← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Trump Goes After Carroll (feat. Emma Davidson, Sarah Higginbotham)
00:55:56
Thursday, May 28th, 2026 Today, the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into E Jean Carroll; 35 former federal judges file a brief to reopen the Trump/IRS case to allow the court to determine whether or not it was duped by Blanche’s slush fund; the Southern Poverty Law Center files a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution; Ken Paxton wins the Texas Senate runoff and will go up against James Talarico in November; the 60 Minutes journalist whose expose on CECOT has been fired; President Biden is suing the Department of Justice over his memoir project audio recordings; the Trump administration proposes non disclosure agreements for federal workers to curb leaks; and Allison delivers your Good News.
Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:00]
Allison Gill
History is messy. It's weird, wild and anything but boring.
- [00:04]
Emma Davidson
Rainy Day Rabbit Holes is a history
- [00:06]
Allison Gill
podcast about unhinged stories that make you stop and ask, wait, is this real life?
- [00:11]
Sarah Higginbotham
From crazy disasters and tasty scandals to enlightening and surprising heartwarming tales, we explore
- [00:18]
Allison Gill
the moments where people behave badly 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 MEDIA. Msw media. Daily beans, daily beans. Daily beans. Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Thursday, May 28, 2026. Today, the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Eugene Carroll. 35. Former federal judges file a brief to reopen the Trump IRS lawsuit to allow the court to determine whether or not it was duped by Blanche's slush fund. The Southern Poverty Law center has filed a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution. Ken Paxton has won the Texas Senate runoff and will go up against James Talarico in November. The 60 Minutes journalist who did an expose on Seacoat Prison has been fired. President Biden is suing the Department of Justice over his memoir Project audio recordings. And the Trump administration has proposed non disclosure agreements for federal workers to curb leaks. I'm your host, Alison Gill. FOREIGN. Hey, hey, everyone. So happy it's Thursday. Dana is just gonna she's gonna be back in just a few short days. So she'll be back Monday. So looking forward to her return. Also, for some breaking news today, check muellershirote.com I can't really talk about it here on the show, but you can check muellersharerote.com for that. We'll talk about it on the show perhaps tomorrow. Emma Davidson and Sarah Higginbotham from the National Women's Defense League are going to join me later today to discuss, you know, trying to reform some of the rules around sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, especially in Congress. And the Southern Poverty Law center has filed a motion to dismiss the charges brought by the Department of Justice on vindictive prosecution grounds. And I'm going to cover that in detail on the Beans talk today. You can also see a discussion I've had with Adam Klassfeld about that@millershiroad.com all right. We have a lot to get to today. Let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes. All right. First up from cnn, this is an exclusive from Hannah Rabinowitz. The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the former magazine columnist who accused President Trump of sexual assault. That's according to multiple sources familiar the investigation is focused on whether Carol committed perjury and testimony tied to her two civil lawsuits against Trump, one alleging he sexually abused Carol in a New York department store in the 90s, and a second for defaming her when in 2019 he repeatedly denied the assault, said she wasn't his type, and claimed she made it up to boost the sales of her book. A prosecutor's theory hinges on a 2022 deposition statement by Carol, who's 82 now, that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit, though it was later revealed that billionaire Reid Hoffman had paid some of her legal fees and expenses. Carol's team declined to comment for the story, and attempts to reach Hoffman on Wednesday were unsuccessful. Quote, we can confirm that no U.S. attorney's office has declined to investigate any case relating to the subject matter of CNN's inquiry. That's what a Justice Department spokesperson told CNN. We will not comment beyond that. So we can confirm that no one has declined to investigate any case relating to this. All right. The probe is the latest move in the department's ceaseless and somewhat strained efforts to meet Trump's demands to target his long standing personal foes. Under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the department has pushed to speed up Trump's campaign of retribution. But the cases he's brought since taking the reins of the department in April have been heavily criticized and are likely to face challenges in court over allegations of politicization. But Blanche has been recused from this matter because he worked as one of Trump's personal attorneys on the Carroll appeals, according to a source familiar with the matter. Blanche has not attended meeting or been involved in discussions about the investigations Plural and the investigation is being overseen by other officials in the deputy Attorney General's office. Senior leaders at the Justice Department referred the investigation to federal prosecutors in Chicago, according to two sources familiar While Carol's deposition took place in New York, one of the individuals who helped cover some of Carol's legal fees, Hoffman has a nonprofit based in Chicago. Hoffman's support of the case caught Trump's attorneys off guard when it came to light on the eve of trial. In a 2022 videotape deposition, Carol told then Trump attorney Alina Haba that no one else was paying her legal fees. But two weeks before the trial, Carol's attorneys informed the judge and Trump's lawyers that they had secured funding from Hoffman's nonprofit. Carol's lawyer said she never met nor had conversations with anyone associated with the nonprofit Haba said in court at the time that Carol's team conspired to conceal the truth for nearly six months. The judge permitted Trump's attorneys to question Carroll again in a deposition, which has not been made public. When the trial began two weeks later, Judge Lewis Kaplan said he saw no issue with Carol's credibility and blocked lawyers from asking about the funding. Carroll is still embroiled in multiple legal battles with the president. Juries awarded Carol millions of dollars in damages, which the president is appealing. Trump has appealed the $5 million sexual abuse case judgment to the Supreme Court and has pledged to do the same with the $83 million defamation case. The Supreme Court has deferred its decision on whether to take up Trump's appeal 12 times. The most recent deferral was made just this Wednesday morning in a different case. The president unsuccessfully asked for the Justice Department to join the case as a defendant so that he could argue he's immune from liability. But an appellate court panel of judges said the argument was raised too late in the legal process. So, I mean, I've got a lot of questions about this. The judge permitted Trump's attorneys to question E. Jean Carroll again in a deposition, which has not been made public. So it's quite possible in the first deposition, E. Jean Carroll was unaware of the benefit from Reid Hoffman's nonprofit and then was made aware of it and then questioned again about it and told them about it, because two weeks before she testified in a deposition that she didn't know anything about it, the court was noticed that there was funding from Reid Hoffman. It's wholly possible that she cured that testimony and deposition the second time because she didn't know. Anyway, this is. I mean, I'm gonna. If there's an indictment here, I'm gonna wanna see the grand jury transcripts, which is very rare. There's, you know, supposed to be secret, but with all the grand jury shenanigans that have gone on in this doj, it'll be interesting to see if there's a motion to dismiss on vindictive prosecution grounds, like there was in the Abrego case, like there is in the Southern Poverty Law center case, like there were in the Comey and Letitia James cases, but those were dismissed because Lindsey Halligan was disqualified and she was the only person who signed the indictments. So there's something fucky about this, and I have 100% faith in Robbie Kaplan, that's E. Jean's lawyer, that she'll figure out what it is. Next up, a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges on Wednesday asked the judge who oversaw Trump's remarkable lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service to reopen the case and conduct an inquiry into whether the hasty deal to resolve it could be challenged as an act of fraud. The move by the former judges was one of an increasing number of legal efforts to attack the validity of the two extraordinary benefits that emerged from the agreement last week, a $1.8 billion fund that could compensate allies of Trump who claim they suffered weaponization at the hands of the federal government, and the conferral of lucrative tax benefits on the president, his family and his businesses. The motion by the former judges, filed in the federal district court in Miami, was a direct appeal to Judge Kathleen Williams, who closed the IRS case last week. After Trump voluntarily dismissed his suit, it asked her to bring the matter back to life. This brief under a rule, Rule 60, that permits her to set aside a judgment she's made and examine the terms of the deal that appeared to have been reached in a plan to avoid that sort of scrutiny, quote, the purported settlement that was publicly disclosed after this court dismissed the matter raises profound questions about the party's candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system, which threatens to undermine confidence in the administration of justice. That's what the lawyers wrote in this brief. At the heart of the former judge's argument was an assertion that Mr. Trump improperly used his lawsuit against the IRS as a way to obtain unlawful private benefits for himself and his family and to create a fund that would dole out taxpayer money without constitutional or congressional authority. Moreover, the former judges claim that the president tried to shield the deal from judicial scrutiny by shortcutting Judge Williams ability to examine its terms. That's exactly what happened. But as Judge Williams dug into the suit, she began to have qualms about whether it was valid. Given that Trump, by his own admission, was engaged in a form of legal self dealing, the judge wondered whether there was an actual conflict at stake that she could adjudicate if the president was essentially on both sides of the lawsuit seeking damages from a federal agency he directly controls. To get to the bottom of that question, Judge Williams ordered the parties in the suit to explain their positions on the case. But just two days before those briefs were due, Trump abruptly withdrew his lawsuit, telling the judge that she has no authority to question the dismissal because the IRS had never formally responded to the claims. Acknowledging that her hands were tied, Judge Williams quickly closed the case, but noted in her order that there had never been, quote, a settlement of record. Within hours the terms of the deal surfaced in public in an agreement that was signed by a senior Justice Department official that and detailed how the fund would work. The next day, the department released an addendum to the agreement, giving the Trump family its own extraordinary boon, immunity from all past IRS investigations. So I love this brief, and I've read this brief, and it sounds. It all sounds very familiar to me. Listen to this short clip of me from 10 days ago. Hey, everybody, it's Allison Gill from the Daily Beans podcast. So Trump's DOJ just did it. They just set up the $1.7 billion slush fund to pay who claim they were harmed by Joe Biden's Department of justice. This includes January 6th insurrectionists, people like Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Walt Nauta, Carlos de la Vera from the Mar? A Lago case, the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, any members of Congress who participated in the coup. They're all allowed to get a piece of our stolen taxpayer money from a board of five people appointed by Trump who can be fired without cause by him and who have no oversight. Now, the media is going to try to tell you that this is a settlement agreement pursuant to a lawsuit that Trump filed when he sued the IRS for $10 billion. But the judge in that case thought it seemed sus and asked a third party to weigh in. And that third party said Trump can't sue himself and the judge should drag these people in and ask them under oath whether Trump and the IRS and the DOJ were colluding. But Trump filed notice this morning that he's dropping the lawsuit. He's not asking the court for permission to drop the lawsuit. He's telling the court he's dropping it. And only after that did the DOJ announced the $1.7 billion fund. So this has nothing to do with the lawsuit. Let's be clear. It's not a settlement. Trump dropped the suit. A settlement would have to be approved by the judge. And Trump knows this. So he dropped the case before she could bring them all in for questioning and deny the lawsuit altogether. And since he dropped the case, this is not a settlement. It's just theft. It would be as if he set the fund up without filing a lawsuit in the first place. He's just using the lawsuit as cover so he can say, this is cool, it's all cool, because it's a settlement. But it's not. And don't let anyone tell you that it is a settlement. This is a crime. But the DOJ is not going to prosecute because they're in on it. The IRS isn't going to object on our behalf because they're in on it. Trump will pardon everyone involved so he can't be prosecuted. No one can. And now $1.7 billion is going to the insurrectionists. And not only is that a message and that it pays to join the next coup, but he's using our taxpayer money to fund it. So I hope someone can stop him. But I fear that the time to stop him was November 2024. I'll keep you posted as to what the judge does next. And what did the judge do next? Like I said, she dropped the case, but there's no settlement here. And then Blanche sets up the fund and calls it a settlement. And now these 35 former judges are asking her to reopen the case under Rule 60 so they can drag these folks in to see if they colluded to deceive the court to commit fraud against the court, which is what I've been saying. So thank you, 35 former federal judges for putting it in writing and filing it on the docket. I will let you know what happens. Actually, let me, I can go to the docket right now. Go to the docket right now and see. Let's see. Harrelson, IRS and see if there's any further filings. Nope. This is the latest one and it came Wednesday afternoon, like at the end of the day Eastern time. All right, everybody. Next up from NBC, former President Joe Biden is suing the Justice Department. He did this on Tuesday, urging a federal judge to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of his private conversations with his ghost writer of his 2017 memoir. The suit stems from a 2024 Freedom of Information act request by the Heritage foundation, which later filed its own lawsuit to obtain Biden's remarks to Mark Zwanitzer when they were writing promise me, Dad, a year of hope, hardship and purpose. The Justice Department had withheld these materials, arguing they were exempt from disclosure. But during Trump's second term, Biden's attorneys, Amy Jeffress, wrote in Tuesday's lawsuit, the U.S. district Court for Washington, D.C. the department has reversed their position. Now in February, Jeffress writes, without any formal explanation for its about phase, the department notified President Biden of its intention to release his audio recordings and transcripts to the plaintiffs in the FOIA action. Months later, on May 5, quote, the office of the Deputy Attorney General informed Biden through counsel that the department had made a final decision to release the materials with limited redactions to the Heritage plaintiffs and to Congress on June 15th. That's like 18 days from now in President Biden's conversations with Zwanitzer. And ultimately in his memoir, he recounted a year of his life that began during Thanksgiving in 2014. That year was among the most consequential of President Biden's political life and the most painful in his personal life. Now, Biden argues that such personal information is exempt from a disclosure under FOIA laws. Quote, every American, including the sitting former vice president, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home. That's what the lawsuit says. Now the Heritage foundation sought all records that then special counsel Robert Herr relied on to write particular passages of a 2023 report on Biden's handling of classified documents that described him as painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries. The audio of her interviewing Biden about the classified documents that remained in his possession after he was vice president confirmed memory lapses that the White House officials denied at the time, but her declined to criminally charge Biden. A Justice Department spokesperson claimed in response to Biden's lawsuit that the Justice Department during the previous administration had tried to hide the audio recordings that clearly demonstrate a significant decline in his cognitive abilities as far back as 2016. Quote, this is the most transparent Department of Justice in history, and we'll fight to ensure the American people can hear these recordings and draw their own conclusions about the former president's mental acuity before he sought the presidency. Zwonitzer did not respond to requests for comment. Trump weighed in on the lawsuit on Truth Social, calling Biden a crooked politician without court intervention. As I said, these materials will be released on June 15th. All right, next up from the Times, CBS News declined to renew its contract with the 60 Minutes correspondent Sharon Alphonsi six months after her segment on torture in a Salvadoran prison was pulled off the air abruptly by the news division's editor in chief, Barry Weiss. Ms. Alphonse's deal expired on Saturday. She said in a phone interview that her agent's inquiries with CBS News over the past several weeks had been met with silence. Quote, it's sending a chilling message to the entire newsroom. Ms. Alphonse said, I think it was a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize accurate reporting. Ms. Alphonse remains employed at CBS, but with no contract. That's what she said. She had no expectation of returning to 60 Minutes. Quote, I'm not resigning if they want me gone because I did my job, they'll have to fire me, she said. Ms. Alphonse has contributed to 60 Minutes since 2015. She was at the center of a firestorm in December, as we know, after Barry Weiss, who was appointed by CBS's new owner David Ellison, pulled a 13 minute segment that Alfonsi had reported on harsh conditions faced by Venezuelan men deported by the Trump administration. At the time, Ms. Alfonsi called the decision political. In an email to her colleagues, Bari Weiss rejected that charge, saying the reporting wasn't ready. She had suggested several last minute editorial changes, including that the reporter seek an interview with Stephen Miller, the architect of the Trump's immigration policy. Ms. Alfonsi would be the second 60 Minutes correspondent to depart since Ms. Weiss joined CBS. Anderson Cooper said in February he's going to leave the program after 20 years and from CBS the Trump administration is proposing that all new and current federal employees sign non disclosure agreements as part of its crackdown on press leaks. On Tuesday, the OPM Office of Personnel Management posted notice in the Federal Register asking for comment on a draft NDA that federal agencies would use for both new and existing employees. The form is intended to document federal employees acknowledgement of and agreement to comply with current legal obligations to safeguard non public, confidential or proprietary information created or obtained through their official duties, while expressly preserving the right to make disclosures authorized by law. The OPM notice includes a proposed NDA that federal agencies may use if they wish. It also says that the proposed NDA does not create new substantive restrictions on employee speech or disclosure rights and expressly preserves the employee's rights to make disclosures authorized by law, including protected whistleblower disclosures. Loyola Law School professor and CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson said the proposed NDA is the administration's way of signaling that we're serious about limiting leaks. Its impact will depend on the scope, which won't be known until there's a final version of the agreement. Quote, if the NDA does very little more than memorialize restrictions that are already in place on federal employees, then it doesn't do much, she said. But if the NDA is an attempt to silence almost all federal employees and infringe on their First Amendment rights and their whistleblower protections, then we have a problem. I suggest that's not quite accurate. If the NDA does very little than memorialize restrictions that are already in place for federal employees, it doesn't do much. I think it does. I think it sends a chilling message. I think it's an overt threat. Like you already have these rules and laws in place, why do you need them to sign an additional NDA? It's to scare people, right? It's to make people think, oh, I'm this might be First Amendment protected. This Mueller She Wrote podcast I'm doing might be First Amendment protected speech, but I better not do it because I signed that thing. What if it's not? It is, but how would I have known it's to. It's to scare people. That's what it is. It's a fear scare tactic. It's awful. And from Politico in the end, James Tallarico and Democrats got the matchup they'd been salivating over for months. Within two hours of Ken Paxton's GOP primary win on Tuesday, Talarico had hauled in $600,000 in two hours, the strongest two hours of his entire campaign. Recent internal polling from a pro Talarico PAC shows the Democrat has a seven point lead against Paxton. Both figures were shared first with Politico. Talarico said Tuesday night that to win in November, he must convert supporters of Senator John Cornyn, a conservative by almost any metric except Trump's. After Cornyn conceded, Talarico thanked the four year term incumbent for his service and told his supporters, you have a place in our campaign. It's all part of his general election pitch, which Talarico outlined in an interview following Paxton's primary win. It's the people versus Ken Paxton. And from the Times Representative al Green, who's 78, became the first Old Guard Democrat and first Democratic House incumbent, period, to lose a primary to a younger challenger, falling to Representative Christian Menefee, who's 38. After a Republican gerrymander forced these two Democrats to seek the same seat in Houston, Republicans redrew Mr. Green's current 9th congressional district to take in a different area to elect a Republican. As a result, he ran in the 18th district, where Mr. Menefee had won a special election only a few months earlier. A mysterious super PAC with links to Republicans spent nearly $900,000 trying to nominate in a different race a left wing sex therapist whose remarks about imprisoning American Zionists had drawn rebukes from national Democrats and accusations of anti Semitism. The Republicans spent almost a million dollars on this Democrat. The apparent gambit to elevate the unelectable opponent fell short, though. Maureen Galindo, the sex therapist, lost the primary to Johnny Garcia, a deputy sheriff who Democratic leaders hope can compete in a seat that Republicans had tried to gerrymander for their party Last year, former Representative Colin Allred of Texas won his Democratic House primary runoff, according to the Associated Press, ousting the woman who replaced him in Congress when he ran for Senate two years ago. Mr. Allred is the general election favorite in the heavily Democratic district based in Dallas. Carlos De La Cruz, an Air Force veteran and first time candidate backed by Trump, won a sharply contested primary runoff on Tuesday over a moderate state representative in a U.S. house district around San Antonio that has been newly drawn to favor Republicans, according to the Associated Press. This could backfire if you've got a MAGA person in a more closely contested, what used to be deeper red district. He defeated John Lujan, who was endorsed by Greg Abbott. Mr. Lujan has represented portions of the redrawn district in his three terms in the Texas House and was the favorite among Texas Republican leaders. But he lost in the Republican runoff for Texas's 9th congressional district. The Trump backed candidate Alex Mueller easily beat Briscoe Cain, a state representative, according to the ap. The district was strongly Democratic before it was redrawn to favor Republicans. So Trump MAGA candidates are winning their primaries in these newly drawn districts, so I think they'll be easier to beat, much like Paxton will be statewide. And Mays Middleton, a conservative state senator who painted his opponent as anti Trump, won the Republican runoff Tuesday for Attorney General of Texas, Mr. Middleton beat Chip Roy, that asshole hardline congressman who has at times broken with Trump. But this was a race that underscored the president's quote, unquote power with conservative voters. Trump did not endorse either man, both of whom ran a staunchly conservative policy campaign. So that's kind of the summation of Texas. And I'm so sad for Al Green. Christian Menefee is a good candidate. Chip Roy was an asshole, deserved to lose. But the gift that's going to keep on giving is a Ken Paxton. Ken Paxton. B. Cornyn and our friend Charlotte Clymer pointed out on her substack Charlotte's Web's thoughts that even if Paxton wins, they've given up something really important, the Republicans. It's seniority, right? Because Cornyn's been around for decades. He was the party whip, he almost became speaker of the House. He had powerful committee assignments. But when you're a baby senator, you don't get those kinds of things. You don't have that kind of seniority. So even if they retain this seat, if Talarico somehow comes up short and he's seven points ahead of Paxton right now, even if they retain this seat, they've given up their seniority, which is just bonkers. So thanks to Charlotte Clymer for pointing that out. All right, everybody, that's the news. Up next, Emma Davidson and Sarah Higginbotham from the National Women's Defense League. So stick around. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back. So one of our producers was done with paying too much for wireless. His old carrier kept charging high monthly rates, stacking on bogus fees, some hidden and offering perks that were not saving him anything. Mint Mobile changed all that. He switched using an unlocked Android. Disim, showed up fast, setup took less than 10 minutes. He kept the same number, the phone, his contacts. Compared with his previous carrier, the coverage has been just as solid and the speeds are just as fast. And the savings have been absolutely worth it. So let's thank Mint Mobile for supporting this episode. Make the switch@mintmobile.com DailyBeans Now a lot of people are still paying too much for wireless simply because it's been the norm for years. We're just all used to it. We're used to getting gouged. But Mint Mobile exists to change that. Their premium plans start at just $15 a month. You still get high speed data along with unlimited talk and text on the nation's largest 5G network. And you can bring your own phone and phone number, activate with an ESIM quickly and start saving right away without dealing with long term contracts. It's a cleaner, easier and far more affordable way to stay connected. That's why our producer switched and he loves it. So if you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans@mintmobile.com dailybeans that's mintmobile.com dailybeans upfront payment of $45 for 3 month 5GB plan required equivalent to $15 a month. New customer offer for first 3 months only. Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. C Mint Mobile for details Hello, Martin
- [27:31]
Martin Sheen
Sheen here and it seems to me that no day of the week is without its endless barrage of bad news. Even on Sunday. For God's sake, let's change that. What do you say? Together, let's make Sunday immune to bad news. Available now every Sunday. Season three of the Martin Sheen Podcast with yours truly, Martin Sheen has begun. Yeah, 10 brand new episodes are already underway. So join me, Martin sheen, for a 20 minute journey as I share my personal stories, a bit of poetry and insightful reflections that will encourage you to take a deep breath and enjoy a relaxing moment. Of course, it's important to know and understand what's happening in the world. But I also believe there's nothing wrong with taking a step back to find strength and clarity. And Lord knows we need that now more than ever. A moment of thoughtfulness and calm may be rare these days, but. But it doesn't have to be. So what do you say? You want to take back your Sundays? So do I. And guess what? I've already done it with the Martin Sheen Podcast, season three, available now. Don't mess with my Sunday. And thank you for listening.
- [28:42]
Allison Gill
Hey, everybody. Welcome back. So, as you know, we've had a couple problems with sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in institutions like our Congress, for example. And today we want to talk with a couple folks from the National Women's Defense League. It's a nonprofit that's dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights and safety of women through legislative action, community education, and coalition building. All very, very important things. So please welcome Emma Davidson, Tribs, founding director, and Sarah Jane Higginbotham, co founder and co director of the National Women's Defense League. Hi, Emma. Hi, Sarah. How are you?
- [29:17]
Sarah Higginbotham
We're great. Thanks for having us.
- [29:19]
Allison Gill
Yeah, no problem. All right. You're already in sync with your at the same time, answers. I love it. How long have you been working together and what prompted you to build the National Women's Defense League?
- [29:32]
Emma Davidson
Sarah and I have been working together for almost a decade now on a number of issues. We've been working in politics forever. And what we saw consistently is this problem, sexual harassment. We saw it firsthand in working in both state legislatures and the federal government, and we've seen how destructive it can be to women's careers and then how little recourse there is. So, you know, we really sat down and said, if we can't hold our legislators accountable for this kind of stuff, how do we think we're going to be able to hold other people to the standard? And so we launched National Women's defense league in 2022, too. We do four key things, as you said. We release new research. We advocate for policy change. We really help build the movement infrastructure so that there's more opportunity and more resources for survivors and other advocates to come forward and help participate in fixing this problem. And most importantly, we support survivors who have gone through these situations, those who have come forward and those who have chosen to remain silent and really want to see a concerted effort to end workplace sexual harassment, particularly in politics.
- [30:50]
Allison Gill
Yeah. And, Sarah, how difficult has it been to, you know, if you're going to lobby Congress to maybe end workplace sexual harassment in the private sector, that's one thing. But how difficult have you found it to lobby the actual organization that is having problems with sexual harassment to better crack down on a problem that we are facing within that body itself?
- [31:16]
Sarah Higginbotham
I think, and I always say there's two sides to the coin. On one hand, it's exceptionally difficult. Right. Because what you're asking them to do is actually to give up some of their power. And that's because, as one lawmaker who was part of our 2025 National Survey of state lawmakers said, it feels like the fox is guarding the henhouse. And that's because they are right. In most state houses and in Congress, a lot of the rules around sexual harassment are controlled in caucus rules or chamber rules. They're not even in state or federal law. And so they are subject to all the partisan conflict of interest. And what we often see is that when an issue comes up and gets the attention, gets a lot of attention, it becomes leverage for one party to fight with the other, because there are real political ramifications of someone losing their seat. Right. A majority flips, they lose a vote. And so in some ways, it's incredibly difficult. I would say it's more difficult for the survivors, because the flip side of this is that our research shows this happens on both sides of the aisle in nearly equal measure. And what does that mean? The politics get really interesting on who's willing to stand up against it. A lot of women on both sides of the aisle, which we're seeing right now in Congress, are willing to stand up and say something about it. And I think that presents political opportunity. What the movement needs is more infrastructure, more advocacy infrastructure to fight it. I would say that's the other challenge to your question of how hard has it been? There isn't a lot of advocacy infrastructure that's been built up like other issues like the environment or traditional workers rights. And so that also makes it tricky. Yeah.
- [32:56]
Allison Gill
And it feels like because we don't have policy with teeth surrounding sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in Congress, that it always boils down to kind of a tit for tat. Like, sure, Republicans will let Gonzalez resign, but not until Swalwell does, for example, so that we can keep our votes even. It's almost as though the vote matters more. The majority matters more than women or people, I should say, who are victims of sexual harassment. Have you run across that or seen? I mean, it just seems like it's like still a lot of deal making going on because we don't have these real solid ways to fight back.
- [33:34]
Sarah Higginbotham
Yeah, I think you're right.
- [33:36]
Emma Davidson
And in this case, we. There was a situation where there were two circumstances that came. That came to light around the same time and happened to be one of each party. It's an interesting illustration of this being a problem across the board. And we've certainly seen it, you know, in the states as well, where we. It kind of goes back and forth and fluctuates between, are there more allegations against Democrats versus Republicans? It's pretty much dead center. And it's an interesting level of political calculus about how you're going to respond to these circumstances. We've seen it before where some parties become very active really, really quickly and want to just say, this is a liability. This is a problem for our staff. We're going to do something right now. And on the flip side, just as many states will say, nope, this is someone who's really important. And he said, she said, we'll bury it. We'll run out the news cycle. And it's all the more reason why we're so committed to policy change, to having really strong structures already set so that if and when something comes up, there is a playbook that you can just go right down the list and say, these are the infractions. This is the response. And you remove that political influx of, you know, well, we need the vote or we don't. It's no. It's there in black and white. This is the policy. This is the response to it. And then we can start to really clean up and become more consistent in how we handle these situations.
- [35:10]
Allison Gill
Yeah, for sure. And, Sarah, you know, there's a lot of talk this week, especially about slush funds. Okay. We've got. We've got a $1.8 billion slush fund to pay out people who feel like they were weaponized by the Biden Department of Justice. There's a lot of pushback by both parties, especially in the Senate, about this. They couldn't even get ICE funded over this slush fund. But I don't think a lot of people know there's a congressional slush fund to settle sexual harassment and sexual misconduct claims. Can you talk a little bit about that?
- [35:36]
Sarah Higginbotham
We definitely can, Emma.
- [35:38]
Emma Davidson
Well, emma was at 330, about $336,000 that we. That Nancy Mace exposed as having already been paid out in, I believe it was, six congressional offices.
- [35:51]
Sarah Higginbotham
Yep. And that. I wish, I wish that told the whole story. There have been millions spent. So, for example, there's millions in Taxpayer dollars that went out to that Cuomo, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, was able to use after to attack those who blew the whistle on his sexual harassment. There are campaign funds that Eric Swalwell right now is using to actively target survivors of his sexual harassment, to go after them, to track, and then there's campaign funds on top of that. And probably, I mean, it's all infuriating. But the idea that there's a literal slush fund of taxpayer dollars to pay these out is the norm. It's the norm in every state. And what's worse is that there aren't a lot of rules about what is actually has to be shared publicly. And so most voters don't even know that it's happening. So you talk about waste. There's the, the tax dollar waste. There's also all of the waste. This doesn't get talked about as much either. That happens with the time it takes to deal with this internally. Right. The distraction from actual policymaking, the hearings that have to be held about it. So I think that is an under, not to be crass about it, but like an under leveraged angle here that I think is infuriating for taxpayers over and above the sort of, you know, total corrupt abuse of power when it comes to sexual harassment. There's this taxpayer piece, too.
- [37:21]
Allison Gill
Yeah. And I feel like just having that fun sort of normalizes sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. Is it like when I worked at the Department of Veterans affairs and Trump was elected for his first term in office? In every federal building, they put up a picture of the president and the vice president, and once the picture of Donald Trump went up, it started to get vandalized quite a bit. And we actually had to put aside a fund of taxpayer dollars to replace the picture because it happened so often. Right. So it's like it's just become normal. It's just become sort of routine. And I think that that speaks volumes about how invasive and persistent these issues have become. And Emma, I want to ask you about, you know, we've talked, for example, about Gonzalez and Swalwell resigning, but that doesn't. That's why, you know, you all are trying to take this a step further because resignation actually just helps the institutions. Doesn't.
- [38:20]
Sarah Higginbotham
Does.
- [38:20]
Emma Davidson
I mean, we. Resignation fixes the immediate problem. It stops the abuse from happening, which is great. We don't want more people to have to suffer and to go through the situations that a lot of these survivors have, have brought to our attention. But it's not true accountability we're talking about, you Know, as you point out, the, the investigations stop once, once they're no longer in Congress, the Ethics Committee and the congressional investigatory process ends. So we don't actually get a whole lot of answers about what happened, where did the system break down, what, how egregious were the crimes and how we should respond to them. And in a lot of cases, resignation protects some of the benefits that these congressmen and former congressmen continue to get. In some states, they retain lifetime floor privileges so they can come back and continue to sit on the floor and in some cases harass their victims in perpetuity. In some states, they get certainly get the retirement funds, they get access to the pension. And then there are some places where it's as simple as, like, they retain access to the parking garages and the health clubs. So resignation is kind of a lifeline for them versus actual expulsion, where in most cases, the expulsion removes those pieces. It does paint them with a very different brush, and it really highlights the egregiousness of their abuse of power and their inappropriate behaviors.
- [39:51]
Allison Gill
Yeah, it's so frustrating that somebody can resign and retain their pension and retain their privileges and their benefits, even though they've done something horrifically egregious. Sarah, let's talk about some of the reforms that you're aiming at here, because we always ask on the daily beans, we're always like, what kind of good trouble can we get in? What can we do? Right. And we have most people who listen to this program have the 5 calls app and can call their representatives and their senators. But what are some of the reforms that we should be asking for and looking for that you are advocating for at the National Women's Defense Defense League?
- [40:25]
Sarah Higginbotham
Yeah. Well, there's a. I think it's helpful to think about to pull back and then to get really actionable to pull back. It's really important to know there's not one silver bullet. Right. So it's a whole process. The first part is, what can we do to prevent sexual harassment on the front end? Well, the chairs of the Democratic and Republican women's caucuses went public a few weeks ago and said that the sexual harassment training in Congress is, quote, laughable. Right. It doesn't actually tell you what you shouldn't do, and it doesn't tell you why you shouldn't do it. On top of that, I believe it is virtual, or at least some component of it is, which means you can flip it on and walk away and come back and check the box. So I know for a fact both Caucuses are looking at stronger sexual harassment training. So there's the training piece. That should be ongoing, it should be regular. It should be set up in ways that we can really hold them accountable to doing it. Maryland has a really great system and that they actually release the names of people who haven't completed it, which has been shown to be really effective. And actually, I believe it's Maryland where they can actually pull away, like benefits from your office, like funding for staffers. So it doesn't sound super sexy to use a bad word. It doesn't sound super compelling to talk about sexual harassment training. But it's really important. Not just because we think it will prevent people from sexual harassing, sexually harassing others, but because the staff take it. The staff need to know what their rights are and what they can do. So that's one component. We need a process that moves much faster than it does, that people feel safe using, which they currently do not. And they need to use third parties where and when they can so that they're removing as much conflict of interest as they possibly can. So there's the front end, there's the process piece, and then we need ongoing transparency and evaluation of that. Since so little of these policies have been in place for very long, we need to keep checking in on them. We need to see if they're working. We need to find out where the holes are. And they need to be accountable to the voters and to the public. So we need to be asking for those pieces as well. And then outside of the process, there's. I'll actually let Emma talk about it. There's kind of two really interesting policies that help protect survivors and also change the game.
- [42:37]
Allison Gill
I'm so glad that you said that because I was just going to say, and Emma, I'd like to end on, what are some of the things that you all are doing to empower survivors? Because I know that there are many who are listening to this episode.
- [42:49]
Emma Davidson
Yeah. So one of the pieces of legislation we've really been pushing all across the country and supporting is growing out the anti slap protections. That's strategic litigation against public participation. So it would allow for more survivors to be able to come forward, tell their story without fears of defamation suits or any kind of pushback from a legal system. And we know so many survivors who are not coming forward because they are afraid of the legal ramifications. So having strong anti slap protections for survivors is such a game changer. And then we also know that there are some efforts happening right now around limiting the use of campaign funds to come after survivors and accusers, which. Who knew that that was going to be such a prevalent way that these abusers continue to harass women? But they do have access to this cash, and they. They are using it to try to clear their name, which means that more survivors are going to be afraid to come forward. And that's really what National Women's Defense League does to help support these survivors, is provide as much, you know, as much support in telling their stories or in protecting themselves as we can offer. It means media training and contact with strong investigative report supporters that we're connected with. It means building up these networks of other survivors. They can lean on each other and offer support, and then it means helping them move forward and pass better laws. What were the holes that they fell through? What are the policies that would have made their experiences a little bit better or easier? And ultimately what would have made their workplaces safer for them? And having that come from survivors themselves is so powerful. And we're just incredibly honored to be able to support these strong women as they move forward in that advocacy work.
- [44:39]
Allison Gill
Sarah, can you tell everyone how they can find community with National Women's Defense League, maybe join support and get more information?
- [44:46]
Sarah Higginbotham
Yeah, absolutely. I'd love to. Thank you for asking. They can go to nationalwomensdefenseleague.org and there's a join me link, and they can just join us link and they can just click that. They can also find us on Instagram at National Women's Defense League, and we'd be excited to hear from them. There's all sorts of ways to get involved. You might be a survivor, you might be an ally, you might be a lobbyist, you might be an advocate, you might be. You want to donate. You might want to call your lawmakers. All of those are incredibly powerful, and we're really just on the front end of this movement. So a lot of times people ask us, where's the MeToo movement? And our answer is, we're really just getting started. So it's a very exciting time to be involved.
- [45:24]
Allison Gill
Amazing. NationalWomensDefenseLeague.org thank you, Emma. Thank you, Sarah. I really, really appreciate, appreciate your time today and all this incredibly important information.
- [45:32]
Sarah Higginbotham
Thanks, Allison.
- [45:33]
Allison Gill
All right, everybody, stick around. We'll be right back with the good news.
- [45:37]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
Hi, I'm Frances Collier. And I'm Angela V. Shelton. And we're Frangela. You know what you mean in your life the Final word podcast. Yes, you do. That's right. It is the final word on all things political and pop cultural, where we make real news, real funny, where we inspire you so you can hashtag, resist, subscribe and get a new episode of the Final Word podcast each week. It's the news we think you need to hear.
- [46:02]
Allison Gill
That's right.
- [46:03]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
We think you need to hear it.
- [46:04]
Sarah Higginbotham
Okay.
- [46:05]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
Yeah. It's what we say. So that's right. And because all we do is give. Every Thursday, you can listen to our hysterical podcast, idiot of the Week. We round up the stupid. Because you know what? Somebody has to.
- [46:16]
Sarah Higginbotham
Okay?
- [46:17]
Allison Gill
All we do is give. Everybody, welcome back. It's time for the good news. Who likes good news? Everyone. Then good news, everyone. All right, everybody. If you have any little bit of good news, it can be big, small. It can be from yesterday or 25 years ago. Maybe it's a fun story you like to share when you're sitting around talking to friends. We would love to share it here. If it brings a smile to our face. We want to microdose in your hope. You can also send good trouble suggestions. Maybe send a shout out to a loved one or yourself or a small business or a nonprofit or a government program that's helped you or a loved one. You can tell us about misheard song lyrics, things you just discovered. I was today years old. Those are always fun. Anything at all that you can think of that'll make us smile, send it to us dailybeanspot.com click on contact. And all you got to do to get your stuff right on the air is attach a photo. It can be your pod pet. Pay your pod pet tax. We can try to guess the breeds in your shelter pup. Maybe an adoptable pet in your area that you want us to know about so we can find him a forever home. Otherwise, just, you know, random photos of animals off the Internet. Work your family pictures, baby photos, your baby pictures, pictures of what you're making or creating. Maybe a nice sunset. Funny meme. We love those. Maybe a painting that you're making. You can show us that you got some chickens. I want to see them goats live and see them. Got some cows. Send them in. Anyway, all you have to do is go to dailybeanspot.com and click on contact and just let us know you're out there. All right? First up is your good trouble, and today it comes from Julie Pronoun. She and her I'd like to shout out a local organization, TAP va. That's the Transgender Assistance Program of Virginia. Hashtag transcend homelessness. They provide emergency housing, financial assistance, and clothing to transgender and non binary individuals. I found them during a search of charities@giveoutday.org which highlights hundreds of LGBTQ nonprofits. If people are looking to support the LGBTQ community and causes, this is a great resource to find smaller local nonprofits that help the community. Giveoutday.org early giving will start May 28 and continue through Pride Month. I take great pleasure in making multiple donations despite the current small minded dummy heads in government who should just shut up. Love is love is love. So we'll have a link to the Transgender Assistance Program of virginia and give outday.org tapvirginia.org and everything that you need in the show notes. Thank you so much Julie. Wonderful. I love these highlights of these nonprofit organizations. Next up from Alda Pronoun she and her good news. I went in early and voted in the South Carolina primary. I saw that Alda. It's like 56,000 first day early voting numbers. It's like a massive record. I even got to share with people I saw out and about while running errands how to find their local place via scvotes.org Locations are open from 8:30 to 5 Tuesday, May 26 through Friday, May 29. Everybody get out and vote. Pictures are my flag from the second no Kings rally I got because my husband reminds me I really shouldn't put a paragraph on a protest sign so it says all the words and feelings for me. My pot pet tariff. My cat Sagan. Medium hair, void. AKA Prince. Thud. Thud. That's how he goes through the house. Bubba, Cat, Mr. Man and don't be an asshole. Nix. Sleek short haired void, little girl, tiny cat, Nixie Pixie. Oh, I love these second secondary and tertiary names. It's fantastic. Oh, that flag is really good. Mavros Art. Okay. I love that Alda. That is a beautiful flag. I hope y' all can see that. Oh, your void is a chonky man. Like mine was adorbs. And then the sleek, the sleek little baby girl, Nixie Pixie. But okay. Thud. Thud. Bubba Cat. Mr. Man, don't be an asshole. Sagan. Named after Carl Sagan maybe. I had a cat named the Face who used to like to like put his paws up on the toilet and talk into the toilet and he would make this sound. He would go, carl. Carl. So I had posited that the ghost of Carl Sagan lived in my toilet. And then the cat would reach up and flush the toilet and he would go, no, no, Carl. His weird cat, the Face. He was a Maine coon. But yeah, Sagan's a great name for a cat is what I'm getting at. Anyway, next up from aunt Maggie. Pronoun she and her listening in. Yesterday you stressed attending town hall meetings. I live in South Carolina, unfortunately. And the great, wonderful and amazing Lindsey Graham has not attended a town hall meeting since march of fucking 2017. Nine damn years. He doesn't work for us. And if you have the chance, check out his campaign videos smearing the opposition with hysterical they want to legalize cocaine commercials. As for me and my household, we will be voting for pediatrician Dr. Annie Andrews. She's amazing. She stands on the desperate need for change. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Reproductive freedom, trust women, an economy that works for working people. Us strong schools, affordable childcare, fighting political corruption, end to gun violence and security with dignity in our immigration policies. She is already doing the work. Graham is too busy shopping for who knows what at Disneyland with his bubble wand alone. What rant done. Attached is a lily belly rub pic. She is our deaf yet noisy ball of fluffy murder mittened perfection. I also added a pic of my upcoming tattoo, Wishes with direction. Okay, cat's amazing. Oh, that tattoo. Ah, it's one of those, you know, dandelions that have turned into the white puffy seedlings and some of them are blown away and in the middle is a compass. Wishes with direction. Where'd you get that? Did you draw that? Where'd you get that? I want to know. Aunt Maggie. That's fantastic. All right, next up from Nicholas. Hi ladies of the leguminous profanities. Sharing good news in the form of Parkrun, a free timed 5k event which takes place every Saturday in around 20 countries around the world including the southern states of Greater Canada. I attended the Phonic Lane Farm for their event 134 just this month and ran my second fastest 5k this year. The amazing thing about the Thanock Lane farm is the fact that they have a petting area including animals like horses and llamas and sheep and goats. Very friendly goats of which pictures are attached. Pictured goats and my lovely wife petting goats. You are welcome. Goats, goats, goats. Non stop goats. 24 hour goats live. Need goats. Look at the baby goats. Dude. I love goats. I don't know what it is. It's something about the noise. Nicholas. I love goats. I remember going to the Cleveland Zoo with my parents when I was like 3, 4, 5 years old and they had a padding. Zoo had goats. They'd give you a little one of those waff like a ice cream cone filled with you know, nuts and seeds and. And the goat would just be like, this is lips. And just take the whole thing from you. I loved it. I was giddy. I giggled. Those were the times, man. Remember those times? Ah, yeah. No rent, no bills, no worries, no fascists. I mean, you know, I'm sure they had small groups elsewhere, but not like today. All right, next up from Rosemary Pronoun. She and her good news regarding the Watertown band situation. People came together and raised over $82,000, which will help to purchase the much needed instruments as the school board has banned the use of the school instruments at unsanctioned events. You. You can't use our instruments if it's a gay event, you guys. The composer of the piece flew in from Texas to conduct the piece at a local church in Watertown. That's amazing. The piece was also performed at a venue in Madison, Wisconsin on May 23rd. Rosemary, thank you for that. Was it the Minocqua Brewing Company? I heard something about that. Look. Okay, it's a basset hound. It's not mentioned. Rosemary doesn't mention this basset hound with a headband with four happy faces on it. It's amazing. I'm assuming this is a basset hound. Anyway, next up, Wayne. Pronouns he and him. AG And D. G. I found you a couple years ago. You've been my morning guides every day since. Good morning. Good morning, Wayne. Love you and what you do for the world. Marin School for the Arts is a program embedded in a public high school in Marin County, California. The school is led by three badass women, Michelle Cortez, Shannon Miller, and Green. Along with an outstanding staff of instructors, the school has recently been on a streak of amazing wins. 2026 California Exemplary Arts Education Award, numerous student awards, including a student leader award from the House of Representatives, and now an alumni directing the new Hollywood horror film backrooms. Incredible. While all of these accolades and awards are a measurement of their success, the student body is a thriving group of loving teens. These children are incredibly supportive, inclusive, diverse. They understand the importance of activism. These women in this community of creative souls are a bright light in these times of the wannabe Palpatine. Marchetti is my tax payment 6 year old rescue from a San Antonio kill shelter. Full mutt. Okay, this dog is looking at me like. Like I'm guilty of something. He's very suspect of me right now. And I like his llama. He's adorable. Thank you for that. Anonymous in Kodiak, Alaska. So excited about both our congressional candidates in Alaska against Heritage funded Nick Begich. Am I saying that right? Bigich all visited Kodiak this weekend. Both Democrat Matt Schultz and independent Bill Hill are awesome candidates. Very excited about the open primary and thanks to ranked choice voting, both have a good shot. I wish we had ranked choice voting in California with our stupid all party primaries. I'm leaning towards Bill as a lifelong Alaska commercial fisherman, school superintendent and union construction worker. Pat Tariff is a deer that stopped by my office and our cat Hazel. Okay, first of all, the scenery behind this photo is incredible. Just breathtaking. But the deer butt is amazing. Thank you for showing that. And Hazel doing a lewd L e w D. Is that a trap? Can I pet the belly? Because I want to. Also, the look on her face is priceless. Everybody, thank you so much for sending that in. I needed that today. Send in all your good news for tomorrow. Tomorrow's last day solo without Dana. And you know we always need the pick me up right before the weekend. So send it all to us dailybean spot.com click on contact. Thanks so much to Emma and Sarah for joining us today on the Daily Beans and the National Women's Defense League. Just a really incredible conversation. Very important conversation. And yeah, we'll be back on your ears tomorrow. It's Friday. It's Fugal sang Fridays, so he'll be here as well. 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 Allison Gill with additional research and reporting by Dana Goldberg. Sound design and editing is by Desiree McFarlane with art and web design by Joelle Reader with Moxie Design Studios. Music for the Daily Beans is written and performed by they Might Be Giants. And the show is a proud member of the MSW Media Network, a collection of creator owned podcasts dedicated to news, politics and justice. For more information Please visit msw media.com msw media media.
- [58:40]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
Hi, I'm Frances Collier. And I'm Angela V. Shelton. And we're Frangela. You know what you need in your life? The Final Word podcast. Yes, you do. That's right. It is the final word on all things political and pop cultural. Where we make real news, real funny. Where we inspire you so you can resist. Subscribe and get a new episode of the Final Word podcast each week. It's the news we think you need to hear.
- [59:05]
Allison Gill
That's right.
- [59:05]
Frangela (Frances Collier and Angela V. Shelton)
We think you need to hear it. Okay. Yeah, it's what we say, so. That's right. And because all we do is give. Every Thursday, you can listen to our hysterical podcast, idiot of the Week. We round up the stupid. Because you know what? Somebody has to.
- [59:19]
Sarah Higginbotham
Okay.
- [59:20]
Allison Gill
All we do is give.