Stop and Smell the Trainwreck (feat. John Fugelsang)

Summary

The Daily Beans: "Stop and Smell the Trainwreck (feat. John Fugelsang)" Summary

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Daily Beans
• Host/Author: MSW Media
• Description: The Daily Beans is a women-owned and operated progressive news podcast tailored for your morning commute, featuring social justice and political news infused with just the right amount of snark. Hosted by award-winning personalities Allison Gill and Dana Goldberg, alongside comedian and activist Dana Goldberg.
• Episode: Stop and Smell the Trainwreck (feat. John Fugelsang)
• Release Date: November 29, 2024

---

Introduction

In this special edition of The Daily Beans, host Allison Gill delves into two significant topics: investigative reporting on Tulsi Gabbard's political action committees (PACs) by David Corn of Mother Jones, and an in-depth exploration of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) from American Progress. Allison is joined by John Fugelsang, host of Tell Me Everything on Sirius XM, for a candid discussion on contemporary political issues, including the Department of Justice's handling of charges against former President Donald Trump.

---

Investigative Report on Tulsi Gabbard's PACs

David Corn's Analysis: David Corn, DC Bureau Chief for Mother Jones, authored a revealing piece titled "Tulsi Gabbard Keeps Starting Up PACs. Where is the Money Going?" published in March 2024. Corn scrutinizes Tulsi Gabbard's creation and management of multiple PACs, highlighting financial discrepancies and questionable political alignments.

Key Findings:

• Defend Freedom, Inc.: Established in March 2024, this PAC raised $1.9 million by mid-November, with only $20,000 allocated to support a handful of far-right, MAGA-aligned Republican candidates such as Kerry Lake, Tim Sheehy, Joe Kent, Brian Jack, and Mayra Flores. Notably, Flores had previously promoted QAnon conspiracy theories.

• Financial Mismanagement: A staggering $1.3 million from Defend Freedom, Inc. was spent on operating expenses, with at least $1 million diverted to fundraising and direct mail efforts. This reflects a pattern where PACs serve more as financial funnels benefiting vendors and consultants rather than fulfilling their stated missions.

• For Love of Country, Inc.: Established in February, this PAC aimed to communicate with moderate voters and disillusioned Democrats. However, it raised $280,000 by mid-October, with only $49,000 spent. Major contributions included a $100,000 donation from a questionable David Florey, whose connection to wealthy Republican donors is dubious. Additionally, John Kellnan, a significant Republican donor, contributed $25,000.

• Our Freedom, Our Future: Launched in 2023, this PAC raised only $45,000 by mid-2023, with most funds directed towards Gabbard's political staff and advisors, and a minimal $1,000 donation to an unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate in Ohio.

Suspicious Contributions: Corn raises concerns over large donations from individuals like David Florey, whose reported address does not match known donor profiles, suggesting possible misrepresentation or undisclosed affiliations.

Quotes:

• David Corn: “Defend Freedom, Inc.... acted mainly as a money churning machine that generated donations that mostly profited vendors and consultants.” ([12:45])

Implications: Corn emphasizes that Tulsi Gabbard's network of PACs warrants thorough investigation, especially considering her potential appointment as Director of National Intelligence (DNI). His analysis questions Gabbard's suitability for the DNI role due to her unconventional political stance and lack of experience in managing large organizations.

---

The Equal Rights Amendment: History and Current Status

Historical Context: The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), initially proposed in 1923 by suffragists Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman, aims to enshrine sex-based equality in the U.S. Constitution. After the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, granting women the right to vote, the ERA sought to eliminate all forms of gender discrimination.

Key Provisions:

• Constitutional Guarantee: The ERA explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sex, empowering Congress to enforce these protections through legislation.

• Judicial Backing: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the ERA would provide courts with a robust foundation for ensuring equal justice under the law.

Ratification Challenges:

• Legislative Deadlines: Although Article V of the Constitution outlines the amendment process, the ERA's ratification included an arbitrary seven-year deadline, which many advocates argue is unconstitutional as it was not part of the version ratified by the states.

• State Ratifications and Rescissions: As of January 2020, Virginia became the 38th state needed to ratify the ERA, meeting the requirements for adoption. However, legal battles ensued over the validity of the time limit and the legality of states rescinding their ratifications in the 1970s.

Current Efforts:

• Congressional Actions: Both the House and Senate have introduced resolutions to remove the time limit and reaffirm the ERA's ratification. The House passed a bipartisan resolution in March 2021 to eliminate the deadline, but the Senate companion resolution did not pass.

• Court Cases: Legal challenges continue, with courts ruling that states lack standing to compel the Archivist to certify the ERA. The Department of Justice under different administrations has oscillated on the ERA's status, with the Trump administration asserting the deadline had passed, and the Biden administration contesting this interpretation.

Quotes:

• Allison Gill: “Regardless of the path it takes, there's a critical need to enshrine gender equality in the Constitution and adopt the ERA as the 28th Amendment.” ([26:40])

Concluding Remarks: Allison Gill urges listeners to write to President Biden to prompt the Archivist to publish the ERA before January 20th, 2025, coinciding with the inauguration of President Donald Trump. She emphasizes the importance of the ERA in providing robust constitutional protections against sex discrimination, aligning the U.S. Constitution with contemporary gender equality standards observed globally.

---

Discussion with John Fugelsang: DOJ, Supreme Court, and Trump Cases

Charges Against Donald Trump: Allison Gill and John Fugelsang engage in a heated discussion about the Department of Justice's (DOJ) handling of espionage and obstruction of justice charges against former President Donald Trump. They critique Attorney General Jack Smith's decision to dismiss the charges without prejudice, leaving the door open for future prosecutions, albeit in a possibly futile manner given the current Supreme Court's stance on presidential immunity.

Supreme Court's Role: The hosts express frustration with the Supreme Court, led by John Roberts, for effectively undermining DOJ efforts to prosecute Trump. They argue that the Court's decisions reinforce presidential immunity, making it exceedingly difficult to hold a sitting president accountable for alleged crimes.

Internal DOJ Issues: They discuss internal DOJ conflicts, including the resistance from FBI officials to execute necessary warrants and subpoenas, leading to delays and hindrances in building solid cases against Trump. The conversation touches on the inefficacies and political pressures within the DOJ that impede justice.

Impeachment and Accountability: Fugelsang contemplates the missed opportunities for impeachment, arguing that earlier actions could have provided historical accountability, but recognizes that systemic barriers and political dynamics stymied these efforts.

Quotes:

• Allison Gill: “It's definitely not somebody who should be in charge of the DNI.” ([22:30])
• John Fugelsang: “If you want to blame Merrick Garland, have at it, do your thing.” ([39:17])

Impact of Media and Public Opinion: The hosts critique the media’s role in shaping public opinion, suggesting that biased reporting and misinformation contribute to partisan divides and hinder objective discourse on significant issues like presidential accountability and gender equality.

Future Outlook: Allison Gill and John Fugelsang remain pessimistic about the DOJ's ability to prosecute Trump effectively, citing entrenched legal interpretations and political obstacles. They anticipate continued struggles in upholding justice amidst a politically charged environment.

Conclusion of Discussion: The conversation concludes with a reaffirmation of the need for systemic change within the DOJ and the judiciary to ensure accountability for political figures. The hosts encourage listeners to stay informed and engaged in these critical issues, emphasizing the ongoing battle for justice and equality.

---

Closing Remarks

Allison Gill wraps up the episode by encouraging listeners to engage with ongoing political developments, highlighting the importance of the ERA and the scrutiny of political actions by figures like Tulsi Gabbard. She thanks John Fugelsang for his insights and urges the audience to remain vigilant and proactive in advocating for justice and equality.

Final Quote:

• John Fugelsang: “Remember every day to stop and smell the train wreck.” ([57:27])

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• David Corn: “Defend Freedom, Inc.... acted mainly as a money churning machine that generated donations that mostly profited vendors and consultants.” ([12:45])

• Allison Gill: “Regardless of the path it takes, there's a critical need to enshrine gender equality in the Constitution and adopt the ERA as the 28th Amendment.” ([26:40])

• Allison Gill: “It's definitely not somebody who should be in charge of the DNI.” ([22:30])

• John Fugelsang: “If you want to blame Merrick Garland, have at it, do your thing.” ([39:17])

• John Fugelsang: “Remember every day to stop and smell the train wreck.” ([57:27])

---

Conclusion: This episode of The Daily Beans offers a comprehensive analysis of Tulsi Gabbard's political financing strategies and a passionate discourse on the Equal Rights Amendment's critical role in ensuring gender equality within the U.S. Constitution. Coupled with an incisive dialogue between Allison Gill and John Fugelsang on presidential accountability and the DOJ's challenges, the episode provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of pressing political and social issues.

Transcript

[Allison Gill]

MSW Media thanks to Beam Dream for supporting the Daily Beans. Beam Dream is a science backed healthy hot cocoa to help you sleep better. There's never been a better time to finally try Dream Shop their Black Friday sale and get up to 50% off when you visit shopbeam.com dailybeans and use the code dailybeans at checkout. Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Friday, November 29, 2024. Today, a very special edition of the Daily Beans. I'll be going over David Korn's investigative reporting on Tulsi Gabbard and her super PACs and a brief history of the Equal Rights Amendment from American Progress. I'm your host, Allison Gill. Hey everybody, Happy Friday. Happy day after Thanksgiving. We had a very special holiday edition of the Daily Beans yesterday. We have a very special holiday edition of the Daily Beans today. It's Friday, the day after. So it's Fugal saying Fridays here on the Daily Beans. So I'll be joined by my friend, host of Tell Me Everything on Sirius XM progress channel 127 weeknights at 9pm Eastern, 6 Pacific. The one and only John Fugal saying and today I wanted to give you some new content. We can't do breaking news because we're all going to be off at MSW Media on Thursday. So I wanted to share a couple of important stories with you. The first comes from David Corn at Mother Jones. I'll have a link to the story in the show Notes as well. So let's hit the hot notes. Hot Notes. All right. This comes from the D.C. bureau Chief for Mother Jones, David Corn. Please subscribe to Mother Jones for all his reporting. Make sure you follow him on the socials. He has also written many great books, but this piece is called Tulsi Gabbard Keeps Starting Up Packs. Where is the Money Going? In March of 2024, Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman and failed presidential candidate whom Donald Trump has tapped to be the Director of National Intelligence, created a political action committee called Defend Freedom, Inc. The group posted a bare bones website featuring photos of Gabbard and declared it, quote, was organized to elect patriots who will fight to defend America's peace, security, prosperity and freedom. It asked for donations of up to $5,000 to, quote, make an impact across America, unquote. Tens of thousands of people Contributed to Gabbard's PAC. Through mid November, it raised $1.9 million, including a 16,552 transfer from another Gabbard PAC called Team Tulsi of all of the money it pulled in, Defend Freedom Inc. Devoted only $20,000 to contributions for a small number of candidates, all far right Maga ish Republicans U.S. senate candidates Kerry Lake and Tim Sheehy and U.S. house contenders Joe Kent, Brian Jack and Mayra Flores. Before running for a congressional seat in 2022, Flores published social media posts promoting QAnon. So where did all the money go? Gabbard's outfit spent 1.3 million on operating expenses, at least 1 million on fundraising and direct mail, according to its filings with the FEC. Like many PACs, it acted mainly as a money churning machine that generated donations that mostly profited vendors and consultants. Get it? Millions of dollars to fundraise for candidates that will promote prosperity and freedom and peace. Millions of dollars 20,000 spent on the mission of the PAC, the rest of it all just to feed itself Defend Freedom, Inc. Is one of a network of organizations Gabbard has assembled in recent years, and they warrant a thorough review. As part of her Senate confirmation process, Gabbard is a highly unconventional candidate for the DNI job, which entails overseeing all 18 agencies in the US intelligence community, including the CIA and the NSA. She has espoused fringe views, often in sync with Moscow talking points. She provided a preemptive defense of Vladimir Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine and afterward boosted the conspiracy theory advanced by Russia that the United States had been collaborating with Ukraine to develop biological weapons to deploy against Russia. Her fondness for Putin has earned her favorable coverage from Russia's propaganda outlets, and her appointment, if confirmed, will likely spook intelligence services throughout the world and make them hesitant to collaborate with US Intelligence. She also has no experience managing or holding a senior position within a large organization, let alone an agency with the task of safeguarding the nation. Consequently, an extensive vetting of Gabbert ought to focus on her own political operation. In February, Gabbard established a super PAC called For Love of Country, Inc. Its name echoed the title of a book she would release in April with the subtitle Leave the Democrat Party Behind. Gabbard had quit the Democratic Party in 2022, proclaiming herself independent, and she went on to become a highly partisan commentator, hurling harsh rhetoric at her former party. The promotional material for this book claimed that the Democrats were now, quote, controlled by an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by WOKE ideology and racialized everything. It slammed the Democratic Party as a clear and present threat to the God given freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. Oh really? Around the time of the book's publication. At a point when Gabbard's bizarre political journey had taken her from a Democratic presidential bid to appearing on the shortlist of Trump's potential running mates, her For Love of Country Inc. PAC banked hefty checks from several big money Republican funders. The biggest amount came from a donor named David florey, who sent Gabbard's PAC a whopping $100,000. On the PAC's FEC filing, it neglected to note, as it is compelled to do, Florey's occupation and employer. There was something odd about this contribution. The name David Florey matches that of a Miami investor and former D.C. lobbyist who in recent years has donated millions to Republican candidates and committees, including the Trump Trump campaign, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and a PAC run by John Bolton, a GOP hawk. But the David Florey recorded on the PAC's filing listed a different address than the one used by the David Florey who made all those other contributions. The address on the For Love of Country Inc. PAC filing was for a modest looking apartment building on the western edge of Miami, a residence unlikely to be the home of a hundred thousand dollar donor. The Florey with the record of big bucks donations lives in Miami beach, an apartment worth an estimated 4.1 million. Now, according to public records, there is no David Florey who resides at that apartment building in western Miami. But a fellow named David Flor once lived there, but he died in 2013. Looking to talk to the David Florey of Miami Beach, a Mother Jones reporter reached his wife, Julie Florey on her cell phone and asked if she was familiar with the Miami address associated with the $100,000 donation to the For Love of Country Inc. Package. She said she didn't know it. She then conferenced her husband David into the call and asked about the hundred thousand dollar contribution to Gabbard's pack and the address tied to it. He said, quote, doesn't sound familiar. And then he tried to end the conversation. Pressed as to whether he had made the donation to Gabbard, he said, I'm not interested in talking to you about it. Sounding irritated, he addressed his wife, Julie, don't take these calls, just hang up on them. He then left the call. Another early major donor for Love of Country Inc. Pack was John Kellnan, the head of a Massachusetts construction company who kicked in $25,000. He gave $200,000 to the Trump campaign this year. A few months later, shortly after Gabbard endorsed Trump disgraced Las Vegas mogul Steve Wynn, a close pal of Trump, cut this pack of Tulsi Gabbard's a $60,000 check. All told, from February to mid October, for Love of country ink raised $280,000. It only spent $49,000. $10,000 of those expenditures were paid for an event in Las Vegas. Almost all the rest covered payments to Gabbard's political staff and advisors. The PAC described itself as, quote, Tulsi's vehicle for messaging in the 2024 election, including a national ad campaign to communicate with middle of the road voters, disenfranchised Democrats and undecided independents. It claimed, quote, for Love of Country pac, we'll use traditional and disruptive methods to blend the tried and true approach with innovation to reach otherwise unlikely voting demographics. Its expenditures through mid October do not indicate there was much of an effort of that sort made by Gabbard's pac. It looks as if this PAC was funded by pro Trump Republican moneybags mostly existed to cover the costs of Gabbard's political team. Gabbard controls yet another PAC, Our Freedom, Our Future, which was launched in 2023. Its mission, according to the website, is to, quote, protect our freedoms and support leaders who share her commitment to uphold and protect our God given rights enshrined in the Constitution. It declared, quote, our founders envisioned a government that is of, by and for the people, not of by and for the powerful elite. Yet she's taking in all this money anyway. We need to elect leaders who are committed to the same. But from mid-2023 until October, it raised only $45,000, with the Lion's share of that money going to pay Gabbard's spokesperson and another advisor, it made a thousand dollar contribution to a Republican candidate in Ohio who lost a congressional primary contest. Quote, it's uncommon for a politician to have three or four separate packs, though they can be used for different purposes. That's what Sarah Briner, a political scientist and campaign finance expert, said the most common number of PACs a candidate has is one. Generally, the more you have is because of obfuscation. It confuses people. Gabbard also created a nonprofit called We Must Protect. It is in its tax filings, the group stated its mission was to, quote, engage in research and public education for the benefit of those vulnerable populations in our community that deserve to be honored and cared for. It drew only $2,500 in funding in 2022 after the horrendous wildfires on Maui last year. We must protect tried to raise money to aid victims and promised every dollar contributed would quote help people affected by the devastating fires. The nonprofit's 2023 tax filing is not available yet, so its fundraising and relief efforts related to the fires cannot be publicly evaluated nor are its donors publicly disclosed. In October, Gabbard said that We Must Protect had raised $331,000 to aid survivors of Hurricane Helene. Last week, Mother Jones sent Tulsi Gabbard a long list of questions regarding her PACs and we must Protect, which shares a phone number with Gabbard's office and her defend Freedom PAC. We requested We Must Protect's 2023 tax filing and information about its donors and its work regarding the Maui fires. The list includes queries about the PAC's spending and whether they did work that they claimed that they did, about their high spending on fundraising and about the ten the hundred thousand dollar contribution attributed to David Florey. So they sent Mother Jones sent all of these questions, but Gabbard declined to respond to any of the questions or provide any information on We Must Protect donors and activities. Erica Tsuji, her spokeswoman, forwarded the list to the Trump transition office. Alexa Henning, a spokeswoman for Transition, replied with a statement that did not address any of the queries. She only offered praise for We Must Protect and claimed Gabbard's Defend Freedom PAC and For Love of Country PAC enabled her to engage millions of Americans, encouraging them to back pragmatic GOP candidates nationwide, including electing Donald John Trump. One Gabbard PAC did recently encountered trouble with the FEC. On November 4th, the Commission sent a letter to Thomas Datweiler, the treasurer of the For Love of Country PAC, notifying the outfit that it had apparently placed $151,000 of its donations into the wrong account and setting a December 9 deadline for a response. Datweiler, longtime financial consultant for GOP candidates, is also the treasurer for Defend Freedom Inc. Our Freedom, Our Future and Team Tulsi. Last year, he was caught up in the Jorge Santos scandal in the midst of a controversy over the then GOP congressman's false claims about his campaign finances. Among his many lies about his background and career. Paperwork filed with the FEC indicated that Datwiler had replaced the original treasurer for several of Santos's campaign committees. But Datwiler's attorney quickly informed the FEC that Datweiler had not agreed to become treasurer for the Santos entities. This added yet another level of mystery to the Santos scandal. Months later, there was another twist. Datweiler's attorney wrote to the FEC to withdraw his previous statements that denied Datwiler had become the treasurer of those Santos committees. He noted, quote, that public reporting has caused me to lose confidence in the accuracy and veracity of the information provided by Mr. Dotweiler at the time I submitted those communications on his behalf. Remember this? I remember this. The Daily Beast reported that Datweiler had in reality operated as a shadow treasurer for George Santos, despite disavowing that role to the public, to the fec, and apparently even his own lawyer. So as you can see, a lot of really interesting dark money mega donations to someone who is trying to say that she is against the elites. And thank you to David Korn for looking into this. I look forward to seeing the tax returns and FEC filings for the 2023 thing so that we can see if she actually did help with the Maui fires or Hurricane helene with that $331,000 she raised. Definitely not somebody who should be in charge of the dni. And I certainly hope that the Senate confirmation hearings go deep into these kinds of things. So again, check out David Korn. Go check out Mother Jones, sign up for their newsletter and follow him on all the socials and grab a couple of his books while you're at it. They're really well written. All right, we have to quick break, but we'll be right back with some information about the Equal Rights Amendment. Stick around. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back. Hey everybody, it's ag. So for the longest time, sleep felt like a puzzle I just couldn't solve. Some nights I couldn't fall asleep. I'd have hot flashes, night sweats. Sometimes I'd wake up multiple times, would toss and turn, never feel rested. Sometimes my hips hurt, my back hurt. And over time I realized how it affected everything. My focus and my mood, my energy, my digestion. Everything I need to get through the day. That's why I'm so excited to talk about Beams Dream Powder. It's a SC bagged healthy hot cocoa for sleep. Now, other sleep aids can cause next day grogginess, but Beam Dream contains powerful all natural blends of Reishi, magnesium, L theanine, epigenin and melatonin to help you fall asleep and stay asleep and wake up refreshed. Beam Dream is the perfect addition to any nighttime routine. In minutes, I can enjoy a rich, comforting drink by mixing it with pot, milk or water and these luxurious flavors like sea salt, caramel, vanilla chai brownie batter and cinnamon cocoa. They're decadent they're amazing and it's surprisingly healthy. Just 15 calories, no sugar per serving. Plus it's formulated to help me fall asleep faster and support all stages of sleep for a deeper, more restful night. Restless nights used to leave me groggy and unmotivated every morning, and we're going to need all the energy we can get in the next four years. And since introducing Beam Dream, I've noticed a huge shift. I fall asleep quickly, I stay asleep longer, and I wake up feeling refreshed, ready to go. Most nights I reach for the cinnamon cocoa, but I also love sea salt carob. They're all delicious, but it is a delicious way to relax and unwind and prepare for better sleep. There's never been a better time to finally try Dream Shop their Black Friday sale and you get up to 50% off when you visit shopbeam.com and use code DAILYBEANS at checkout. You have been hearing me rave about Dream and this is your chance to finally try it for the lowest price of the year. So head over to shopbeam.com dailybeans Enter the code dailybeans and unlock your early access for up to 50% off. You'll be glad you did. Hey everybody, welcome back. All right, time to talk about the Equal Rights Amendment. It's sitting there. It's ready to be published by the archivist. All Joe Biden has to do is instruct the archivist to publish it. We're in a unique position, one that we haven't been in over 100 years. We are the most ripe to get this Equal Rights Amendment added to the Constitution. And I think we should be writing Joe Biden to ask him to do [e-mail] every day. So I want to give you a little background on the Equal Rights Amendment because we want to get it published before January 20th when Donald Trump takes office, so that we have an extra layer of protection. All right, so this was published what I'm about to read in August by the center for American Progress. You can find [e-mail] Congress established a Women's Equality Day in 1972 to celebrate the day. The 19th Amendment was finalized in 1920, granting women the constitutional right to vote. Observance of the day was also meant to call attention to the ongoing struggle for gender equality. Central to this struggle is the ratification of the Equal rights amendment, the ERA. Shortly after the 19th amendment was ratified, first wave feminist leaders turned their attention to the next big project, the ERA. First proposed in 1923, the ERA is a constitutional amendment that, if formally recognized as the 28th Amendment, would make sex based equality explicit in the United States Constitution. For the first time, it would prohibit discrimination on account of sex, including discrimination against people of all genders. By giving Congress the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the amendment's provisions, the ERA would empower the legislative branch to strengthen legal protections against sex discrimination in areas including gender based violence, education, the workplace, and access to reproductive health care in the event of, quote, legislative default. As the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, the ERA would provide courts with, quote, an unassailable basis for applying the bedrock principle all men and women are guaranteed by the Constitution. Equal justice under law. The ERA has not been formally recognized as part of the US Constitution. In its absence, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Rights Protection clause of the 14th Amendment that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws to prohibit sex based discrimination to a certain extent. The approach of securing protection against sex discrimination through the 14th Amendment was first established in the 1971 landmark ruling Reed v. Reed, followed by other cases such as Frontiero v. Richardson in 73 and U.S. v. Virginia in 1996, one of Justice Ginsburg's most important decisions while sitting on the Supreme Court. However, sex discrimination has never attained the highest level of judicial review or scrutiny under the 14th Amendment that Justice Ginsburg attempted to achieve, and the current interpretation could be overturned despite or depending on who sits on the Supreme Court, that is the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, explicitly slated or stated, excuse me in a 2011 interview that he thought the Constitution did not prohibit sex based discrimination. In many of his opinions, he said, look, absent an Equal Rights Amendment acts, you know, absent the existence of explicit prohibition of sex discrimination, I can't consider you equals. So adopting the ERA would solidify constitutional sex equality protections and reinforce that they cannot be weakened by the whims of judicial attitudes. As a new addition to the Constitution, the ERA's adoption would create space for an entirely new category of judicial review for sex discrimination cases unencumbered by previous levels of scrutiny schema. It would also provide a constitutional foundation for Congress to pass new and more robust laws that protect women and girls. Finally, adoption of the ERA would send a clear message at home and abroad that the United States is committed to the inherent equality of all people as an American value, which is imperative amid increasing state attacks on reproductive rights and the persistent gender wage gap, among other issues. With Virginia becoming the 38th and final state needed to ratify the ERA in 2020 the amendment has met all the requirements of Article 5 to become an amendment and is now at a critical juncture in its history. However, legal challenges and partisan opposition have stalled the ERA's adoption, so the fight continues to get it settled in the Constitution and get it in there once and for all. Congress introduced the era, written by suffragists Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman in 1923 and passed it in 1972 with widespread bipartisan support, including 78% of House Republicans and 84% of Senate Republicans, as laid out in Article 5 of the Constitution. To amend the Constitution, at least two thirds of both the House and the Senate must pass a resolution that contains the text of the proposed amendment. Then at least 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. The Constitution does not set any time restraints for the process. For example, states ratified the 27th Amendment, which concerns congressional salaries, in 202. They did it in 1992, 202 years, seven months and 10 days after James Madison proposed it. So the fact that they did this in 1992 that Congress ratified a 202-year-old amendment, that should be enough to say that there's no time limits. However, the version of the ERA that Congress passed included in its Preamble an arbitrary 7 year time limit of ratification. While time limits have become common in proposed amendments Since Prohibition, the ERA's time limit was importantly not included in the text of the version that all states voted to ratify. The distinction is one element of today's legal and political challenges to the era. While there are scholars who disagree, many pro equality advocates claim that the time limits on the ratification process are inherently unconstitutional and they are not included in Article 5, and thus the Founders chose not to limit the length of the ratification period. One year following the ERA's passage in Congress, 30 states had ratified it. However, momentum slowed as the anti ERA movement ramped up in the latter part of the decade. After nationwide mobilization of hundreds of thousands of voters, Congress voted by simple majority to extend the original seven year deadline by three more years in 1978. However, the three year limit did not allow sufficient time to oust key anti ERA state senators because Senate terms in Most states were four years. So in 1982 the ERA fell three states short of ratification. Failure to reach the necessary 38 states in the 70s was due to an anti ERA campaign that dealt a significant blow to the amendment's bipartisan nature. Now conservative political activist and attorney Phyllis Schafley spearheaded the movement which framed the ERA as a threat to the traditional roles of women as homemakers. Schafley made many bad faith arguments against the era, including that it would dismantle financial support for women as legal dependents of their husbands and would lead to gender neutral bathrooms, same sex marriage, women in the military in combat roles. The anti ERA movement was a key part of the so called long Southern strategy that relied on the pillars of racism, anti feminism and Christian nationalism. This strategy had lasting impact on the US political system that affects the nation to this day. As we know, the influence of anti ERA organizers mounted in state legislatures despite dedicated ratification efforts from the National Organization for Women and other women's rights organizations. Many Republican majority states reversed support for the amendment, with some states even trying to rescind their ratification notwithstanding the era's arbitrary time limit and in the proposal in the clause in the actual legislation. Nevada and Illinois ratified the amendment in 2017 and 2018 respectively, with Virginia becoming the 38th state in January of 2020, meaning that the ERA had finally met the threshold for adoption as laid out in Article 5 of the Constitution. Once the Amendment is properly ratified, the Archivist of the United States has a statutory duty to certify and publish it in the Federal Register. For example, when the final state necessary ratified the 27th Amendment, the U.S. archivist at the time, Don Wilson, certified it and the next day it was published in the Federal Register. Two days later, Congress passed a resolution affirming it as the 27th Amendment, though it was not necessary and purely ceremonial. Archivist Wilson said, I got a lot of pressure from members of Congress and my response was always that I feel pretty strongly that this is a ministerial function, a function given to the archivist to certify and publish once 3/4 of the state's ratified. It's a bureaucratic issue, not a political one. And if I don't Certify and there's 38 states that have ratified, then I'm interpreting the Constitution beyond the ministerial function given to me by Congress. And I didn't feel it was appropriate for me to do that. If I didn't publish the 27th amendment, then I'd be playing the role not delegated to me. When Virginia ratified the era, it sounds like when Pence was like, hey, my job to count votes is ministerial. If you want me to overturn that, that's a role that's not bestowed upon me in the Constitution, you know. When Virginia ratified the era in 2020, instead of a prompt publication, a litany of legal battles ensued. Opponents of the amendment's adoption argued that the amendment is null because of the seven year time limit Congress set in its preamble expired in the 70s. Proponents of the ERA argued that the ERA should be adopted because deadlines on the amending process are inherently unconstitutional and the seven year time limit was not included in the version of the amendment that the states passed during ratification. For example, the American Bar association passed a resolution on August 6th of this year stating resolved that the American Bar association supports the principle that any time limit for ratification on an amendment of the United States Constitution is not consistent with Article 5 of the Constitution. Further resolved that the American Bar association supports the principle that Article 5 does not permit a state to rescind its ratification of an amendment of the Constitution. In response to the era's passage in Virginia in January 2020, the Trump administration, the U.S. department of Justice Legal Counsel OLC issued a memo to the National Archives and Records opining that the amendment's ratifying deadline had expired and that the amendment is no longer pending before the states. The memo effectively blocked the Archivist of the United States from adding the ERA to the Constitution and concluded the only path to ratification for the ERA was to reintroduce it and begin the entire process from the beginning. In 2022, the Biden's OLC released a new memo on the ERA status explaining that the Trump Administration arrow memo was not supported by the Constitution and needed to be updated. But meanwhile, the ERA has also seen action in federal courts. In early 2020, state attorneys general of Virginia, Nevada and Illinois filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the archivist to certify and publish the era. A federal district court judge ruled that the three states lacked standing and dismissed the lawsuit, but the states appealed. The case went to the U.S. court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, which upheld the district court's dismissal, arguing that the state did not have standing to bring the case. The states did not pursue an appeal of the D.C. circuit's opinion to the Supreme Court. Twelve states have not ratified ERA, but most of those states have introduced bills to ratify it in recent years, including Republican controlled legislatures. Since 2017, when Nevada ratified the ERA, modern efforts to ratify have emerged in Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah. Illinois and Virginia were the first to follow Nevada and successfully ratify. Then Virginia followed suit. Five states Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky and South Dakota voted to rescind their ratification. That they did in the 70s, which has raised legal questions, with many legal scholars rejecting the validity of rescinding a ratification. Congressional action on the ERA has been like this. As soon as Virginia became the final state in 2020, the amendment entered a critical chapter in its history. Following the most recent state ratifications, several members of Congress have put forth efforts to address the era's standing and end the debate over the time limit provision in the original 72 preamble. In March of 2021, during the 117th Congress, the House passed a bipartisan resolution with a vote of 222 to 204 to remove the time limit. The Senate introduced a companion resolution with 51 co sponsors, which did not pass. The 118th Congress established the first ever congressional caucus for the era, and both chambers have introduced resolutions to establish the ERA as the 28th amendment. The ERA caucus is already the fifth largest caucus in the Congress. The House Joint Resolution 25 and Senate Joint Resolution 4 are designed to remove the deadline that was brought to the Senate floor for a vote and received 51 votes. But in a procedural maneuver, the Senate Majority Leader changed his vote in order to preserve the issue for a later date. Two related joint resolutions, which are HJ82 and SJ39, express that the ERA has been validly ratified and is already enforceable, instructing the archivist to certify and publish it. Though Article 5 of the Constitution requires no further Congressional action. So I don't know what they're fucking around in Congress for, but these resolutions could help clarify where Congress stands and help put controversies over the time limit to rest. Any vote on the ERA time limit, which was placed in the revolving clause of the 72 bill requires only a simple majority vote. So to conclude, regardless of the path of the finalization of the era, regardless of the path it takes, there's a critical need to enshrine gender equality in the Constitution and adopt the ERA as the 28th Amendment. Globally, 85% of constitutions explicitly guarantee equal rights or prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. This Women's Equality day, that's when this was published, is a reminder that it is past time for the United States to be part of this statistic. While the ERA alone would not immediately remedy deeply rooted inequalities, it is an essential tool to build a more just and equitable society. Its passage would strengthen legal protections against discrimination and further women's rights and gender equality in every facet of American life. So apparently the reason that Biden is hesitating is because he doesn't want to put it. He doesn't want to put this amendment in only to let this Supreme Court destroy it. I guess his view his long view is we've waited 102 years, we can wait 20 more, 40 more until we get the court back. But with Donald Trump coming into office and the threat of autocracy and perhaps no more free and fair elections, I think that that changes the, that sort of changes the landscape a little bit. So I have written, I've gone to WhiteHouse.gov I've written to President Biden asking him to please, please ask the archivist to publish the 28th Amendment. So anyway, just wanted to give you that little history and maybe you can write into the White house as well, whitehouse.gov thank you so much for listening, everybody. We have one more quick break and then we're going to talk to John Fugal Saying. So stick around. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody, welcome back. It's Friday on the Daily Beans. That means it's Fugal saying Fridays. I'm joined by my friend who hosts Tell Me everything on Sirius XM progress channel 127. That's weeknights at 9pm Eastern, 6 Pacific. And of course, the host of the John Fugal Saying show podcast, my friend John Fugelsang. Do I need to say, I mean, how many times can I say your name in 30 seconds?

[John Fugelsang]

I was 30, but before I could say it as well as you. It's so nice to be with an AG Nobody's blaming for anything this week. So thank you.

[Allison Gill]

Oh, hardy har. They go after me anyway, even though AG Is just my initials. But we'll talk about that in a second. I want to get your reaction to Jack Smith moving to dismiss the charges against Trump in both the espionage and classified documents obstruction of justice case in Florida with the 11th Circuit, by the way, because you'll remember Judge Cannon dismissed it a while back and Jack Smith appealed to the 11th Circuit saying she's dumb. Let's put the case back on track. He put to dismiss those charges. 11th Circuit agreed without prejudice. And then of course, the same day he filed with Judge Chutkan to dismiss the cases based on the OLC memo that says you can't indict a sitting president, which is the Department of Justice's interpretation of the Constitution and based on what the Supreme Court has decided before.

[John Fugelsang]

In other words, rubbish. But go on.

[Allison Gill]

Well, right rubbish or not, this Supreme Court would not allow you to ditch that memo.

[John Fugelsang]

So the founders wanted a king. I don't know why you liberals can't accept that. I mean, every missed having a monarch. They wanted Someone above the law to dispense the law. I don't know why this is hard to figure out.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. So Jack Smith asked for those to be dismissed without prejudice, which means the door is open. But I have to tell you, it's a very tiny little crack that the door is open to bring these charges again in 2029. I don't see another attorney general trying to bring these. But he did bring up, hey, it's important that first of all, we dismiss without prejudice so that these can be brought again. And the judge said, I recognize that Donald Trump's immunity is temporary while he has office. And Jack Smith also brought up the fact that those OLC memos mentioned that if you want to indict a sitting president, you can't, but you could litigate. The fact that we could toll the statute of limitations while he's president to bring that again. Now, that would have to be litigated and ultimately decided by guess who, your friends and mine, John Roberts and his ultra extreme pals installed by billionaires who want presidents to be kings at the Supreme Court. So Jack Smith had to do this. His hands are tied. He couldn't not. So your thoughts?

[John Fugelsang]

I mean, where to begin on this? I have a question. I want to ask you about it, but, you know, I'm not blaming Jack Smith for any of this. He and his staff did everything they possibly could. The Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling pushed this thing into impossible legal territory. I'm sad. It is the most important criminal case in the history of our country, and it will never be tried. By 2029, I'm sure we're going to have all kinds of new high crimes and misdemeanors that we can litigate. So this will be ancient history by then, you know, and this gets into the dodgy area about people blaming Merrick Garland or not, which we should talk about the debate. But I'm calling this the 49% pardon. Alison, we found out this week that Kamala Harris got the third highest vote total of anyone to ever run for president of all time, only behind Trump this year and Biden last time. So we know it's not a mandate. The majority of Americans have voted against Donald Trump, and the majority of American who show up to vote have rejected his agenda three elections in a row. So this is the 49% pardon. The 49% of Americans who showed up and voted for Trump are why Jack Smith has to shelve these cases. And there are those who say, well, maybe he shouldn't have dismissed Them without prejudice. There are those who said maybe he should just have left it in place. And this is what I want to ask you, the school of thought that Jack Smith should have let Trump be the one to kill the investigation into his own crimes, that he should have just gone ahead since it's probably never going to get resurrected anyway, and let Donald Trump and his next evil AG be the ones to complete the corruption and destroy the case. And I wondered, how do you feel about that approach? Because it's something that I've been debating in my head quite a bit.

[Allison Gill]

Right. Well, first of all, why is anybody really going to give a shit that Donald Trump killed the cases? Are they going to give a.

[John Fugelsang]

Literally, books. For the history books.

[Allison Gill]

For the history books. Okay. Second of all, if he did that and let himself be fired, he would not be able to file a report.

[John Fugelsang]

That's true. Okay, well, that's great. Yeah. I mean, I guess the notion would be so Donald Trump would be the one ultimately responsible for Donald Trump getting away with the crimes and then it would be on him. But you're right, no one's gonna care. And again, there'll be plenty and plenty of crimes that we can talk about in the next four years. I'm not worried about that happening.

[Allison Gill]

Well, I am worried, though, that Pam Pondi will write Office of Legal Counsel memos letting him off the hook for anything that he does over the next four years, like Bill Barr did back in the day. You have people always ask, well, why didn't Merrick Garland charge Donald TRUMP with those 10 counts of obstruction of justice from the Mueller report? It's because Barr wrote a full ass memo saying even if he weren't the suiting president, this Department of Justice would decline to charge Donald Trump with obstruction of justice of the Mueller investigation. And once you have that hot little piece of paper in your hand, nobody can bring charges against you because if you did file charges, Donald Trump would just say motion to dismiss. Look, I have a get out of jail free card from an Attorney General at the Department of Justice.

[John Fugelsang]

Right.

[Allison Gill]

And every single judge, no matter what, would dismiss that case. That's what Pam Bondi is going to do with Trump over the next four years.

[John Fugelsang]

Right. There is, of course, the school of thought that the Democrats should have included those 10 ironclad counts of obstruction of justice in the first or second time they impeached him and just rolled those 10 in. Because again, this is the position of the founders. You have impeachment if someone's committed a crime. And God bless Merrick Garland. I mean, God bless all these guys who failed roll into one in my mind, Mueller, who deliver these 10 counts of obstruction. And it was on the Democrats to do something with it. And they chose not to. After all of that, because Trump worked the ref so hard on this no collusion rubbish and bullshit that Democrats were cowed into submission and didn't want to touch Russia anymore, despite the fact that he committed obstruction 10 times. It's in part two of the report. It's just like the Mueller report in the Bible. If you read the second half, you can't support Trump. So.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, but it's also on Mueller too, because he decided not to make a call on whether or not obstruction of justice was committed. That for constitutional reasons, because in the Constitution, you have the right to face your accuser in court. And if Mueller had said, correct, yes, he definitively committed obstruction of justice, Donald Trump, without being indicted, would not have the opportunity to defend himself in court. And that would be a violation of his criminal defendant rights that no one else has afforded in this country. But he sure is. And so without that declaration, that left a truck, truckload of a, of a lane for Bill Barr to come in and say, we find that there is no obstruction of justice which prevented him from being ever charged with it.

[John Fugelsang]

And Bill Barr has covered up more shit than cat litter. I'm with you all the way, but as long as we're piling on, as long as we're playing the pylon game that I keep saying we can't be doing, I mean, Robert Mueller blew it by hiring experts in money laundering and then choosing not to reveal any of the findings of the money laundering investigation from his department. So we could do this all day.

[Allison Gill]

And we might see that in a little bit of maybe a Jack Smith report, because he did commit fraud by fundraising off of lies like Steve Bannon did, who's going to trial in February in Manhattan for state charges for defrauding donors. But they decided not to bring probably what would have been one of the most easiest crimes to charge, wire fraud.

[John Fugelsang]

And hey, if Hillary had picked Bernie as a running mate in 2016, none of this would be happening. I mean, I've heard every argument with every kind of, I know, finger pointing, blame game. But I want to give us credit. We've gone three whole minutes and not talked about Merrick Garland in this entire conversation. Three minutes, and no one's blamed or defended Merrick Garland. I'm off my game here.

[Allison Gill]

I'm tired of talking about Merrick Garland.

[John Fugelsang]

By the Way I have defended and blamed Merrick Garland so many times.

[Allison Gill]

Same.

[John Fugelsang]

Yeah, yeah, but look, I think I.

[Allison Gill]

Went through a list of shit that he did that pissed me off on your show, on the Tell me Everything show.

[John Fugelsang]

And look, Trump's plan all along was to stall and run out the clock if any charges were filed against him. We knew this the entire time. By the time the DOJ took action in 2022, it was already too late. I mean, I'm of the school that the Confederacy should have been crushed a little harder, but Lincoln was killed and it couldn't happen. I'm of the school that Pelosi and Schumer shouldn't have rolled up in in 2006 and said impeachment for Bush is off the table with Iraq. Like, I feel like you have to get these bad guys out of there. But Joe Biden, God bless him, was elected by the American people and he chose a path of civility. Joe Biden probably never thought Donald Trump would run again. And let's be hon honest, a lot of sane, decent people thought after January 6th, America wouldn't lower its standards so as to elect this cretinist rapist fraud again. So we can blame Eric Garland all day. But you're right, the Supreme Court is the one that helped slow it down with immunity. Aileen Cannon, I mean, I think I would have loved to have seen her thrown off the case the entire time. She was pretty much an activist for the defendant. Only in America can a criminal defendant hire his own damn judge. And I respect the argument that Biden and his DOJ put too much importance on norms and civility when dealing with this unprecedented situation of this criminal rat fuck.

[Allison Gill]

Norms and civility, though also criminal defendants rights.

[John Fugelsang]

Of course, of course. But again, if they had prosecuted him in 2021, if they had prosecuted him in 2022, the delay tactics would not have worked. But instead, 49% of voters.

[Allison Gill]

Let's talk about that.

[John Fugelsang]

Well, hang on. But 49% of voters have gotten together, ensure this man will face zero accountability for any of his crimes. He's going to enter the office totally incentivized to commit more crimes. And I just want to say, I just hear the CBS poll that Americans are against Trump bypassing Senate confirmation hearings on his appointments by 76%. And I'm like, sorry, 76%. 49% said it was okay. And 49% decides for the rest of us.

[Allison Gill]

Right. So let's just for a minute talk about the. Prosecuted him in 2021, prosecuted him in 2022. First of all, and you can, if you want to hate Merrick Garland, do it.

[John Fugelsang]

I don't hate Merrick Garland.

[Allison Gill]

I'm talking to the listeners I'm talking to right now.

[John Fugelsang]

Oh, you are so. You are so neck deep in this. You are getting it from all sides, aren't you, Ms. Gill?

[Allison Gill]

I am getting it from all set. My life would be so much easier if I would just jump on the bandwagon and say, Merrick Garland, my life would. I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams. So. But I'm not, I a stance and I'm going to stand. And by the way, I'm not defending the man, I'm defending facts. And once you have all the facts, if you still want to Merrick Garland you, I'm not going to stop you. But talking about 2021, first of all, I didn't get there till March. In January of 2021, the Inspector General at DOJ opened two investigations into the top of the coup. And so they started that In January of 2021, within two weeks of the attack on the Capitol. When Merrick Garland got there, JP Cooney, who had been there, had already been devising this investigation he wanted to do of the lieutenants, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, their connection to the White House from the Willard war Room with Rudy Giuliani and their connection to the Oath Keepers and the proud boys. They were looking at seditious conspiracy.

[John Fugelsang]

The little play the rooks on the chessboard have been dealt with. Yes.

[Allison Gill]

And when that was before Merrick Garland got there. When Merrick Garland got there, a guy named Mike Sherwin didn't like JP Cooney. He's a Trump pal and a Trump holdover who eventually had to resign before he was sanctioned for his bad behavior. Going on 60 Minutes talking about the seditious conspiracy charges against the Oath Keepers. He had to quit before he was fired, but he actually stopped JP Cooney from reading in Merrick Garland the way that he wanted to do this investigation. So come around June, Merrick Garland's like, why the fuck where are we on this? You know, the coup investigation at the top of the coup, not the boots on the ground. I know what we're doing there. And. And him and Lisa Monaco said, well, we're going to set up the investigations unit. It's what they called it. They wanted to give it a vanilla name so nobody would know what it was. And that was to investigate the Willard and the lieutenants up to Donald Trump and including Donald Trump. And that was in June of 2021. So that started in 2021. Now, because we have the FBI who's got a black eye now for what happened in the Mueller investigation and what Comey did in 2016. They are extremely cautious giant wimps and wispy pushovers, and you've got some Trump holdovers there. They started pushing back against the investigations unit, saying, I'm not. I think it was actually Dan Tuono, head of the FBI field office that is a Trump acolyte. He said, I'm not going to subpoena the damn Willard. And he refused to execute search warrants and issue subpoenas that this investigations unit wanted to do. So months go by, and by the end of 2021, by the way, all in the meantime, in the background, Insurrectionist Republican senators, Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, Tommy Tuberville, they all got together and decided to block all of Biden's U.S. attorney picks until and unless Merrick Garland investigated the George Floyd protest the same way he was investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol. So none of the picks got there. The U.S. attorney in D.C. that would end up investigating Ted Cruz and Rick Scott and all those motherfuckers didn't get there until November of 2021. By then, Gar Garland is incensed. He is like, where are we? Why are we being blocked? Windham came to him and said, hey man, I'm trying to execute search warrants. And these dudes over at the FBI won't do it. So Garland says, fuck that. And he goes to the post office, cops, and the inspector general to get his search warrants and seize the phones of Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, members of Congress, including Scott Perry. All of that happens in 2021. Now why not in 2022? Because now we have eight recalcitrant witnesses, eight key witnesses. You can't bring the case against Donald Trump without their testimony. They're saying, no, no, no, no. Executive privilege. Executive privilege. And Merrick Garland has to sue these eight guys, including Pence and Meadows, Nick Luna, these really key witnesses, has to sue them to get their testimony and their notes and their documents because of the backed up court, backed up court due to Covid and backed up court due to the millions of January 6th rioters that they're trying to process through. That takes a year. Not because Merrick Garland was sitting around with his thumb up his ass. It's because the court was slow. He couldn't make it go any faster. He filed for expedited things. So over a year passes before he gets these eight key witnesses. Now we're at the end of 2022. Meanwhile, we're trying to get all the information from the January 6th committee, and they're like, well, we don't want to give it to you. And so they delay everything for three to four months. So that's the problem. Now by early 2022, Merrick Garland gets rid of the chief of staff at the FBI, who's bottlenecking all of this shit and pushes through and the FBI finally starts to agree to do this stuff at the behest of Merrick Garland, pushing. Now if it again, one last thing. If this had gone six months earlier, a year earlier, the Supreme Court still would not have let this trial go before the election, no matter what.

[John Fugelsang]

You're probably right about that. I have two questions for you and thank you for that. I appreciate you sharing all that. Do you believe Merrick Garland would have appointed J. Jack Smith on these two federal cases if there hadn't been the congressional hearings in 2022?

[Allison Gill]

Yeah. Well, he did it because he did it the day Donald Trump went for office. Now, I called for a special counsel to be appointed in 2021. I want that to be done. I did it in 2020. If somebody put a fucking special counsel in there. If you can't get your search warrants executed, would get a special counsel in there, put the FBI agents in there and make them do whatever the fuck you need to do. The FBI didn't want to raid Mar A Lago either. They wanted to send subpoena after subpoena. Merrick Garland was like, no, fuck you guys, we're going in. And even the FBI was like, well, we don't want to look in that closet, or, oh, this closet's locked over here. And so, I mean, yes, the FBI is under the Department of Justice, but they have those different, you know, discretions for reasons.

[John Fugelsang]

I like your foul mouth, gangster Merrick Garland very much. This guy I like, I normally think of Merrick Garland. Oh, I'm so mad, I'm going to tear the tassels off these loafers. You know, I like hearing a lot better.

[Allison Gill]

Well, you know, like, add a little bit of color.

[John Fugelsang]

Let me ask you another question. Are you at all surprised that we never found out after all these years who built the gallows to hang Mike Pence on January 6th? I mean, it seems like our government has never addressed it, has never talked about it. People built a hangman station in the middle of D.C. and we never got to find out who did that. It was never brought up.

[Allison Gill]

The FBI was in Charge of investigating that. I wonder why we never found out. And I also wonder why, why the FBI never got to the bottom of all the deleted Secret Service text messages with their pal Kufari, who works for the Secret Service, who's really close friends with the trumpet holdovers at the FBI. And I'm also super interested in why the FBI was not able to find a pipe bomber who hung around and used a phone near the DNC and rnc. Like that blows my mind. They have a device they could find from the incendiary devices who lit a ballot box on fire, but they couldn't figure out who built this pipe bombing.

[John Fugelsang]

Pipe bombings. Interesting. Well, now that who's running FBI? Scott Baio. Is that Chachi or is that Ron Jeremy? I'm not sure. Or my pillow guy?

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, I think it's either Chachi or maybe Temu Hercules. What's that guy's name?

[John Fugelsang]

Kevin Sorbo.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, that guy. So I'm personally pissed at the FBI, but even if any of this had gotten done a year sooner, the Supreme Court still would have said, no, he's a king. And they designed it in such a way so that when they kicked it back down to the lower court and we spent months and months litigating, which is where what we were in the middle of when this all happened, when the election happened, litigating, the immunity and deciding what are official acts. After all that is done, the Supreme Court gives Trump another chance to file another interlocutory appeal that goes all the way back up through the appellate court and to the Supreme Court. And if the Supreme Court didn't kill the case, then, you know, if for some reason they let whatever Jack Smith and Judge Chutkan decide stand, which I doubt they would, I think they probably would have killed the case at that point. It still would come back down. We'd still have another six months on the clock. We're looking at another year and a half if Trump had lost the election. So there's just no physical way, because of the Supreme Court, because of the billionaire funded Supreme Court, that we would have been able to have this trial. And if you want to blame Merrick Garland for going too slow, have at it, do your thing. But please don't let John Roberts off the hook to blame a career civil servant who makes shit money working a thankless job for the government, who came over here and did this job because he wanted to pay back America for saving his parents from the Nazis. You want to blame that guy, but you want to let John Roberts And Harlan Crow and Ginny Thomas and Sam Alito. You want to let them all off the hook? Just if you bash on Garland. But can you include the Supreme Court with it? That's all I'm saying.

[John Fugelsang]

Yeah, I'm with you.

[Allison Gill]

All right, cool.

[John Fugelsang]

You're like, yeah, how do I vote for you? My God, I want to go. I don't know if I want to vote for you or go to your one person show or ask to have a pamphlet. But yeah, I mean, look, this is.

[Allison Gill]

I don't take a popular stance. I don't. I get. I get bashed for it every day. People say, what the fuck is wrong with you?

[John Fugelsang]

Listen, I'm so used to it. I learned a long time ago if I wasn't being called an Obama basher and an Obama apologist in the same day, I wasn't doing my job right. So I know exactly how it is. And it's hard right now because everyone has a very human, natural need to point the finger and try to understand why this could happen. I don't know why we can't talk about the fact that, you know, the game is rigged by the media and we have a lot of dumb.

[Allison Gill]

Well, let's talk about the media.

[John Fugelsang]

We have a lot of dumb fucking people in this country. A lot of profoundly ignorant people in this country. And what liberals don't get is that Fox News permeates this country. If you don't live in parts of this country where Fox News is on in every bar, every restaurant, every store you walk into, there's a reason why millions of people believe that Kamala Harris was a low IQ individual who slept her way to the top. And Donald Trump is a deeply honest man who cares about you non millionaires. Yeah, people are stupid. People are fucking gullible. But this is part of the complicity and the propaganda, and it gives another reason for Democrats to fight each other.

[Allison Gill]

Let's talk about the reason. Because the Washington Post back in 2023 put out a big article and I think the headline was, DoJo, DOJ doesn't open investigation until 2022. And they put the DOJ in the headline instead of the FBI in the headline. And yes, I know the FBI is part of the doj, but it was the FBI that pushed the doj, was trying to get it done much sooner. And it was from then on, the Washington Post, the one that didn't endorse Kamala Harris, because of that article, everybody was like, merrick Garland didn't start doing anything until 2020. And ever since then, there's been new reporting from the New York Times, as a matter of fact, paper record, quote, unquote, this past March of 2024, that said, actually, no, here's what happened. He started the Garland started investigating the week he got there. They put together the investigations unit, but nobody covered that shit. We have the outrage already. Why take that away? Because it gets us eyes and views and clicks and likes. So I'm with you on that. I think the media has failed us tremendously.

[John Fugelsang]

Yeah, not journalists, by the way. I'm separating.

[Allison Gill]

Right, yes.

[John Fugelsang]

Journalists are often very liberal. And by liberal, I don't mean pro Democratic Party. By liberal I mean search for the truth, speak truth to power, fight for the powerless, call out those in eminent positions. The media, media itself is not liberal. The media is as liberal as the corporations that own it. The media is terrified of being called liberal. And so it doesn't matter how good journalists are. A lot of people like Jeff Bezos want their tax cut, want to be able to be polluters. In the case of Jeff Bezos, specifically, he would like this monopoly charge by the DOJ to go away. I mean, this is an oligarchy and this is what Trump wants for America. He wants a Russian style economy where it's not capitalist. It's like Tatooine and the huts rule everything big fucking.

[Allison Gill]

So the billionaires who hate the Department of Justice.

[John Fugelsang]

Exactly.

[Allison Gill]

Trying to tell everybody to hate Merrick Garland. I mean, I don't see any outrage that Attorney General Chris Mays in Arizona told the grand jury not to indict Trump. I didn't see that outrage. I didn't see the outrage that Fani Willis took longer to indict Trump than the Department of Justice did. I don't see the outrage that Dana Nestle hasn't filed a charge against Donald Trump in her state. It's all directed at one person who happens to be our top cop and somebody responsible for maintaining the rule of law. And now people might be less angry when the Department of Justice is dismantled by Pam Bondi and Donald Trump because they're so angry at their failures in this particular last four years.

[John Fugelsang]

I know, I know, but I mean, the guy led a literal attack on the country. And people are going to be saying for the rest of our lives, why didn't we do anything? And a lot of people tried.

[Allison Gill]

I know, I know. Well, DOJ indicted him, arrested him, indicted him.

[John Fugelsang]

A terrorist attack on our Capitol, going by the dictionary definition, January 6 was terrorism, the use of violence or the threat of Violence against primarily civilians to bring about policy change. It was textbook terrorism. Even our media couldn't use the T word. An insurrection, a riot. No, it was goddamn terrorism. Try to throw out popular democracy, specifically to throw out the votes of majority black districts in two states. And we talk a lot about these godless motherfuckers in red hats during the daytime who tried to throw out democracy. We haven't begun to talk about the godless motherfuckers in bad suits that night, that night who tried to throw out democracy inside the Capitol because again, when Bush and Cheney left and took all the blame for their disaster, all of their complicit winged monkeys stayed in Congress. The same thing happened for Trump.

[Allison Gill]

The infrastructure and we don't have any domestic statutes for domestic terrorism to charge people with. We have to add it as a sentencing enhancement at the end. Like, you'll remember the Oath Keepers and the proud boys were given a terrorism enhancement on their sentences. And that is probably also what would have happened with Donald Trump had this trial ever made it past the Supreme Court and gone on for the January 6 issue. Until we get Congress pass domestic terrorism laws, which they won't because domestic terrorists keep helping Republicans win, we're not going to be able to see any kind of a situation like that. So lots of things maybe they could have done differently. I know people talk about bringing the documents case in D.C. but there would have been a venue issue, maybe trying to bring the insurrection charge against. I wish they had Donald Trump. And then you would get into a free speech battle that they probably didn't want to get into, at least according to experts.

[John Fugelsang]

So let them get into it. Let them get into it. My God. I mean, it's a free speech.

[Allison Gill]

I know, but the Supreme Court still would have shut it down.

[John Fugelsang]

Cops being beaten for a lie. Go ahead, let the Supreme Court shut it down. Let these people earn their place in the history books for covering up this violence. Let them do it. Let them own it.

[Allison Gill]

I get it. But Supreme Court's not earning their place in the history books now for the fact that this child.

[John Fugelsang]

I thought Matt Gaetz was going to give us comedy for months, Allison. I thought we were going to get to laugh again.

[Allison Gill]

There'll be plenty to laugh about because we don't want to cry, my friend. I know we went on for a long time today. I appreciate you letting me my little soapbox there.

[John Fugelsang]

No, listen, I appreciate it. And I just want to remind everybody, these newspapers and magazines and fucking Axios just bending over backwards, fawning over the Incredible diversity of Donald Trump's cabinet. Oh, my God, they are begging for access. All of these media outlets that told the truth about this rat bastard and his lies and crimes for years are now prostrating themselves at his feet, saying, oh, they're comparing him to Lincoln, his cabinet of rivalries. And it's like, yeah, they're really diverse. There's the white TV personalities and the white wealthy oligarchs and the white rapists and sexual offenders and the one black guy from the NFL running housing. Incredibly diverse.

[Allison Gill]

Right. The junk drawer, we call it.

[John Fugelsang]

Just remember, guys, it's going to be hard. It's going to be a struggle. Be strong for people who need it. The best way to be strong for yourself is to be strong for someone else during these tough times. But remember every day to stop and smell the train wreck. Because you know what I'm thankful for? I'm thankful for in spite of this awful election outcome, which was not a mandate again, the majority of us voted against this again. And until the Republicans get three seats of the House fixed, if there's one flip, it's 216. 216. But in spite of all of this, you gotta remember Donald Trump is not suddenly going to become a good man. He's not suddenly gonna become less racist. He's not gonna become intelligent. He's not going to suddenly be honest or ethical. He's not going to start caring about policies that help non millionaires. Don't forget to stop and smell the train wreck. They're going to fuck it all up again. We're going to be fighting for the same causes we've always fought for and just take some pleasure in the fact that you get to spend the next four years being proven right a little bit every day.

[Allison Gill]

Yeah, yeah. We're gonna see what Jim Comer and Jim Jordan did in the House over the last two years, but we're gonna see it in the white. We're going to investigate the investigators, they're going to investigate 2020. They're going to litigate that again, again for voter fraud. They're going to cherry pick all their evidence and release the stuff that helps them.

[John Fugelsang]

Fox News miniseries adults know the truth. History books will not be swayed by their temporary propaganda. They're not going to suddenly become competent, decent people. That's not going to happen. This does not end well for Trump and for Elon as well. They're not, not good. They're not competent. They don't have policies that are going to work. Look at the tariffs. Look at their tax plan. Look at all the pollution they're going to unleash. It's going to be bad. They will fail. So let's get ready for what comes next.

[Allison Gill]

All right, thank you, my friend. Everybody make sure you check out. Tell me everything. It's it's weeknights at 9pm Eastern, 6 Pacific on Sirius progress. Sirius XM progress. Excuse me, channel 127. And then of course, the John Fugal Sang show podcast. Thank you so much, my friends. Thank you for hanging out with me on this holiday weekend. I hope you and yours have a wonderful, wonderful weekend.

[John Fugelsang]

You too.

[Allison Gill]

And we will see you next week.

[John Fugelsang]

Take care. Thank you so much, Allison.

[Allison Gill]

All right, everybody, we're going to be back in your ears on Monday. And 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 them's the Beans. The Daily Beans is written and executive produced by Alison Gill with additional research and reporting by Dana Goldberg. Sound design and editing is by Desiree McFarland with art and web design by Joel Reeder 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 msw media.com msw media.