The Daily Beast Podcast - In Georgia, Donald Trump May Have Just Met His Match in Battle

Episode Date: September 22, 2023

On this week’s episode of The New Abnormal, MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner talks about Donald Trump’s latest legal challenges. Then a talk with Freedom of the Press Foundation executive director Trevor Timm about how the U.S. trying Julian Assange under the Espionage Act may prove to be a regrettable decision if Trump is elected president again.  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 Campbell 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. Glenn Kirshner, the host of Justice Matters and MSNBC legal analyst, joins us to talk Trump's latest legal jeopardy.

Then we'll talk to Freedom of the Press Foundation Executive Director Trevor Tim about how the U.S. trying Julian Assange under the Espionage Act may prove to be a regrettable decision if Donald Trump is elected president again. But first, let's have some fun. Andy, you know how I constantly say, fuck the polls? And I mean that wholeheartedly because trying to read the tea leaves, shake a magic eight ball is not going to be the way that we figure out who is up and who is down in this upcoming election. The things that do matter actually are who is going inside of the poll boots and what is being done state by state election by election. And right now, the Democrats are fucking killing it. And they are doing much better than all of the bullshit polls that have come out that say, Dems are behind.

What should they do? America doesn't care. They care about gas and not democracy. I can't stand the back and forth and the horse racing that is happening right now. But Pennsylvania, Democrats just held on to their house by a slim margin. They are winning in these states that have put Dobbs, Roe v. Wade, on the ballot. They're winning, winning, winning, winning. And you know what, Andy? I'm not sick of it. I want to say that I think the ninth word of the podcast being an F-bomb is a new record for how

quickly you got to it. Send me something. So congratulations on that. Thank you. Look, Democrats have been doing really well in a bunch of elections. Coincidentally, all since Roe was overturned. And there was another big one in New Hampshire this past week where a Democrat, Hal Rafter, defeated a Republican, James Guzovsky. And he beat him big, like 5644, I think it was. That was a seat that was held by the Republicans. This was in the New Hampshire State House. You know, we're talking about a 12-point victory here. Things like this are happening, as you said, Pennsylvania, we've seen it happening in other places. It's incredibly good news for Democrats and for the country. I'm worried about the presidential polls and stuff like that. But I think you're absolutely

right. There is good news for Democrats in the country right now. And a lot of that good news has stemmed from our good friend Samuel Alito. Here's the fact of the matter with regard to the overturning of Roby Wade. And it is, you can only push, and this is, you know, me saying this, you can only push white women so far. Let's be real. When the Republican Maga Supremacy Party is attacking the LGBTQ community, people are like, meh. okay, you know, it's awful, but it doesn't really affect me. When they're going after trans youth, when they're banning books, when they're erasing history and rewriting curriculum, people are like, well, I don't live in Texas.

I don't live in Florida. But when you go after more than half of the population that has uteruses, and it isn't just something that is affecting, quote, this marginalized community or this marginalized community, it's affecting more than half of the population, I think that that is when a lot of alarm bells go off and folks are like, yo, yo, yo, yo, wait a minute. And then when you're watching in these states like Alabama and other places that are saying, oh, no, not only have we banned abortion here, but you don't have freedom of movement. Now we're going to criminalize people from your Uber driver to your friend, to your parent, who is going to help you find information and get to a place out of state where you can have an abortion. And then folks are like, wait. So it isn't just us saying, just go someplace else as if everyone is privileged has money and that ability to take time off of work, I digress. But the fact is, I think that that decision and Republicans not just allowing that decision to lie, but double tripling down on it and finding new ways to criminalize people with

uteruses, like that is a step too far. And I think that they overplayed their hand. No, I think that's absolutely right. And look, it couldn't suck more that we've needed instances like that little girl, I believe 10 years old, who was raped and became pregnant and had to travel out of state to get an abortion. I'd like to say nobody wants that, although it does feel like a lot of Republicans. It's not even that they do want that because they don't want her to be able to have gotten an abortion, period. But again, it sucks that we've needed to see things like that for some people to sort of wake up to what it is the Republicans are going for. But that's the way it is. And at least, thankfully, it is waking people up and people who are suddenly like, as you said,

when it's things that maybe don't apply directly to them, you know, they somehow fail to make the leap to, well, if you can do this to LGBTQ people, you can do it to me too. But somehow they don't make that connection. But then they see it happening to a 10 year old girl and whether they are, you know, someone who has a 10 year old child or they just remember. being 10 years old themselves and cannot even imagine what it would have been like if they were forced to keep an unwanted fetus inside them. Like you said, they're being pushed too far. People are being pushed too far. And I can't say enough that I, again, that I wish they didn't have to have been pushed as far as they apparently did. But at least it's happening now.

And look, we don't know if these Democrats are overperforming in all of these special elections. it's a fairly constant trend at this point. That usually means good news. When you see this kind of performance in off-year special elections, it usually bodes well for the next year, for the big elections, for the House, for the Senate, et cetera, not always, but usually. So hopefully this trend will continue into next year and we'll be able to sit here in the middle of next November and say,

hey, look at that, some good news. Yeah, I mean, I hope that we do get to the point where we are, able to talk about the good news, but the fact is, and the lesson here is, folks, don't pay attention to the polls, pay attention to what people are doing, not what they are saying that they're going to do, what they are actually doing. And speaking of people doing things, I got to, you know. Wow. Yeah. That was the most generic seg possible, Daniel. Look, okay. I could not think about how to transition to my beloved topic that Jesse has named. But while we're talking about important things, you know, like holding on to our democracy, you know, keeping bodily autonomy and what

have you and, you know, the importance of books, this Republican Party, boy, the hypocrisy that they fucking show like literally has no bottom and has no shame. Because the headlines and the segments being run on John Setterman and his suits or lack thereof is on a next level of where Susan Collins found herself saying that, well, if we're not going to have decorum, I'm going to wear a bikini on the floor. And I said, bitch, go ahead, because ain't nobody give a fuck. Like, literally, not one person gives a fuck. I really don't.

But fantastic article in New York Magazine that was done entitled Dress Code or Not, the Senate is a bunch of empty suits. And it was so fucking well done by Sarah Jones because the feigned outrage over decorum, over dress by the Republican Party with people who have absolutely not a care in the world about people who took a shit in the Capitol building, people who built a gallows, people who are getting felt up in a fucking family theater, don't talk to me about an outfit. Like, I just, I really, it's, but I know, Andy, I know you have different thoughts. I have slightly different thoughts.

First of all, I do want to disagree with one thing you said. I absolutely care about Susan Collins wearing a bikini in the sense that I really don't want her to. And the fact that you would pull this out, this is like the. nuclear option right away. I mean, come on, Susan. I have complicated feelings about this. I agree with everything you said. I like the Sarah Jones piece as well. Look, I would rather have Susan Collins in a bikini and Mitch McConnell in a speedo and have them vote and have them vote for things that actually make this country better than them wearing suits and voting the way they usually do. Absolutely. 100%. I also think that it's a little wild. Politicians are as a class, probably the worst dressed people in America,

if not the planet. So to hear them in their ill-fitting suits and whatever talking about a dress code makes me just roll my eyes to the point where I actually, I think I sprained the left one and I need to go to a doctor. Okay. But Danielle. Yes. And this is where I'm going to show my age. This is where I'm going to show my age, and I feel bad about this. This is fresh off me getting roasted in a group chat for saying I really like the new Olivia Rodriguez album, but now I'm about to show my age. I don't think wearing shorts and a hoodie to work. The Senate is a great thing. I don't know. I just don't. I think that's, I think it's weird. I think I want to make it clear. I'm not losing sleep over this. I don't think this is a grave threat to our nation. I don't think it's any kind of big deal in any

way. But I also think you're going to work at the Senate. Yeah, throw on a suit. Even if you don't want to wear a tie, throw on a suit or at least throw on a jacket. I know that makes me super old fashion and out of touch or whatever. But I don't know. I do think there's something to be said for that. I don't give a shit that the Republicans are saying it. But as a general principle, I don't know. I think you should, you should dress nice when you go to work. So this is what I will say. To your age point. One, is the. that I could care less about respectability politics. I really don't care.

I care about what these senators are doing to destroy our country or, you know, not doing in terms of not taking votes and allowing one person to take the Senate hostage and not doing what is best for the American people, not having impeached Donald Trump so he doesn't have the ability to run for office again. I really don't care about what they're wearing, truly. And as somebody, you know, the both of us have been on TV and go on TV. I will tell you that I started wearing t-shirts on television that are created and made by black people with particular sayings and quotes because I was just like, you know what? What I want to showcase is that it isn't about what I'm wearing.

It's about what I'm saying. And if you're paying attention to that, then you're not paying attention. And I know that there is a time in place for everything. I'm not wearing a t-shirt if I'm going to the White House. so I'm not wearing a sweat outfit if I'm going to somebody's wedding or for an interview. But Federman got the job wearing a sweatshirt and shorts. The people of Pennsylvania actually didn't care. And I'm saying he knows when and where he can do what he wants.

But his clapback at these folks was brilliant because this is what you all want to pay attention to. Donald Trump wears a suit every day and the man is Satan. Like it doesn't matter to me. What matters is what they are doing. doing. I agree with all of that. But my point is basically the same point you just made when you said if you went to the White House, you would dress appropriately. And I'm just saying, yeah, I just sort of feel the same way about going to your job at the Senate. I think you should dress appropriately. But again, I'm not losing sleep over it and I'm not outraged by it. It's just how I feel. And I agree

with you that that Federman's clapback where he basically said, well, I'll read his tweet. If those jagoffs in the House stop trying to shut our government down and fully support Ukraine, then I will save democracy by wearing a suit on the Senate floor next week. I thought that was fantastic. I feel like I sound very defensive, probably because I'm very defensive, probably because you're making me feel very defensive and I think it's agist. It might be racist. I'm not sure.

It might be anti-Semitic. I really can't tell. But it's something, Danielle. It is something and you are making me feel bad. and in the great state of Florida, we do not say things that might make white people feel bad. So knock it off. So thank God

this show is being done in New York where no one gives a fuck about your feelings. All I know is now, I'm instituting a dress requirements and say, Andy says you have to respect your work. So I expect on camera that suit to come out every episode. I'm wearing a suit right now. I am not buying it.

I also believe that when you fly, I believe that on a plane, You should always be wearing a suit and tie. Unless it's a night flight and then it should be a black tie. Amazing. So what are you guys seeing with Kevin McCarthy? Thank you. Speaking of empty suits.

Oh, that was a good one. Pau. Kevin McCarthy, he can't help but show who he is. Kevin McCarthy, you know what he is? He's like, he's a Republican thirst trap. He is just. so desperate for the pats on the head, for the gavel, for the pats on the back to be associated with power. And I think that if we still have history books and they haven't all been burned,

I think that Kevin McCarthy will probably be remembered as the weakest, the weakest fucking speaker, I think that this country has ever seen. And the fact is that he can't get his cocky. together because he gave all power to Marjorie Taylor Green. And what was the fringe that, mind you, Kevin McCarthy turned these people into the mainstream. They were the fringe. When Marjorie Taylor Green went on, I forget whose show it was, if it was Steve Benin, whatever, and said, we're not the fringe, we're the mainstream. Kevin McCarthy said, okay. And, you know, when you saw her on the day of his votes going around with the phone that had Donald Trump on the other end,

she was saying to the world that was watching, I'm his deputy. And so now when he finds himself with the inability to get his fucking caucus together to keep the government funded, because all they're interested in is Hunter Biden's laptop and an impeachment inquiry that he couldn't even pull votes for, because guess what, it would fail just like he did 14 times before he became speaker. I just, he's an embarrassment. He is an embarrassment. And if our country, defaults, this will be laid at Kevin McCarthy's feet. Yeah, I just want to say that, look, we will have a government shut down and it is absolutely speak of McCarthy's fault.

We cannot blame Joe Biden for not having moved individual spending bills. We cannot blame House Democrats. We can't even blame Chuck Schumer in the Senate. And I, of course, that is not me speaking. That is noted historian and political guru Matt Gates saying all of that. McCarthy's hold on the House. Look, it was tenuous from the start. It took him, I think it was 74 votes to win the speakership, something like that.

I may be off by one or two, but I think I'm pretty close. It's just fraying beyond belief now and all over this absolutely stupid government shutdown idea that Republicans just can't help themselves with. Every four or five years or whatever it is, they have to threaten a government shutdown in the same way that a little kid holds his breath and says they're not going to breathe again until they get their way. But yes, he is an incredibly weak speaker. It's going to be interesting to see how much longer he is speaker.

Things are absolutely fraying there. And we all knew this was going to happen. Everybody, you said it, I said it. We all said it when he first picked up the gavel, which promptly folded in half with limpness. But now it's at that point. And it was always a question of when, not a question of if. And the when seems to be now. I hate him.

Honestly, I do. I'm like, in comparison to even the worst of the Republican House speakers that we have seen, he's the most pathetic. And I think that that is what troubles me is that when you see the stark contrast, and this is what I want America to understand. When people keep saying to me, oh, you know, in the comment sections of things that I post, like, oh, both parties are the same? I'm like, are you dumb?

We lost the right to abortion because the two parties are not the fucking same, right? Like when you have the stark contrast of the power that Nancy Pelosi had to command her caucus to get shit done, like all of those memes with her glasses being put on and walking out of the White House, like, because she commanded the respect and the power that was, that is associated with that chair, with that gavel. Kevin McCarthy has absolutely none. And that is the stark contrast between Democrats and Republicans, ones that know how to operate and use power and the others that are cosplaying it. Yeah, I mean, look, the last speaker I can think of who really didn't seem to have a great

control was Denny Hastert, and he's in jail now. So I'm not saying that's where Kevin McCarthy will end up, and I'm not saying it's for the same thing. But look, you said pathetic, and I think that's the best word to describe him. And he really is, he's just, he is an empty man, he is devoid of his soul, and And nothing for him matters except his own individual power. And people like that are bad. And look, if you want to call him evil, I'm not going to stop you.

In the end, they are exactly what you just said. They are pathetic little people who have very tiny senses of self-respect and self-worth and need to make up for that by the trappings of power. And that's exactly who he is. And apparently suits. Folks, you know that whenever I have the opportunity to welcome back to the new abnormal, Glenn Kirshner, MSNBC legal analyst, the host of Justice Matters, 30-year federal prosecutor with the chops and the insight on more legal news than I've ever wanted to cover in life. Glenn, let's just start off with the recent motions and hearings. let's start down in Georgia with the case down there where we have Sydney Powell and Chiesborough

who have detached themselves from the other 17 defendants in the RICO case brought by D.A. Fannie Willis. That case is set to begin on October 23rd. I want to get your thoughts on one, how Judge McAfee has been ruling and moving in this process. And we can compare him with the other justices that are overseeing the other three indictments and 91 charges against Donald Trump. What do you make of how Georgia so far is playing out? I would say so far so good. And it's good to be back with you again, Danielle. So Judge McAfee, let me say 34 year old, Judge McAfee.

I appeared before well over 100 judges in my 30 years and military and civilian judges, trial court and appellate court, federal and local. judges. I'm pretty confident. I've never appeared before a 34-year-old judge. So it's a very young age, and judging is a very weighty responsibility that, in my experience, takes lots of life lessons before you're ready to sit in judgment over, well, the most consequential or one of the most consequential criminal prosecutions in our nation's history. All of that being said, what I've seen of him thus far, and I've tried to watch the televised hearings, and I've read the relatively few rulings he's put out thus far. You know, until the one he put out yesterday, I would have given him an A. I mean, he was really presiding well, effectively, efficiently, civilly, very professionally and

cordially. And then yesterday did something that I'd never seen done. He granted a motion for Chesbrough and Powell to interview the grand jurors that indicted them and they made absolutely no showing that there was any reason to interview them, that there was any impropriety in the grand jury proceedings. But, you know, if anybody is interested in reading a very curious seven-page opinion by a judge, this is curious. He cited no authority for the proposition that the grand jurors should be interviewed by the defense attorneys for the clients they just indicted. But there you have it. So we'll see how this plays out. But notwithstanding that, I actually think he's been doing a nice job on the legal front. So I am excited, and that shows what

kind of a legal nerd I am. I'm excited to watch this trial kick off on August 23rd. And there's some things that people may not know. And if you're not steeped in sort of the criminal justice system and criminal practice, you may not know. When you have two defendants in a 19 co-defendant RICO case who are going to trial and the other 17 are going to go to trial sometime in the future, There are real pros and cons for everybody involved. So one of the pros for the other 17 defendants is their attorneys will get to sit in that courtroom and watch Bonnie Willis' case unfold. And so they're going to be better prepared to sort of take advantage of the weaknesses and deal

with the strengths of that case because they're going to see it tried. And here's the thing. Fawney Willis's team of prosecutors is not just going to present evidence of the crimes that Cheesbrough or Chesbrough and Powell committed themselves. They're going to present the entire shebang. They're going to present all of the crimes of all of the defendants. Why? Because when you're in a criminal enterprise, when you're in a conspiracy, every defendant is responsible and on the hook for every crime that is committed by every other. defendant. So she is going to prove the entire case, even though only two of the defendants are sitting in the courtroom. Let me ask a quick question, though, because this is where I think that

many have kind of weighed in around Fawney Willis's decision and where McAfee seems to be not keen on the idea of even the other 17 being tried together logistically, that it not making sense in terms of the size of the courtroom and all of the attorneys and staff that are needed to be present. But my question is, if Fannie Willis is trying this as just one giant RICO case and lays out all of her goods next month, then doesn't that provide the other 17 defendants with the cheat sheet, the cliff notes to what it is that their attorneys need to do? And isn't that more beneficial for them than it is for Willis?

You would think so. But let me tell you my experience in trying a big old RICO case that we had to do in three trials because there were too many defendants. As long as the evidence is strong, it doesn't matter that it's being previewed for the other defendants. I handled a RICO case in D.C. We indicted more than two dozen defendants, all but 13 pled guilty, pleaded guilty, most with cooperation. Some we let plead guilty without cooperation because we just wanted to call them out of the case. 13 defendants went to trial. In D.C., in federal court, the U.S. Marshal Service, and that's the agency that provides courtroom security, has always had a hard and fast rule. We can provide security for no more than six defendants at a time. And the judges have always abided by that determination by the Marshal Service. So what did we have to do? We tried six defendants. Then we tried six defendants. And then I had to do a RICO case against one defendant because 13 and we couldn't even convince the marshals to give a seven in one of the trials. And you can bet during the trials, the other defense attorneys sat in, right? The ones who were going to be tried later. And guess what?

All 13 were convicted of the RICO charges and virtually all other charges because our evidence was strong. I don't care if defense attorneys sit and watch and preview my case because I have put together, the strongest RICO case I could possibly put together. But there are a couple of other things in play when you have to split defendants up like this. And one is really bad for Donald Trump. So let's leap, let's leap right to that one because that's the one we're all interested in. When D.A. Willis's prosecutors are presenting this RICO case in its entirety at the first trial against Chesbrough and Powell. Powell's lawyers will attack the evidence that Powell committed crimes herself. Chesbrough's lawyers will attack the evidence that Chesbrough committed crimes himself. But you know who has

no voice in that first trial? Donald Trump, because his lawyers aren't there. They can't attack anything. So here's what the American people are going to see. And thank goodness they have cameras in the courtroom and it will be live streamed down in Georgia. They're going to see evidence of Donald Trump's crimes and Rudy Giuliani's crimes, Mark Meadows' crimes, and John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, the fake electors, all the rest of them. They're going to see that evidence of crime pouring in before the jury day after day after day. But Donald Trump's attorney is not going to be there to knock it down. It's going to go unaddressed, unrebutted, unchallenged, and even better, though,

because Powell and Chesbrose's lawyers might want to highlight it and prop it up. up and focus on it because they're going to argue Donald Trump is the true bad guy here, not us. And that's not a legal argument. That is an atmospheric argument. It's an emotional argument that they get to make to the jury. So them highlighting the fact that Donald Trump is the mob boss, is the Svengali controlling all of the crimes of the others, that is something that is going to be, I think, pretty dramatically presented in trial one. And that's going to help in the court of public opinion where Donald Trump fights every battle. He never fights a battle in the court of law because he can't win. He fights it in the court of public opinion and he may have met his

match. So let me ask you this as well then, because Donald Trump, the man that just can't shut the hell up and the media that can't stop but giving him free advertising space by virtue of one-on-one interviews sits down with Kristen Welker with Meet the Press and she asks him basically what I refer to as the few good men question did you order the code red mr. Trump were you listening to lawyers were you listening to advisors or was this your decision alone with regard to the boxes the documents he says I listen to myself Yeah. Tell me, Glenn, how that plays out or did we already know this? Is this a big aha moment for Jack Smith? Or was it just like, yeah, we know. We already knew it, but now it becomes directly admissible

incriminating evidence because it came from the mouth of the orange horse himself. And listen, Donald Trump only opens his mouth to change feet. He is forever hurting his own legal position. However, I don't want any more confessions from Donald. Trump because we can prove him guilty in a New York minute. A novice prosecutor could walk into court with the available evidence and prove Donald Trump guilty in his or her sleep. So how about we stop platforming him? Because whereas the lies are great and the confessions are helpful, we already have enough confessions. Every time he is permitted to speak publicly, every time anybody platforms him, he taints to jury pools.

a little bit more. And then what are the media outlets have to do? They have to publish all of these stories, fact-checking him and correcting his lies, which you know very few people are reading as compared to how many people watched him lie during the interview. Let's stop platforming him. But specifically on the point that you raised where he said, hey, I listen to my own instincts. One thing that that was really helpful with respect to knocking down his defense in the future, he would have had what's called an advice of counsel defense. And let's put it in simple terms. I'm filling out my tax returns. And I have a tax preparer or a tax lawyer who says, Glenn, you can take that deduction. So I take that deduction. And then the IRS comes banging on my door. Hey, Glenn, you were not authorized to take that deduction. What do I say? Advice of counsel. advice of tax preparer. I was told I could. Advice of counsel is a thing in the law. It's a viable defense to at least some crimes, not all. Donald Trump took that away from his lawyers because he said, I rely on my own instincts. And Danielle, there's no such thing as an advice of my own instincts defense.

What I find so frustrating about all of this, Glenn, is exactly what you said, a novice prosecutor. with all the evidence could get this put to trial convicted in a New York minute. And yet here we are being held hostage in a lot of ways by the calendar, by the political calendar. So as we're getting closer to it being a year out to this election, maybe we'll see the Chesboro and Powell case actually happened on October 23rd, maybe not. What are you thinking with regard to how all of this is playing out? and apparently Merrick Garland's belief that, you know, he's not the president's attorney, he's not Congress's attorney, he's the attorney for the American people. And I got to tell you, as an American citizen, I, for one, am exasperated by the lack of pace and pep of this Department of Justice. So what do you make of it all? Yeah, we have failed to deliver timely justice in connection with all of the crimes of Donald Trump. We have failed to deliver timely justice with respect.

to all insurrectionists who are above the foot soldiers of the insurrection, the boots of the insurrection, as opposed to the suits of the insurrection. The boots of the insurrection have been prosecuted, more than 1,100 charged, virtually everyone who went to trial convicted. I've sat in on a lot of those trials right here in D.C. in my backyard. And I think the Department of Justice has done a terrific job going after the boots of the insurrection. The people Donald Trump ordered to attack the Capitol that day. We've done a lousy job holding the command structure, the hierarchy, the suits of the insurrection accountable. And Danielle, we're getting there too slowly. You know, we have not yet stepped to any of the insurrectionists in Congress, right?

The members of Congress who assisted and gave aid and comfort to the insurrection. And Danielle, six of them asked for pardons because they knew they had committed crimes on and around January 6th, and they wanted to get away with those crimes. Well, guess what? Looks like they didn't need pardons because nobody is trying to hold them accountable for the crimes that they admitted they committed when they asked for those pardons.

So I'm really frustrated by that, but I'm even more frustrated that Donald Trump has not been held accountable for any of the crimes he committed while in office, not the 10 counts of obstructing justice, not the bribery and extension of President Zelensky, all of which he could have been indicted for the day he left office.

And the fact that he hasn't been and may never be, that's the Department of Justice giving permission to the next president to commit all of those crimes all over again. So, yes, I am frustrated as all get out that we have not asserted the rule of law the way it was intended to be asserted. With a couple of minutes that we have left, Glenn, I do want to ask you this, too, when the state of Georgia decided to, you know, by their own laws, they released more. information with regard to the grand jury and their recommendations. And in there were about, I think it was what, 19 other people that they recommended for indictments that then were not indicted. Three members of Congress were in there. You and I have talked about those members over the last two years. What do you make of the grand jury's recommendation there and Fannie Willis and her team deciding not to pursue it?

So three possibilities. I know which one I'm rooting for. So the special purpose grand jury recommended, I think 40 be indicted. Only 19 were. So 21 are still in the win after the grand jury heard evidence and concluded they committed crimes. So first, I think some of those 21 are the unindicted co-conspirators that were referenced in the indictment. I think there are 30 unindicted co-conspirators referred to in the Georgia indictment. And some of them may be cooperating for sure. Sure. Some of them may have entered guilty pleas and are cooperating. Some of them may have been granted immunity and are going to be forced to testify, forced compelled to cooperate. Some of them may be charged in the future. I don't think anybody has said Fawney Willis is done indicting people that the grand jury recommended should be indicted. Just as Jack Smith only indicted Donald Trump in the first DC indictment. He announced there are six co-conspirators, criminal associates who committed crimes with and for Donald Trump. Do you? you think Jack Smith is not going to indict those people in the future? I would bet my buck he is going to. We're going to see more indictments in D.C. So it could be that there will be a second wave of Georgia indictments. Now, it could also be that she looked at the evidence and she said, listen, I appreciate that the grand jury found probable cause, which is a fairly low evidentiary standard, probable cause that 21 more people committed crimes. but I've assessed all of the evidence and I've decided that some of those 21 people, I can't prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because there's an enormous amount of evidentiary terrain between probable cause and beyond

the reasonable doubt. Right now, I trust D.A. Willis to make the right decisions based on the evidence. She has because goodness knows she has not steered the American people wrong yet. There have been so many people that have come out recently talking about political violence, one of them being the judge who lost her son and whose husband was wounded in New Jersey. And I'm just wondering, you know, with the doxing that is happening, do you think that it will be an issue in terms of getting a jury? People saying, I'm scared. I don't want to do this. And then being dismissed. I think it will be a challenge. I think at the end of the day, the criminal justice system writ large will be up to the challenge when it's. being headed up by people like D.A. Willis and D.A. Bragg and Jack Smith and other dedicated

career public servants. And we will impanel a fair and impartial jury. I believe they will return a verdict based on the evidence, not based on outside influence or concerns about political violence or otherwise. And if there are pockets of violence that erupt, Danielle, I am not trying to be cavalier about it, but so be it. Because you can't decline. to do the right thing for fear of how the wrong people will react. Yep, 100%. Glenn Kirshner, as always, appreciate you making the time for the new abnormal. Great to be with you.

Earlier this week, a delegation of Australian politicians flew to Washington to meet with American members of Congress and civil rights leaders. Their agenda? Telling the Biden administration to drop the prosecution of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange. Joining me now to tell us why, regardless of how you feel about Assange, you should degree with the Aussies is Freedom of the Press Foundation Executive Director Trevor Tim. Trevor, thanks for being here. Thanks for having me on Eddie.

So let's start with a refresher on Assange and the charges against him. He co-founded WikiLeaks in 2006, and it's in 2010 that the organization publishes classified documents, including what became known as the Iraq Warlogs, as well as over 250,000 American diplomatic cables that were obtained from Chelsea Manning, right? Exactly. And that was front page news in 2010, 2011, to the point where it wasn't just front page news. It was front page news every day in the New York Times and on cable television. It was really all anybody was talking about. Yet, WikiLeaks probably eclipsed itself in notoriety in 2016 when it published leaks from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, and the DNC. And so a lot of people think that the prosecution of WikiLeaks is involved. in the 2016 election when actually that's not the case at all. 2016, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Russian hackers, none of those phrases are even mentioned in the indictment.

It all has to do with publishing the secret state department war logs from 2010. The Obama Justice Department looked into bringing charges against him, against WikiLeaks, for the Chelsea Manning stuff, but ultimately it declined to do so, right? Yes. So, you know, obviously the Obama administration probably hated WikiLeaks and Julian Assange more than anybody. These leaks happened in the first term of the Obama administration, and they were essentially a thorn of their side. So you would think that if anybody would want to prosecute Julian Assange on WikiLeaks, it would be the Obama administration. But the Justice Department essentially determined that any prosecution of Julian Assange would, number one, imperil the First Amendment, but essentially create what is called the New York Times problem, which is you can't really,

prosecute Julian Assange for speaking with a source for receiving classified documents and for publishing them without also putting newspapers like the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal at risk of the same prosecutions. So by the end of the Obama administration, they had essentially decided we're not going to prosecute Julianne Assange. So then Trump becomes president, and as you noted, there was a lot of WikiLeaks stuff in 2016 that some people think may have helped Trump win the election. But I guess sort of ironically, it's the Trump administration that decides to go ahead with this prosecution of Julian Assange in WikiLeaks. Yes. So they basically dusted off the old papers the Obama administration had, seemingly did no new research or added no new facts to the case, and brought charges again, not for anything that happened in 2016, but mainly for things that happened in 2010 and 2011.

And of course, Trump had spent this entire four years as president calling reporters enemies of the people and even talking out loud about how he would like to see some of them in jail. Now, it is ironic because on the campaign trail, Donald Trump was also singing the praises of WikiLeaks. But this is where the case gets really sticky. Donald Trump, if you were to have a precedent that said somebody who talks to a source and receives documents and publishes documents at the U.S. government. consider secret can be prosecuted, it basically will give him the green light to do so to New York Times journalist and Washington Post journalist, which he is now on the campaign trail in 2023, openly talking about throwing in jail because he wants to find out their sources. So they indict him, if I recall correctly, he was 2019 is when the indictments were unsealed. And the government at the time

sort of claimed, you know, I looked back and was checking a bunch of headlines. And you see a lot of stuff about Assange being indicted on hacking charges. Is that what actually happened? Yeah, so it's really a slight of hand that the Justice Department is trying with this case. There's actually been, I think, at least two superseding indictments. But what they did is, first they indicted him on a single charge, which they essentially called conspiracy to hack. At that point, they weren't even accusing him of hacking anything, only a conspiracy to engage in hacking. And then what happened was, you know, the charge was weird and it was worrying to a lot of press freedom advocates. What everyone was really worried about is what actually happened next, which was they released 17 more counts, a felony counts against

Julian Assange under the Espionage Act. You know, when I say they did a sleight of hand, you know, they have this one hacking charge, but the 17 other charges involving the espionage have nothing to do with hacking or conspiracy a hack at all. The U.S. government does not even allege that Julian Assange helped Chelsea Manning hack any of the documents that the Chelsea Manning ultimately gave WikiLeaks. To the contrary, when you read the indictment about the conversations that he had with Chelsea Manning, it sounds like any other journalists, as you can imagine, you know, talking with Asaurs asking them questions, telling them where to send stuff, and only even vaguely asking them to send more stuff. And so, you know, in the Justice Department press releases,

you will see that they say, oh, Julian Assange is not a journalist. He is a hacker. But then when you read the actual charges and the indictment, you see that the conduct for which they are describing is, you know, legally indistinguishable from what journalists do all the time. And, you know, I think that's really the crux of the case is. Of course, there is a First Amendment that protects the press, but there is no definition of journalists in the Constitution. Thankfully, our government does not get to decide who is and who isn't a journalist. And the only thing that it actually protects is acts of journalism. And so, you know, if you tweet about this case, for example, you will get dozens and dozens of people saying, oh, Julian Assange is not a journalist, so I don't care if you rot in prison. The thing is that it doesn't matter who you or anybody or me even considers a journalist or not. The question is, were you engaging in acts in which journalists engage in all the time, and is that conduct illegal or not? And in my mind, if Julian Sond's conduct is illegal under the Espionage Act, then dozens and dozens of reporters are breaking the law every day. And that is a real worry in a democracy, which could soon have a president

that has openly talked about throwing reporters in jail and has done so repeatedly. Let's drill down a little more on this, and let's also forget, that I just use the phrase drill down because I hate it. You talk about Assange committing acts of journalism, but there are a lot of people out there, and I'm not using this as cover because I agree with you. But you're right. I see a lot of people out there saying,

well, what Assange did is not what the New York Times does. It's not what the Washington Post does. It's not what the Poughkeepsie Journal does, whatever paper you want to name. They have reporters, they have editors, they go through stuff. And all that Assange did was throw a bunch of documents on the internet. So why should that be protected? Well, you know, I think that's kind of the caricature of what happens, but it doesn't necessarily line up with the facts.

I mean, so, you know, when you look at the Afghanistan and Iraq war logs, WikiLeaks was actually working with the New York Times and the Guardian and major papers on a lot of that stuff. The State Department cables in a long convoluted story ended up being published unredacted because some Guardian journalists published a password and a book and somebody found it and then found them. and then only later did WikiLeaks publish the rest of them once they were all public. But I think that's kind of beside the point. You know, I think a lot of times when people hear the phrase journalist, there is a positive connotation like, you know, we think of Woodward and Bernstein and the Pentagon Papers and kind of the highest of the high of the profession. First, we have to realize journalists can be a positive term, and a lot of times when we talk

about it, it is, but there are a lot of bad journalists. There are a lot of propagandists that cover things. in a way that they shouldn't. There are a lot of journalists who are unethical but may not be engaged in illegal behavior. Journalists run the gamut from very bad to very good. Of saying that Julian Isanj is not a journalist, fine. If you don't think he's a journalist, then that's all well and good. But when we look at the facts of the case in this particular instance, like he could be a horrible person in the rest of his life and engaged in illegal conduct, even in other instances. But in this particular case, he is accused of doing what reporters do all the time. And that's

why even the New York Times' lawyers have talked about in public about how essentially, you know, you can hate Julian Assange and certainly a lot of people at the New York Times do. But it is legally indistinguishable from what they do. And so I would just tell people, you know, I totally understand you having strong negative feelings about Julian Assange the person. The only thing I'm trying to change your mind about is Julian Assange, the law. And so I would just tell people, you know, I totally understand. legal case. Okay, so let's talk a little more about that legal case. And specifically, let's talk a little more about the Espionage Act, which a lot of people think needs to go by-bye. I get the impression you agree with that. Absolutely. I mean, I think a lot of people would, you know,

the espionage acts is a law actually, which has gotten a lot of attention because it's part of one of the indictments against Donald Trump now. Right. But, you know, this was a law that was passed in World War I. It was, at least on its face aimed at spies and saboteurs. What ended up happening in World War I was they ended up charging thousands and thousands of anti-war resistors and pacifists under the law. But, you know, after World War I, somehow the law wasn't struck down, and it kind of lied dormant for decades and decades. When whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg leaked Pentagon papers in the New York Times, which

exposed decades of lies about the Vietnam War, the U.S. government used the Espionage interact for the first time against a source of a journalist. After that, it sat, and, you know, Daniel Osberg, thankfully, was let off because of severe government misconduct. But after that, it sat dormant for decades again. And it wasn't until really Obama administration in which it became because of technology and the ability to surveil reporters and sources a lot easier, the U.S. government started prosecuting sources of journalists. I'm essentially using a law that talks about spies, and using it against Americans who thought they were being patriotic by exposing waste, fraud, or abuse or illegal behavior by the U.S. government. The problem is that the Espionage Act is written so broadly that it essentially says anybody who has national defense information and is unauthorized to have it and transmits or communicates this information is in violation of the law.

So national defense information, as you can imagine, can mean anything in the national security or foreign policy realm. The law is so broad, in fact, that not only is technically the New York Times and violation of it all the time by publishing classified information, but anybody who shares a link to one of those stories on Twitter or gets the newspaper and hands it to somebody else is technically communicating national defense information to people and authorized to receive it. And so, you know, a lot of First Amendment scholars have thought that this law should be struck down for decades and decades. Thankfully, even though it has been abused, the U.S. government has never actually been able to use it against journalists. Really, with this WikiLeaks case, this spinal Rubicon has been crossed or they are attempting to cross it. And the worry is that once Julian Assange is found guilty under the statute, there will be nothing stomping a future President Trump from prosecuting New York Times reporters who cover national security or the reporters at the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. So all of this sort of, you know, when you lay it out, you can sort of understand why the Trump administration wanted to go after Assange for all the reasons you just named because it would

give them pretext to then go after quote unquote actual journalistic outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. But why, in your opinion, has the Biden administration continued down this path? Yeah, it's really perplexing because at least outwardly they claim like they care about that press freedom. You know, and their Justice Department has made strides and making it much harder for the FBI, for example, to spy on journalists, which is all well and good. But this case is a huge, glaring blind spot. And so, you know, it could be a combination of things. Number one, the Justice Department never likes to drop cases when administrations change. We have seen Democratic administrations go back on their principles with the Justice Department over and over again.

I mean, you'll remember back in 2008 when Obama took office, there was all of these cases around the U.S. torture regime and CIA and NSA spying, with which the Obama administration kept defending, the Bush administration, to the shock of their supporters. And so it seems like something like that is going on here. It's also the fact that I think that Julian Assange frankly broke a lot of people's brains in 2016, and that people can't see past the fact that Julian Assange allegedly may have helped Trump by publishing documents. The problem with that is that, well, number one, I totally understand that tens or hundreds of millions of Americans still have strong emotional feelings about 2016. I think everybody does on all sides. The problem is that we have to see

past that, and we have to see past a few feet in front of us. We have to realize that, okay, there's a lot of people that may not like Julian Assange, but there's a difference between not liking somebody and wanting them prosecuted for something that could end up biting us all in the ass. And I think that's where we stand with this case right now. So do you think the visit from the Ozzy's will accomplish anything? You published a really good piece by Seth Stern, the director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, in which he basically said it's nothing short of a national embarrassment that foreign officials have to explain to our government that prosecuting Assange is a threat to the First Amendment. Do you think that,

think the visit from the Aussies will have any effect, or is this just sort of, hey, it's great that they're doing this, but it's not going to change any minds? I am, I would say, cautiously optimistic. The real interesting aspect of this Australian visit is that it's not just a set of random politicians or politicians from far left party or a far right party. There are representatives from every major political party in Australia, because unlike the U.S. where this case has kind of been on the back burner as far as headlines go. This is front page news in Australia all the time. And there was some poll I saw that it was like 88% of Australians, you know, are demanding that the U.S. dropped the charges. And so these politicians are coming over here because they're

actually reacting to their constituents in Australia. There was one quote from one of them, I think, that said, we don't agree on anything but Julian Assange and what the weather is today. You know, it will be really interesting to see what the reaction is, especially because there's actually a state visit from the prime minister coming in next month. The prime minister has actually been getting more vocal about this case. I think ultimately the only way that this case gets settled without Julian Assange essentially being extradited to the United States and it turning into an absolute circus is if journalists on social media speak up about this case much more often and much more frequently. All of the newspapers at one point or another have said the right thing. When the charges came out,

They said these are a direct threat to press freedom. It doesn't matter what you think about Assange. Like, we are very worried about our own rights. But they have essentially gone silent since then. And given that Julian Assange is such a hated person across the political spectrum, or at least in a lot of circles he is, I think individual journalists are very hesitant to speak out on social media because they don't want to receive all the blowback they would from their ideological fans. And it's creating a situation where by the time Julian Assange comes to the United States, it might be too late because the Biden administration might just dig in their heels and not want to make any sort of deal. And so, you know, if we really want to see this case go away, I think there needs to be a sustained effort by journalists themselves to point out that, like,

to the Biden administration, like, this is unacceptable. You know, we're not saying that Julian Assange is great and that we're defending his personhood and that he should be awarded the Congressional Medal of honor. We're just saying that, like, we are terrified of what this prosecution could do of our rights. And hopefully the Biden administration should be thinking what happens if another Trump comes into the office. Like, you know, their position is, oh, well, we would never prosecute, quote-unquote, real journalists. Well, that doesn't really help if Republicans take the White House in four years and decide the journalists are the enemies of the people again. Trevor Tim, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, reminding us that even though Assange may be a dick, he should not be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for committing acts of journalism. Trevor, thanks so much for being here.

I really appreciate it. Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for having me. Levy. Wow. Donio Moody. Who is your fuck that guy to end this fabulous week? My fuck that guy is someone who, you know, I guess in full disclosure, I should say, signed my paychecks for a bunch of years.

It's old Rupy. It's Rupert Murdoch who just announced this week that he will be. stepping down as chairman of Fox Corp and News Corp and turning it over to his older son, Lackland Murdoch. Yeah, he's the sole chairman now of both Fox Corp and News Corp. First of all, let's not get all excited about Rupert Murdoch stepping down for one big reason. Lackland is just as bad, if not worse. So it's not like things are going to change for the better at NewsCorp. They're not.

They will continue to get worse as they do every day there. And this is Rupert's legacy. It wasn't enough that, you know, he had 70 years of helping to destroy the fabric of Western civilization. He's got to pass it on to his large adult son, Lacklin. And Lacklin is young, so we got a bunch more years and a bunch more decades of this shit. And we're just basically never escaping. So, yeah, so for all those reasons and, oh, God, so many more, by fuck that guy, goes to you, Rupi.

and also your son, oh, I guess I can call him lackey, because that's kind of what he is anyway. Fuck those guys. God, Andy, that was good. I'm surprised he's retiring, you know, since he's so young. You know, you're thinking of his girlfriends. Yeah, I just, I'm just, like, amazed by the fact that he didn't want to be just brought out in his coffin. But Rupert Murdoch is single-handedly, what was he running the, 70 years, 70 fucking years of rain. lies and hell and fury and brainwashing America.

So so glad, you know, he's taking this time and his ripe age to retire and pass the baton to his son. Amazing. He's leaving to spend more time with his family. With his children slash girlfriends, all of whom are the same age. Oh, fire. So, Danielle, end this week for us. Who's your fuck that guy? Oh, dear.

Speaking of things that are evil and people who know no bounds, Muhammad bin Salman, MBS, the murderous prince of Saudi Arabia, who directed and followed through with the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who then after four years of dealings with the Trump administration offloaded $2 billion to Jared Kushner, for no reason at all. You know, he just likes him. But apparently, MBS has said that if Donald Trump, the twice impeached sexual assaulter, lying, defaming, you know, criminal becomes president again, you know, he's going to keep his money with PIF, the public investment fund that Jared Kushner manages.

And I say to myself, I wonder why. There can't possibly be anything nefarious attached to those two billion fucking dollars that he's given to Jared Kushner. The Republicans are so hell bent on fucking Hunter Biden and what, a couple of million dollars that he may have made off of the Biden name when he was not associated with the Biden administration, has never run for public office, has never been a public servant. but mind you, Jared Kushner was like a special assistant to the president and had his fucking clearance pushed through that no one wanted to give him, but Donald Trump said, go ahead, and then ends up with $2 billion in his pockets, but Republicans look the other way.

And MBS says, you know what? I'm going to keep my money on red. So for that reason, MBS, Jared Kushner, but the entirety of the Republican Party that is looking away, from the grift that is happening in plain fucking sight that is actually dangerous to our country because this is not just about what is he giving MBS to earn that $2 billion?

How is it going to come back to bite America in the ass? For that reason, they are all my fuck that guy. Yeah, the one thing you left out was that Donald Trump sent Jared Kushner to the Middle East as a special envoy, and we've had peace there ever since. So give a little credit to Jared, please. The other thing is, I mean, in all seriousness, Brett Bear, what are you doing? What are you doing?

You have MBSs on your show. This is the guy who ordered the execution of Jamal Khashoggi, and he literally asked him about his golf game. Are you fucking kidding me? No, I'm not. I mean, that's just, it's an absolute embarrassment. So I think, unfortunately, because I used to like Brett, I think you have to add him to your fuck that guy list.

You know, American journalists used to ask Hitler about his show. strolls in the park. So there's that. Yeah, it's a good point. Fuck those guys. 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 thedailybeast.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.