will Lewis is doing what his boss wants him to do. And I think you're right. You know, like, going broke. It happened really slowly and then all at once. And it was not only, I think, a very dissatisfied newsroom, but of course, we had a very big change in the editorial section. I had the greatest honor of my life to work for many years with Fred Hyatt, who ran the editorial department. He did not kowtow to anyone. He did not pull his punches. He did not take direction from the grams on what he was going to write. I believe in my marrow of my bones that had anyone tried to spike a endorsement, he would have quit on the spot and taken a bunch of people out the door. That is not the atmosphere that now predominates at the Washington Post. And it's not just me. Charles Lane, who headed the editorial board, has left. Bob Kagan has left, Michelle Norris has left. And of course, on the news side, just a parade of all stars have gone out the door. And they've gone to the New York Times, they've gone to the Atlantic, they've gone to the Wall Street Journal news site. So unfortunately, this becomes a bit of a death spiral once you lose that credibility. And remember, when they decided not they, Jeff Bezos, decided not to run the endorsement of Kamala Harris, hundreds of thousands of people pulled their subscriptions. It's really hard to get hundreds of thousands of people to do anything all at once. But this was such an affront to our readers because they expect candor and they expect a moral center at the Post. So once you lose that and then people leave because of it, and then you lose more subscribers because they determine that what's the point of subscribing to a paper if it doesn't have people that I really like? Then more cuts. And it was very telling that shortly after they processed the hundreds of thousands of people who had pulled their subscriptions, they then announced a 10% cut in personnel because, of course, they were losing more money. Why were they losing more money? Because the owner made it one of the most boneheaded decisions in the history of journalism. The only thing I can compare it to is New Coke, where you really, like, fritter away your brand big time. And the problem is, once you lose people they don't necessarily come back. And so this is not hyperbole. I have real concerns about the future of the Washington Post, and it pains me to say that maybe all of this will result in a sale to a more responsible ownership. Maybe Jeff Bezos was decided, I need to put this thing in a foundation so it's run on a nonprofit basis. There are solutions to this, but so long as he continues to run the paper and hires people who are entirely responsive to him, it's not going to get any better. And arguably it's going to get worse.

Alison Gill (47:06)

It's so funny that you bring up New Coke. I'd written a piece about when MSNBC tried to hire Ronna McDaniel and then. And then stopped it from happening. And I was like, wait a minute, are they shaking the jar of ants? Was that something that they did on purpose to bring us back to classic MSNBC when they didn't bring her on? Or was that just a boneheaded error? Like, it's hard to tell, right?

Jen Rubin (47:31)

It is. It is. And sometimes, you know, the easiest explanation for goofs is just stupidity. We sometimes attribute much more strategy to people who do bad things than really is the case. But that's the. The shame of it all is that there doesn't seem to be anyone there with common sense and a moral center to keep these publications on track.

Alison Gill (47:54)

Right? And the trust goes away, regardless of whether it was a boneheaded move or on purpose. And that's a, that's a big problem, like how a lot of us lost trust in the Department of Justice during Trump's first term. But, you know, I was like, hey, whether you think the Jeffrey Epstein thing was whatever, the problem is, is that you are questioning the Department of Justice. And, and that's, you know, we lose that quote, unquote, reservoir of trust that, that the media is quickly losing. And, you know, I mean, you guys almost have like, 300,000 new signups in a couple of days, which is more than what the Washington Post lost or close to it within the days following their refusal to publish that endorsement of Harris. But I want to talk to you before I let you go about language. It's so important, the words we use. You put a great post up on the contrarian. You wrote for the contrarian, talking about, we don't need to call them conservatives. We shouldn't call them this, we shouldn't call them that, we should call it out what it is. Nothing has, like, been more blatant and obvious in the corporate media over the last day. Or two than the whitewashing of what Elon Musk did at the inauguration. Oh, look at this controversial hand gesture. Or it could be a Roman salute. Or people are talking about the interesting thing that, you know, like it's a Nazi salute. Call it a Nazi salute.

Jen Rubin (49:14)

Yeah.

Alison Gill (49:15)

And, and let's move on with our day. So talk a little bit about your focus with the contrary and being the editor in chief on language because we have to stop whitewashing what this administration does and will do.

Jen Rubin (49:27)

Absolutely. One of our most prominent contributors is Ruth Ben Guy who is a specialist on strongmen and authoritarians and she has written for years that one trick in the bag of tricks that authoritarians bring is to break down, contort, distort language so that words suddenly don't mean what they used to mean. Or words that didn't have any meaning now have some ominous meaning. Or even worse, words are made up like post birth abortion. That's not a thing. That's a made up word for a made up lie about abortion. So I went through a number of these, not only as you point out, conservative. These people are not conservative. They're reactionary, they're radical, they're authoritarian, in some cases they're a white nationalist. But other uses of language that are really either distorting or concealing. I don't think most people necessarily, maybe they more do, but not most understand that a tariff is a tax on consumers. We should call it that. We should call it a tax on consumers. We should call things for what they are so that people don't get snowed into agreeing or even just looking away or ignoring certain things that are not in their own interest. So we have made an effort to be very careful about not allowing Trump and the MAGA Republicans to tell us what language to use. And I'll give one example that is really I think on point given the fact what we saw on Monday, and that is executive order. Executive order sounds very legal because after all it has the word order in it, meaning within the order of things. These are edicts, proclamations, abuses, spasms of rhetoric. Many of them are unconstitutional, no order there. Many of them violate statute, not a order in any kind of legal order sense. Others are just mean statements of belief. We are going to rename the Gulf of Mexico. We are going to tell our Department of Justice people to reverse Supreme Court Justices decision so that we can change the law on the death penalty. We are going to make sure that prisoners are incarcerated. Get this one to reflect the depravity of their crimes. What happened to the Eighth Amendment, to the Constitution against cruel and inhumane punishment? What does that even mean? So we have to restrict and restrain ourselves, actually, we have to restrain ourselves from adopting language that makes them seem like this is normal, that this is legal, that this is proper. So we're going to keep at it. And kind of as a joke yesterday, Norm started in and saying we should not use the term potus. We should use fopotis, and that would be first felon of the United States. Now, that was a good sense of humor, but we also shouldn't forget we elected a Feltman. And how many people mentioned that in the mainstream media coverage yesterday? Not very many. Not many. And when he is releasing violent felons from prison, this is not simply a controversial move. This is lawlessness. This is a felon letting other felons out of prison. So we have to maintain our grip on language so we can explain and express our outrage as to what's going on. So I feel really blessed to now have a platform that does it with a phenomenal group of people. We like to think we're the scrappy yacht or the scrappy rowboat. That's a better analogy. That can zip around as opposed to the big ocean liners of corporate media that turn ever so slightly and tend to run aground now and then. So we're going to keep at it. It's been a wild ride in the first week or so. We just passed the one week mark. It's hard to believe. And we're just going to keep going. And the most gratifying part is the community, I think, that is coming to meet us. We had at one point, you know, over 12,000 people on a. Just a very amateurish, you know, live chat yesterday, because people are hungry for this. They don't want to be told to take Donald Trump, you know, seriously, take his move seriously, but not take him seriously.

Alison Gill (54:27)

So, and that's how I know that the corporate media isn't serious, because there is a market for this, and if they truly wanted to touch appeal to that market, they would change their tack, but they haven't, and that's because they're taking orders. Thank you so much for coming on. My only last concern or question is, you know, talk. I was, I was real hungry for Dem leadership to tell us what went wrong with messaging. And Ben Wickler appeared with Mark Elias, obviously running to be the DNC chair, and he said, here's, here's a big problem. We aren't reaching people where they are.

Jen Rubin (55:03)

Exactly.

Alison Gill (55:03)

And so while understanding the language and tailoring the message is important, it's kind of for naught if we don't get the message to the people. And I think that's why you're focusing a lot on also humor and pop culture and things like that. You know, that's when I started the Mueller podcast, we had a fantasy indictment league. Right. Because if you make it. I had a great conversation with Nick Offerman, famous humorist. He's like, that's why I listen to the Daily Beans or, or curate my news feed with independent voices is because I think that that component is really important. And I think it even goes further than just making it interesting. But to reach people we wouldn't normally reach.

Jen Rubin (55:48)

Absolutely. And by the way, we are big Ben Wipler fans over at the Contrarian. I think he's the only one who gets it. He's the only one that understands new media and online media. The only one understands how mistaken is the strategy that says just go on Meet the Press every week and people will hear your message. You know, I think he's really the only guy who can maybe pull the DNC out of this tailspin. So hats off to him, but also to you, Alison. You have been such a mainstay for so many people with the humor and the insight and like the level of coverage that is far superior in many cases to, you know, so called mainstream outlets. So thank you so much and thank you for having me on. And we want to have you over at the Contrarian. So we're going to give you a shout out soon and hopefully you'll come join the party over there.

Alison Gill (56:41)

Oh, 100%. I'll join the party over there anytime you need any contributions from somebody who worked at the Department of Veterans affairs for over a decade and is a veteran and knows full well what they're about to do to our veterans. I am super happy to help out. Jen. You've been a friend for a long time. I remember we had dinner in 2018 with Malcolm Nance and Ellie Mistahl and Joyce Vance and a bunch of Donna Brazeale and a bunch of folks at Politicon. And we've kept in touch. We see each other at all sorts of events and I'm so very excited for you and this venture and what we're going to see from the contrary. And so I highly recommend everybody go and subscribe to the Contrarian. Will you tell everybody where they can do that?

Jen Rubin (57:29)

They can find us on Substack. We are the Contrarian. You can also find us on Bluesky. You will not find us, however, on X we've drawn the line and we don't mind losing some people because we're not going to appear on X. But find us on Blue Sky. Find us on Substack and you will see a lot, a lot of content, both video, podcasts, written cartoons. You're going to see it all. So thank you so much for having me and helping to get the word out 100%.

Alison Gill (58:03)

I really look forward to what you guys put out. Thank you so much. My good friend, Editor in chief over at the Contrarian, Jen Rubin. Say hi to Ambassador Eisen for us. Everybody stick around. We'll be right back with the good news everybody. Welcome back. It's time for the good news everyone. And if you have good news confessions corrections, especially pronunciation corrections, we we really like to make sure we're pronouncing things properly. Send those to us. Any any good news story at all. Anything uplifting you want to share? Maybe a shout out to a loved one or yourself, a self shout out. A small business in your area, a great some like community activism that's happening locally that you want other people to to join. That's always great. And shout outs to government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Affordable Care act, snap. We were just talking about during Good Trouble WIC Section 8. Anything, anything that's help or a loved one, including student debt relief, you can send that to us. And in order to get your submission in, you got to pay your POD pet tax, which means attaching a photo of your pet. If you want us to guess the breeds in your shelter pup, we'll we'll give it a shot. We're not very good at it. If you don't have a pod pet, you can send us an adoptable pet in your area. And if you don't have that, you can send us really any animal photo. We love them. And if you don't have that baby photos. And then of course for the foreseeable future we're going to be accepting bird watching photos as your pet tax, which is basically you and or loved ones flipping the bird at Trump Properties or Trump in general. Send it all to us dailybeanspod.com click on contact first up this is from anonymous pronoun she her I just got my diploma for my Master of Science in analytics from Georgia Tech. My thesis was titled Analysis and Visualization of Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Data to Predict and Prevent Permit Violation because I work for a water utility and I like alliteration. So glad to be Done. And I promised my family that I'll wait at least two years before pursuing my next degree because they're done with my crazy. Here's a picture of my puppy, Lovell, named for the Gemini Apollo astronaut Jim Lovell, who is a hundred percent papill. He refused to let me put on his shoes and took his hood off on his own. I didn't send my child barefoot into the snow on purpose, I promise. Oh, Lovell is adorable. And you know what? It's interesting. When I am thinking or talking about astrology, I say Gemini, but whenever it's in reference to the Apollo program or the Gemini program, I call it Gemini. Isn't that interesting? I don't know why I do that. I think it's because that's what they called it back then and. Or that's how I heard it pronounced, at least at NASA. Anyway, beautiful, Pupper, congratulations on your Masters. That's incredible. Georgia Tech is a really great school. Next up from Dee Dee. No pronouns. Hello, Lagoon ladies. Thank you for bringing a sense of calm to the insanity every day. If I may, I'd like to give a shout out to my cube neighbor, Jamie. Hi, Jamie. I've shouted out Jamie before on the Good News a few years ago when she got me hooked on the daily beans after realizing I wasn't on the crazy side of the political spectrum. But today I'm giving her a shout out for bringing hot chocolate to the office since we're all gloomy about the negative 30 degree wind chill outside. She even brought the little marshmallows. Thanks for being awesome and thinking of others, Jamie. If we have to be stuck in crappy Wisconsin weather and politics, I'm glad we can at least shimmy our chairs over and about it together. Oh, my God, that's so cold. Dee Dee. Jamie. What's up? Hey, reminds me of. You know, in one of the shows that I do, I was quoting. Oh, it was. I think it was on cleanup on L45 when someone's sentencing was moved to April 25th. George Santos'and. I put the clip in there for Miss Congeniality. What's your perfect date? I would have to say April 25th because it's not too hot and not too cold. All you need is a light jacket. And now I'm thinking of when she brings her fat free hot cocoa to Sandra Bullock's room in the night. And. Yeah, anyway, I just love that movie, that's all. But I bet your hot cocoa is much better. It looks delicious, Jamie. Thank you, Dee Dee. Thank you. Thanks for being awesome. Next up, Elisa Pronoun. She and her hey Beans batches found you rage against the mainstream media machine and heartbreak has led me to you and I'm so, so happy to have taken my money from the Washington host to support the Daily Beans. Ah, thanks elisa. I'm a 20 year entertainment industry worker, Drone B that has been holding on by the fingernails since the writers and actors strike nearly two years ago. Add that to the big media mergers, better filming incentives elsewhere and now natural disasters and LA has not recovered. There are literally thousands of us who have lost what we had spending decades building. Having fully entered my crone era, Gen X, I'm struggling, attempting to pivot and become something entirely different. And what I'm hoping is the good news, I'm attempting to use my nutrition certification to create content around nutritional therapy and medicinal cooking basics. Right now it's on a meta platform but I'm getting to know Substack and I'm excited to explore possibilities on your new social media platform when that drops. So I guess this is a shout out to me, a family, middle aged, basic, basic witch woman in total control of herself, hoping to continue making positive differences in my corner of the world. In the photo are three of my four pups, Charlie, Rocket, Big and Echo, enjoying a nutritional supplement made of bone broth, coconut oil, turmeric powder and black pepper. Okay, so Elisa, are you doing nutrition for dogs? Because I have a feeling that that would do super well. So let us know, let us know. That's incredible. And I'm really also interested in your 20 year entertainment industry work that you've been doing. I know so many people in la. Alisa, thank you so much for that. Next up, Leah Pronoun. She and her greetings. I would like to hearken back to a previous episode where you said that so many people were donating to animal shelters that they're almost overstocked. I'm pretty sure that was y'all. I'd like to remind people that small animal shelters are not the only ones that need help. The Los Angeles Equestrian center is hosting 300 horses displaced by the fires. They need people to feed and water the horses and muck the stalls. My co worker son has physical disabilities and has been riding therapy horses for since a very young age. They're in the LA area although thankfully not affected by the fires. If anyone could help, I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated. I'm on my work computer so I can't pay my taxes at the moment, but I'll Take care of that in a few. I've only discovered the show after the election, but I'm really loving y'all. I always had to laugh when one of you reads a story and our expletives match. Fucking right, Leah. Including tax. Maze White is part dog being raised by Sophie. Easiest game of what the mutt you'll ever play. For the first two years of her life, Maze doesn't jump high, preferring to use furniture to get onto other things. Just like a dog would. She uses one of her paws to hold down your hand when she wants to to bite you, just like Sophie would do with her toys. And she even drinks like Sophie Loud and Slurpee. Cheezah, on the other hand, didn't have too long with Sophie. And by then, Sophie was so traumatized by Maze it wouldn't have mattered. She's more cat than Maze, but she's also a complete goofball that makes us laugh every day. The one great thing Sophie was able to teach each cat was to stay away from yarn. While I'm knitting, Mays will actually use it as a pillow. P.S. sophie is a chocolate lab. Her mother was AKC registered and got out one day. No clue who the dad is. All right, Leah, first of all, that's such a great recommendation. The Los Angeles Equestrian center, they need bodies, right? People to feed, water, brush the horses, muck the stalls, bale hay. They need those people. So check it out. The Los Angeles Equestrian Center. And then look at these babies. Yeah, I would have guessed Choco lab. No idea what the dad is, but look at the beautiful white kitty with one green eye and one blue eye. How adorable. Thank you. Thank you so much. That's Maze is the white kitty. Oh, and Cheeza is the other one. So fantastic. Thank you so much for sharing that. Oh, we got some bird watching. Bird watching from Tammy C. Bird watching twofer. I had the unfortunate sighting of this ugly Trump themed cyber truck at my hotel next to my work. Thought you would enjoy the bird to trump and musk at the same time. Abso freaking lutely, I do. Thank you very much for that bird watching photo. All right. And finally from Lisa. Hello, Bean pod. In the spirit of the new contrarian video I watched, I would like to suggest the Orange Menaces executive orders be referred to as Dick docs. Thank you for this wonderful community sharing. George and Tasha, two of the many rescues I love and work to support. Look at the sweet babies. Oh, she's got beautiful coloring and the ginger boy is adorable. I'm taking it that the ginger boy is George. Anyway, Lisa, thank you and thanks to all of you for sending in your good news. We need all, all the good news we can get. Please send it to us dailybeanspod.com click on contact and if you're in the vicinity of a Trump property, just go out and grab a bird shot. You know, just flip it off, send it in. We'd love to see it. I know it. I know it lifts my spirits. Dana will be back in your ears tomorrow. Don't forget to check out episode five of the Audio Volume one Jack Smith Report and the Jack Podcast feed. Don't forget to check out the latest episode of cleanup on aisle 45 with me and Harry Dunn. His phone was blowing up all day Monday when we recorded that because he had just received a pardon from President Biden. We're going to talk about that and I appreciate you all listening. And thanks to our good friend Jen Rubin over at the Contrarian. Make sure you subscribe and join that community. It's big, it's strong, it's growing, and it's wonderful. And I appreciate the independent media. Thank you so much everybody. Until tomorrow, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health and take care of your family. I've been ag and them's the Beans. The Daily Beans is written and executive produced by Allison Gill with additional research and reporting by Dana Goldberg. Sound design and editing is by Desiree McFarlane with art and web design by Joelle Reader with Moxie Design Studios. Music for 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 msw media.