C (3:48)
All right, everyone. First up from CBS News, box of wine. Jeanine Pirro's office has decided to stop pursuing the case against six Democratic lawmakers who urged members of the military and intelligence communities in a small social media video not to comply with unlawful orders. This is from three people familiar with the matter. That's what they told NBC News. And I'm sure the reason that she's decided to drop the case is because she keeps fucking losing. Roughly two weeks ago, a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. unanimously rejected an attempt by Pirro to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to indict lawmakers over video illustrating that grand jurors didn't think the government had passed even the low legal threshold of probable cause required to bring the indictment in the first place. While a potential case against the six lawmakers is now considered dead in Washington, that decision wouldn't necessarily bar a federal prosecutor from trying to bring a case in a different federal court district, though there have been no public indications that that's going to happen. Although, you know, this administration hates losing. So even if they're beating their head against a congressional wall and against a judicial wall, they seem to like to do it. Legal experts and Democrats have criticized the unprecedented attempt to use the immense powers of the Justice Department to punish six members of Congress as a purely political attack on protected free speech and sign that the guardrails that existed during this first Trump administration, they've been eroded. And we didn't think there were many guardrails during that first administration. And we've seen even less in this one. Pirro's office had tried to charge those six Democratic lawmakers, all of whom have military or intelligence backgrounds. These are Senators Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Reps. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. We have Jason Crow of Colorado and Chris d' Luzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania. In a series of social media posts, Donald Trump said that the lawmakers were traitors who committed, and I quote, sedition at the highest level. Okay, the lady death protest too much. Every, every accusation's a confession. While Trump suggested the lawmaker's behavior was possibly punishable by death, a grand jury thought otherwise because they found no evidence of a crime at all. Under the Uniform Code of Military justice, members of the military are obliged to, in fact, they are instructed to obey only lawful orders. They must refuse those that are manifestly illegal. The lawmaker said after the indictment attempt failed, that they wouldn't be intimidated by efforts to stifle free speech. And I quote, whether or not Pirro succeeded in this is not the point this is from. Slotkin went on to say, it's that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies. Asked whether Pirro and Trump had spoken about the potential case against the lawmakers, a spokesman for Pirro declined to comment. A White House official said the administration doesn't comment on potential conversations the president may or may not have had. Okay. Since the Watergate era, administrations of both parties have worked to varying extents to create a firewall between the Justice Department and the White House, which has been completely eroded now, allowing the president to just broadly set his administration's policy, but to steer clear of interference in prosecutorial decision making or even communications that would create an appearance of impropriety. All that's gone out the fucking window. Pirro, as we know, was a former Fox News host, has a decades long relationship with Donald, who named her the top federal prosecutor in Washington after Senate Republican bristled at the nomination of Ed Martin. Apparently they thought Pirro was better than that. And as we know, Ed Martin was a longtime conservative activist and advocate for January 6th rioters who led the Weaponization working Group and continues to to hold the position of the Justice Department pardon attorney. He's just selling a play for pay there. In days before attorneys working for Pirro presented the case to federal grand Jury. Pirro made more than a dozen posts praising Donald, though she never publicly spoke about the case against the lawmakers or tied it directly to Trump. One post read, the criminal cases were being brought under the directive of potus. On Monday, she posted a video recorded by right outside the White House in which she praised Donald again. And the New York Times reposted last week that Piero abruptly told her team just to seek the indictment because she couldn't get one from a grange. So she just told them to seek the indictment. On February 5, there was a letter to Pirro that copied two attorneys who tried to bring the case. That was Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden. Those are former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara. I know that's. I don't think that's how you say Preet's last name. Alison would know and I apologize. They are both representing Slotkin and they wrote that it was perplexing that the Justice Department had brought an inquiry into the matter. The letter mentioned that he had spoken to Piro's special counsels on January 14th and one on January 27th, and I quote, the prosecutors we spoke to in the office, though courteous, could not articulate any theory of possible criminal liability or identify any statute that we're relying on that could have been violated. That was exactly what was reported to the New Republic. Pirro's office cannot comment on grand jury matters. Supposedly, that's what they're saying. So of course they're not giving us one. Give me a break. Bharrari later wrote in a letter to Pirro that the grand jury had spoken loudly, clearly and unanimously and said continuing to pursue this matter would be a violation of Justice Department policy. Abby Lowell, an attorney for Crow, wrote a letter to Pirro calling Trump's abuse of Americans justice system chilling and indefensible and her office's attempt to secure an indictment a breathtaking and unprecedented level of prosecutorial overreach and misuse of power. Lowell said Piro's office was obligated to preserve any communications and documents about the investigation and attempted indictment and wrote that he was putting Pirro and her attorneys on notice about the legal ramifications of any further attempt to seek an indictment. I don't know why they keep beating their head against the wall there. You know, Kelly had decided that he is actually going to go to the State of the Union because of this lawsuit. Kelly wants to sit there and stare Don Donald in the eye and tell him, you can't intimidate me. I think a lot of people are questioning that decision. But this is Kelly's decision and I respect what he's going to do because I think he's a man that really knows why he does what he does, and I think that sitting there staring Donald Trump in the face could shake him a little bit. This is going to be a mess anyway. Now I know I may have miss smoking during yesterday's episode. By the time you hear this, the State of the Union's either going to be happening or it will have just happened. So we're going to have all of this covered in tomorrow's podcast and of course on the Beans Talk. So make sure you turn into both of those we're shifting a little bit to CBS News Jeffrey Epstein was the subject of a previously undisclosed US Drug Enforcement Agency investigation. On top of all of the other investigations, this happened to be a five year plus probe targeting him and 14 other individuals for suspicious money transfers possibly linked to illegal narcotics. This is from a newly uncovered document in the Department of Justice's Epstein files. This is from the trove of documents that were released and I quote DEA reporting indicates the above individuals are involved in illegitimate wire transfers which are tied to illicit drug and or prostitution activities occurring in U.S. virgin Islands in New York City. This is from a 2015 document. The 69 page memo is marked Law Enforcement Sensitive and remains heavily redacted, concealing the names of the 14 other targets, much of the substantive details surrounding the investigation. The document appears to stem from a request made by the DEA on an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force's Fusion center in Virginia seeking information from other agencies related to Epstein and the other targets as part of an active case. The task force is a Reagan era creation to combat a surge in cocaine trafficking and the Fusion center was opened in 2009 as a clearinghouse for intelligence sharing between federal law enforcement agencies. For the DEA to open the case, they would have had to be a drug nexus, a law enforcement source told CBS News, adding that the request to the Fusion center indicated the matter was part of a significant investigation rather than just a routine information inquiry. The document includes a DEA case number and lists the case's opening date as December 17th of 2010 in New York. It notes that the matter is judicially pending, indicating that the investigation remained active at the time the memo was drafted Five years later. One law enforcement source told CBS News that this designation suggests investigators may have been awaiting court approval for search warrants or other legal action. Another law enforcement source said it was likely meant an arrest of someone associated with the case had been made. CBS News could not confirm that because the names of the other targets were redacted and they shouldn't be because they're only supposed to be redacting the victims names. We've been through this over and over and over. A different case launched in 2018 by the U.S. attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ultimately landed Epstein in the lower Manhattan federal jail after he was arrested in July of 2019 on charges of sex trafficking. Sources involved in that case told CBS News the prosecutors weren't even aware of earlier DEA investigation. The DA document also reveals the existence of other previously unknown investigations with some links to Epstein. Those include a ton of them. They include an ICE investigation in West Palm beach opened in 2006 and closed in 2008. An ICE investigation in Las Vegas opened in 2009 and listed as pending as of January 27, 2010. An ICE investigation in Paris opened in June of 2013 and closed months later. Titled Operation Angel Watch, an FBI investigation opened in 2006 that still remains active in 2015. The document also lists prior law enforcement contacts and identifies bank accounts linked to Epstein, including accounts in Switzerland, France, the Cayman Islands and New York. It details approximately $50 million in suspicious wire transfers from 2010 to 2015. All the names of the individuals linked to those transactions are redacted. The Department of Justice appears to have accidentally neglected. Accidentally neglected really? To redact the name of a Polish fashion model who was identified in connection to approximately $2 million in transfers and named as a target of the investigation. Uh huh. It's funny how the females are the ones that somehow the names aren't redacted. I'm telling you, they are throwing so many of these women under the bus to protect powerful men. It's disgusting. Emails between the woman and Epstein were included in the release indicating that they had a personal relationship. CBS News is not identifying the woman at the request of her attorney who said she was a survivor. As I said, a survivor Epstein. Her attorney did not reply to an inquiry whether or not she was aware of the DEA target, Senator Ron Wyden. Who we love is that Democrat from Oregon who has been pursuing the Epstein investigation as the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. So he is following the money. All right. He told CBS News that following the money is the key to learning more about Epstein's crimes. And this is a quote from him. It appears Epstein was involved in criminal activity that went way beyond pedophilia and sex trafficking, which makes it even more outrageous that Pam Bondi is sitting on several million unreleased files. I could not agree more. All right, everyone, this next one's from npr. We covered this a little bit on a previous Daily Beans episode. Reptoni Gonzalez is facing mounting pressure now from within his own party though to resign amid new details of an alleged affair between the Texas Republican and a staffer who later died by suicide. We had covered that she had doused herself and lit herself on fire. It was a horrific story. At least five House Republicans have called on Gonzalez to either resign or end his bid for reelection after explicit text messages surfaced from Gonzalez to his then employee Regina Santos Avias, who later died after setting herself on fire. And I quote, america deserves better. Tony should drop out of the race. This is posted Texas Republican Rep. Brandon Gill. Okay, on Monday, we've got Anna Paulina Luna, who's the Republican from Florida, agreeing with him, saying Tony should drop out of the race. We've got GOP Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace, who I really don't like most of the time, saying that they called for Gonzalez to resign. They were joined on Tuesday by Rep. Thomas Massie, who I have gained respect for, in a statement pressed Gonzalez to resign immediately. Gonzalez's office did not respond to a request for comment, but the Congressman has previously denied all these allegations. The controversy comes as House Speaker Mike Johnson is clinging to a razor thin majority in the lower chamber. Republicans currently have a four seat majority and there is speculation additional members with retirement plans could leave ahead of this year's midterm elections. I sure hope they do burn this shit down on the way out. Gonzalez is already facing a probe into the alleged affair by the Office of Congressional Conduct and Independent House Office. And this is according to a source familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss it publicly. The OCC is expected to turn over their findings to the House Ethics Committee in the coming weeks. Asked whether Gonzalez should resign, Johnson called the allegations very serious and said the process has to play out. He says. I despise Johnson on so many levels. He said. In every case like this. I'm sorry, every case like this where someone has an affair and his staffer commits suicide by lighting her. Okay, got it. Johnson. Like every case like this, you have to allow the investigations to play out and all the facts to come out. This is what Johnson told reporters on Monday. This next quote's fucking ridiculous. If the accusation of something is going to be the litmus test for someone being able to continue to serve in the House, you'll have a lot of people who would have to resign or be removed or expelled from Congress. Why are there so many fucking nefarious accusations against Congress? Mike Johnson that's what I'd like to know. Maybe because you all keep breaking the law or doing things that are completely repulsive. Gonzalez is in his third term representing Texas's 23rd congressional district, a seat in southwest Texas. He faces a tough primary contest on March 3rd and could head into a repeat of a Republican runoff in 2024 that saw him just edge out conservative YouTuber Brandon Herrera by only about 350 votes. The craziest part is, between the two of them, Gonzalez is actually the lesser of two evils. Everybody Brand Herrera is a horrible man. We'll keep you posted on that. Obviously, I know they're worried about this in the House of Representatives, but if we do our job in Texas, it doesn't matter what Republican is running in that seat. Hopefully we'll be able to flip it blue. All right, we're going to the opposite coast. This next story is from the Boston Globe. The Trump administration has scrapped plans to convert a warehouse in Merrimack, New Hampshire, into an immigration detention facility. Governor Kelly, I'm not sure if I'm saying Governor Kelly's last name correctly, but Ayodi announced on Tuesday. Please send me in a correction if it's not Governor Aodi, but I'm going to keep saying it that way. The announcement comes after months of protest and pushback from Merrimack residents over the proposal, which was part of a $38 billion initiative to establish a new detention model for Trump's mass deportation agenda. The 324,000 square foot industrial warehouse in Merrimack would have had between 400 to 600 beds for detainees in, according to DHS documents. It would have been part of a new nationwide network with enough beds to incarcerate more than 92,000 people nationwide. These are just horrible, ayodi said. The federal government's decision to halt the Merrimack project followed a trip to Washington last week during which he had been productive discussions with DH Secretary Kristi Noem. I call bullshit. I think this was from public pushback, everyone, so please continue to do that. Said I thank Secretary Noem for hearing the concerns of the town of Merrimack and for the continued cooperation between DHS and New Hampshire law enforcement. The proposed project had been met with an outpouring of local opposition, including from local officials in Merrimack, who said it would strain police and emergency services and reduce local property tax revenues by nearly $530,000. It also sparked multiple protests. IOTI had not said whether she opposed the project, but instead repeatedly called on federal authorities to consult with local officials who have struggled to confirm details on the plan. And I quote, I appreciated my discussions with Governor Aotte last week. This is from Nome. Said in a statement she didn't address the scrapped warehouse plans beyond that, but instead highlighted areas of collaboration with the state. And another quote from the story, from banning sanctuary cities to strengthening law enforcement cooperation, New Hampshire has been a strong partner in securing our country, and we look forward to continuing our work together. That's from Kristi Noem. And there was other quotes from Mara Healy, the governor of Massachusetts, saying, good, that's it. She posted that on social media in response to the cancellation. Healy had previously called on Aodi to do, and I quote, everything in her power to block the warehouse on behalf of the region. Aodi responded by blaming Healy and others in Massachusetts for creating a, quote, billion dollar illegal immigrant crisis in New England. Give me a break. Democratic lawmakers from Merrimack celebrated the canc. And I quote, over the past few months, the people of Merrimack made it clear that a large federal detention facility was not welcome here. This is from the statement from state Representatives Nancy Murphy, Rosemary Rung and Wendy Thomas. The project also drew opposition from some local Republican leaders, including State Senator Tim McGow and State Representative Bill Boyd. And I quote, governor Yodi's leadership and determination are the reason DHS chose not to move forward with their facility in Merrimack. This is from McGowan. He said in a state statement praising her advocacy for Merrimack's interests. Kim Herdman Shapiro, an activist who opposed the ice warehouse, called the news of victory. She said, today the people of Merrimack and all of New Hampshire proved that organized local voices are more powerful than a federal agency's ruthless expansion. This is a victory for us and all New England, but it is not the end of the fight. And that's exactly it. Everyone, I really want you to hear that. It is these local voices, these organized protests that are making a difference. These are elected officials. And if they keep hearing from their constituents, we don't want this here. We don't want this here. And you're seeing all of these red areas flip blue. And you're seeing Republicans losing races by 27 points when Trump had taken those areas in the last election. Your protest and your voices matter. Continue to show up in the streets and continue to be loud. Okay, we're going back to Epstein which I'm telling you right now. Listen to the beans talk today because I did everything I could to make all of the stories good news because there's so much shit in the hot notes. So, and as I do that and bring you these stories, this next one is going to come with a trigger warning. This is from npr. The Justice Department has withheld some Epstein files related to allegations that President Trump sexually abused a minor. This is from npr. This is what the investigation finds. It also removes some documents from the public database where accusations against Jeffrey Epstein also mentioned Trump. Some files have not been made public despite a law mandating their release. These include what appear to be more than 50 pages of FBI interviews, as well as notes from conversations with a woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago when she was a minor. NPR reviewed multiple sets of unique serial numbers appearing before and after the pages in question stamped onto documents into the Epstein Files database, FBI case records, emails and discovery document logs. In the latest tranche of documents published at the end of January, NPR's investigation found dozens of pages that appear to be cataloged by the Justice Department but not shared publicly. The Justice Department declined to answer NPR's questions on record about their specific files, what's in them, and why they're not published after publication. The Justice Department reached out to npr, taking issue with how its responses to questions were framed. Department of justice spokeswoman Natalie Baldessare reiterated DOJ's stance that any documents not published are privileged, are duplicates, or relate to ongoing federal investigation. That's not what the law says, everybody. Following NPR's reporting, the House Oversight Committee's ranking member, Rep. Robert Garcia, the Democrat from California, released a statement about the missing files. He said, yesterday, I reviewed unredacted evidence logs at the Department of Justice Oversight. Democrats can confirm that the DOJ appears to have illegally withheld FBI interviews with this survivor who accused Donald Trump of heinous crimes. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, they've already been investigating these allegations against the president. They're now going to open a parallel investigation into the Department of Justice's decision not to release these particular documents. And I love that this is happening. According to NPR's review of three different sets of serial numbers stamped onto the files, there appear to be 53 pages of interview documents and notes missing from public Epstein database. In the first interview document, the woman discussed ways Epstein abused her as a young girl and in identifying himself to investigators, showed a cropped photo of the disgraced financier. I'm sorry, child rapist. I'M just going to put it in there. Her attorney said it was cropped because she was, and I quote, concerned about implicating additional individuals and specifically any that were well known due to fear of retaliation. The FBI agents noted it was a widely distributed photograph of Epstein with Trump. Widely distributed A woman who biographical details and description of Epstein's abuse found in the FBI interview also line up with the details from a victim lawsuit. In the December 2019 filing, Jane Doe 4 does not mention Trump, and the woman voluntarily dismissed her claims against Epstein's estate in December 2021. Attorney for the accuser has declined to comment on that elsewhere in the release. Epstein files Someone in the FBI wrote on July 22, 2025, before the list and slide presentation were compiled, that Trump's name was in the larger case files and that one identified victim claimed abuse by Trump but ultimately refused to cooperate. The other woman who mentioned Trump and made the Department of Justice's presentation appears in Maxwell's discovery files released last month in what's known as a testifying witness 3500 material list. In the first interview of six with the FBI, conducted between September of 2019 and September of 2021, the second woman detailed how Epstein and Maxwell's abuse began when she was 13 years old attending the Interlochen Center. This is a big story, too, that hasn't been covered as much as that should be attending the Interlochen center for the Arts and describing how at one point Epstein took her to Trump's Mar A Lago club to meet him and I quote, Epstein told Trump, this is a good one, huh? That's what the interview said in 2020 lawsuit against Epstein's estate. Anne Maxwell, the second woman, added that both men chuckled and she felt very uncomfortable, but at the time she was too young to understand why. That interview was removed from the Department of Justice's public files sometime after initial publication on January 30. It was there everyone, and then it was taken down, but then it got republished February 19th. And this is according to the document metadata. The Justice Department told NPR the only reason any file has been temporarily removed is because it's been flagged by a victim or their counsel for additional review. That's bullshit. Multiple FBI interviews with other people refer to the second woman's meeting with Trump while she was a minor and being abused by Epstein. One interview with a fleeting mention of Trump was removed from the public database and subsequently restored last week, while another interview with the woman's mother is still online after publication. The Justice Department said The file required additional redactions and will be reposted soon. Uh huh. I'm sure. In that conversation, the mother recalled hearing that a prince and Donald Trump visited Epstein's house, which made her, and I quote, think that if they are there, then how could Epstein be a criminal? According to NPR's copy of the file that was published, the possible omission of files that mention these women's particular allegations against the President. They come as the Justice Department has warned about other documents it has published in full that includes what it calls, and I quote, untrue and sensationalist claims. It just pisses me off. A lot of these have been corroborated by testimony. These are people coming forward. I just, it's just infuriating. At the same time, the Justice Department has re uploaded thousands. So they've taken them down and put them back up thousands of pages in recent weeks to fix improper, redacted victims names they should have never happened in the first place. That includes documents related to the allegations from these two women. Everybody who separately say that they were around 13 years old when Epstein first abused them. Robert Glassman, who represents the woman who testified against Maxwell, sharply criticized the DOJ's handling of the Epstein files. He said, this whole thing is ridiculous. The DOJ was ordered to release information to the public, to be transparent about Epstein and Maxwell's criminal enterprise network. Instead, they released the names of courageous victims who have fought hard for decades to remain anonymous and out of the limelight whether the disclosures were inadvertent or not. They had one job to do here and they didn't do it. And that's just it. They had one fucking job to do. Everything else is mandated by law. They're supposed to release the files in their entirety with the only redactions being the victims names to protect them. And they are protecting so many of these guilty parties, it's absolutely disgusting. But we're not letting up on this. No one is letting up on this. And I love that now that there's tandem investigations to figure out why the Department of Justice is fucking everything up. It gives me hope. Let's keep our foot on the gas and make sure we do not stop talking about this just out of respect for the victims and to hold these people in power accountable. So many crimes, so many crimes. And I do believe there are several of the Epstein survivors that were in and will be in the audience of the State of the Union speech tonight. And I hope Trump can see every single one of their fucking faces looking back at him. Disgusting, disgusting human being. All right, I'm sorry to end this section on such a note, but you know, not much of the news makes me joyful these days. But you do. It's your good news submissions that make me happy. So we're going to take a quick break and we'll be back with the good news after these messages. We'll be right back. Every group has that one person who refuses to change anything until it's practically a crisis. The same phone, the same plan, the same monthly bill, and somehow they're still surprised it costs so much. Our podcast producer went the opposite direction. He is using Mint Mobile now and he made the switch because he was tired of overpaying for wireless. He says the coverage is just as strong as his old provider and the speeds are just as fast. The big difference? The price. He's saving a ton compared to what he was paying before and he keeps saying he should have done it sooner. Let's thank Mint Mobile for supporting this episode. Make the switch@mintmobile.com DailyBeans if you're sick of paying a huge wireless bill because it's always been that way, Mint Mobile is the way to go. It is premium wireless with unlimited talk, text and data, but at a fraction of what the big guys charge. So right now, for a limited time, mint is offering 50% off off 3, 6 or 12 month plans of unlimited Premium Wireless. Bring your own phone, keep your phone number and activate with an ESIM in minutes. No contracts, no long term commitment, and with a seven day money back guarantee plus customer satisfaction ratings in the mid-90s, it's low risk. To see why people do not go back ready to stop paying more than you have to. New customers can make the switch today and for a limited time, get unlimited Premium wireless for just $15 per month. Switch now@mintmobile.com DailyBeans that's mintmobile.com DailyBeans upfront payments of $45 for three months, $90 for six months and $180 for 12 month plan required. It's $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only over 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. Capable device required. Ability, speed and coverage varies. Additional terms apply. See mintmobile.com turn those what if plans into measurable progress with Shopify. If you're ready to move beyond planning and start operating, Shopify provides a clear, structured way to begin. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today. It's a straightforward entry point that lets you launch learn and iterate quickly while keeping your efforts focused and organized. Shopify powers millions of businesses around the world and about 10% of US E commerce. From household names like Allbirds to brand new shops launching their first product, Shopify's design studio has hundreds of ready to use templates so your store can look polished and on brand fast. It also boosts efficiency when you're adding products or tightening up what's already there. Shopify helps you market like you have a team with email and social media campaigns that reach customers wherever they are scrolling or strolling. If you're worried people have not heard of your brand yet, those campaigns help you find them behind the scenes. Shopify is your commerce expert with inventory, payments and analytics in one place, plus tools for international shipping and processing returns. And you've probably seen Shop pay the Purple button at checkout. It's used by millions of businesses and Shopify claims it to be the best converting checkout on the planet, which helps cut abandoned carts and increase sales. A key moment for my business was realizing I needed a platform that could grow with me. Shopify gave me me the tools to stay organized, stay in control and keep building without outgrowing my setup. It's time to turn those what ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com dailybeans go to shopify.com dailybeans that's shopify.com
