← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
The Breakdown Audio | Trump Caught Breaking the Law in Epstein Spy Scandal
00:33:20
Allison and Katie Phang discuss how republicans broke the law when they clandestinely spied on Democratic lawmakers who were trying to provide oversight to protect Epstein survivors.
Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:00]
Martin Sheen
You can always count on Sunday to be the best day of the week. You can sleep in, go off your diet, spend the day in your pajamas and go on, have that second croissant. You know what else you can count on every Sunday? The Martin Sheen Podcast. Join me, your host, Martin Sheen for beautifully crafted 20 minute programs filled with never before heard stories of my life along with personal reflections and poetry that inspires. And season two beginning begins Sunday, February 1st. The Martin Sheen Podcast is the perfect Sunday relaxing companion. A chance to put your feet up, take a deep breath and enjoy some stress free listening time from the comfort of your favorite easy chair and that second croissant that stays between us. There's no judgment here, so make my podcast your weekly moment of calm as we explore faith, hope, love and and what it means to be human. And rest assured, this journey is ever unfolding as I invite you to see what's next with me, Martin Sheen. So let's keep Sunday the best day of the week together and thank you for listening.
- [01:17]
Alison Gill
Hey everybody, I'm Alison Gill. Welcome to the Breakdown. Thanks to the Midas Touch Network for hosting this show. Really appreciate them giving me this platform. So I wanted to talk today a little bit about the abject failures of the Department of Justice and considering how much of a failure this Department of Justice has been and continues to be with their lowest conviction rate in D.C. that has ever been seen in the history since they've been keeping track and you know, all of the inability to indict a ham sandwich, literally, they couldn't indict sandwich guy. However, when Pam Bondi appeared before the House Judiciary Committee this week, she was awfully cocky. For somebody who's such an abject failure who keeps getting beat up and beat up and beat up. And it makes me question the intent behind going after Trump's political enemies because it doesn't feel to me like convictions are the goal. It feels to me like it's just red meat for the base. It's just, hey, just say there's an investigation and let Republicans and I, Republicans in Congress and me do the rest. As he had, you know, instructed his Attorney general or potential Attorney General Jeffrey Clark to do when he was trying to overthrow the government back in 2020 and 2021. So I just to kind of bring these things together and wrap them up in a bow. And so that's what we're going to do on today's episode of the Breakdown. All right. Hey everybody, welcome. Joining me today to discuss all this is my very good friend, Hosts her own show here on the Midas Touch Network. Please welcome Katie Fang. Hi, Katie, how are you?
- [02:59]
Katie Fang
Well, it's, it's been yet another run of time. I mean, I can't believe it's only what, more or less mid February, 2026. And I can't find, you know, head or tails of, of sanity these days. But if there's anybody with whom I could be not sane, it would be with you. So I'm happy to be here.
- [03:18]
Alison Gill
Yay. A couple of, couple of independent journalists wiling out. I'm excited. So what I wanted to talk to you about today was Pam, first of all, Pam Bondi's performance, because that's what it was, if, if I'm being honest, at, at the House in front of the House Judiciary Committee, headed up by Jim Jordan, who, by the way, also has covered for pedophiles and sexual abusers in the past. So it's just a whole gang of people making, you know, providing cover for sex abuse and pedophilia getting together to seemingly gang up on Democrats who are the ones providing oversight and asking questions on the Hill. What were your main takeaways from that performance? As I say?
- [04:02]
Katie Fang
Well, I wanted to smack the smug off her face. To your well taken point, remarkably arrogant for somebody who doesn't have the substance and even the style. Right. It's almost like if you could deliver the boom with some style, maybe you could say ow or wow. Right? But she can't even do it well. She was stuttering when she spoke because she had to continuously refer to her notes. But then she wanted to sit there and say something rude about other lawyers. She couldn't even pronounce the word lawyer when she was trying to go after Jamie Raskin, constitutional law professor, calling him a loser, liar, a lawyer. I mean, I couldn't even jumble it up. But, you know, it was embarrassing for her. She's the Attorney General of the United States and, you know, it's frustrating to see somebody who has such an important job, Alison, turn around and just shit all over it in one fell swoop. And it's House Judiciary because I want to remind people that is the job of House Judiciary is to actually have oversight over the Department of Justice. And she's required to come and answer these questions. But Hank Johnson said it the best. He said she's Jekyll and Hyde. She has one face for the Republicans. She has another for the Democrats. Although I will say the carve out on the Republicans was Tom Massie, who she said had Trump derangement syndrome and was a failed politician. Just genuinely a disappointment. And she really does do a disservice, not only to lawyers. I'm embarrassed for her as a lawyer, but also to the Department of Justice, which I these days call the Department of Obstruction of Justice.
- [05:48]
Alison Gill
That's a very good name for it. Yeah. And there seems to be no thought behind her quips, so to speak. She just has the sort of the same canned responses or she reads out of her burn book that she had in. Excuse me, multiple burn books that she had in front of her. We heard The Dow is 50,000. A million times. We heard. I'm not gonna get down in the gutter with these people. A million times we heard. I mean, just over and over, kind of the same things. You're not a real lawyer.
- [06:17]
Katie Fang
You come after the greatest president of all time. I thought for a second there, I thought it was Nutlik that was there and not Pam Bondi, but I was right.
- [06:28]
Alison Gill
That's a good name for Lutnick, who also was embarrassed on the Hill this week too, when he was caught lying about visiting Epstein island with his kids. And his response was, I brought all my kids with me when I left. Like what?
- [06:43]
Katie Fang
Like that was supposed to be the winning response. You're right, actually, they don't really. They're not very good at the zingers, are they? They're not very good at the retorts. They're not very thoughtful about the zingers. They're really not. They're only soundbites, Alison, because they're just so egregiously bad. It's not because they're good.
- [06:57]
Alison Gill
Right. And this carries over. This, this inability to have second and third level thought carries over into the actual weaponization of the Department of Obstruction of justice, as you call it. In going after Trump's political enemies, we have seen failure upon failure upon failure. And it's not just Trump's political enemies, but it's also protesters who are protesting and observing ice. I guess you could call Trump's political enemies. He calls us domestic terrorists for exercising.
- [07:26]
Katie Fang
Bondi refuses to release the list. She ref this to release the list of, quote, domestic terrorists.
- [07:31]
Alison Gill
Oh, of course, because there isn't one. Just like. But there is a list of Epstein co conspirators that was on her desk last February that she still refuses to release. But here's some. Here's some information. Like fiscal year 2016, right? Our fiscal years in the government go from September to September, and in 2016, that's the most recent year where we have figures from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. DOJ sought federal charges against about 70,000 felony defendants. 69,451 to be exact.
- [08:10]
Katie Fang
Okay.
- [08:10]
Alison Gill
Okay. And in only six cases did a grand jury return a no bill, a vote of no bill, which means they didn't get a majority of 12 or more jurors on the grand jury and a grand jury of what's made up of 18 to 23 citizens. And they need to get 12 votes to get a true bill, which means you're gonna indict somebody through a federal grand jury. And they only had six votes of no bill in 2016. Pretty impressive out of the 70,000.
- [08:42]
Katie Fang
Pretty. Pretty impressive win rate right there.
- [08:45]
Alison Gill
Right. And so when we talk about you can indict a ham sandwich, what we're talking about is seasoned career veteran prosecutors who go in. They don't have any defense attorneys. They just present their one side of case to a group of federal grand jurors. And because of the federal rules of criminal procedure, a good prosecutor will not go into a federal grand jury if they don't believe they can convict, obtain, and maintain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. You only need probable cause in that grand jury room. But you have to go in thinking you have, you have it beyond a reasonable doubt because those are the rules. They don't do that anymore. And so they're coming back with an insane amount of no billed indictments where the grand jury fails to get 12 votes. So can you talk a little bit like sort of educate us about why it's generally easy. If you go in with a good case, it's pretty easy to get a true bill because what, there's no other side in that room? Right. It's just the prosecutors and what they think. No.
- [09:51]
Katie Fang
And what's remarkable is that you can introduce hearsay. So normally you're not allowed to use statements made outside of court.
- [10:02]
Alison Gill
Right.
- [10:02]
Katie Fang
For the truth of the matter that's being asserted within those statements. But in a grand jury proceeding, you can plop one agent down in front of your grand jurors, and they can just go through a litany and just reel off a litany of evidence and statements from other witnesses, et cetera. You could literally present an entire case through just one agent. And that is a really important thing. Right. Because when you go to trial, you can't get all of that evidence in through one person. You have to abide by the rules of evidence, which means you may have to tee up a case where you have to have multiple witnesses and oh gosh, maybe you don't end up having that critical witness and that one piece of evidence doesn't come in and that may result in you not getting a conviction, right? So the thing about the. Here's some inside baseball I'll share with you because I've served as a state prosecutor and as a federal prosecutor. So here's the thing. You know, we used to always grumble as state prosecutors because some of our cases, the feds would swoop in and take them away from us and we used to always say, of course they take the ones because those are the layup cases, right? They're like the no brainers. It's like possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, right? I mean, it's things like that that the feds would come in and take from us and we used to always complain about that. But then we'd also kind of bitch and moan and say, must be nice to be a federal prosecutor because the rules of discovery are such that the other side doesn't really see anything until the very end until they go to trial. Right. And the feds have such an amazing win rate at trial because to what you said, you're not going to go and seek an indictment unless you are about 99.9% certain you're getting that thing across the finish line. That one tenth of uncertainty is because there's like an act of war or something, right? Or an act of God that day. I mean, that's really how people view federal prosecutions, which is why when you see somebody going to trial in a federal case and a federal criminal case, there's some shit going on there. It's either they really have a death wish or they genuinely think that they can litigate themselves out of this. But realistically, the feds usually go in with the deck stacked so strongly in their favor, Alison, that you really should not be going to trial against the federal government. So when you look at it from the grand jury perspective, the fact that you can't get a majority of that grand jury to be able to come back with a true bill on either one or several charges is a really bad sign. It's either you and are we going to do a carve out for Lindsey Halligan who lies to grand juries because I feel like she gets her own conversation in and of itself. But you're either lying to the grand jury to get your grand jury indictment returned, but really maybe you don't have the experience to know how to do it. It's just remarkable. To me that you're not able to get a grand jury to be convinced by you because the standard is lower. It's probable cause. It's not even beyond to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. It's let me park somebody in front of you. And hopefully the grand jurors aren't asleep. And even then they'll probably just sign off on it out of peer pressure. I have no idea. But look, they're not doing it in these cases.
- [13:13]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And this came out in the immunity arguments when Donald Trump was trying to and successfully got immunity from the Supreme Court. I think it was Justice Sotomayor or maybe Justice Jackson who was like, we don't need immunity for presidents. We already have a bunch of guardrails to make sure there's no rogue prosecutions in our system. We start with a federal grand jury, then we start with pretrial motions to dismiss that we have other pretrial motions, that we have motions in limonae to decide what evidence can be allowed in under the rules of evidence. Then we have a trial, then we have a judge, then we have a pet jury, the trial jury. And then we have the appeals process. Like we have all these steps and that those, that due process is proving very difficult for Pamela Jo, as you call her, because before Pam, like for example, D.C. they had a 0.5% dismissal rate over a 10 year period. That's before Pamela Joe, after Pamela Jo, this is a pretty insane statistic, 21% dismissal rate from the D.C. u.S. Attorney's office.
- [14:16]
Katie Fang
Well, it's, but listen, don't, don't just give flowers to Pami Jo with the bad hair, you know, box of wine. Jeanine Pirro is the D.C. united States Attorney now. So she gets to take her claim of no pride on that number as well.
- [14:31]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And then keeping all of that in mind, Katie, we have found out from Ryan Reilly over at NBC who's written a great book about, you know, January 6th and sedition hunters and he's just does some really great reporting on justice over there for that network. He has reported and multiple sources have said that not only did they fail to get a majority, 12 grand jurors to vote for a true bill in the case against Mark Kelly and the other five members of Congress for making.
- [15:03]
Katie Fang
That video saying, yeah, Jason Crow, yeah.
- [15:06]
Alison Gill
All that, don't follow it legal orders. Not only did they not get a majority, they got shut out. There were zero grand jurors that voted for a true bill. And even Steve Vladek, who's a very even tempered Fellow right. Was like, you know, we don't keep the votes, like, on file, so I can go look. But I don't think this has ever happened. I don't think that they've ever been shut out at a grand in a grand jury room before.
- [15:35]
Katie Fang
What a resounding slap in the face. And yet, can we look at the flip side? What a resounding win for democracy. This is the rule of law. This is democracy in real time that we are witnessing. There is a reason why there are processes, norms, and institutions that are in place. But more specifically, the institutions. Right. These are the things that are supposed to be there. But this is not the first time. And it's funny, because I just had this conversation, Alison, with somebody today. After Don Lemon walked out of his arraignment. He gave a brief, kind of. He gave some brief statements to the public and to the media, and one thing, one line he said that really stood out was this. The process is the punishment. And in this instance, I think it's amazing that we're having this conversation, Alison, because I don't think this DOJ actually cares about the laws themselves. I don't think they care about public safety, and I don't think they really care about the definition of what justice is. I think the process is the punishment. Having to make somebody be so stressed about going through this process. Right. Having to hire lawyers, having to have to deal with the trauma and the anxiety of a criminal investigation by the federal government, I think is the point. I don't even think that they care if they actually got that grand jury returned, although I think it would have been monumental considering what was at stake here. But I do think that they know that they're exacting a pound of flesh by just making them go through this process. And then if they secure an indictment, that's the cherry on the Sunday for them.
- [17:16]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And it was monumental that they were able to get an indictment against Don Lemon and three other black journalists in that. It's a commerce clause case. We don't have to get into that. I understand that it's also a First Amendment case, but you know, still constitutional rights at stake. But also, you know, they got the indictment initially for Comey. They got the indictment initially for Letitia James. Those ended up being dismissed, and then they went back again and again to try to get another grand jury to indict Letitia James, for example. Failed. Failed multiple times. And I'm wondering whether Box of Wine is going to go and try to get a different grand jury to indict Mark Kelly and at all of the other members of Congress. And to be clear, we still don't know if all six of those members of Congress who participated in that video were targeted in that particular grand jury indictment or even what the charges were. So I'm just sort of saying Mark Kelly et al, because we know Mark Kelly was part of that. But to have that zero vote, like you said, is a giant, huge slap in the face, and it's happened so often. A couple of things about Representative Jasmine Crockett. First of all, in the Pam Bondi testimony this week, she has rewritten the playbook on how to question members of Trump's Cabinet. You don't ask them questions because they're not going to answer them. You just make your point for five minutes, force the Republicans to use their time to give her to answer the questions, and then just shout out clapbacks as. As needed, because the rules of decorum in these hearings have just completely gone.
- [19:05]
Katie Fang
Knows how to deliver the burn. By the way, I think Pam Bondi and others could be taking notes on how to actually deliver the burn, but go on.
- [19:14]
Alison Gill
Yeah. But she also had this amazing moment with the first Jack Smith testimony, the one that took place behind closed doors. Former special counsel Jack Smith, who prosecuted Donald Trump, both cases classified documents in January 6th where she asked him, have you ever had to go back to a grand jury? Three times. Here I have the clip. Watch the clip.
- [19:36]
Katie Fang
Oh, awesome.
- [19:37]
Alison Gill
And then here's a great clip where Representative Jasmine Crockett helps Jack Smith rebut the weaponization theories by exposing the actual weaponization of Trump's Justice Department. Watch.
- [19:50]
Representative Jasmine Crockett
The majority was asking you about why it is that you characterize your belief that there was guilt as it relates to the indictment that you sought. As a trained prosecutor, typically, are you supposed to go after people that you don't believe are actually guilty?
- [20:12]
Alison Gill
I'm trying to. There's a couple of negatives in that question.
- [20:15]
Representative Jasmine Crockett
I know they were trying.
- [20:17]
Alison Gill
You're not supposed to go after people who you believe are not guilty.
- [20:21]
Representative Jasmine Crockett
Okay, thank you. In your experience of three decades, have you ever needed to seek the same indictment three times while being rejected?
- [20:36]
Alison Gill
Never. So, yeah, he's like, never, like, just totally even keeled.
- [20:42]
Katie Fang
Poker face.
- [20:44]
Alison Gill
No poker face. So something I think that's probably, in my eyes, one of the bigger stories to come out of this Pam Bondi hearing is that Berne book. And not just necessarily like Moskowitz, who called her out on it and said, flip to your best one and give me your best shot. And I'll give you a score because it's the Olympics. Jared is great, but the fact that there was a Reuters snapped a photo of a page of that burn book that was a list of Representative Jayapal's search terms where DOJ provided four computers for 435 members of Congress, 535 if you count the Senate, to sit down and search the redacted Epstein files. The 3 million they've released, not the 6 million that exist. And they were actually without permission from these members of Congress, recording or saving their search histories, putting them in Pam Bondi's burn book, at least for Jayapal. We're not sure if they did this for all of the members because we only saw it.
- [21:43]
Katie Fang
I'm sure they did it for all of the Democratic members.
- [21:45]
Alison Gill
One photo. But in the face of the Republicans, we'll talk about Jack Smith again. All the questions the Republicans had for Jack Smith had nothing to do with protecting the American people, but protecting their own toll records to make sure that they, if they're committing crimes that, you know, the government can't come in and get their toll records. And toll records again, just phone numbers, who you called, when you called, not the content of the call, not the content of the text messages, just the toll records. And they were very, very upset about this. And that's kind of all they talked about. They were worried about themselves. Lindsey Graham wanted to shut down the government in order to get his amendment back in so that he could sue. Then the senators could sue, make money for a million do. But so in the face of all of that, to have the Department of Justice then turn around and spy on Democrats blatantly without their permission because Jack Smith had permission. Jack Smith did it legally when he got those toll records is another just huge, glaring hypocrisy from one Department of Justice to another Department of Justice. And I wanted you to talk a little bit about the implications of this, legally or otherwise. Because, you know, some might say, well, those were government DOJ computers. Well, the senators. Who's got the toll records Jack Smith's got the toll records for. Were government issued phones. These are all government issued devices. Talk a little bit about potential. I think. I don't know if it's got legal implications, but it certainly is going to have political implications.
- [23:20]
Katie Fang
Well, yeah, I mean, if you think about it, they pretty much tracked the digital footprints of members of Congress that were utilizing the terminals that were provided by the Department of Justice. I can't speak intelligently, I think at this time about the potential Legal exposure that could exist. But I will say this, putting aside the impropriety of it, that it is hypocritical for the Republicans to lose their minds over the toll record issue vis a vis Jack Smith's investigation, which I just want to underscore his explanation, because it is the reality. Donald Trump is the one who made them the targets of a toll record subpoena. Donald Trump is the one who called them. You know, that is the person who they should be directing their ire if they have. They're so chapped about this idea that the telephone numbers and the dates and times have been exposed, which I'm not quite sure how those are incriminating, unless, I don't know, maybe you're doing something wrong. But the reaction that the fact that the Department of Justice under Bondi was tracking these members of Congress when they were looking in these terminals to look at the Epstein files, Allison, signifies to me consciousness of guilt. Meaning they want to know what the Democrats are looking at. Not because they think it's going to expose the Democrats for being sick fucks, which we know the Republicans are, but it's because they're worried. They're worried that the Democrats have caught on to a particular bait stamp document, or perhaps search term, or a particular person within what we've seen in these 3 million files. And also remember, as Ro Khanna and others have said, the FBI did those redactions that you and I have talked about in March of last year, and then they turned over those redacted documents to the doj. The DOJ didn't tell them, go back and unscrub the documents that you've done. They just took them as is. So when they sat down in front of those terminals, Allison, they were able to click on a button and it unredacted what the DOJ had redacted, but it couldn't redact what the FBI had done. So that's what they meant by they said that there were double redactions when they went to sit down and look. And they still weren't able to look below what the FBI had done. But getting back to this issue, I would actually want to know why. Not so much because I think it's just hypocritical and I think it's just kind of skeevy and sketchy to do it. I think it shows that they know that there's something there, something that implicates Trump and others in a way that they don't want the Democrats to find. Because what better evidence to know what's going on in the brain of your political opponent than be able to look at their digital footprints in their search.
- [26:10]
Alison Gill
Yeah, that was my thought, too. Certainly knowing the search terms doesn't help the survivors one bit.
- [26:18]
Katie Fang
None of it does. How about mommy not turning around and apologizing to the survivors? That doesn't help the survivors either.
- [26:24]
Alison Gill
Right. Like if my ex husband got ahold of my phone and I could know what text messages he saw, then I would know how to defend myself against. Now, I've never done anything wrong. And this, that's just a scenario, but I am perfect. So. But that's the thing, right? Because that is what immediately went to my mind. Why do they want to know what these search terms were? But I will tell you what now, from now on, anytime a Republican in any hearing brings up their damned toll records, I am, I would just expect a immediate clap back on. Excuse me, you did this. In fact, I think I might write, Jack Smith has a law firm now. I think I might write him a letter saying if you're asked this again, just maybe bring that up. And if you're asked if you ever coordinated with Biden on any of the investigations, just be like, you mean, did Joe Biden call me and the DNI after we searched Mar A Lago like Trump did? Like that? No, we've never done anything like that.
- [27:26]
Katie Fang
Or did we call Trump after we seized the original ballots and voter rolls in Fulton County?
- [27:32]
Alison Gill
That's what I mean.
- [27:33]
Katie Fang
Maybe that's what we did, too. I don't know. What was that all about?
- [27:37]
Alison Gill
Yeah. So anyway, that's the kind of thing that Jasmine Crockett style of questioning during a committee hearing that I would like to see going forward.
- [27:47]
Katie Fang
Well, quickly, Alison, I just wanted to. It occurred to me while we were talking, you know, the lack of winning on the part of the DOJ right now may be part of a bigger scheme, but the fact that they have been hemorrhaging federal prosecutors, I think is a sign of a lot of things, all of which are bad, bodes poorly for this administration and this doj. But it also gives them some plausible deniability, does it not? If you have inexperienced prosecutors. For example, let's talk about the, quote, seditious six, which is how Donald Trump has labeled those six Democratic lawmakers that did that. You don't have to obey illegal orders video. That was the indictment that they were seeking to get in D.C. that was wholesale rejected and goose egged. The federal prosecutors that they used were not the line prosecutors. Jeanine Pirro brought in a guy that worked with her in the DA's office in upstate New York who now does photography. Van der Velden photography. Yes, Stephen Vander Velden. And then she also brought in a guy who was the chief of staff to James Comer, because, you know, the apples are not falling far from trees. He had like a stint for like a year as a federal prosecutor. The Vander Velden guy had never been a federal prosecutor in his career. So when you use people like that, or you use the Lindsey Halligans and others, right, to be able to go do this. And they don't get the wins, they don't get the grand juries to return the indictments again. Maybe the process is the punishment one, the stress, the trauma, the anxiety, the expense. But also, you could look at these inexperienced prosecutors and say, oh, they were shitty prosecutors. They went and they did it and they weren't able to do it. And you could try again and make a run at it again, Alison. But I feel like I always am disgusted and I sneer at the stupidity and the incompetence, but then I always have to do a self check because I feel like I cannot underestimate what they do. I always feel like they are, especially this second term, this regime's, you know, 2.0. I feel like they're a little bit savvier. Steve Vladik and I talked about this. Some of the arguments that are being asserted, some of the strategy of only appealing certain things so they get in front of the fifth Circuit, for example, versus other appeals that may not make it in front of friendlier judges. They're being a lot more strategic this time around than they were before. And so I always want to caution people to say, yeah, we can celebrate our wins for democracy. But it may not just be because they're dumb, you know, it could just be because this is part of, kind of how they want this to roll out.
- [30:23]
Alison Gill
Yeah. And if part of your revenge is to dismantle and destroy the Department of Justice, then this is one way to go about it. To get everybody to quit, to get all the career prosecutors to quit. It also endangers. It also endangers us real crimes because of everyone quitting the Department of Justice and the sheer number of habeas petitions from, you know, say, Operation Metro surge. We run into the, you know, now the fact that these career prosecutors are gone, the ones that have to go to trial to prosecute the murderer of the Hortons, the ones that have to go to trial to prosecute the fraud ring that giant fraud ring in Minnesota.
- [30:57]
Katie Fang
Which, ironically, was the whole bullshit basis for this surge of immigration enforcement agents to, quote, combat the fraud that they had been, was suddenly discovered, even though it had been competently prosecuted and investigated for years. And of course, the irony doesn't escape me that. That federal prosecutor Joe Thompson, who resigned in protest because he didn't want to investigate Renee, Nicole Good's wife, and that he did want to have a joint cooperation investigation with state and local authorities into her murder. He's now on Don Lemon's defense team.
- [31:31]
Alison Gill
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, you know, and then we have a feckless Congress as well. They're investigating Bad Bunny, but not the murders of Alex Preddy and Renee Good.
- [31:43]
Katie Fang
Or the co conspirators that are clearly identified in the Epstein files, at least the ones that have not been, you know, redacted.
- [31:51]
Alison Gill
Yeah, agreed. Well, thank you so much for joining me, everybody. You can catch Katie Fang here on the Midas Touch Network. She's got her YouTube channel. You definitely want to make sure that you watch everything she puts out. The interviews that you do are so in depth, and they're so good, they're granular. I'm so glad that you're an independent media person now, because you can get the. You can get into the details, and you can get feisty, too, which I also appreciate. So make sure to check out Katie's show here on the Minus Touch Network. And do you have any other final thoughts before we get out of here today on the breakdown?
- [32:23]
Katie Fang
You know what? There's been a lot that we've been going through since this year has started, Alison. But I do want to say, again, there's still the kind of flip side to these things. These are still wins. Right. I want to always point these out. You know, the failure for them to obtain an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers is a win. It's definitely not something that we should look at and think is. It's a sign of where they're heading and how they're thinking. And then prosecuting people like independent journalists and trying to go after political enemies, it's all bad. But the fact that juries are returning not guilty verdicts, grand juries are not returning indictments. Judges are entering injunctions, judges are throwing outside. Judges are putting pressure on these federal agents. I mean, there are still those wins there. So that's just it. I just want to remind people we still have our wins, and we're still logging them and clocking them, and that's what really counts.
- [33:14]
Alison Gill
Yeah, well said. And they're wins for the people. A lot of folks watching this say how I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a judge. How do I participate in the justice system? Don't ignore your jury summons. Don't ask to put it off. Get on that jury, get on that grand jury, get on that Pettit jury and be part of this process. Because there is so much power in the, in the jury, in that jury box, whether it's a federal grand jury or petit jury. And it is ours. It's ours. All right. Thank you so much. Thanks, everybody, for watching. Thank you. Katie Fang. I am Alison Gill. I'll be back next week on the Breakdown.
- [34:21]
Martin Sheen
Want to stay plugged in?
- [34:22]
Alison Gill
Become a subscriber to our substack@midasplus.com you'll.
- [34:26]
Martin Sheen
Get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski ad free episodes of our podcast and more.
- [34:30]
Alison Gill
Exclusive content Only available@midasplus.com.
- [34:37]
Host of Rainy Day Rabbit Holes
History is messy. It's weird, wild and anything but boring. Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history podcast about unhinged stories that make you stop and ask, wait, is this real life? From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales, we explore the moments where people behave badly and and sometimes beautifully. We've got naughty politicians, cultural chaos, and a deep love for the Pacific Northwest, including Bigfoot. It's thoughtful, irreverent, occasionally serious, and always entertaining. Let's fall down the Rabbit Hole MSW.