The Daily Beast Podcast - Donald Trump’s Huge Debts Make Him Even More Dangerous

Episode Date: March 15, 2024

NewsNation contributor Kurt Bardella joins The New Abnormal to discuss the state of the 2024 presidential election—and the complete failure of American journalism to adapt to Republicans’ strategy of spewing falsehoods. Plus, a conversation with Josh Kovensky, an investigative reporter at Talking Points Memo, about the Society for American Civic Renewal—a men’s only secret society of prominent far-right Christians. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Kedden, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. What an excellent show we have today.

News Nation contributor Kurt Bardella is here to talk about how things are going for Joe Biden lately and the importance of Democrats showing up this November. Then we'll talk to investigative reporter for Talking Points Memo, Josh Kovitsky, who will tell us about his recent expose on the Society for American Civic Renewal, a secret society of prominent right-wing Christian men. But first, let's have some fun. I want you all to imagine for a moment, Andy and I, in the midst of an interpretive dance that we would do for you on TikTok to talk about why the TikTok ban is bullshit, in my humble opinion. But here's the thing. The House of Representatives this week, imagine this.

They can pass legislation, folks. It's just none that actually matters whatsoever. It's not like, oh, my God, look what the House did. they've banned assault rifles, or look what the house did. They gave women back bodily autonomy, or look what the house did. They, you know, are saving IVF. Uh-uh. No, it's not any of those things.

But they are looking to ban TikTok for the reason that they are saying that it is, quote, a threat to national security. And I have to tell you that in my humble opinion, that is the biggest load of bullshit I have actually. heard from either party. If we are talking about privacy and threats, I direct you to look no further than meta. I direct you to look no further than what meta run by Americans, Mark Zuckerberg, did in 2016 to thwart the election by allowing a barrage of misinformation and disinformation to flood his platforms, not to mention the Nazis that set up sites and set up pages and all of these

things. And so, so much so that he had to pay out $1.3 billion to the European Union for what he did with that platform as it pertains to privacy and information. So I'm confused, Andy, by the reasoning that both Republicans and Democrats are offering as wide-tube. TikTok has got to go because I think that they're on some bullshit. What say you? I agree 100%. And I'll throw on top of that. I think it's fairly clear and fairly obvious that banning TikTok would be unconstitutional.

Okay. Have you seen any evidence offered as to why TikTok is a security threat? No, I have not. You have not because no information has been offered. And Mike Maznick at TechDirt, who is so good on stuff like this, wrote a, he's written a whole bunch about it. But he has basically said exactly that, that there is no evidence of this. He said anytime he tries to ask someone, all those days as well, it's in classified briefings. He points out that Representative Sarah Jacobs in the House said, no, she has not seen, she's been in those briefings and has

not seen any evidence that TikTok poses a national security threat. The whole thing is just, it is again, it's security theater. And it's, it's a way of. quote unquote, doing something without actually doing anything. And it boggles my mind that an organ of the federal government, in this case, the House of Representatives, will just straight up pass a law that there is absolutely no way is constitutional. That sort of seems like rule one. If you're a lawmaker is don't pass laws or don't pass bills that fly in the face of the Constitution. I don't know, because I'm fairly certain the oath you take is to uphold the Constitution. The whole thing is insane and it really, really sucks that President Biden said he will sign a TikTok ban. And I don't

know what he's thinking. And I also think that, boy, if you want to alienate young voters, I honestly don't know that I could think of a better way than this. I just think that, you know, one, Biden is about 60 years removed from the TikTok demographic. That's number one. Number two, the people that are around him and the people that are around most politicians are not necessarily the most in touch people on what TikTok is actually used for and what is happening. Because again, I just say look no further than Apple, then Google. You want to talk about people who have all of your fucking information and the number of breaches that we have seen on selling of information that they have, if you have any app, if you have any smartphone, just know that your information

is already out there. Like, how is it that you and I could be in conversation? And then I get an ad about the very conversation that we were having popping up on my fucking Instagram feed. Yeah. Let's stop pretending and hiding behind this idea that China is spying on us when we are spying on us. When capitalism is spying on us all of the time to force feed us things that they need for us to buy in order to continue feeding the wages and like the insatiable appetite of shareholders. So let us have those real conversations. And for me, where I think that there is going to be an incredible misstep as well as it pertains to TikTok is the fact that this is where a number, millions, tens of millions of people get their news and

information, that mainstream media has failed in so many ways. And I look no further than just recently what we saw with Kitchin' Katie, with a Republican rebuttal, who was it that found out that that was an entire bullshit lie that she told? Jonathan Katz, a TikTok journalist, who pulled up all of the receipts. It didn't come from CBS or NBC or AP or any of those outlets. And so I think that too much information, too much real-time knowledge is what is actually a threat that these politicians see on both sides and that it isn't about the privacy that they say that it is. I 100% agree. That's exact what this is about. This is an aside. I'll push back a little on what you said about Apple because Apple, out of all these big companies, Apple does the best at keeping your

information private and about them not knowing a lot of stuff about you, whether it's end-to-end encryption in the messages and other stuff. They are light-ears better than the other two you named Google and Mehta, who are just the absolute worst. And I agree, are much more of a danger in regards to privacy and things like that than the Chinese government is. You are 100% correct that people are getting news from TikTok. And look, that doesn't mean that all the news on TikTok is reliable.

I mean, I do my best to screen out politics and news on TikTok. it's not why I'm there. I'm there to watch TV show bloopers and silly stuff that calm me down for an hour at night because of all the news I see all day. But look, there is bad information on TikTok, just as there is bad information anywhere on the internet. But there's also a lot of good information. And there are a lot of young people, and that's how they're getting their information. You mentioned Jonathan Katz. I mean, he's not primarily known as a TikTok journalist, but that's exactly where the stuff that he dug up about Katie Britt's story, that's where it went viral. And like you said, that's where it got brought to the attention of the mainstream media, which was kind of dozing off

at the switch. So I completely agree with you that that if you're looking for an ulterior motive here for banning TikTok, it's got absolutely nothing to do with China other than that is like a nice thing to say because it scares people and politicians love to scare people. But it has much more to do with the fact that young people are making an end run around mainstream media and around government officials, quite frankly, people like Katie Britt, who are getting up there and outright lying and being called out for it. So that's exactly what you've got going on here. And I just want to get to, before we leave this topic, because I think it's something we should talk about. Donald Trump's little 180 on this. And he was one of the guys calling for a TikTok ban. And he's one of the guys

it's always going off about China and how dangerous China is. He had a meeting with a guy named Jeff Yass, who is a hedge fund manager who has a $33 billion stake in TikTok. And he met with Trump right after that. Trump completely did a 180 and now does not support a TikTok ban. So if you want to talk about the politics behind this, you know, and what it's really about, there's your answer right there. Donald Trump is always going to pivot to where the money is. Right. He's always going to pivot to where the power is. That's why I think that he is actually more dangerous now with over half a billion dollars in debt than he was in 2016. Yep. Because he will go wherever the money is and it does not matter whose hand he is getting it from so long as he is getting it.

I'm looking around and do you know who's thinking, Andy, about who's putting together a deal to buy TikTok? Who? I just have to tell people this. I can't believe it. former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. Oh, God. Who is a Trumper, a MAGA person. So you would be looking at not only Elon Musk, a fucking white supremacist

fascist who is now destroyed the global town square of Twitter. And now TikTok would be in the hands of another. Like, I'm just curious. Let me just put out a bat signal. Where the fuck are the Democratic billionaires? Like, do we have? none that actually care about communications, media, and democracy. I'm so confused about why no one on our side actually gives a damn. Is it not enough for you that George Soros pays our bills?

I want to jump off a cliff. Speaking of jumping off a cliff, Republican Congressman Ken Buck, he's leaving the House of Representatives. He had already announced that he wasn't going to run for reelection in November, but now, surprising pretty much everyone, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who didn't know about this until it happened, which is not what you want in a Speaker of the House and when someone from your party is leaving. Buck announced that he's going to be leaving on March 22nd. So there's a couple of things here. One is Republicans already have like a razor thin margin in the House. And to the point, as we've seen, somebody being out sick or one Democrat coming out of the hospital to cast a vote can swing bills from being passed to not past or

vice versa. And with Buck leaving now at the end of March, March 22nd, I think, that seat will be vacant until June 25th, which is when the Colorado governor has called for a special election. So it shrinks the already tiny margin that the Republicans have in the House, which is good news for, obviously for Democrats and for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who can take a look at who's there that day and maybe try to get some stuff bad. based on which Republicans are out. And it also sets up a really weird situation for Lauren Bobert. So I'll try to be clear about this because it's a little confusing.

So there's this special election. Lauren Bobert is in a different district than Ken Buck. Obviously, they both serve together. But she is switching districts to run in November. And she is switching districts to Ken Buck's district. So she will be running in that election in November. She is not running in the special election that will take. take place on June 25th. So someone else will serve out the rest of Ken Buck's time. So there's two things here.

One, that makes someone else an incumbent, which might make it harder for Bobert. But the main thing here is the Republican primary is on the same day as a special election. So Burbert will be on the ballot for the primary that will see who is going to run on the Republican side in November. But she will not be on the ballot to see who will fill the rest of Ken Buck's seat. And there's a lot of talk that, you know what, if people are going to send someone to fill Ken Buck's seat in this special election, there's a good chance. At least some of them are going to vote for that same person on that same day in the primary, which could hurt Lauren Beaumbert.

And I know, Danielle, that you are devastated by this news. I am, and you've made it so clear, like the groping that she did in the Beetlejuice film. It seems to me that ain't nobody like Bobo anymore because I don't think that Ken Buck made that move because he wanted her to stay in Congress, and there were quick decision-making that needed to be made. But here's the thing. She's been running in this new district. She's not doing well.

The people in her old district don't like her. The people in this new district don't like her. And she has a lot of problems on the home front. So if I were her, you know, maybe she should make the announcement that she's going and leaving Congress to spend more time with her family, because they need it, you know? they actually need it.

Although I guess the amount of her family that's actually at home is getting smaller every day. Shit. Oh. But no, it's a good point. Look, we have to remember she barely won re-election. She won it by like a little over 500 votes, right? Yeah. So she barely won in 2022.

The guy who she beat was going to run against her in that district. And more than likely, that's why she changed districts. But I think you're absolutely right. I mean, Ken Buck hasn't come out and said, obviously, that that's why he's retiring early. But I think there's a pretty good sense that that is indeed, at least one of the reasons he's retiring early, to make it more difficult for Bobert to take over that seat. I sort of refuse to say a lot of nice things about Ken Buck. Sometimes he's good on things, and then he weasels. And so I don't, you know, I'm not going to sit here and laud Ken Buck.

But, I mean, if he can get Lauren Bobert out of Congress, that's not the worst. in the world to have on your gravestone. Hey, a broken clock is right twice a day. So, you know, we'll give that to him. If you're able to get Bobo out of office, then Bravo to you. Hats off. Yeah, absolutely. Then can you go to Georgia and go after Marjorie?

The other thing that we're hearing about Ken Buck leaving is that he might not be the last. All a bunch of Republicans, I think 15 Republicans from the House are just outright quitting, not running for your election, not running for a different office come November. And there were Democrats who were leaving as well, not as many who are outright quitting. Some are leaving to run for Senate or to run for whatever. But there are some stories floating around. Newsweek has one of them. Newsweek is not my favorite place to cite.

But Axios has talked about this too. Axios actually asked Buck if he was getting any pressure about this decision. And Buck replied, quote, I think it's the next three people that leave that they're going to be worried about, which is interesting. And Newsweek points out that there are a bunch of people like Thomas Massey from Kentucky, Chip Roy from Texas, who have been critical of Trump on some things. Massey was a DeSantis backer. And Trump has called Chip Roy. He's referred to Chip Roy as a rhino.

And so there's speculation that maybe those guys could be next, that it's just not worth the hassle of being a Republican in office and not being 100% in the cult of Trump. Now, to be fair, both of those representatives' offices have said, this is ridiculous. Yes, they're running for re-election in November. So take this with a grain of salt. But there is some talk that maybe this is like not the last Republican who's just going to say, I'm done. I'm done with this whole thing.

Yeah. Politics in general has just become an unwelcoming place. But I also think that, I mean, look at what's happened with the RNC. if you're running, like if you're a Republican and you're running, where are you getting support and money from? Like, it's not coming from the RNC, which has been taken over by the Trumps. And they have said, like, we're not focused on anything or anyone outside of the presidential election. And all of our resources and attention is going to go to that, is going to go to Donald Trump and making sure he doesn't go broke while running for president. So it's like, if you are, and let me say this,

I don't believe that there are any good Republicans left. I don't believe that there are any serious Republicans left. But if you are not a multimillionaire and actually look for the support of your party in order to get things done, well, they basically have abandoned you. So I think that a lot of people are seeing the writing on the wall and are just like, I'm done. I'm out, right? Like get out why you still can. And so I don't think that Ken Buck will be the last person that we will see leave. I don't know if that is going to, you know, turn us into a Democratic House run by Speaker Jeffries.

But I definitely think that Republicans are seeing that if they are not wholly aligned, like, give up everything else, your soul, your dignity, your values, your morals to Donald Trump, there's no, there's no place for you. And there's no place for you to even, like, have your own constituency. You were just part of the fiefdom that is Donald Trump and Maga. So the power that they once had, the respect that they once had, they no longer do. And I think a lot of them are starting to see that. We'll be right back. Folks, I am so excited to welcome back to the new abnormal, my friend, and newly minted contributor at News Nation, Kurt Bardella. Kurt, let's just get into it.

We are now eight months. And I, like, when I say that, like, the knot in my stomach doubles in size. but we are eight months away from the presidential election. We are coming off of a pretty hot run that Biden has had following the state of the union. Donald Trump is losing his mind and so much as he was made a fool of at the Oscars by Jimmy Kimmel, who read his truth social review, quote unquote, for an entire audience of all the people that Donald Trump has ever wanted to love him to laugh at him with raucous laughter. First, I want to say this. How are you feeling about where Biden is at this very moment versus where he was a couple of weeks ago? I feel much better. And no one is more surprised to say that than I am, honestly. But I think the combination of watching how he performed at the state of the Union, watching how Republicans in Congress particularly just made a total ass of themselves with their hearing earlier this week with the former special counsel, Mr. Her.

and even Republicans out there saying the impeachment thing is basically toast. Like it's not going to happen. They need to move on. They have just humiliated and debased themselves. And the thing is they went all in on the Biden age, Biden, you know, mental acuity issue. And between the performance we saw at the State of the Union and the performance we saw from that hearing this week, I think that the president did a really effective job at least, you know, giving us. getting particularly Democrats and his base stop with the hand-wringing for a minute and let

these things play out a little bit more. I think it gave him a much longer runway. Because let's be clear, if he had had a subpar night at the State of the Union, the narrative would be so very different. But the combination of his, I think, very strong performance and the fact that when those transcripts were released of his interview with the special counsel, that it turned out that this narrative that the media just ran with, and we can talk more about that in a minute, that he didn't know things like when his son died and the transcript told a very different story. I think that was a very powerful one-two combo that benefited the president standing tremendously. I'm so glad that you brought up Robert Hur and his report and the

hearing this week because, I mean, what a load of bullshit. His pushback, his wanting to be indignant about being called out as if somebody, was doing him dirty. I'm saying, how in your transcript do you write that the president has a near photo? Wow, your memory seems to be almost photographic. And then in the report that you write, you say, oh, well, we haven't found anything anyway, but couldn't investigate because he's feeble-minded and, you know, and forgets things. It's just like, sir, those two things are not the same. You editorialize as if you were the editor-in-chief of Vogue, like, what are you doing? And so, So I wonder, is it one of those cases, though, Kurt, where the damage was already done, that people, that he knew and Republicans knew that the mainstream media was going to run with what was initially stated, not what is now found to be a lie?

Right. I mean, let's be clear. The Republicans are experts at work in the refs at gaming the system. They learned very early on that whatever accusation you make that the media will just run with it. And it doesn't matter if the truth doesn't align with what you initially said. It doesn't matter if the facts don't add up. They're willing to make that trade of getting, you know, mass saturation coverage of stories that Biden doesn't remember when his son died and days and weeks of that narrative. They're willing to take that and live with one day of, oh, it turns out we got that wrong.

He did know, okay, let's move on. Because I'll tell you, a week from now, no one in the media is to be talking about. that. And so if you're the Republicans from just a pure operative standpoint, it's a good strategy. Because the media has apparently has, thinking back to the Bill Barr and his prebuttal of the Mueller report. You know, they're like, oh, this works. Why would you change that tactic? The media is not going to grow up. The media is not going to evolve. The media is not going to learn anything and change how they cover anything coming from the Trump Republican side. So they have no incentive to stop what they're doing. They're going to lie. They're going to distort. They're going to manipulate.

They're going to paint a picture. The media is going to air that for them. They're going to, you know, the media basically is the equivalent of the money launderers for the Republican Party at this point. Come on. And it's right. And, you know, the only caveat that I will give to that, but it wasn't even mainstream media that did the discovery.

It was TikToker Jonathan Katz, right? Who finds out that Kitchen Katie, Senator Katie Britt, her entire story and rebuttal to the state of the union was bullshit. But that wasn't discovered vis-a-vis CNN or MSN. or CBS or NBC News, that was figured out by a TikToker, journalist Jonathan Katz, who said, oh, let me show up the receipts. If not for him, and funny enough, now TikTok is in danger of being banned and people think like, oh, it doesn't really matter. And I'm thinking to myself, actually, if you care about information, it matters and access to information, it matters.

But the fact is, is that those outlets like TikTok, like other social media, work because mainstream media is failing. Oh, God, yes. One of the biggest frustrations that I have, when you look at particularly the wealthy class within the Democratic Party, the rich donors, the people like George Soros or Lauren Paul Jobs or people who have these resources, how on earth on your watch do you allow Elon Musk to buy Twitter and do what he has done to it? How do you let that happen? How do you let someone like that hijack what was the town square? And one of the most powerful and impactful resources that we had to do fact-checking in real time and to expose truths. Why are we in a situation now where, you know, if what needs to happen is, you know, we need some new ownership in TikTok, I'd like for one of these Democrat billionaires to open up their wallet and buy a stake in TikTok if that's what it takes to keep that going and to comply with all, you know, and address some of the job.

the national security concerns that exist. It's like, we need these people who have those resources and could impact the playing field in such a profound way if they stop letting our media resources our social media fall into the hands of the right wing dictator despot. And it's like, it's not enough to just like cut a check on a super PAC or write a check to Biden for press. Like, you guys have enormous resources that you and I couldn't even imagine adding. And you could play such a pivotal role in bringing filters. and facts back to the surface. And instead, we're watching these crazy meltdowns happen right now on places like X.

I mean, just like the fight between Dodd Lemon and Elon Musk, the last week. It's like, what is happening right now, folks? Yeah. And that, I mean, this is the thing, too. And you're so right to bring up like the Democratic billionaires. Like, where the fuck are they? You know what I'm saying? Like, in all honesty, when we're looking at if you care about democracy, if you care about

freedom of speech, if you care about access. information, if you care about all of these things that you purport are important, then why wouldn't you put your money where your mouth is? And I continue to say this, just on the TikTok front, what I want people to understand is that they think that it's a platform for little kids to do dances and dance challenges and virality and all of those things. And yes, a portion of it is. It is also a venue where Gen Z and the rest of us get information from in very quick and rigorous soundbites an investigation. And when people left the platform of X because of how Elon Musk decided to light it up, where people went was to TikTok in a very major way. And so when you're talking about shutting it down

and you're saying that they are privacy concerns, then I say, anybody seen meta lately? Yeah. Anybody seen meta since 2016, since they allowed Russian influence and misinformation to flood into our elections, anyone notice at the fact that they have to pay out $1.3 billion to the European Union for the privacy and data breaches that they had? Like, if you want to, if you tell me that it's about privacy and about my safety, then I'm looking at the fucking American firms that are doing more dirt. Right. Well, and it's like, come on, when is the last time any of these people who talk about privacy read the terms and agreements of just your iPhone? It's like, I mean, like, I'm sorry. We live at a time where I just assume everybody has everything online like they know everything the privacy thing I'm like yeah you know

what if you have an iPhone if you have a social media account if you have a shopping account an app that has pottery barn on your phone like guess what they know everything anyway correct like that ship is sale come on yeah circling back to Trump and Biden and not even on the TikTok issue because I'm telling you I don't think that it's going to bode well for either of them. This is not the bipartisan issue that we were that we were looking for. And I don't think it's going to bode well for either camp, but I honestly do think that it will fare worse for Joe Biden with Generation Z that is already on the fence about whether or not they want to back him. Like he's doing these student loan reliefs and he's doing these kind of nibbling around the edges on the issues

that they care about most. But I really don't think that this is going to be one that's going to go well for him. And in that vein, Kurt, I want to ask you, like, there are many groups who we have seen. We saw the uncommitted votes that took place in Michigan, Maine and other places that were protest votes. People saying, you are not representing me in the way that I want my interest to be represented. And so I'm going to send up a flare. What do you make about these warning shots that are coming from disgruntled facets of the Democratic Party and how that is going to shape up over the next eight months as we get to November. On one hand, like, I get where the coming from. I really do. I don't really have a problem

with them expressing that in these primaries where like there's nothing really at stake. There's no harm done. You're making what you believe is an important point you have every right to do so. I will say that please, please, please learn from what happened in 2016. The last time that we were, well, you know, we don't really like what we got, especially those on the left. for supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders. We're going to just like protest. We're going to sit this one out. Well, look what fucking happened, okay?

You don't like the fact that your rights are being taken away by the Supreme Court. Well, that doesn't happen if Hillary Clinton becomes present in 2016. And she becomes president if everybody in the Democratic Party shows up in boats. And so it's like, listen, if we don't get the big thing right, which is democracy, peaceful transition of power, agreeing that we should live in a constitutional republic. The other issues won't matter, okay? Like, everything beneath that doesn't happen. And I think all these people need to ask themselves one very basic question.

Do you honestly believe that the issue that you care most about will be heard by President Donald Trump? Or do you think you'll have a better shot at being heard with President Joe Biden? And I get like, yes, Biden isn't everything you want him to be right now or things aren't happening as fast as you'd like them to be or you're very unhappy with the rhetoric on Israel. I get all of that. But is it worth throwing our country completely over the cliff? Because that is what will happen if you sit out, if you don't vote for Joe Biden. Like, it is very black and white. I know the issues that they are concerned about are very nuanced and very complex.

And there is no necessarily right or wrong at times. But when it comes to voting in November, that is a black and white issue. And if you don't get that as a voter in this country right now, especially as an activist within the Democratic Party, if you're really going to be someone out there that's going to say, well, we're so upset about issue A, we're just not going to vote or we're going to encourage people not to vote with the president. I'm like, okay, you are willfully handing this country into the hands of Donald Trump, of Steve Bannon, of Stephen Miller, of Elon Musk, of people who kowtow around with authoritarian and dictators. That is what you are setting up this country for. And so if that happens, because you decided to exercise your right to protest, do not protest anything that happens after that because you help make it happen.

I mean, well, shit, you won't be able to protest after that fact. You know, and that's what I want people to understand, too. I agree with your ability to protest. I agree with your right to vote uncommitted. And I think that it is a move and it is a strategy. But come November, when everything is at stake, I want people to be reminded that you cannot support democracy elsewhere and fight for human rights and humanity elsewhere

if we lose everything at home. That is just not how it fucking works. And I think that, you know, where I'm, am right now, Kurt, is that people are saying, well, I'm not going to vote out of fear. This is what I'm getting a lot in my comment sections on social media. I'm not going to vote out of fear. You're not going to fear me into voting for Biden. What is your response to that? Because that is a common refrain in this echo chamber of resentment and anger towards Biden. I mean, if that's honestly like how people feel, it's like, listen, maybe you're not paying enough attention to what the other guys are. are doing and saying right now and who they're hanging out with, like Victor Orban, like, you should be afraid. I'm afraid. When you have a guy out there who wants to be president who is literally saying MSNBC should not be allowed to criticize me. What? Really? Oh, okay. Goodbye First Amendment. You have Republicans who are launching this never relenting assault on women and their rights.

you have people who are openly saying, like the Republican nominee for governor in North Carolina saying that, well, I wish we could go back to a time where women didn't vote. It's like, if you're not afraid, you're not paying attention because they're doing it. They are saying out loud in broad daylight what their intent is. And their intent is to take this country to a place where women have zero rights, where women are instructed what to do, what to think, how to live, where their role is. is in Katie Brits' kitchen. If that doesn't terrify you, then you need to wake the fuck up and you need to grow the fuck up, frankly, because this is real shit happening right now. People's lives are being wrecked by Republican policies. People's families are being wrecked and decimated by Republicans right now in their policies. And they're just getting started. If anyone thinks that

2016 to 2020 was bad, listen, we are at a point now where if Trump gets elected again, what happened on January 6th, that's the starting point for where these guys are going now. That's the beginning. It only gets worse than there. Those are the kind of dots that I want connected that you do so well. Because to that point, we just saw this week, Louisiana, signed legislation that allows for people that are as young as 18 years old with no permit, no training to walk around with concealed weapons. This is not the first state to do that. And so where do you think that this is all headed, right?

where you rip away people's rights, you rip away their freedoms, you add more guns, more hatred to the mix, what do you think is going to play out? The recipe for an authoritarian to roll out the tanks, right, to enforce police brutality and to subjugate those who fall out of line. Like, that's the recipe and people are falling for it. And I hope, Kurt, that by the time that we reach November, that the protests is. not against Biden, that the protest is against authoritarianism and fascism and that people do recognize what is at stake. Last word to you. It's like, if you want to protest something about President Biden, please do so in January of 20. You can protest every day. I'll fucking join you. I understand. But man, if you want a good look at what America will look like if Trump wins, go back to what is now Black Lives Matter Plaza and see how Donald

Trump handled that peaceful demonstration of people of color protesting the very legitimate problem of law enforcement abuse in this country. And look what he did to them. And compare that to what he didn't do on January 6th at the U.S. Capitol, that that is the America that these people are going to try to inflict upon all of us. And so, again, you can have your protests right now of Joe Biden. Understand that if you keep it up, it's going to be the last thing you'll ever get to protest again in this country. Amen. Thank you. My friend, Kurt Bardella, you can catch him on News Nation. Really appreciate you.

Anytime, my friend. We'll see you soon. The Society for American Civil Renewal sounds like it could be a group of small business owners or maybe some concerned citizens who want to make sure kids have clean and safe playgrounds. But it's very much not. Here to tell us what it actually is is the guy who recently published an expose of the society, investigative reporter for Talking Points Memo, Josh Kovinsky. Josh, thanks so much for being here.

Thanks for having me, Andy. So let's start with, I guess, that basic question. What is the Society for American Civic Renewal? Yeah, sure. So it's a men's only secret society. And I say secret because its membership is not open to the public. Its membership is intentionally secret. That's only open to certain kinds of Christians, Trinitarian Christians. So Mormons aren't allowed. Other kinds of Christians aren't allowed. And its purpose is really, really ambitious. What it wants to do, basically, a permission statement that we obtained. The Society of American Civic Renewal wants to do a few things. It wants to create basically the government for what it describes as a future, a regime. It wants to promote its own members, kind of in business. It wants to implement its own vision of society. And it basically wants to take what it sees as declining Christianity, declining faith, declining morality in our life, in our civic life, and bring that back to the four and kind of create this like a secret voice, unbeknownst to all of us for a very strict version of Christianity in our public life. So again, this is all supposed to happen behind

the scenes. You know, people in this group aren't kind of like necessarily wackos. We have We have wealthy people in them. We have the head of the Claremont Institute is in it. There are some local politicians in Idaho. What it really is is a group of influential guys, all of whom are male, all of whom are certain kinds of Christians, with a very specific view of how society should be run and trying to work behind the scenes, something at that. And how did you first become aware of this group? Because as you said, it's not the most high-profile group in the world, and its membership is a secret. So what put them on your radar? So it was a few things. One is that I came across the work of Charles Haywood, who is one of the more vocal members of the group. He's this Indianapolis

retired shampoo manufacturer. He got really rich manufacturing shampoo on contract, and he sold his shampoo manufacturing business in 2020. And around the same time, he became prominent as a book review blogger. And he started reviewing all kinds of books, everything from Rhodesian, anti-Garilla combat manuals to his, you know, biographies of like Vladimir London or Stalin. Basically, he reads widely and he writes about it. And he writes in this really strident tone. And so I was just like kind of curiously, who is this guy? He also calls himself maximum leader on his blog. Oh, good. Yeah, yeah. So I think we know who he is, right? He's the maximum leader of his book review blog, and a shampoo. So I was like, yeah, I was like, who is he? And so I started looking into him and I found

that The Guardian had done a story about last summer about him. And what the story said was that he was involved in this group, Society of Americans of a Renewal. And they kind of gave an overview of the group, its website, but it didn't kind of tell you, was this group just sort of a website, or was there something more? What was it trying to accomplish? And so I did some research, and I found that one of the group's chapters was located in Boise, Idaho. And if you looked at the registration documents, there was a guy named Scott Jenner who had registered the Boise chapter. And so Scott is a professor at Boise State University. It's a publicly funded college in Idaho. It's part of the state university system, which means that Scott's emails are available to Idaho State Public Records

laws. You know, I was really curious, like, what is this group doing behind the scenes? Like, how real is it? Was it just a website? It was something more? And so I filed a couple of information requests starting in January. And we have gotten them kind of back successfully since then. And that's what led to the story. Was it through this sort of trove of emails that you were able to pick up these documents? You mentioned, you know, the mission statement and also, you know, identifying members of Sacker as it's known? Yeah. So we got a few kind of types of documents. We got The three big ones are the mission statement that we talked about earlier. We had this big kind of outline for how the group wants to recruit people and the criteria

it looks for for membership. And the other thing we got was prayers that they read at every meeting. We also got some other stuff. We got correspondence between the board, which is what revealed that we have, you know, the president of the Claremont Institute, Ryan Williams is a member. And there's other documents which came out of it as well, which, for example, included draft kind of invitations or actual invitations to various people to join the group. And it's interesting because it shows the kinds of people they were targeting.

They really are interested in having local business leaders or national business leaders join this group. There's a guy in Dallas, for example, who joined, who runs the fund, investment fund. So again, these are like higher status, wealthy people, very well educated often who are explicitly targeting to get involved. So you mentioned the Claremont Institute a couple of times just for our listeners who don't know. The Claremont Institute is a highly influential conservative group, correct? Yeah, it is. So it's a think tank out in California, kind of just outside Los Angeles. And it has been kind of known in recent years for saying that they, for a lot of its members have said that they think we're already in what they call a cold civil war.

And they all seem to think, and they've all said that we're in a rolling constitutional crisis, that America is decaying, not necessarily terminally decaying, but it is in the state of decay. And so that, you know, it's up to them kind of to plan for what's going to come next. You know, listeners might be familiar with Michael Anton and the Flight 93 election essay. You know, Michael Anton is a Trump official who before this. 2016 election, wrote an essay basically saying that, like, look, like the 2016 election is like the, you know, we are like the passengers on flight 93. We have to conceptualize it that way. That's how we have to think about electing Trump. And it became hugely influential. It's still really influential on certain parts of the right. But that's essentially the mindset that the

Claremont has. And it's really influential on the kind of Trumpy right. You know, we have pictures in the story of Trump giving of Brian Williams on behalf of the Claremont Institute, like a National Humanities Medal during his administration in 2019. And since then, there have been a lot of between Claremont and the plans that Trump and those around him have released for policies that he may implement in a potential second administration. So it's no small thing that Ryan Williams, the head of the Claremont Institute, is a member of Society for American Civil Renewal. Not at all.

And I think what it goes to is kind of this like a grieved sense of hardcore Christianity that underlies a lot of it. I talked to Ryan for this story last week. You know, one thing that he said and that a lot of the members have said is they're really mad about the Obergefell decision. And then they're not only mad about, you know, the fact that we now have marriage equality. But the other thing that Ryan has told me is that Claremont sees not only, you know, the kind of social changes since the 1990s or since the 1960s as problematic. Rather, what they're opposed to is everything since the progressive era in its broadest sort of sweep.

So you can think of everything, basically, all these changes that have taken place since the early 1900s or late 1800s as what they're opposed to. I mean, he told me that on the record. It's what Sacker says they're against, as they put it. They're against Christianity that is blurred by modernist philosophies. And I think it kind of provides context what this group is. Like in our day and age, like a men's only group available only to certain kinds of Christians, meant to kind of pull these levers in our society behind the scenes, doesn't make any sense. But I think if you think back to what the country was like in 1870s or 1880s or mid-19th century,

it makes a lot more sense. Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, I would assume that these are the people who think that they are the aggrieved party in America and that, you know, the America is conspiring against them? Yeah, and I think this is a really interesting point, Andy, you know, the sense of grievance. Because I think when you, you know, on least on the left, when there's a lot of conversation around, you know, still like what led to Trump, like what it relates his voters. And you have all these talk about like economic anxiety, right?

Like people on the kind of lower end of the, you know, American social ladder who feel that the Democrats abandoned them and that Trump, you know, was sort of this like credible alternative. who could kind of speak to them on matters of economic populism. And I'm not saying that that's not real, but that's not the bucket that this falls into. This is kind of the bucket on the opposite end of the spectrum, which are very wealthy people who have already have quite a lot of influence society who feel like they're not getting the respect they deserve. That's what this is.

And you can see that in kind of the rage, the animates a lot of this. A lot of it goes to, you know, I need, you know, for example, one thing they're looking for is members need to be dominant in their household. You need to have, you know, somebody beneath them is sort of the idea. There's other points here, too. A lot of it goes to hierarchy. They're very explicit about there being a certain kind of class hierarchy in society. So I think when we're thinking about the grievance, anime, it's, again, it's not people

kind of coming up from below. It's people who are at the top, or at least in my view, are angry that those beneath them aren't showing them kind of due deference. Yeah. And by the way, just to be clear, when you say that someone in their household is beneath them, you're talking about a wife. You know, I can just read out the recruiting. Sure.

I think that it's more eloquent than I could ever be. this. But, you know, one of the questions they ask for prospective members is, you know, describe the dynamic of your household in terms of your role and that of your wife. And the other one is they're asking for alignment, which they describe as acceptance of the wisdom of our American and European Christian forebears in the political realm, a traditional understanding of patriarchal leadership in the household, and an acceptance of traditional natural law and ethics more broadly. One interesting kind of point here, I think, is this is what they're requiring of people, of, you their members at home. But if you kind of read deeply into and talk to experts in this area,

what you'll find is that the vision is that the country kind of should be an extension of the way one's home is governed. What they're really asking for here is to take these kinds of domestic relationships they have and project them nationally. So it's interesting because you refer to them in your piece as a Christian nationalist organization. And since your story came out, you've published a follow-up noting that Sacker doesn't like being called a Christian nationalist organization and that that it insists it's not one. So I assume you've issued a full-throated apology. Yeah, you know, Andy, we haven't done that. We don't intend to, but appreciate the question. I think one thing that it's important to keep in mind here is like America has a really broad

political spectrum and the difference between somebody who thinks that we need to evangelize to every American citizen in the hopes of converting them to our brand of Christianity. And those who think that, you know, the government should do that as opposed to on individual basis. I mean, or rather the government should be helping it in certain ways or maybe encouraging it directly or less directly. The difference there is very, very minor compared to, you know, the kind of broad political debate that we see happening day to day. That's sort of how I think about it. Yeah. And I should point out that in that follow-up piece that I'm talking about, you talk to a number of experts on Christian nationalism and things of that ilk. And they, as you say,

say that soccer seems to fit the definition perfectly. They do. And the big point they all raise is it's this idea that a certain strains of kind of strict Christianity should be valued in public policy and in defining what America, the American nation is, to the exclusion of basically any other perspective. And if not to their exclusion, then at least this sort of hard Christian perspective should come first. Again, I mean, it's like, I think it's hard to look at Sacker and what they propose for the country and what they kind of demand of their own members and not see that. Sure, absolutely.

I want to get back to something you said earlier. You mentioned that, you know, they ask some questions. of prospective members, and you mentioned one of them being about their household. What are some of the other questions that you were uncovered in this? I guess it was the SACA membership criteria and recruiting guide? Yeah, that's correct. So what they say is that, you know, if you're invited to be a potential member, then you're going to go to this gathering, right?

And there's going to be some suggested prompts for discussion. And the idea is that they're, as they put it, they're going to engage your alignment and fit. So the questions, in addition to the one about your household are, what are your thoughts on the Republican Party? What are your thoughts on Christian nationalism? They're asking you to comment on the Trump presidency and what it entails for the future. And finally, to describe your church community and your family's involvement there. So again, you know, when I asked Ryan Williams, the Claremont president, about this,

he told me that these aren't like litmus tests that they're really just trying to see kind of how you think about it and how you react. So, you know, I think we should allow that there is, at least within this like pretty rarefied, hardcore kind of mixing of political politics, conservative politics and Christianity world, they all live. And there is like an allowance for some like variation. But I think it's very clear that there could be wrong answers to what are your thoughts on Christian nationalism or comment on the Trump presidency? Yeah, no, I would assume so. I have to ask this question because he jumped out at me in your piece. What in the world is the Howdy Duty Good Times Foundation? Because it sounds like a really bad translation from like the Japanese or something like that. Yeah,

This is Charles Haywood's foundation. This is the maximum leader shampoo industrialist who created this nonprofit and has used it to the Howdy Duty Good Times Foundation and has used it to finance Sacker. Other groups like American Moment. He's contributed to Claremont via it as well. What's funny to me is like the Howdy Duty show. It was this like kids like Western sort of like the 50s, right? And so like in a very funny way, it's like kind of bring, it's like this weird, almost like

childish vision of masculinity. which I think is like kind of lurking beneath all this. But yeah, I mean, what it really is, it's a nonprofit that Hayward uses to contribute to a lot of his, like, favored political causes. Yeah, I mean, I kind of assumed that the name stemmed from this sort of, you know, 1950s outlook on the world and how, oh, everything was much better than because, you know, people who weren't men or weren't white sort of knew their place back then.

That, I mean, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's sort of the impression I got when I saw that. Yeah. I mean, I think one problem with these guys is that they're all so online. Like, he would, I mean, he has anything to do except, like, be online. It seems like I can organize these, help organize these groups. But I think, like, as, you know, everybody knows, it's like people love to just get a rise out of people on the internet.

And so it can be really hard to tell what is just like an attempt to, yeah, get a rise out of people won't get attention. And what's, you know, actually like a firm statement of their, like, political stance. No, for sure. I mean, anybody who's too online is completely irony poisoned. So who the hell knows. So I guess to sum up, what is Sacker's ideal endgame? What would America look like under its vision? What really stands out to me is what Ryan Williams says and what the group says, which is that if this is not about returning America to like before, you know, the

Bergerfeld decision, it's not about returning America to the 1960s, before the 1960s. Where it is is about rolling back all of the changes that have taken place basically since the progressive era in the 1900s, early 1900s. So if you think back to like what the country was like in the late 19th century, the federal government was much weaker. The rights were not necessarily guaranteed. You know, maybe you were lucky to live in a state where that was more progressive, maybe you lived in one that was less progressive, but that was essentially it, right? That is largely where they want to go.

And that's what, you know, Williams told me on the record. What's interesting about the group in terms of, you know, their kind of objective for what the country is going to look like is they have a public mission statement, which is pretty kind of out there, but then they have an internal mission statement, which is more explicit. And what they say is that they're looking for, you know, people or men who understand the nature of authority and its legitimate forceful exercise in the temporal realm because they believe that a brotherhood of these men will form the backbone of a renewed American regime that will reflect the past while facing and vigorously shaping the future. I think, like, above everything I just said about bringing policy back to, you know, before the progressive era, their vision of America is one in which they are in charge. And again, that is men, that is certain kinds of Christian men, and it's men who order their lives and see hierarchy in a very specific way. I think that's the larger what this is about is by them being in control.

That's basically what they say in her mission statement. Yeah. And I guess that doesn't leave much room for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and as you said, non-trinitarian Christians like Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and stuff like that. We're all in the lower stratus of this new society. What they say is that they want to create an aligned future regime. They want people who grew up in this group to be part of that. What it is also, I think, if you read these guys closely, they see the country already as governed by this sort of progressive, I don't want to say cabal, but like a shadowy network of progressives who all go to the same universities and they all kind of have their own like agenda. And whatever happens in Congress or kind of in, you know, the public and the media is just sort of for show.

It's like what they want is what's going to happen. That's their view. And I think largely Sacker is like a kind of memetic, like mirroring response to that. They want to have their own like, you know, far right Christian elite network, regardless of whether or not what they were responding to actually exists or not. So it's their version of quote unquote, the Jews is basically what you're saying. I'm not going to say that. No, I know.

Yeah, yeah. But I mean, I think you probably hear people talk about like Davos, like the Davos. Yeah, sure. And obviously, you know, like all these like CEOs going to Switzerland to like talk about how to make the world a better place, like, it's gross, right? But, like, you know, the idea that, like, Klaus Schwab is up there, like, dictating, like, basically saying the course of policy for the next 12 months every year, it's insane. But, like, it's sort of like, it's, like, it's, like, mirroring, like, response to that is sort of how I see it. Absolutely. No, I think that's an

excellent point when you say it's mimetic and it's mirroring. I think that puts it perfectly. Josh, thanks so much for being here and walking us through this. Head over to TPM and check out the full article if you want and get even more information. You can see some. of the documents that Josh has been talking about. Josh, thanks again. I really, really appreciate it. Thanks for having me all, Andy. Danielle Moody.

Andy Levy. Who is your fuck that guy to close out this beautiful, beautiful week? I am going to say that this is a person who should be in the headlines, should be front page of every story. But it's going to peter out. And that is the story of special counsel Robert Her. Liar, liar, pants on fucking fire. So here's the thing.

Robert Hur comes out, does an investigation into Joe Biden's handling of classified documents. Now, I want to preface this by saying that how did Joe Biden know that he had classified documents because his lawyers did the due diligence to kind of look around and be like, ooh, this doesn't belong to us. This belongs to the government. And without being asked for over. over a year and a half turned over said documents. Well, being that Merrick Garland is the spineless sloth

that he is, he says, oh, institution, and we have to care about institution. So let me appoint a Trumper. Robert Her to oversee the investigation into Biden. Robert Her then writes a report that one line, one piece of it becomes headline news for weeks. Joe Biden didn't do anything wrong, but even if he did, couldn't really investigate because he's old and feeble and doesn't even remember when his own son passed.

And the media ran with it. It was everywhere. And he stumble, any misstep, any stutter that Joe Biden did. It was now about his mental acuity because of Robert Herr's report. Come to find out, guess what doesn't match? the fucking transcripts. And so this week, in the House, a committee hearing is called

Robert Her to testify about why there is so much editorializing that was done between the transcript that was taken and the report that made it to the public. And this motherfucker sat, tried to be indignant as he was forced by Democrats to read the transcript aloud,

where he referred to Joe Biden's memory as being, quote, near photographic. How do you go from near photographic memory to old and feeble-minded? How do that work? It doesn't work. But what Republican strategy around media knows is that before the truth can even put its sneakers on, the lie has already lapped around the block multiple times. So while now we know that Robert Her is a liar, which now comes off the heels of the state of the union where Biden looked anything but old and feeble. That is not going to be the story that is going to get nonstop coverage. And Republicans knew that.

And Robert Hur knew that. And Adam Schiff and others took him to the fucking mats this week to show what a fucking hypocrite and a liar he is. And you know who I blame for all of this? Not even Robert Hur. I blame fucking Merritt Garland. And so for that reason, I'm going to do a duo. Robert Herr and Merritt Garland are my fuck those guys this week.

Couldn't be more well-deserved. I would also throw in because actually the ones I blame even more than them are the ones that you talked about is the media. For running with this shit. Have we learned nothing from James Comey? Not a damn thing. It's the same, maybe not the exact same thing, but it's damn close to the same playbook. You've got to learn at some point. And we see this time and time again from the media, whether it's reprinting.

you know, police statements as fact, or whether it's reprinting politicians' statements as fact, to think back to the Iraq war and all the lies that were printed in the media. And it's not that the media, I'm not saying the media made them up. I'm saying the media ran with them and ran with them as if they were true when George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld said something. It's the deference to authority that it would seem to me is counter to everything the media is supposed to be about. It just pisses me off so much. And I don't even want to get started on the whole thing about Biden not recalling when

Beau died. Because it was very clear, if you look at his original answer now, when he was asked, when did Bo die? He said, what month did Bo die? Oh, God, May 30th. He knew the exact day. And then what it says is, you know, in the transcript, two others in the room said, yeah, 2015.

And Biden goes, was it 2015 when he died? That's not unusual. And I can speak from personal experience on this. My dad passed away in 2014. I remember the day. I remember the year now because 2024 will be the 10th anniversary. But you get in that 6, 7, 8 year thing, you don't remember the exact year necessarily. Or you sit there and you talk with someone.

Like my mom and I was sitting there going, how many years has it been, you know, since dad passed? And is it 7 or, oh, my God, it's 8. You absolutely remember the day. But, you know, remembering the exact year. And then you think, oh, my God, was it really? that long ago? Like, there's nothing unusual about that. And for that to be spun, as Joe Biden didn't remember when his son died, that's beyond being false. That's just cruel. Cruel. Everything you want to know about Robert Hur to me is contained in that one thing, that he went out of his way to say this

about Joe Biden, to say that Joe Biden didn't even remember when his son died, when Joe Biden clearly did remember the exact date that his son died. Fuck that guy. So, Andy, how are you closing out this day, this week, this time in America? I'm going to close it out with something that's actually a good thing. And then the fuck that guy part is in the response. But the good thing is that Olivia Rodrigo, who I'm a huge fan of, respectfully, she makes great music. Her album Guts is absolutely fantastic.

I may not be the target audience. On the other hand, there's a lot of. 90s rock influence in it, so I dig it. Anyway, she's on her world tour now, and she has been very outspoken about reproductive rights, and she is putting her efforts where her mouth is, and at a recent show in St. Louis, in a state, Missouri, where abortion is outlawed even for rape and incest, she passed out at her concert, Plan B pills, and she did this in conjunction with the Missouri Abortion Fund, and another group. called Right by You.

And good on her for doing that. Nothing but the highest praise for her. The person who's going to be my fuck that guy here is Missouri State Senator, who apparently wants to be governor, according to the Riverfront Times in St. Louis, a guy named Bill Eagel. And he posted on Twitter, I am horrified by this. Olivia Rodriguez passed out a board of facie at her concert in St. Louis last night. Many of her fans are children.

A couple of things. One, Plan B is not. an abortifacient. It does not induce an abortion. So again, these people did they just lie. It's like breathing to them. Regarding the fact that many of her fans are children, yeah, those are the same children who if they are victims of incest or of rape by a stranger or whatever, cannot get an abortion in your state because of laws that you passed. So please, please stop pretending you care about children. Igo went on to say, again, when I talk about lying, women who have had abortions have higher rates of anxiety, mental health problems, substance abuse, and suicide. I don't believe

any of that is true. It's just, he just decided to say it. He certainly did not point to any studies that show any such thing. If we had a category for a, I don't know, cheers to that guy or, you know, good on that guy, it would go to Olivia Irigo, but since our category is fuck that guy, it goes to Bill Eigle and all the other Republicans in that state who clearly hate children and hate women. I can't with them anymore. Fuck it. It's fine.

Fuck that guy. Well, I have tried to lobby, Andy, for a positive segment, but our overlord, I mean, Jesse, does not like positivity. No. Positivity doesn't sell. That's what he always says. That's what he says. He has his t-shirt, too.

It's his email. signature. It's so weird. Stop giving it out on air. I wish that every pop star would follow what Olivia Rodriguez, what Taylor Swift and others have done. And I, you know, I know we said because I don't even talk about her. But the fact is, is that use your platform for something good. And if it is young women, right, who is your target audience? Get them to vote. Get them the repo information and care that they need when you're visiting these regressive states. Do your best. And the fact that you've angered people means that you're on the right track. And this is exactly why they want to bring you to The Handmaid's Tale and to Kitchen Katie, because they are

afraid of women and the power that women have. So bravo to her and fuck that guy. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of the new abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber.

Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.