← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Soaked In Animus (feat. Rep. Sara Jacobs)
00:59:20
Thursday, March 20th, 2025 Today, Judge Chutkan has blocked Trump and Musk from cancelling $20B in climate grants; Judge Ana Reyes has blocked the Trump administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military; Trump has fired the Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission; Judge Beryl Howell has denied the temporary restraining order for the US Institute of Peace; Republican members of the Senate and House armed services committee are pushing back on Trump’s plan to abandon a NATO command that has been exclusively American since Eisenhower; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.
Loading summary
Transcript103 lines
- [00:00]
Alison Gill
MSW Media. Hello, and welcome to the Daily beans for Thursday, March 20, 2025. Today. Today, Judge Chuckin has blocked Trump and Musk from canceling $20 billion in climate grants. Judge Ana Reyes has blocked the Trump administration's ban on transgender people serving in the military. Trump has fired the Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission. Judge Beryl Howell has denied a temporary restraining order for the US Institute of Peace. And Republican members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees are pushing back on Trump's plan to abandon a NATO command that has been exclusively American since Eisenhower. I'm Alison Gill.
- [00:58]
Dana Goldberg
And I'm Dana Goldberg.
- [01:02]
Alison Gill
Oh, hey, Dana. So some really big news stories happening today.
- [01:06]
Dana Goldberg
Yeah, obviously, we've got some good news in the hot notes, which is fun, and some really shitty news, because that's just the way things go these days. But, yeah, a lot of stuff, a lot of stuff is going on. Stuff right here in California to start.
- [01:18]
Alison Gill
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Because later in the show, we're going to be talking to the congresswoman from California's 51st, Sarah Jacobs. She's been on our show before. She's coming back to talk about the continuing resolution and, of course, Trump's defiance of the court order to return deportees to the United States. She believes, and I agree, that we are in a constitutional crisis.
- [01:38]
Dana Goldberg
Yeah, we definitely are. And speaking of the judiciary, Judge Beryl Howell, she held a hearing on the US Institute for Peace being dismantled by the Trump regime. She said during a court hearing that the plaintiffs, and several, by the way, were ousted USIP board members, which we just covered on the podcast, who sued in their official capacities. They did not show that they would be irreparably harmed if they were not reinstated. And DOGI staffers were allowed to remain in the institute's offices. So, following the law. She's following the law, yeah.
- [02:10]
Alison Gill
But she did sharply criticize the Trump administration for enlisting three agencies, Office of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, the FBI, and the D.C. police to assist in the physical takeover of the U.S. institute for Peace in their offices. She said she was denying the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order because there was, quote, confusion in the complaint on a number of levels. But she was like, why? Why did you send three different separate groups of cops to take over this private nonprofit? Yep. And so she's clearly disturbed by this, but it doesn't meet the standards to issue a temporary restraining order. And breaking news. This is, like, happening right now on Wednesday evening. As we record this, Trump is about to sign an executive order to eliminate the Department of Education. It's just going to eliminate it.
- [02:59]
Dana Goldberg
Good Lord. And so all those people want to protect women, want to protect girls. Department of Education goes away. So does the implementation of Title IX within it and a lot of other things that protect kids in schools, and that is of all genders. So it's just. This is going to be an absolute mess.
- [03:18]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And this is, again, this is just breaking news. It's developing. We're going to cover it more in depth on Fridays. Tomorrow's Daily Beans. Um, we have a lot of news to get to today, so let's do what you were talking about earlier, because it's about. It's about two thirds good in the hot notes today, so. Yeah, so let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes. All right, first up, this is from my substack. You can subscribe for free at muellershirerote.com US District Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, has issued a scathing order blocking the Trump administration from banning transgender people from serving in the military. She says in the ruling that the executive order and subsequent Pentagon policy are, quote, soaked in animus. They're unconstitutional and based on manipulated data.
- [04:07]
Dana Goldberg
Fantastic.
- [04:08]
Alison Gill
Yeah, because they were trying to say that, you know, well, health care for transgender people costs $8 million a year or whatever, but they weren't comparing that to, like, the $42 million a year they spend on Viagra, which she cites specifically in her ruling.
- [04:21]
Dana Goldberg
That's amazing.
- [04:22]
Alison Gill
The president has the power, indeed, the oblig is her ruling to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving. Fill in the blank is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness. Fill in the blank will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness. Allowing fill in the blank to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order. First minorities, then women in combat, then gays. Filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our nation is safer for the millions of such blanks and all other persons who serve.
- [05:02]
Dana Goldberg
Amazing.
- [05:03]
Alison Gill
Isn't that wonderful?
- [05:04]
Dana Goldberg
Yep.
- [05:05]
Alison Gill
She then outlined the plaintiff's exemplary service records. She said, together they have provided over 130 years of military service. They've served in roles ranging from senior military science instructor to artillery platoon commander to intelligence analyst to satellite operator to operations research analyst to naval flight officer to weapons officer. They have deployed around the globe from Afghanistan to Poland to Korea to Iraq to Kuwait to the USS Ronald Reagan. And the USS George W. Bush 1 is presently deployed to an active combat zone. They have earned more than 80 commendations, including a Bronze Star, two Global War on Terrorism Service Medals, two Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medals, numerous Meritorious Service Medals, numerous Commendation Medals, Air and Space Outstanding Unit Awards, and the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, among many others. But the Trump administration and the Pentagon are asking the court to ignore all of that and trust the government's judgment. But because the administration didn't lift a finger to consult with military leaders or cite any reliable data, the judge says the ban is based on animus, not evidence. Transgender persons have served openly since 2021, she said, but defendants have not analyzed that service. That is unfortunate. Plaintiff's service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity and discipline to ensure military excellence. And the defendants, the Trump administration actually agrees. They agree that the plaintiffs are mentally and physically fit to serve, that they have served honorably and have satisfied the rigorous standards demanded of them. Plaintiffs, they acknowledge, have made America safer. So why discharge them and other decorated soldiers crickets from defendants on this key question. The court's opinion is long, but its premise is simple in the self evident truth that all people are created equal, all means all, nothing more, and certainly nothing less. She then points out that the transgender ban is based on zero studies or analyses and compares it to the paper straw ban, which presented multiple studies to justify bringing Black back.
- [07:18]
Dana Goldberg
Oh my God, she goes.
- [07:21]
Alison Gill
This is what she said. She says the Hegseth policy does not contain 1 evidence that transgender persons are inherently unfit to serve 2 doesn't have any evidence that being transgender is inconsistent with honesty, humility and integrity 30 evidence that being transgender conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle 4 no analysis of whether the costs of discharging and replacing transgender service members outweigh the costs of retaining them and 5 no analysis of the effect on military readiness of losing thousands of service members or among numerous other holes 6 the criteria of exhibiting evidence of gender dysphoria, much less how such behavior will be policed. Defendants also concede the Trump administration concedes they have no post hoc evidence, assuming the court could even consider it, to justify this military ban. And she goes on to say, to contextualize the absence, this absence of any of that consider, by contrast, The Executive Order 14208 Ending Procurement and Forced Use of Paper Straws E014208 makes it the policy of the United States to end the use of paper straws. EO14208 provides clear and articulable reasons to support its conclusions. Paper straws, one, are non functional, two, use chemicals that may carry risks to human health, three, they're more expensive to produce than plastic straws, four, they often force users to use multiple straws, and five, sometimes come individually wrapped in plastic, undermining the environmental argument for their use. And the White House also provided a fact sheet supporting EO14208, citing to multiple studies supporting their claims. Presumably, a policy that bans transgender persons from the military. Individuals who have served honorably and made America safer should result from study at least comparable to one that bans paper straws. Finally, the Trump administration said that if the court grants this injunction, it should only do so for the named defendants in the case. And the judge says no. Fuck no. She goes. Defendants claim that any injunction must be limited to the plaintiffs. It cannot be rationally or logistically. Other transgender service members face the same irreparable harms as the plaintiffs. Any transgender person affected by the ban would need only to file a METOO complaint to this court to obtain the same relief. The court and defendants then would have to deal with a never ending conveyor belt of claims. A limited injunction would also cause havoc for the armed forces. Some transgender persons would be permitted to serve and accede. Others would not. Depending on what happened at the permanent injunction phase, one group or the other would be affected. Superiors and colleagues would need to keep track of ongoing litigation docket updates to understand who was covered. Notably, the government has reiterated that uniformity is one of the key goals of the military ban multiple times throughout this litigation.
- [10:10]
Dana Goldberg
So wait a minute. You're telling me that these fucking lawyers were like, okay, fine, then these three can serve.
- [10:16]
Alison Gill
Yeah.
- [10:17]
Dana Goldberg
But the rest of them can't. Yeah, okay, got it. Just wanted to make sure.
- [10:21]
Alison Gill
Yeah. Even though they reiterate uniformity as a key goal.
- [10:24]
Dana Goldberg
Right? Totally. Totally. Yep. Yep.
- [10:26]
Alison Gill
She concludes this way. And I love this. The court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals. In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes. We should all agree, however, that every person who has answered the call to serve deserves our gratitude and respect. For as Elmer Davis observed, this nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave. The court extends its appreciation to every current service member and veteran. Thank you. Now, she did issue her subsequent order granting the plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction and joining the Trump administration from carrying out its ban on transgender people in the military. But she stayed her own order until March 21st to allow the Trump administration time to appeal. This order will automatically go into effect unless stayed by an appellate court on March 21, 2025 at 10:01am Eastern Time.
- [11:18]
Dana Goldberg
Can you explain to layman terms what that means very quickly?
- [11:22]
Alison Gill
Yep. Her order saying that you can't kick trans people out of the military doesn't go into effect until March 21st because she wants to give Trump time to go to the appeals court and see if they'll stop her from stopping them.
- [11:34]
Dana Goldberg
Got it. Okay. All right, thanks, AG. This one's from the HuffPost. President Donald Trump fired two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday, carrying out another legally dubious power grab at an independent federal agency. Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said on Twitter that Trump had illegally removed him from the antitrust enforcement agency in the middle of his term, calling the move, quote, corruption, plain and simple. In an interview with HuffPost, Bedoya said he planned to challenge the firing in court, asserting that Trump had no legal basis for removing him. He said he worried that Trump would turn the FTC into an agency that cuts sweetheart deals for friends of the administration, blessing the mergers of those who are politically connected. He noted that the FTC has ongoing cases against Meta and Amazon, as we know, whose founders, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, respectively, attended Trump's inauguration and gave him a lot of fucking money. And I quote, people are hearing the news and thinking of me. They need to be thinking not about me, but about the billionaires behind President Trump's shoulder at the inauguration. That's what Bedoya said. I like this guy, he went on, quote, who does this benefit? Does it benefit the American people or does it benefit the people who are behind the president? Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, another Democratic commissioner, said in a statement that she had been fired, quote, illegally as well. She said, why? Because I have a voice and he's afraid of what I'll tell the American people. That's what Slaughter said of Donald. Until Tuesday, the commission, which normally has five commissioners, has two Democrats and two Republicans, along with one vacancy. Former chair Lina Khan, a Democrat, stepped down shortly after Trump's inauguration. Under the Supreme Court precedent called Humphreys executor, the president generally cannot fire members of independent quasi judicial bodies except as authorized by Congress. The Trump administration, however, is challenging that 90 year old holding in hopes the Supreme Court will overturn it.
- [13:38]
Alison Gill
Yeah, and we already know Thomas and Alito want to get rid of 100. Yeah, they think that Trump should be able to fire whoever he wants and that any laws that limit his ability to do so are against his article. Two powers. All right, next up, we may have found the congressional Republicans red line. Oh, boy, they might be having a spine here. This is from NBC. For nearly 75 years, it has been a distinctly American responsibility to have a four star US General oversee all NATO military operations in Europe. A command that began with Then World War II hero and future President Dwight D. Eisenhower. But the Trump administration, according to two defense officials familiar with the planning and a Pentagon briefing reviewed by NBC, they're considering changing that. The Pentagon is undertaking a significant restructuring of the US Military's combatant commands and headquarters. And one of the plans under consideration, the two defense officials said, would involve the US giving up the role of NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, known within the military parlance as saucer. As S A C E U R. The general now in in this role, who also serves as the head of the US European Command, has been the primary commander overseeing support to Ukraine in its war against Russia. It's not clear how long such a reorganization could take and it could be modified by the time it's complete. And Congress could also weigh in using the power of the purse should members oppose any aspect of the initiative. Giving up saucer would, if nothing else, be a major symbolic shift in the balance of power in NATO. That's the alliance that has defined European security and peace since World War II. Quote, for the United States to give up the role of Supreme Allied Commander of NATO would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance. That's retired Admiral James Star. Let's see Stavridis, who served as the saucer and head of European Command from 2009 to 2013. It would be a political mistake of epic proportion and once we give it up, they are not going to give it back. Quote, we would lose an enormous amount of influence within NATO. And this would be seen correctly as probably the first step toward leaving the alliance altogether. The timeline for the saucer move, if it does happen, is as yet undetermined. Army General Chris Cavoli, the current saucer is on a three year tour due to end this summer. Five of the military's 11 combatant commands could be consolidated under this plan. Also, two defense officials said to NBC. The Defense Department didn't reply to request for comment. This massive restructuring under consideration could also include two potential changes previously reported by NBC. The consolidation of the U.S. european Command and U.S. africa Command into one big giant command base in Stuttgart, Germany, as well as the shuttering of U.S. southern Command headquarters in Florida in order to combine it with northcom. That's the US Northern Command. Combining the commands in Europe and Africa could be problematic because the regions are so huge and massive that it presents myriad issues. That's what Stavridis said in an email. They had been combined until Africa Command was created in 2007 under George W. Bush. For those exact reasons, quote, combining U.S. european Command and U.S. africa Command into a single unit creates a mega combatant command that is really too large for any single person to manage. Realistically, too many countries, too many people, too many disparate issues when they were combined. Before I was a U.S. european Command, there were two four stars assigned to the command. Because of this, we are better off having these two commands separated and having high quality individuals, four star officers focused on leading each of them individually. Now, if the Pentagon does decide to combine AFRICOM and EUCOM into one command, it will be part of the justification for eliminating saucer. And that's the two, according to two defense officials. Because overseeing an area that large is already a big enough job for one person without that person also overseeing NATO military operations. Closing geographic commands introduces political risk as some nations could feel that the US has deprioritized them. It also leaves combatant commanders with large geographic areas of responsibility that could make them more vulnerable. The plan acknowledges some potential costs for moving people to new locations, but assesses overall long term savings of about 470 million over the next five years, separate from the 270 million in cost cutting. The US is also likely to halt a planned expansion of US forces Japan, which would save about $1.18 billion. The briefing reviewed by NBC News acknowledges that there is political risk with Japan in reversing that expansion and that it could result in reduced command and control west of the international date line. So this is interesting, right? Pulling out a NATO pulling out of Japan seems like abandoning our allies all over the place. Yeah, but this just in. Republicans in Congress are speaking out. U.S. senator Roger Wicker, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and U.S. representative Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, today responded to this press report. The press report suggesting the US might soon change its entire combatant command structure, withdraw from NATO's supreme allied commander Europe command structure and cancel modernization plans for US Forces Japan. These Republicans have just right now issued this statement. They said US Combatant commands are the tip of the American war fighting spear. Therefore, we're very concerned about reports that claim the DoD is considering unilateral changes on major strategic issues, including significant reductions to US Forces stationed abroad absent coordination with the White House and Congress. We support President Trump's efforts to ensure our allies and partners increase their contributions to strengthen our alliance structure, and we support continuing America's leadership abroad. As such, we will not accept significant changes to our war fighting structure that are made without a rigorous interagency process, coordination with combatant commanders and the joint Staff, and collaboration with Congress. Such moves risk undermining American deterrence around the globe and detracting from our negotiating positions with American adversaries.
- [19:42]
Dana Goldberg
All right. Well, if we found at least one line, I'll take it. I will take it. All right. Last in this segment. This is some good news from cbs. A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked a move by the Environmental Protection Agency to Cancel More than 20 billion in climate grants awarded under the Biden administration, stating that the EPA had failed to provide sufficient evidence. The grants were examples of waste and fraud. Lovely. The ruling comes after EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin claimed in February that the agency found that, quote, roughly 20 billion of your tax dollars are parked at an outside financial institution by the Biden administration. Okay. That outside institution was Citibank, which was holding the funds for the EPA and was distributing the money to numerous grant recipients who had been awarded money through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. That's a program under the 2022 Inflation Reduction act that has been very successful and it's used to mobilize financing and private capital to address the climate crisis. Zeldin initially froze the funds and then canceled the grants on March 11, saying in a video statement at the time that the, quote, termination is based on substantial concerns regarding program integrity, objections to the award process, programmatic fraud, waste and abuse, and misalignment with the agency's priorities, which collectively undermine the fundamental goals and statutory objectives of the awards. Bullshit. US District Judge Tanya Chutkin issued a temporary restraining order against the cancellations in response to the lawsuit brought by several of the grant recipients who sued the EPA over breach of contract. They also claim the agency's actions violated multiple regulations, statutes and constitutional provisions. And I quote, in the termination letters, EPA defendants vaguely reference multiple ongoing investigations into programmatic waste, fraud and abuse and conflicts of interest, but offer no specific information about such investigations, factual support for the decision, or individualized explanations for each plaintiff. This is from Chutkan. She went on to say in a March 12 hearing over the lawsuit, and I quote, when pressed to provide evidence, an attorney for the EPA was unable to stating that he was only aware of media reports discussing the termination. I don't know. I heard on the news they were eating the dogs. They were eating the cats. I just. I read. I saw the news. It must be true. Many grant recipients were scrambling to cover basic operating costs without the grant money and were on the verge of furloughing staff and potentially closing their business due to the freezing and termination of those funds. In her opinion, Chuck confound that. They were awarded the grants, quote, pursuant to a statute authorized by Congress. Again, they are stealing so much power from Congress and that the EPA did not give the plaintiffs, quote, an opportunity to object and provide information challenging the action when it unilaterally terminated their grants. There is a process here that they have to fucking follow.
- [22:45]
Alison Gill
Yeah, this is. This is their ammo, right? Just destroy and then try to figure it out later.
- [22:52]
Dana Goldberg
Yeah.
- [22:54]
Alison Gill
Anyway, I'm glad she blocked that. It's temporary, obviously. We'll keep an eye on it for you. All right, it's time for some good trouble. What are you guys doing? All right, here's some good trouble that a beans listener was alerted to by Heather Cox Richardson, who is a mensch, who spoke with Ben Wickler of the Wisconsin Democratic Party on one of her recent political chats. Wiz Dems is sponsoring phone banking to get out the word about the upcoming supreme court race on April 1. Susan Crawford, the candidate backed by the Democratic Party and who supports a woman's right to choose, is facing off against Brad Schimmel, the Republican candidate who wants to uphold Wisconsin's 1849 abortion ban, has defended January 6th insurrectionists, employs anti immigrant rhetoric, and has pledged to support Trump's agenda.
- [23:41]
Dana Goldberg
Now, I really need everyone to hear this. This is a critically important race. Elon has flooded the state with cash to swing the election, of course, to the Republican candidate. The race is expected to be the most expensive court election in U.S. history. And my hackles on my neck are up on this. I wish there was a way that we knew we could protect this completely. Wisconsin is a test case about whether Musk or anyone else at that point can buy American democracy. It's essential to keep these state seats under Democratic control in order to oppose Trump's agenda at the state and national levels. So whoever wins this race is going to be in the position to make a critical decision about everything from election certification, abortion, gerrymandering, all the way to workers rights. There's a lot at stake here. Now, Musk is trying, as we know, to buy the court seat to remove an obstacle to his personal agenda and that of the Trump administration. So I'm When I tell you, go and vote in numbers, Allison, it's yeah.
- [24:41]
Alison Gill
Too big to rig. And this particular phone banking effort coordinated by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, it's easy. Which is great for anyone who, like this listener, is nervous about talking to strangers. You'd be calling voters with a history of voting for Democratic candidates who might not know about this race or about Crawford herself. They will be grateful to hear from you with information about the election so that they can take action against Musk and Trump's destructive agenda right in their own communities. And early voting is happening right now, March 8th, 18th to March 30th. And the election is April 1st. You can sign up for this very easy phone banking to friendly Democrats and for you can do this from anywhere in the country at mobilize us/wisdoms w I S D E M S so we'll have that link in the show notes. Get out there, make some phone calls. All you got to do is just, we're just reminding awesome people that there's an election.
- [25:34]
Dana Goldberg
That's it.
- [25:35]
Alison Gill
That's it. All right, everybody. We have an incredible interview with Representative Sarah Jacobs from California's 51st, followed by some good news. But we have to take a quick break, so stick around. Come. We'll be right back after these messages.
- [25:48]
Dana Goldberg
We'll be right back.
- [25:50]
Alison Gill
Hey everybody. Creating the perfect yard has never been easier, thanks to fast growing trees. As the largest online nursery in the U.S. they offer thousands of plants, from fruit trees to privacy shrubs, even indoor plants. For those of us on a limited outdoor space budget. But with over 2 million happy customers, including myself, it's no wonder they're a trusted name in gardening. What sets them apart is their commitment to quality and convenience. Each plant goes through a 14 point quality checklist to ensure it's healthy and ready to thrive. You can skip the hassle of driving to nurseries and waiting in long lines or just order them online and your plants will be delivered right to your door in just a few days. And if you're not sure where to start, their plant experts are available to help you choose the right plants and provide care tips. I was so excited. First of all, I got an avocado, a lemon and a lime tree because I got I wanted to put a little guacamole for us together and so I was really excited to get them. The website made it easy to find these plants suited for my climate here and they arrived in perfect condition. And now I'm enjoying lemons, limes. The avocados aren't quite here yet, but I know it's going to be an abundant tree. It's getting really beefy and I absolutely love it. All without the stress of a weekend nursery trip. With 2 million happy customers, it's clear fast Growing trees is doing something right. They've made gardening accessible and enjoyable, even for a beginner like me. So this spring, they have the best deals for your yard, up to half off on select plants and other deals. And listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when you use the code DailyBeans at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at fast growingtrees.com using the code DailyBeans at checkout fast growingtrees.com code DailyBeans now's the perfect time to plant. Use daily beans to save. Today offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. I am honored to be joined again by the amazing representative from California's 51st district, U.S. house of Representatives, Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs. Hi, Sarah, how are you today?
- [27:41]
Sarah Jacobs
Hello. I'm doing pretty well here in sunny San Diego. How are you?
- [27:45]
Alison Gill
I'm good. I'm glad that at least the weather's nice because a lot of other things are going very wrong. And I mean, it's a fire hose of horrific, terrible things every day. U.S. aid, U.S. institute of Peace, like the dismantling of our federal government, firing of veterans en masse, just like terrible thing after terrible thing. But like kind of standing out head and shoulders above all of this is the Trump administration and Marco Rubio actually fighting to be able to just snatch somebody off the street, declare them an alien enemy whether they're here legally or not, and send them down to a really like awful, massive, like 40,000 person, like a, like a jail, I guess. It's called ccot. It's in El Salvador. It's where these planes were full of, you know, purportedly Venezuelan gang members that were ordered to turn around and completely ignored the order and said that they have every right to do this. And they're being slow walking this judge in this hearing. And, you know, I know that, you know, you serve on Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, House Foreign Affairs Committee, Armed Services Committee. But we have this lack of due process, no evidence that any of these people are actual gang members. And the thought of, I mean, it is literally the poem. I didn't speak out and then they came for me and no one was left. It's that playing out in real time. And I wanted to get your thoughts. What's going on in Congress? This seems like a five alarm fire. Is it being treated as such?
- [29:21]
Sarah Jacobs
You know, it's not really being treated as such by my Republican colleagues, many of whom have told me that their red line is Donald Trump not abiding by a court order. And that's exactly what we're seeing. So just to, to give a little background, this law that Trump is using, the 1798 Alien Enemies act, is, is literally the same law that was used to create Japanese internment camps. And while, you know, people might say, okay, good, we actually want Venezuelan gang members to be deported, the. The truth is we actually don't know if the people who were deported actually belong to a gang because there was no due process. And to me, even more scary is that after Trump's order, a judge issued a temporary restraining order to block these deportations, and the administration not only went ahead with them anyway, but has literally bragged about doing it. And unfortunately, it's Attorney General's job to enforce court rulings and laws. But obviously, I don't think our current Attorney General, Pam Bondi, is going to do that, which is why it's so important that my colleagues in Congress, my Republican colleagues, need to step up, because Trump is not a king. We do have equal branches of government. And if this really is their red line, it's time for them to do something.
- [30:38]
Alison Gill
Right. Because despite sort of what's going on in the underlying court case, the fact that court orders are being so blatantly defied, it's a shoot first, aim later situation. And, you know, the fact that no due process was given. Had they just gone through due process and found out that these were either illegal migrants or gang members or criminals, et cetera, and they had gone through the due process of deportation as they're supposed to, which, you know, you're not supposed to circumvent the courts on that, then fine. But the fact that it's hidden and they're using, they're invoking this rarely. I think we've only used it three times, like you said, once for Japanese internment, this old Alien Enemies act, which I think is pretty unconstitutional myself, but the Supreme Court.
- [31:25]
Sarah Jacobs
So there is, there is a bill in Congress that Senator Corono and Ilhan Omar have introduced that would repeal this bill. I'm a co sponsor of it.
- [31:33]
Alison Gill
Oh, good.
- [31:33]
Sarah Jacobs
And, and I absolutely think we should do that because, yes, it's a, it's a bad law. I, I think one thing that People don't always understand is that the Constitution protects anyone in the United States, whether they're undocumented, whether they are a citizen. The. The protections of the Constitution are for anyone living in and anyone while they're traveling to the United States. So the fact that, like, these folks should have. Do have a constitutional right to due process, and the fact that we're seeing that just be completely ignored, it's. It's very scary.
- [32:08]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And a professor, I think his name is David Noel, said there's one obscure sort of little bit of a law that allows the courts, the courts have the inherent power to actually deputize someone to execute contempt orders if, for example, the marshals go rogue, or Pam Bondi says stand down, which I'm pretty sure they will. And we've never had to use it. Right. There's no precedent because marshals have never gone rogue before. But we're staring down that barrel.
- [32:42]
Sarah Jacobs
We are in a constitutional crisis right now. To me, it's very clear, and that's why I think it's so important. Like, I know everyone wants Democrats in Congress to do more. We are doing everything we can. At least House Democrats are. But the fact of the matter is, it's all of our country, and it's time for my Republican colleagues to step up. They have told me this is their red line. So, like, okay, do something about it. You know, for a party that calls themselves the party of rule of law, this is not rule of law. This is not law and order.
- [33:14]
Alison Gill
No, it's. It's the opposite. Do you have any feeling after speaking to your Republican colleagues. I know what their red line is, but do any of them seem to care that the red line has now been crossed? Are they still waiting to see what the judge, Judge Boasberg in this case specifically, does, whether he calls for contempt or. I mean, if he ruled, maybe they're waiting for him to rule that, that they're in defiance of a court order before they do something. But honestly, it's never a good idea for Republicans to draw a red line in a Trump administration because it keeps. It gets trampled over and over and over again.
- [33:46]
Sarah Jacobs
Yeah. I mean, look, in private conversations, some will tell me they're very concerned. Others will tell me, well, they mean a Supreme Court order. You know, some. Some of my Republican colleagues are trying to impeach this judge because they don't like his decision, which is not what impeachment is for. So I, you know, I. I don't think. I'm not holding my breath for Any of them, to some, somehow grow a spine in the next few hours that they clearly have not had for most of Trump's time in office. But it's really disheartening because I know they know better. They have told me they know better.
- [34:21]
Alison Gill
Why do you think? You know, I've read a couple of opinion pieces and some articles and, you know, from sourcing and some interviews that the reason that Republicans are keep bending over and moving the goalposts is because they're actually terrified of being targeted by this administration. We've seen it happen before when we were covering the Jack Smith investigations. Tons of the reasons why a lot of the evidence and the jurors had to be kept anonymous. And everything was because of this obvious track record of violent threats. So, like, we can go back to in the 2020 election with Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, their lives were turned upside down. Is that why Republicans are not like, they, they, they want to run, to lead with strength and power, but then they have none when they get there? I don't understand.
- [35:06]
Sarah Jacobs
Well, I think it's a combination of things. There's definitely this fear of being targeted. And I can tell you, like, even my Republican colleagues, like, during January 6, 2020, when, like, they were still being asked to vote to object to the election, a lot of them would tell me that, you know, they're, they were fearful not only for their own physical safety, but actually the physical safety of their family. And, you know, that's, that's scary for a lot of people. And I, I do understand that because.
- [35:32]
Alison Gill
Of what happened to Raffensperger and Rusty Bowers and, and other people who defied him.
- [35:35]
Sarah Jacobs
Right, Absolutely. But I think, you know, I have to work with these people. So I try and attempt to have the most generous interpretation of people's behavior. And if I'm giving them the most generous interpretation, whether they, you know, deserve it or not, their constituents voted for Donald Trump. Right. Their constituents, a lot of polling shows, are actually really happy with what's happening right now, because even if they don't like everything that's, that's going on, they like that something is happening. They felt like nothing changed, nothing happened under the Democrats, and at least something is happening. And so that's why a big part of this, and what I really emphasize with folks is that we need to change public opinion and we need public pressure, because until these folks start hearing from their own constituents, they're not going to change their behavior. And that means we need to really humanize this issue and talk about what it really means on a human impact. Not like our institutions, our democracy, those of us who care about that already agree with us. Right. But to bring more people into the fold, to bring more people into the coalition, we need to be talking about the real human impact, the real human stories. And then when people who voted for Trump realize that his policies are hurting them, we have to not tell them I told you so. We have to welcome them into the coalition because we are going to need everybody to push back, especially people who live in these Republican districts and look like mea culpa on Democrats part. We did not do a good enough job of distinguishing ourselves as the party wanting to make things better. Right. Like I'm 36, most of my friends will tell you, like they see the Democrats as the status quo party. And so a lot of folks like wanted change and this was the change being offered. But we don't have to live in that space scarcity mindset. We don't have to worry that like we can't afford housing because asylum seekers are getting it, for instance. Like we actually can reimagine systems so that everyone can get what they need and it doesn't have to be this false choice. And that's what Democrats need to be putting forward, not continuing falling into this like crouching position of trying to defend systems that in many cases really didn't work for a lot of people.
- [37:49]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And it's kind of sad because if you look at history on a long enough timeline, the Democrats are the party of change. Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights Act, Medicaid, Department of Veterans affairs was actually under George W. Bush, but we had a VA before that that just became a cabinet level position. Marriage equality, LGBTQ rights, like that's the Overton window moving and moving and moving because of what Democrats do. It just takes so long. And here comes, you know, a move fast and break things mentality. And you know, I will say that, you know, to they, the Republicans need to hear things from their constituents. It doesn't help when they cancel all their town halls because they're afraid. And we are actually seeing, I think not necessarily on the, you know, swooping people up under the alien enemies act stuff, but under what Elon Musk is doing to the government. Especially when you talk about veterans because a third of government employees are veterans losing their jobs. They're getting, Elon Musk is getting booed nine ways to Sunday at these town halls. People are very upset. People are also upset about their, their Republican representatives not being able to say that Russia invaded Ukraine, like these kinds of things. And maybe we can subsume this sort of, hey, you could be scooped up off the street and sent to see cot, like, subsume that in there. But the anger is organically already happening from these constituents. But it's kind of more aimed at. At Musk and what he's doing.
- [39:17]
Sarah Jacobs
Yeah, look, and I think it's all important, right. I think the more they're hearing people be unhappy with what's happening, whether it's Doge and Musk or this, you know, alien enemies act, the better, because that's what's going to give them the spine to act if they believe their constituents are going to have their back when it comes time for Elon Musk to fund a primary challenge against them. And we have seen public pressure work. Right. In the Trump administration, the first Trump administration we saw public pressure did make them change their family separation policy at the border. Already we've seen public pressure made them pull back the OMB funding freeze memo. Right. Public pressure does work. They do care what people think. We just need to keep making sure we are humanizing it and telling those stories and making our voices heard.
- [40:05]
Alison Gill
Right. And interesting timing for Justice Roberts to come out and rebuke the idea of the impeachment of this specific judge, Judge Boasberg, but without naming any names. So we've already seen him and Amy Coney Barrett side with the liberal justices a few times already against this administration. Maybe that'll continue. Maybe this is a sign of that. But regardless, we're now looking at people who may or may not be gang members or even, you know, illegal migrants being imprisoned in sicot in El Salvador. But we're also looking at the same thing in Guantanamo. And you just visited Guantanamo Bay. Can you talk a little bit about that?
- [40:42]
Sarah Jacobs
Yep. So last week, I went on a bipartisan oversight trip to Guantanamo Bay to see what they are doing with immigrant detention there. You know, what we saw was that it is not. It doesn't make any operational sense. The entire point of it is because Donald Trump likes the optics of saying he sent immigrants to a site off the coast of Florida with a horrific history of human rights abuses, waterboarding and sleep deprivation. Like, the history and the optics are why Donald Trump chose to do this, not any actual reason we need to do it, because actually, it makes no Sense. It costs $16 million already. They only had 225 beds. There was no workable plan to get to the 30,000 beds that Donald Trump says he wants. When I was there, There were only 41 immigrants there and thousands of service members and military personnel. We had service members literally guarding empty tents because the tents were not usable per DHS regulation. And so, you know, I'm not surprised that after our visit, the Trump administration actually took all of the immigrants who were there and brought them back to the continental United States. Because on a bipartisan basis, it was clear that this was very expensive. And there was no operational reason for the cost or the cruelty of this.
- [42:05]
Alison Gill
It was like at first they were using C130s to transport these folks, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per trip, when you could just use Global X or what Globe X or whatever the commercial airline is, is that they tend, tend to use for these flights. And that ended pretty quickly and without a lot of public pushback. I think that that just probably came from bipartisan pushes on the Hill to be like, why are we spending $130,000aminute to transport people, 40 people to Guantanamo Bay? Like, that just sounds absolutely ridiculous. And, and it ended. Do you know, do you know if that was the case there, though, that. What was the pushback on that?
- [42:45]
Sarah Jacobs
Well, so my understanding is they are still sometimes using military planes for these deportations. We're trying to find out more answers about why this is happening and when it's happening and how much more expensive it is than the commercial flights that, you know, DHS has always used. But I think there's actually a potentially a more sinister part of this, which is a lot of what DoD is doing in support of DHS is not. They're not doing it on a reimbursable basis, meaning normally when one agency supports another, the agency reimburses them. In this case, they're not doing it. So they're basically using DOD money as a slush fund for DHS to, to make DHS actually have a bigger budget than it has. Because DoD is taking on all these things in a non reimbursable basis. And I know that all sounds kind of wonky, but basically what it means is DoD money is being used to do DHS things, which it shouldn't be. And we know that everything Trump does is about optics, Right? And he likes the optics of using the military for this, even though it's vastly more expensive. Right?
- [43:47]
Alison Gill
Yeah, no, he likes, yeah, he likes the propaganda videos. He, you know, he's going to roll tanks down on his. You know, remember he wanted to like, ruin the streets of D.C. to roll tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue or something. It is, it's all propaganda, but I know. And it's not Wonky. I know exactly what you're talking about. When I worked for the va, we would be reimbursed back and forth with the DOD because we shared a lot of medical services. I was part of the medical sharing office and Defense Health agency embedded with DoD for VA. And it was so important that the DoD pay the VA out of bag two and not bag one, because you can't mix those. Here we have the DoD just absolutely not being reimbursed for something that a whole other agency is doing and that it's got to be illegal unless they put it in this continuing resolution that they could do this. And that's what I. What we've all been worried about about this continuing resolution. And do you want to, you want to end on that? Like, what happened? You guys got hung out to dry in the House by the Senate Dems.
- [44:51]
Sarah Jacobs
Sure.
- [44:51]
Dana Goldberg
Yeah.
- [44:51]
Sarah Jacobs
So look, House House Democrats more or less stayed united. We had one, one defection against this continuing resolution. And part of what we were worried about is that this would sort of put a bipartisan imprimatur on the very bad things that Trump and Elon Musk and Doge are doing and eroded our ability to get any protections in a bill that, that would enable us to actually reassert Congress's role in doing, you know, the power of the purse. Right. Like, like the little. The Article 1 of the Constitution. It is very clear Congress is job is to decide how money gets spent. And we just wanted Congress to reassert that role. Unfortunately, a number of Senate Democrats, including Leader Schumer, went along with Republicans to allow them to pass this. And, you know, it. We. Now, I think we're not going to get a lot of insight into exactly how this money's being used, what's being spent. And I do have concerns about what this means for some of the litigation efforts. And, you know, what they might think this means in terms of a bipartisan agreement to what's happening. And you know, I. My first term was under Speaker Pelosi, and you know, one of her number one lessons is you don't give away things for free. And unfortunately, I think we gave away our leverage for free here.
- [46:08]
Alison Gill
Yeah, no, I agree. I've been pretty upset about that. And the nine other Democrats who voted for cloture that have been screaming at me for years saying, no, we can't get rid of the filibuster. We're gonna need it one day. And then when we need it, they just roll over on it. And I'm just, I'm So mad about that and especially for House Dems like you stuck their necks out on this and said we're gonna, we're gonna unite on this. Obviously, except for Jared golden. But I just, you know, my heart goes out to, to y'all for, for having done that, having stood up even in red and purple districts, you know, to, to do that, put your on the line like that, only to have this happen over on the Senate side. So I'm, again, my heart goes out to you.
- [46:52]
Sarah Jacobs
Well, thanks. But you know, really, you know, feel, feel bad for us if you want. Our job is, is not fun right now, but it's really about the American people and the fact that they got a really bad deal here and you know, it's our job to stand up for them. And I'm, I'm very disappointed that some of my colleagues in the Senate did not do that.
- [47:09]
Alison Gill
Yeah, agreed. All right, my friend, it's been wonderful to speak to you. I look forward to having you back on in the future and let everybod where they can find and follow you.
- [47:19]
Sarah Jacobs
Yes, Rep. Sarah Jacobs on all of the different social medias and there's no H in Sarah. So S A R A J a.
- [47:26]
Alison Gill
C O B S awesome. Thank you so much. California's 51st, right next door to me. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak to us today, Congresswoman. Appreciate it.
- [47:36]
Sarah Jacobs
Of course. Thanks for having me, everybody.
- [47:38]
Alison Gill
Stick around. We'll be right back with the good news. This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack sponsor. IQ Bar is a better for you plant protein based snack made with brain boosting nutrients to refuel, nourish and satisfy hunger. Without a sugar crash. IQ Bar is offering our podcast listeners an exclusive deal. 20% off all IQ Bar products plus you get free shipping. Just text the word daily beans to 64,000. So finding a snack that's both delicious and nutritious, it can seem impossible. But IQ Bar nails it. Their plant based protein bars are packed with ingredients to keep me physically and mentally sharp, whether I'm tackling a busy workday or hitting the gym. And with no gluten, no dairy, no soy, no GMOs, no artificial sweeteners, I could feel good about what I'm putting in my body. With IQ Bar, they have over 20,000 five star reviews. So it's no wonder that IQ Bar's brain and body boosting products are gaining so much attention. From their protein bars to their hydration mixes and mushroom coffees, they've created a lineup that makes healthy living, simple and enjoyable. When IQ Bar sent me their Ultimate Sampler pack, I was instantly hooked on the lemon blueberry flavor. It is tangy, it's sweet, it's refreshing. It's like a burst of energy in every bite. These bars have become my secret weapon for staying focused and satisfied throughout the day. Whether I need a quick breakfast or a post workout refuel or a snack to power through the afternoon, IQ Bar has me covered. It's the perfect combination of taste and function and I can't recommend them enough. And right now, IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ Bar products plus you get free shipping. To get your 20% off text daily beans all one word to 64,000 text daily beans to 64,000. That's daily beans to 64,000. Message and data rates apply. See Terms for details. Everybody, welcome back. It's time for the good news everyone. Then Good news everyone. And if you have any good news confessions corrections, you have misheard song lyrics. You want to tell us about a happy place or maybe a nice dinner you went out and enjoyed? Tell us about your latest date night. We would love to hear about it. If you have any shout outs to loved ones, family members, small businesses in your area, your small business let us know what you're making and what you're creating. I know we have a ton of entrepreneurs that listen to the daily beans and shout outs to government programs that have helped you or your family or a loved one. It can be Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, wic, snap, the PACT act for veterans. If you're one of those, tell us about some great VA health care you've received, or student debt relief. Any and all of it. Anything you can think of that's good news, send it to us. And all you got to do to get it read on the air is pay your POD pet tax. Which means attach a photo of your pet and tell us their names. And maybe tell us all their names. Like I have one cat with like 16 names, you can tell us that. Or if you don't have a pet, you can send us an adoptable pet in your area. If you don't have that in your area, you can send us any animal photo. We love otters and frogs. I like secretary birds. And speaking of birds, you can also attach a bird watching photo. If you don't have any of that, which is, you know, either an actual bird or you and family and friends flipping off Trump and Musk properties. And if you don't have any of that, please Send your baby pictures. Actually, just send your baby pictures already. Like, just. That could be the first thing that you attach, honestly. All right, so send it all to us dailybeanspot.com click on contact. First up, Lisa from Las Vegas. She they this is the opposite of a correction. So an affirmation for Dana.
- [51:10]
Dana Goldberg
What? What?
- [51:11]
Alison Gill
This is your regular reminder that Trump does not have a casino in Las Vegas because he could not get a gaming license in Nevada.
- [51:18]
Dana Goldberg
Right, Right.
- [51:19]
Alison Gill
Too shady for us. And his ugly ass hotel is not on the strip either. You were 100% correct. Daily awesomeness. That keeps awesome.
- [51:28]
Dana Goldberg
Lisa, thank you for writing in, especially because I get way more corrections than affirmations and deservedly so. All right, this next one's from Anonymous. Hello, fellow swearers. Quick pronunciation tip. All right, Nashua. And that there's no way is pronounced Nash. Okay, Nashwa. And I said Nasswa because for some reason I was like, it's a salad. Did I say Nasswa? I think I said Nashwa. Who knows?
- [51:51]
Alison Gill
Yeah, I can't remember, but I think I've gotten so many of these. Nashua or Nashua.
- [51:56]
Dana Goldberg
Well, also, this is like Joshua and I love when the producers do this. There's several submissions pronouncing this different ways, which happens every time. So we've got Nashwa, we've got Nashuwa and Nash Ewa now. Also, I want to vent some anger. I write continuing education credits for architects and interior designers as part of my consulting practice. A recent topic discussed the American Climate Corp. A Biden era initiative that provides green jobs to young people wanting to be part of the solution to climate change. As I was going through and verifying my sources, I found that the program was disbanded by executive order by the Orange Menace. As I shouted at the keyboard, I recalled the bird I flipped while in New York City over the weekend. I respectfully submit my grievance along with a picture of me and my bird, my oyster catcher tattoo, flipping a bird. A big bird at that ugliness. Side note, as I took my picture, a gentleman behind me laughed out loud. I turned to him and said, isn't this what we should all be doing? He agreed and promptly followed suit. I was pretty proud of sharing the love. Also, you'll find our rescue dog Daily. Who? He got him in a shelter. 11 years old. Oh, I love that. And he lived into the golden years with us, eating everything he could find and growling at children.
- [53:17]
Alison Gill
Sounds like me.
- [53:18]
Dana Goldberg
I know. I miss that grouchy old pup. Thanks for the good work with swearing.
- [53:22]
Alison Gill
Look, at the baby. That's a good bird. And you got a bird there on your wrist.
- [53:27]
Dana Goldberg
I love it. It's a double bird.
- [53:29]
Alison Gill
It's a double bird oyster catcher, so great.
- [53:33]
Dana Goldberg
Nice.
- [53:33]
Alison Gill
That's meta because it's a bird watching photo and a bird watching photo. Yeah. All right, next up from Janine. Hi, Ag dg. Love the show. I listen daily from Matt. Pronunciation correction. The town mentioned in today's podcast is Nashua. NH Is pronounced Nash Hua. Keeping up with the good trouble sending Effin Birds postcards for the Ides of March campaign and plan to send more to various politicians because they're so perfect for this purpose. Check them out. I think you'd enjoy. I love Effin Birds. You should. I've got like everyone that book for Christmas for my pod pet tax. Here's Maya and Calypso, our shy, feral rescues who are slowly warming up to us at eight months today since bringing them home. Calypso always looks like she smells a fart or she's judging you unless traits are involved, while Maya always looks ready to run for it because she is at any moment. They were rescued from under a shed and despite being adopted out separately shortly thereafter, both were returned for being too shy. We adopted them after they spent nearly a year in the shelter and were happy to have them home together. They are beautiful.
- [54:38]
Dana Goldberg
They really are.
- [54:40]
Alison Gill
And then here's the birds. The effing birds. Of course I'm angry, you dumb pile of fucks. I'm telling you, effing birds is the best.
- [54:53]
Dana Goldberg
Oh my God. That made me very happy. Okay, this is from Megan Pronoun. She and her hello Beans Queens. I love how you put a spring in my morning stroll as I look for hot stuff in the neighborhood. Your pod gets me through it all and I'm just so grateful. I try to get into as much good trouble as I can these days. To that end, I submit to your listeners the latest action plan for Moms Rising. The good folks there are super at organizing all people, not just moms, and have started a Mom's Next Door pilot project to help keep folks connected and combat isolation and inaction. I got a link in the show Notes to that for any of you that are ready for some good trouble with this amazing group. And they are including a pod pet tax of Kona. He's also a bean looking fresh and keeping the dachshund neediness on low as he celebrates his 10th birthday.
- [55:44]
Alison Gill
He's beautiful.
- [55:46]
Dana Goldberg
He's cute. This boy. Gotta go. He says. This good boy got a bow Tie.
- [55:52]
Alison Gill
Oh, the birthday hat. Oh, I love it.
- [55:55]
Dana Goldberg
Love it.
- [55:55]
Alison Gill
Thanks so much. And yeah, we'll have that link in the show notes to MomsRising.org thank you. Next up, Stephanie W. She her. Hi, Allison and Dana, along with Jimmy Kimmel. You ladies keep me sane and on task. I'm a former Marine infantry officer and a proud transgender woman who's been devoting myself full time to activism since 2016. But I think the most important thing I've ever done may be helping to organize our no Kings OC Hands Off Rally for Democracy. The Democratic PAC I chair started planning this a month ago. And now, in partnership with the OC Chapter 5501, Activate America, Women for American Values and Ethics, and several other local grassroots groups, our event is now the official Orange county event for the national Hands Off Day action being promoted by 50, 51. That's it. 50 51. So that's 50 states 50. You know, that's. I said 50501. This is Saturday, April 5th. Our event will be in Santa Ana's Sasser Park. I might be saying that wrong. From 1 to 2:30, it's S A S S C E R Sasser Park. It's going to be a great event and I'm ready to ask you help us to help us really blow it up here in the county that Ronald Reagan described as the place good Republicans go to die. We want to show through powerful nonviolent mass action that Americans will not accept a dictatorship. People can find us our mobilize RSVP link by going to no Kings oc. Just Google no Kings oc. So please give us a shout out so we get all your local listeners to rally with us on April 5th. We'll also have a link in the show Notes everybody, if you're in the area. Thanks for all you and your team do for our democracy. For my pet tax, I'm sharing photos of my cats who were identified male at birth, but whom I've named after my trans Shiroes, Sylvia Rivera and Marsha. Sylvia is the one peeking out of the tank, looking like she's about to liberate a fascist state. And Marcia is the big love that I pictured on negative 0.5, making her look extra silly.
- [57:56]
Dana Goldberg
Oh, my God, that's funny. Oh, I love that. Kitty in a tank is cute.
- [58:00]
Alison Gill
Oh, my God, that's amazing. I want a kitty tank.
- [58:03]
Dana Goldberg
I know. It's good, right?
- [58:05]
Alison Gill
Oh, that's so good.
- [58:06]
Dana Goldberg
You want a Tink kitty?
- [58:09]
Alison Gill
Yeah. Hey. Of course I'm angry, you dumb pile. Of.
- [58:12]
Dana Goldberg
Oh my God. I want a shirt that says that.
- [58:14]
Alison Gill
It's so good. Yeah. Effin Birds. E F F I N Birds. It's so good. They have shirts and mugs and totes and books and postcards. They're fantastic. All right, everybody, that's the good news. Please send us your good news dailybeanspod.com click on contact. We got so many links in the show. Notes for Stu that you can do, including the good trouble from today. So check that out. Thanks to Sarah Jacobs for joining us. Do you have any final thoughts, my friend?
- [58:38]
Dana Goldberg
Not today.
- [58:39]
Alison Gill
All right, everybody, we'll be back in your ears tomorrow for Fugal Sang Friday. Until then, 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 I've been DG 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.