The Daily Beast Podcast - Michael Cohen: Trump’s Too Scared of Losing to Run in 2024

Episode Date: October 28, 2022

Donald Trump will not run for president in 2024, according to his former fixer. Michael Cohen tells host Andy Levy on this week’s episode of The New Abnormal that while Trump’s popularity has plummeted since 2016 and he can’t risk the idea of losing, there are also serious financial implications that could stop Trump from his return to the White House. Also on the podcast, Kali Holloway, a columnist at The Daily Beast and the Nation, who guest hosts with Levy, says that part of the reason why Herschel Walker was hand-picked to run in Georgia by the Republican Party was because “they wanted a Black candidate to run against Warnock. Then, Judd Legum, a journalist who founded and writes an independent newsletter dedicated to accountability journalism, Popular Information, discusses a recent article surrounding Amazon and its statement days after the Jan. 6 Capitol riots where it claimed the company would no longer give money to any member of Congress who had voted to overturn the election. 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 pretty comfortably on the left. And I'm producer Jesse Kennan, 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 great guest co-hosts, as well as some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try to make some sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. What a great show we have today.

First we'll be joined by Michael Cohen, host of the podcast, Mayacolpa, and the author of the book, Revenge, how Donald Trump weaponized the U.S. Department of Justice against his critics. He's going to talk to us all about his latest book. Then we'll talk to Jud Leggham, who writes popular information, an independent newsletter dedicated to accountability journalism. But first, we have Callie Holloway, who is a columnist of The Daily Beast and the Nation.

Callie Holloway. And you're leaving. Welcome back to the new abnormal. Thanks again for guest hosting with me. Excellent to have you. Thank you so much for having me. Of course. So let's jump right into some Republican politics, because that's always fun and not at all scary or terrifying.

We've got now Hershey Walker, who is obviously running for Senate in Georgia. And in an appearance with Lindsey Graham the other night, Lindsay Graham made this ridiculously outrageous claim that basically you can't say that, Republicans have a racism problem because they've got Herschel Walker as their candidate. And he said, quote, they're beating all our guys up, but what is it about this guy? He changes the entire narrative of the left. We're a party of racist, Sean. He was talking to Sean Hannity. Me and you are racist. The Republican Party is racist. Well, what happens when the Republican Party elects and nominates Herschel Walker, an African-American black, it's good that he's both, Heisman trophy winner, Olympian. It destroys the whole narrative. I personally,

don't think it destroys the whole narrative, but you think it does destroy the narrative. Yeah, I think that he's actually saying the quiet part out. Right? I mean, but the reason why Herschel Walker was sort of handpick to run in Georgia was they wanted a black candidate to run against Warnock. And they wanted someone who would basically validate anti-black talking point. And they knew that they would be able to exploit his race as a way to shield them from races. So this is Lindsay I'm actually kind of admitting that out, not kind of sort of full-throatedly admitting this out loud. Again and again, I think we see this with the Republican Party and who it chooses as black candidates. It really just, I think the conception that white conservatives have of the black community is that you can basically run any black candidate and black folks will both for them.

Yeah. No, I think that's true. But it's also like, it's like the political equivalent of, you know, some of my best friends are black. Is there some of some of my candidates are black? Yeah. I mean, it's sort of ludicrous because they do this again and again without success, right? They pick these kind of tokenized candidates. No strategy is to run them and assume that because they have a certain kind of celebrity or something that black folks are going to vote for them.

And it rarely works. You know, I think that that's what's happening here again. But they're admitting here again, here's Lindsay Graham admitting, you know, we have this guy. We have a reputation for being racist. how are you going to call us out now? Look, you know, our candidate is black. So, yeah, it's just him really speaking openly about what their motives were from the beginning. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, look, the things that obviously appeal to them about Herschel Walker were that he's black and that he's a, you know, he's a celebrity. He's a former athlete, whatever. And, you know, that's the playbook there,

obviously. And, you know, when we see that because they really don't care about what kind of man, Herschel Walker is, what kind of person Herschel Walker is, because, you know, everything he's done in his life is sort of antithetical to what they claim their values are, at least. But to see Lindsey Graham standing there next to Herschel Walker and just sort of like proudly saying, look at my black man. It was like when Trump said, you know, my African American. Yeah, I forget the exact quote, but he said, where's my African American or something like that? And it's like, like you said, they do this time and time again. And then they, you know, they hold it up and they say, see, we can't be racist. And then, of course, you know, they sit there and, you know, gerrymander black districts out of existence and do all

these other things that are just blatantly racist. But they use this as sort of cover for that and think that it absolves them. Right. And again, I think that Graham's quote kind of gives some proof of the fact that their gestures toward black voters are pretty much always made in bad faith. You mentioned the kind of men that they tried to paint him to be. And that's actually who Raphael Warnock is, right? Like, he is a literal preacher at one of the oldest black churches in Atlanta where Martin Luther King preached. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Morehouse. He has two master's degrees. He has a doctorate. He's written multiple books on some pretty heady theological topics. I mean, this is an actual religious guy who kind of adheres to the stuff that he says from the pulpit. And, you know, the fact that

they would choose someone who is such a poor candidate to run against Warnock, just speak to how little they think of the black community and, you know, how easily fooled or dup. I think they think that the black community is. And I also think that there is tremendous profitability, both monetarily and to maybe a smaller degree in terms of power, to be a black person who, you know, who signs on to give a black face to white supremacist talking points. And I think that's essentially what they've been listed, Herschel Walker, to do. Yeah, I couldn't agree with that more. And, you know, you brought up Reverend Warnock.

And of course, you know, the problem with Reverend Warnock is that he believes in a woman's right to choose. You know, and not, he doesn't only believe that for women that he got pregnant. Right. He actually believes it for all women. They can't roll with that. They find someone like Hershey Walker, like you said, and they just, they put them out there. And it just, you know, it's so cynical is what it is. But that's what they do.

And they don't, all the stuff that has come out about Hershaw Walker, or at least most of it, was known to Republican operatives. And they had to know that there was a chance it would come out, but they don't care. It's just amazing. Like, I don't even know what else to say about it because it's just the gall of just saying, you know, look at my black friend. Right. And I think that there was a bunch that was known to them, but I also think that, and there was actually the Daily Beast piece when the first story broke about his hidden child, that there was stuff that he even hid from his own staffers. Some of the stuff that was known, I think Herschel Walker has a sense of himself that is very incongruous with reality. He thought that he would be able to kind of skate by.

Obviously, there was going to be opposition research done and that didn't work. But, yeah, I mean, I think that actually the black community out of necessity is particularly good. good at sussing out what kind of candidates will do the least harm. And blackness's window dressing doesn't really change that. And so, you know, again, it's why Blackholders, from the very beginning, when Walker entered this race, weren't on board with him. I probably misspoke there. What I think what I meant to say is not necessarily that they knew all the particulars, they knew what kind of character Hershaw Walker had. And they knew that he is, I mean, I don't know how else, but he's sort of a man of low character. And they knew that going in and they didn't care.

It's not that I don't think that black candidates should be allowed to be as, you know, mediocre as, say, a Trump. They absolutely should. But, you know, the fact that they ran Herschel Walker with some sense that some of this stuff was going to come out, the way that he was going to look completely disregarded that. I think if they were capable of being shamed, they should absolutely be ashamed of themselves. Yeah. I don't think shame is something that they possess. No, I don't. That absolutely does not apply here. And speaking of people with no shame, Elon Musk seems to be getting closer and closer to buying Twitter.

It could happen as soon I think possibly it may close on the day that you might be listening to this podcast. You know, there's some trepidation and sort of uncertainty, I guess, about what Twitter is going to look like. If this happens under a Musk leadership, I was going to say regime, but that makes me sound like a Republican. We were talking about this before we started and we don't want to get into the weeds because most people don't. don't use Twitter and, you know, you and I are, I think, unfortunately, extremely online or pretty online anyway. And that's not the majority of the country who are far smarter and saner than we are. But it does mean something for sort of the state of discourse and it may have a bad impact on Twitter that will actually go sort of, I guess you would say, beyond Twitter and sort of

into the, like, impact the culture of the country, right? Yeah. I mean, I think I'm the one hand, I do think that most social media, you know, it has a lifespan, right? We all remember when my face kind of became a abandoned playground and I think it's inevitable that there is, you know, a shelf life for this stuff. But on the other hand, I do think that Twitter has been a really important place for lots of people who otherwise had their voices erased or ignored to elevate stuff that was really important to them. I mean, I look back at me too, I don't think, would have had kind of the cultural impact that it did arguably continues to have if Twitter hadn't existed. I know that Black Twitter has become kind of a cultural touchstone, providing

all kinds of memes and even much more significant stuff. It is a huge reason why George Zimmerman was arrested. It is definitely the reason why Ahmad Arbery was arrested. I worry about Musk's promise to throw open the doors of Twitter, basically to anyone who wants to post there. I mean, he's already committed to letting Donald Trump back on the platform. And Trump has said that he has no interest in returning, that he wants to remain on truth social, but I don't invest a lot of faith in anything that Donald Trump says. Will it be crowded with, in the interest of, you know, in quote, free speed, the sort of people who shout down voices who are more to marginalized and it maybe found a home there.

Like, I think that's likely to happen. And I think that is, in a lot of ways, really sad for people who did find, like, you know, a space to exist on Twitter. Yeah. And it's kind of interesting because just on Thursday, he penned an open letter aimed at advertisers and basically said that, you know, he doesn't want Twitter to become a, as I'll quote from him, a free-for-all hellscape or anything can be said with no consequences, which sort of goes against, you know, what he's been, as you pointed out, what he's been saying this whole time,

that, you know, their whole big thing is they just repeat free speech over and over again as a mantra. So it sounds like at least what he's telling advertisers is maybe, you know, that maybe he won't go as far as we think he is, or as he's sort of said he was going to. But no, you raise an excellent point. And I always say, look, I'm all cis white man on Twitter. And I get nasty stuff on there all the time. And just some of it's anti-Semitic. But others of it isn't. It's just assholes being assholes. But anything I get is not a hundredth or maybe even a thousandth of what women get, of what people of color get, of what trans people get.

People who stand at that intersection of those identities get, yeah. Exactly. God forbid someone be a trans woman of color or, you know, whatever. And it's just, I don't know how they go through hearing all that stuff said about them all day because it is just nasty. And so the point is it's sort of bad enough already. And the fear is that it's going to be even worse if Musk takes over. And like you said, that has the effect of driving people who are, you know, already marginalized by society, but we're perhaps slightly less marginalized and were able to get their voices heard.

It has the effect of driving them away and back into the shadows. You know, and that's just in America. And then, you know, we start thinking about other countries where we've seen in the past that, like, you know, a lot of the color revolution. stuff depended on Twitter. And look, if Musk is, you know, who the hell knows what he's going to do? If, you know, if he decides he has business interests in Iran or something like that, maybe he makes it even harder for the Iranian people to get their voices set on Twitter. And so this does have ramifications way beyond just like, oh, it won't be fun to post jokes anymore. Yeah. And I know

that he's kind of dialed it back a little bit, but we have to also look at how Alan Musk moves through the world, right? And he spent a lot of time on Twitter and the lead-up to the sale kind of planning about the woke mob. He has targeted people who have criticized him. He has millions of followers, and he's, you know, definitely sort of sicked people on them. This is a guy whose transgender daughter doesn't speak to him. Right. Who's a car company is facing a bunch of lawsuits for discrimination. So, you know, just looking at the way he sort of lives his life doesn't give me a lot of faith and what he values in terms of what he thinks are important voices. And I don't know that we need another billionaire who owns a social media company, although I would guess that the parlor sale

is not happening now that Kanye is no longer on the billionaire list. But I do think it's interesting that, you know, the sense that I've always gotten from the moment he announced that the sale was potentially going to happen is that there were sort of two reasons that he was undertaking it. And one was to, in some sense, own the libs, right, who are constantly criticizing him. And then the other is to kind of shape the cultural conversation and to have the cachet that comes with doing that. And, you know, maybe that's what he's looking for. I mean, I think that a lot of the time that people who invest in these companies are surrounded by sycophants and they want to be able to control even this, you know, a tiny digital sphere where they don't have or they feel that they have

a lack of influence. So I'm not looking forward to the way that I think that it's going to change, but maybe he is not going to kind of do what he said in the past. And I'm hoping that's true, but affecting the worst. Yeah, I think that sums it up perfectly. All right, I want to move to something that happened at a debate in Pennsylvania a couple days ago. And it was Mehmet Oz. Some people call him Dr. Oz. I sort of refuse at this point to give him the honor of that title because he's respect his pronoun. Jesus. Hey, he, he was. Once was a well-respected surgeon, and now he's a snake oil salesman, so I don't think he gets to be called Dr. Oz anymore.

So Mehmet Oz said something about abortion that already is being used as an ad by the Federman campaign, and it was such a gross thing to say. So let's listen to what he had to say. I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that's always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves. All right. So, Callie, he's basically saying here he wants politicians involved in a decision that should be a woman's. Yeah, it was a really roundabout way of saying I don't think that women are capable of making this decision for themselves.

And it's extremely presumptuous of him to decide that he can invite that many people into my uterus. But this is obviously the party line that they're taking. And I wasn't surprised by it at all. Right. I did think the fact that he took the semantic long way around was kind of lappable. But, you know, I think that anyone who's invested in reproductive justice or in, you know, women having the right to decide what happens to their body is obviously wasn't fooled by it. The thing is, like, they're trying to finesse it by saying that, oh, what he meant by local politicians is he just, he doesn't think that abortion is in the sphere of the federal government and that it should be left up to the states. And it's like, women don't want, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but there's no difference between someone at the federal level getting involved.

in a woman's decision here, then there is, you know, I don't think women want a town councilman or a county executive being part of that decision either. That's not better. No, absolutely not. And again, when we've seen women sort of respond to this in kind where they actually do reach out to these politicians who seem so intent on deciding what women's health looks like and making every decision for them, that they're not actually super psyched about it. It's the same sort of line that we've seen, this control over women's bodies. Like I said, we've seen Federman is cutting ads over this, you know, and some other politicians, Pennsylvania State Representative Malcolm Kenyatta, literally said that this statement from Oz is a gift

for Democrats. And he said, you know, what they're trying to do here is they want to link Oz to the Republican gubernatorial candidate there, Doug Mastriano, who is just a crazy person. And what Kenyatta said was, he said, I think for most people, the takeaway is going to be Oz saying he thinks abortion should be left between a woman, her doctor, and local politicians, which in Pennsylvania means Doug Mastriano. So I think, you know, it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out, of course, but it does feel like I don't think he did himself any favors by saying that. And when I say that, what I mean is I don't think he did himself any favors by stating

what is the Republican position on this. Right, exactly. And I do hope that if it does end up in ads, that it kind of reminds and galvanizes voters around this issue. Because it's really important, and we've seen some waning interest in it. We're at the same place that we were after the SCOTIS decision, and it's critical that this is something that drives people to the poll. Yeah, and Oz is saying, he's basically saying, well, I'm not saying anything I haven't said before. That's nothing that goes against my views.

And yeah, exactly, that's the problem. Joining me now is the author of the new book, Revenge, how Donald Trump weaponized the U.S. Department of Justice against his critics, and the host of the podcast, Mayacopa, Michael Cohen. Thanks for being here, Michael. Really good to be with you as well. I want to ask, your book is titled, as I just said, it's revenge, how Donald Trump weaponized the U.S. Department of Justice against his critics. And it's clear that he did that. No argument there whatsoever.

So my question is to you is, if you didn't think he'd done it to you, would you care that he did it? I would. In fact, it did happen to me. So it's a very tough question for me to answer. Would I be involved to the extent that I? I am today. No. When things like this happen, when you're put onto a path, a journey, so to speak, where something is done to you that is wrong, or you become an activist as I have become to stop the people who are trying to mimic Trumpian tactics, your goal is to ensure that what happened to you,

the pain, the suffering, the loss of your family's happiness, the financial devastation to you, that it never happens again to anyone else. And we see this often now with the parents of these unfortunate situations where children are killed because of gun violence and so on. They become activists. And that's what Mayor Culper is. That's what revenge is. I wrote Andy the book, Revenge, really to disson. for the American people, a story that everybody thinks that they know, but they just truly don't. This is the story of the most corrupt investigation into a U.S. citizen in American history. And I wanted to prove the point that this is what happens when you have an autocratic,

fascist-minded president like a Donald Trump or, God forbid, a Trump 2.0, who elects to weaponize the Department of Justice to silence his critics. Right, but I guess what I'm getting at here is, look, I'm not saying anything that yourself don't say in the book. You spent over a decade doing Trump's dirty work, covering up for him, being his sort of, you know, bag man, whatever. And you were okay with that until those tactics were turned on you. No, you see, this is the problem. Okay. This is the whole problem and why revenge is a must read for everyone. So you say I was his bag man. All right? Bagman, for example, we can go through each and every one of the things, the allegations that you just stated. Now, I'm not saying this to be critical of you. The point is

you just don't know the real story. So when you say bad man, that kind of connotes that I was running around with cash, paying people off and so on. Name one time that you are aware of that I was a bad man. Name one time. Well, what did you do with Stormy Daniels? I sent 130, $30,000 by wire to her attorney in Beverly Hills, California, pursuing to a non-disclosure agreement. That's not a bad man. No, no, okay, sure. I'll retract, bag man. I was just, I was using that figuratively anyway.

My point is that you, by your own admission, like, again, I'm not trying to be adversarial here necessarily. You spent a long time doing things for Trump that were not the most ethical things in the world to put it mildly. There are many things that I did that I wish I could take back. Right. For example, when I had people create an algorithm so that Donald Trump and his fragile ego could list high on a online poll. Now, at the end of the day, did I really hurt anybody there? Well, whatever it was, it was improper and I shouldn't have done it. Did it change the course of history? I don't think it did. Um, did. Um, did it. Um, did it. Um, did. Um, make him feel good at the time? The answer to that is yes. But you know, can I go back for one

second when we were talking about being a bag man? One of the things that I was forced to plead guilty to was the Karen McDougal payment. And she was the other woman that he was having an affair with at the same time that he was having it with Stormy Daniels post-Malania's birth of Barron. I never paid Karen McDougal, despite the fact I was forced to plead guilty to it, and I was fined by the court for it, and it was part of my three-year sentence. I never paid her. In fact, all I ever did is look over documents that were prepared by AMI and David Pecker at the request of Donald to ensure that he would be protected, that she would not have the ability to go out and tell her story as Stormy Damiener.

did. Okay, and I accept all that. It just feels to me like the title of your book is revenge, and it's aimed at the fact that Trump, basically, as you say, weaponized the Justice Department against his own enemies and in many cases like you, his former friends and then cronies and business partners. But it also, I think the title also fits for what you want on Trump. Is that not accurate? I think you could use it either way. And I'm happy either way so long as that he is held accountable for his own dirty deeds. I should not be the one to go to prison because he got his pecker pulled by a porn star and he had me produce a non-disclosure agreement as a lawyer, right? And because he didn't want it traced back to him, asked me to send the money. Now,

another misconception, which I address as well in the book, is why did I use the home equity line as opposed to cash that I had in the bank to pay this $130,000, because I have a wife. And as a result, if in fact she looked into the bank statements as it would come in and we were missing $130,000 from the bank account, I'm 100% certain that she would ask me, where did you use that money for? What did you use that money for?

And providing her with a response, I can't tell you. I don't think that would go over well. and it would have created issues in my marriage. So I used the helop, which was paperless. Look, I am not taking issue with anything you're saying there. When I did the things that I did for Donald, I want everyone to understand. I was doing it as a lawyer at the Trump Organization, which is a small mom-and-pop, myopic real estate entertainment company.

He was not the president of the United States of America. I never accepted a job in the White House. despite the fact that he had offered it to me on a regular basis. The job that I wanted is the job that I got, which was personal attorney, to the president. That way I could continue my life in New York, not having to be in D.C. And it would open up other opportunities for me to represent individuals and companies, which is what I did. It is very different what was done by individuals like, let's say, Don McGahn. Let's say individuals like Mark Meadows or Jim Jordan or individuals who are there in Washington working for the people as opposed to a lawyer who was working for a private company.

Despite the fact the things that I did were improper, they didn't have the same effect as what others had done in Washington that we're seeing right now, including like what just happened with Christina Bob. This is post the election, his loss. He takes documents down to Mara Lago. He lies to her along as well as other people lying to her. She files a document an affidavit with the government claiming that top secret documents, documents that belong to you and me, and they're supposed to be stored by NARA, right, the National Archives. Right.

She then lies to them and now she has trouble. This is very different than some of the things that I ended up doing for him, despite the fact it was also to ensure that he would have every possible opportunity to win an election despite the fact that there was this negative implication. And the funny thing is, the more you start thinking about what I did, including like Stormy Daniels, the more that you start to think about the other things that I had done while, of course, I was at the Trump organization. I'm not sure that it would have even changed the outcome of this election,

because he has done far, far worse, far worse than what we had done before as president and post-president. And his fans love it. And they support him for it. Yeah, there's no argument about that. And I agree that what you did, there's a difference in degree. I totally agree with that. But I want to get back to the book. In reading the book, it feels like there are two big messages, at least that's what I took from it.

One of the messages is aimed at a small group of people and the other one is aimed at America. and the message for the small group of people, which is the people who are still in Trump's orbit, the people who work for him, whatever, is, I know you don't think he'll ever throw you under the bus, but believe me, he will. And the message for America is, are you fucking crazy even thinking about putting this man back in power?

Is that a fair read of your book? Yeah, I think it's a little more than that, but those are certainly two of the larger aspects of the book. You know, one of the problems that I want people to understand is we've now seen, the corrosion of our democracy as a direct result of a man who never wanted to be president of the United States. He wants to be the autocrat, the monarch, the supreme leader. He wants to be a Vladimir Putin, a Muhammad bin Salman. He wants to be a Kim Jong-un. Now, if that's what you want,

support Donald Trump. But if you believe that democracy is worth fighting for, then you need to not just vote him and all of his acolytes out of office, but we need to all work together to ensure that the people that we do elect are not people like Donald or Donald Trump 2.0s that have enemies list that are willing to get the Attorney General of the United States to use the Department of Justice to silence their critics. What you're really looking at is if you watch The Handmaid's Tale, it's like Gilead. You're going to lose all of your rights. We've already lost one in the Dobbs decision of Roe versus Wade.

Next is Obergefeld, and then there'll be more to follow. Because this is what this man has done. He has basically changed the Republican Party. As his kids keep saying, it's no longer the Republican Party. It's the Trump Party. And until we eradicate this from our body politic, we're really living under almost like a fascist regime. Yeah, absolutely. Interestingly, you don't think that Trump is going to run in 24, which I think right now goes against what we would call the conventional wisdom. But I know you say that there are, in addition to other things, there are serious financial reasons for him not to run that almost make it so he can't run. Well, that's true. And I've been saying that. I haven't changed my position on it. Right.

One of the problems with Donald is that despite what he will tell you, he has very thin skin. He has an incredible. fragile ego. The loss to Joe Biden for him was like a kick to the groin. And he can't afford to allow himself to be a two-time loser. And one of the things that he knows is that his popularity, even amongst Republicans, has diminished since the 2016 election. People are sick and tired of the bullshit that he creates, the chaos that he creates every single day. And I think they're getting sick and tired of the way that the Trump 2.0ers are doing the exact same thing, the mimicking of Trumpism in order to win or try to win elections. He cannot afford emotionally to be a two-time loser.

But more importantly, if you look at the great grift that he is currently, involved with his Super PAC. They have taken down about a quarter of a billion dollars. And something that doesn't get enough airtime or enough radio or, I should say, media play is the fact that if you read the fine print, he has sole discretion over 90% of all of the money that his supporters are currently giving him. That makes it into a 90% slush fund. So I bet if you look to see how he paid to fix his airplane, which was sitting on the tarmac for a long time, I guarantee it's coming from that slush fund. He's not using it for what people believe it's supposed to be, which is political purposes. He's using it for himself. If he announces a formal campaign, he is no longer capable

of having that slush fund. And he has made way too much money too easily to go ahead and give this thing up, especially when he knows that he cannot win a job. general election. In fact, there are polls that show, and I'm not a big fan of the polls. You may remember the whole says who, even though I was right? There were polls that show that if he ran against, for example, Ron DeSantis today, that DeSantis would win by almost double digits. He's not prepared to take that loss. What's his exit ramp, though, because he can't come out and say, I'm not going to run because I'm not going to win, and he can't say, I'm not going to run because I'll lose access to my slush fund. So you know the guy. You work to

for him for over a decade. What's his out? How does he portray his not running? That he could be more beneficial to the GOP as being a kingmaker, that he could be, in essence, the head of the Republican party. You'll remember when Vladimir Putin finished his second term as president of Russia. And the constitution there did not permit him to then go for a third term. So what did he end up doing? he turned himself into the prime minister, which is a higher position than the president, despite the fact there's never been a prime minister of Russia. So in essence, he retained full power. The only thing is that Medvedev, who became the president, because he made him president,

would then sign documents, but only after reviewed and authorized by the prime minister. We don't have that sort of scenario here, though Trump would like that. What we do have, though, are kingmakers. He wants to be the head of the party. He wants to be the head of the GOP. He wants everyone who intends to run as a Republican or who is a Republican member of Congress to have to come in to kiss his ring, to do his bidding and to show him complete loyalty. That's his goal.

So like a behind-the-scenes godfather. Correct. But not so much behind the scenes. in the front of the camera. He wants everyone to know that he is the man in charge. Now, I don't care who the president may be. It makes no difference. All the shots are being called by the big man,

and he wants to be that guy. That's a nice chilling possibility for him to be the Putin of America. And then, of course, Putin, once he was able to work his way around the Russian, you know, system of government got himself right back into the office. And changed the constitution to make it unlimited. Right, exactly. And one of the things that you probably have heard me say over and over again is a quote that Trump used to repeat.

I believe it was a Stalin approach, even though Putin also used it as well, but Trump truly enjoyed it. That it doesn't matter who you vote for. All that matters is who's counting the vote. And the sickest thing is as we watch today, and we see what we see what. what's going on with the voter intimidation, with these lunatics sitting on lawn chairs in paramilitary gear with firearms. And then we have people running around the ballot boxes with cameras, intimidating people, and chasing them. It's just like right out of gangs of New York.

I mean, this is not America, folks. And rest assured, the book revenge, it is a roadmap into how Donald Trump used the Department of Justice to be his pit bull. He used Bill Barr in order to go after his critics. Now look, let me be very clear. You may be as well on Donald's enemies list. You don't speak too highly of him. He certainly doesn't like you. And so you could be on his enemy's list, which means if he comes back into power

or anyone who is loyal comes back, a big takes over the power. And he takes on that role that I explained as, the boss of all bosses, right? The tuto de capo de tuti, right? That's what Trump wants to be. You're in danger. And I promise you what I went through is the most horrific scenario that you could possibly imagine.

And not just for you, but for your family, your entire family, your friends, your life gets turned upside down. And I don't want to see that happen. Not to you, not to anyone. Boy, you really paint a cheery forecast of the future. Well, unfortunately, I lived it. No, I know. America right now is hanging on to democracy by a shoestring.

You know, people are totally erroneous when they believe that democracy is part of our constitution, that democracy is a right. It is not. It is an experiment. And one of the biggest things that our forefathers had always been concerned, about is what would happen if a president wanted to be more than a president, which of course is why they created the three-part system, right, the judiciary executive and the legislative branches. Well, what happens when you have a president, and we saw this from what he had done during his administration, when Trump completely ignored all process, when he decided to ignore

the other branches of government and only concentrate on executive privilege. and the executive branch. This is a man who wants to be our supreme leader. He loves when Kim Jong-un decides to have a parade of missiles and rockets in the military in his honor. He wants the same thing. He wanted the same thing to happen while he was in Washington. We have to all be vigilant. It's something I keep calling for when I talk about in my MayerColpa podcast.

We have to become a movement and ensure that these. people, these Trump wannabes, these mimics, that they never come close to power because what they do is they take away our rights for their benefit. So before you go, I have to bring this up. I was talking to my friend CNN commentator S.E. Cup a few days ago, I told her I was going to be talking to you. And she told me a little story. She said that years back at a Faith and Freedom Conference, you pushed her up against a wall and told her you would end her life if she said anything bad about Trump. Is that true? It's an absolute lie. Well, I have met SEC Cup, and it was recent in the green room. I've never put not just a woman up against the wall and threaten them. I have never done the same with a male. It is an absolute lie. I don't know who she's referring to. It's a terrible thing. This is the problem. It's the same thing that happened with the Michael Avanadis. It is a lie. I never threatened her to do anything. The only person who I had an argument with that was really.

I forget his name, he's now over at NPR. He had sent an email to Hope Hicks claiming that he was going and he was writing a story about Donald Trump raping Ivana in 1991. And I know that story not to be true. It's not true. She even stated in that testimony, in her deposition, that her usage of the English language is not meant to use the word rape in the physical sense. but that she felt emotionally raped by him.

She was trying to be smart, which, again, neither she nor he are smart, which of course is why they have these three dumbass kids. But putting all that aside, I have never put S.E. Cup against the wall. I have never threatened her, and I don't even recall ever even speaking to her. Okay. What a terrible thing for her to say. It's an absolute lie, along with all of the other lies that were promoted by Trump and his minion against me. when all of this started going down, that I was in Prague, that I paid off compromats, that I had

threatened Stormy Daniels. Stormy Daniels herself even stated it was Avinati who told her to say that because it was playing well. I never spoke, I never, do you know that up until having her on my podcast, I never even spoke to her? I never communicated with her. Everything I did, I did through her lawyer, Keith Davidson, in California. This is a terrible thing for SC Cup to see. Okay, I just want to say two things. One, S.E. Cup is as anti-Trump as it gets, so she is not part of the Trump orbit by any means. Oh, I never said she was. To be against Michael Cohen, to be against Donald Trump, but two completely separate things. Yes. And why she would make this up, I have no idea. Okay. I mean, also, I know her very well. I know her not, I can't think of a single time that she has lied. So I don't know, I find it hard to believe that she is lying about this. I have never put my hands on a woman in my entire life. I suspect that had I done that, I'm sure she would have called someone security. This wouldn't have just gone seven, eight years before she finally decides, you know, she wants to create some sort of an issue, right?

Maybe she needs some clickbates or some new followers or fans. I never put my hands on a woman. None of that is true. I never put my hands on a man and threaten them on behalf of Donald Trump or anyone. I threaten litigation. I mean, there are other reporters who have. who I've said that you have threatened them. Litigation, but never put my hands on anyone.

And I want to be really clear about that. It's not true. Okay. You know, I wanted to give you a chance to respond to what she said. Again, I know her very well. She has never lied to me as far as, you know, and I just find it hard to believe that she would make up a story like that out of whole cloth, but I did want to give you a chance to reply, which she did.

Michael, thank you for being here. The book is Revenge, How Donald Trump Weapon, the U.S. Department of Justice against his critics. It is out now. Joining me now is journalist and former think progress editor-in-chief Judd Legham, founder and author of Popular Information, an independent newsletter dedicated to accountability journalism, which you can find and subscribe to at popular. Dot info. Judd, thanks so much for being here. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me, Andy. So on Wednesday, you put out a newsletter, and the title of it caught my eye It was Amazon puts January 6th into the rearview mirror.

It feels like that headline is just the perfect, succinct way of describing this story. The story starts on January 11th, 2021, five days after the events of January 6th, with Amazon putting out a statement, which you yourself, you described in this article, you'd say it was a strong statement saying that it would no longer give money to any member of Congress who had voted to overturn the election, correct? Yeah, that's right. And of course, this was during a time when there were many companies making statements. Amazon was one of the stronger ones because instead of doing a total suspension of all donations,

which some of the companies did, they specifically said, this vote on January 6th was a problem. We are not going to be donating to these candidates for the foreseeable future. Right. So there were a lot of businesses, as you say, that just sort of took a blanket approach and said, in light of these events, we are suspending all of our political donations. And it wasn't just, it wasn't even just like Republicans. It was just all political donations. So in essence, like punishing Democrats for the sins of Republicans. Yeah, that's right. And we've been tracking this ever since at the newsletter that I write. And not surprisingly, a lot of those corporations that did that more general approach were the ones that more quickly resume donating to the people who voted to overturn

the election on that day. Yeah, shocking. So in Amazon's case, they put out this strong statement and, you know, they specifically target these members of Congress. And now here we are, what, like 21 months later, and they don't seem to care much anymore. Yeah, every month we look at the FEC filings. Amazon was one of our, in our list of companies that have mostly maintained their pledge. But in September, we saw that they had given to nine House members who voted to overturn the election on January 6th, total of $17,500. Not very much money if you're Amazon, but I think worth noting because less than two years ago, Amazon said that these members, were engaged in an unacceptable attempt to undermine a legitimate democratic process.

So it was something that they said then that got a lot of attention. So I thought back it away from it is just as newsworthy. So surely this must have been just like a mistake on Amazon's part and they'll correct it, right? They must have done this in error. No. No, we did reach out the Amazon and asked what was going on. And they essentially, they sent us a statement saying, well, you know, they always have donated. in a bipartisan way to people that are looking out for their business interests and said that it's been more than 21 months since the suspension and like a number of companies we've resumed

giving to some members. So they basically were saying this has been enough time has passed that we're no longer concerned and we're no longer going to base our contribution criteria. We're no longer going to consider this January 6th vote. It's what? Nine members of Congress that Amazon is now donating? to that they had stopped? Yeah, so far, there's nine. You know, that that covers September. You know, they may give more in October. We won't really know until after the election. But yeah, yeah, but I think that once you kind of break that, break the seal there, anything goes. But yes, there's nine so far that we saw.

So have any of these nine members either apologized for or repudiated their insane posture that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump? No, no, and that's nothing really specific about these nine, really almost none of the members who voted that day, not to certify the electoral college, essentially validating a lot of Trump's lies about what happened in 2020 have really expressed any regret. There was a member from Texas, August Flueger, who was really outspoken about, you know, Nancy Pelosi is trying to steal votes. Trump is right for raising these questions. and he was also asked in early 2022, so even more recently, probably a year after the vote, if he recognized Biden as the president, a legitimately elected president and didn't respond.

It was the Texas Tribune that asked them at that time. So, no, we're not seeing anything. So that's the interesting thing is what has really changed between now. It's been 21 months, but that's just the passage of time. If these members continue to hold the same beliefs, then it's unclear why you would change your donation strategy. Yeah, it's not even like, you know, you could say if it was like if there was like a Catholicism thing going on where they had, you know, they had done penance and confessed and, you know, said their Hail Marys and did their acts of contrition, you know, or if it was a Jewish thing and, you know, Yom Kippur had passed and, you know, you get a clean slate or whatever. But that's not even the case here. As you said, nothing has changed except time. Yeah, and time is critical. You know, it was, it really stuck out to me because we've done a couple of other stories about, obviously, there's been several dozen companies that have reneged on their pledges. We've done it. We've highlighted a few of them. But it really stuck out to me that they said it's been 21 months. What are you bothering about us about this now? You know, it's been so, it's been so long. But also, it's a very important place to draw the line rather than 26 months or 30 months because,

a congressional cycle is 24 months. So if you make the donation within that 24-month period, and by the way, January 6th was right at the start of a new cycle, January 6th, 2021. So if you make it within the 24-month period, it doesn't have any real impact on if there was someone you really wanted to contribute for this election, you get a chance to contribute to. So there's basically, there's no reason to sort of change the blade on Occam's razor here and not simply read this as Amazon never really particularly gave a shit about what happened on January 6th. Its original statement was saying what it thought people wanted to hear.

And 21 months later, they've come to the conclusion that people don't care anymore. Yes. And I think for Amazon not to denigrate the overwhelming reach of my newsletter, and it does reach a good number of people, but the announcement that they made on January 11th was covered everywhere. Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, every major CNN, every major outlet you can think of covered this move. Because it's a big deal. Amazon's one of the biggest companies in the world for them to say, hey, there's 147 Republicans that we think engaged in conduct that was so unacceptable. We are not going to donate to them. That was a big deal.

But really no one other than myself in this newsletter, and I haven't checked, maybe a couple of folks that picked it up since I've reported it, really noted or thought it was newsworthy that they're breaking it, which I think is a real problem as far as how we're covering corporate conduct. We can't just cover the press releases. We have to actually cover what their actions are and how they follow through. Right. In this case, breaking the pledge after 21 months when there's been no choice. change really shows, like, as you said, it wasn't something they really deeply cared about. Well, I think you're going to say you're going to see a big spike in coverage after this podcast drops. That I'm looking forward to, for sure. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, she was on convicted criminal Steve Bannon's podcast

on Wednesday this week. She was asked if House Republicans will go after corporations if they take back the majority. She brought up the companies that, did exactly what Amazon did, that stopped donating to these election results deniers. And she said, quote, I want you to know, and this is something they should all know, they being the companies, the corporations, that's not going to be forgotten by a whole bunch of my Republican colleagues, because that was really ridiculous and wrong. And then she followed that up, and she basically said, we're going to hold investigations into those companies. So I guess my question is, is it stuff like that? And I know Amazon donated to the nine candidates prior.

to Marjorie Taylor Green saying that. So I'm not saying it's a direct cause and effect. But is it that sort of sentiment and Amazon is sort of looking at this and thinking, well, there's a very good chance the Republicans are going to take the house back. And we don't want to be the subject of investigations. So we need to, you know, start giving money to these people again. I think that has a lot to do with it. And it's really not, I don't think driven by Marjorie Taylor Green. She never really got any corporate contributions. I don't think corporations care that much about staying in her particular good graces because he's also kind of a backbench person. But from the outset, you know, long ago there was a, this, there was reporting on this in March

2021, Blaine Lucimer, who's a member of Congress from Missouri and is also, you know, a high-ranking member on the House Finance Committee, was saying to corporations, look, if you're going to have an enemy's list, I'm going to make my own enemies list. That was reported by Bloomberg. And if you look at the companies that donate to just one or two members, Luca Meyer is on so many of those companies lists. And I think that they're worried about, you know, maybe they're worried about investigations, but it's more like, but I think maybe the bigger worry is,

hey, when you need this provision inserted into the tax code, when you need this amendment made, when you need us to kill this regulation, we're not going to answer your phone calls unless you pony up. So I think that is a big, big driving factor. And I think that there's been members who talk about it very explicitly, but there's also a lot, probably much more significantly going on behind the scenes. And that's what's driving a lot of this.

And I think companies like Amazon kind of want to get their money in, push their chips into the middle before the November election. and the Republicans takeover. Yeah, I mean, as you pointed out, you know, it's, it's the timing of this is not accidental and it seems instructive that it, they did this in September, you know, a month or so out from the election. Yes, I think that's right. And there's a push by Republicans who are in Congress to sort of paint corporations as overly woke and kind of taking retribution against Republicans and Republicans really need to fight back. None of this is actually really really going on. You haven't really seen huge changes in corporate conduct over the last couple of

years. Of course. But it's definitely that perception is definitely something that I think many corporations are scared of. Yeah. And also, you know, for people who get very mad when, you know, someone like President Biden refers to them as semi-fascist, investigating companies because they stop donating to you, that sounds not unfascist-like? Yeah, there's this sort of sense of entitlement that they need to get this money. The things that are assumed with all of this conduct that essentially corporations must donate in order to get a meeting with you, corporations must donate in order to protect themselves from investigations. It's just open corruption. That's really part of the process.

You know, these companies, you could just decide, and a couple of companies have decided this. Apple does this and seems to be doing okay, just to say, hey, we're not going to donate to members of Congress. We're just going to let it go and focus on, you know, making iPhones or whatever the companies do. But instead, there's so much money that's being spent. And there seems to be a lot of members, and it's not just Republicans. There's members on both side who are swayed by this where it's very much, quote of a quid pro quo where money and donations buys you access. And we're kind of seeing the push and pull of this around January 6th because for one time in history, I don't know if we're going to see it again,

but it was somewhat remarkable when we did. We had some companies drawing a line. And I think they really want to make sure that that line is not drawn again and that they can get rid of it as soon as possible. Yeah. And that leads me to my bigger question. Tell me about the January 6th corporate accountability index. It's something that you have up at popular. Info. What is it and how many companies are you tracking on it? Well, this is something we started right after January 6. We actually really started it before January 6th. We called, I think at the time, we started with 114 companies. There's probably about 200 to 250, I think probably closer to 250 now that we're tracking, where we sort of were anticipating what was happening because a bunch of members of the house had

signed on to a Supreme Court brief, basically saying they wanted to throw out the election in four states. So we figured, well, those 115, you could probably count on voting to overturn the election, or the members who signed on to that. So no one got back to us. Then January 6 actually happened, and the vote was paired with violence, and we recontacted all those companies. And that's when companies, a few companies at first, just a handful at first, started to tell us that they were going to suspend contributions to this group of people. So anyway, we kept track of all of those, but then every month since we've been keeping track and seeing who has resumed their donations and who has kept their pledge. Also, we've also been keeping track of, and there's quite a few

companies in this category of companies that kept kind of the letter of their pledge, so they weren't donating to the 147, but they were donating to these larger political committees like the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is supporting all of the candidates. So, in my view, kind of violates the spirit of the pledge. And so we've just been keeping track. And what we found so far is that there are a few dozen companies that have kept their pledges. There's also, I think now probably a larger group of companies that either in full or in part have violated their pledges because of a lot of the pressures that we were talking about before, or maybe just the fact that they didn't really care in the first place. That's the other option. Yeah, I'm looking at the list,

which, by the way, for our listeners, it's an invaluable resource, and I encourage you to check it out. So there are 22 companies in the group of corporations that pledged to suspend donations to these 147 Republicans and have since directly donated to those Republicans. This is including Amazon. So Amazon is the 22nd. So it's like it's Allstate, it's Amex, it's AT&T, it's Cigna, it's Eli Lilly, it's Hallmark, it's GE, Home Depot. I mean, the list just goes on and on. And as you said, like, it feels like unless someone is looking at your list, this hasn't really been covered.

I think it's been a huge media failure. This is a huge story around January 6th. People are like, this is new. We haven't seen this before. Everyone had their list like this. People had them going. You could have gone to the New York Times website. they had their list going. And I think it's really a problem when people, when these companies get a lot of

good press for doing this, you know, they were sort of lauded for putting democracy first ahead of maybe their financial interests, but then backed away. You know, American Express, you mentioned, that's one of the ones that is really stuck with me because I remember when they put out their statement, it was so definitive. They were actually one of the companies we contacted first. They reached out to me. But I read this statement and it was so, definitive that I said, you know, a lot of these, a lot of people are saying you're going to suspend donations, but this doesn't seem temporary to me. It's, it sounds to me like you're saying we're never going to give any donations. And the guy emailed me back and he said, yes, you are

correct. You are interpreting this correctly. So, off, off we went. And I made kind of a big deal that American Express was sort of the most definitive one. But then, you know, this, this year, they've donated to a couple of members who did it. And they just basically said that we donate on a bipartisan basis and we've resumed contributions to a handful of representatives after an 18 month pause. Again, under the 24 months. And also, I asked them whether it was a pause or not. Right. But the point being is that has this really been a huge problem for American Express?

Not really because the media has been. moved on for a large part to other topics and therefore, and they're monitoring that. And therefore, they can kind of negotiate it. And it's worth it. It's more worth it for them to donate to one of the two that I mentioned, Blaine Lucamayer, the same guy who was threatening companies who did not keep ponying up their money. They sent him $10,000. And he sits on the Financial Services Committee, which is the one that American Express is probably most interested in. So there you go. This is the way Washington works, unfortunately. Amazing. Amazing. Well, I have a feeling once people find out that corporations aren't always truthful,

there's going to be a real uprising in this country. Judd, thank you so much for joining us. People really, popular.info. It's an invaluable resource and check out the corporate accountability index and all the other posts on it. It's just great independent journalism. Thanks again, Judd, really appreciate it. Thanks for having me, Andy. Callie Holloway. Andy Leapy. So, Callie, who is your fuck that guy?

Or if I recall correctly from last time, you couldn't contain it to just one. So who are your fuck that guys for today? Right. So I did whittle it down this week to just two. Okay. I'm going to start with Blake Masters, who is running for U.S. Senate in Arizona. He's running against Mark Kelly. He's a former VC, and he's basically a Peter Thiel protege.

I think if his campaign is basically just, you know, he just pulls together kind of the most inflammatory and awful stances in the world on every issue. He flammed critical race theory, which obviously when he says critical race theory, he doesn't mean it in terms of, you know, the arcane legal theory. What he means is basically things that conservatives hate. He's repeatedly called it anti-white racism. He's super on board with a great replacement theory. He said that Democrats want to change the demographics of the country just because they want new voters. In April, he actually went on a show and said that we have a gun-violent problem in this country, and he chalked it up to it. I'm going to quote him directly here, black people, frankly.

He joked that diversity in the Federal Reserve was the reason why we're having economic issues. He went to jail Fauci. Back in July, he started suggesting that the election would be stolen by Democrats. He's also a big stop-the-seal guy. And last night, he went on Fox, and when he was asked, what is at stake in the midterms? his answer was, you think one, Katanji Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court is bad, how about 10 more by this time next year? Which, you know, she has been offered an opinion.

She's refused herself from the upcoming FAA versus Harvard Affirmative Action case, which is not what Clarence Thomas would have chosen to do. He's just really a revolting person. He's been endorsed by Andrew Anglin, Nick Fuentes, and that whole Groyper crowd and Jacobusobiac. So he's basically sentient hatred. and really hoping that he loses that race. And it's kind of infuriating to see that it's been tightening in recent weeks,

but that's what we're dealing with these days. You may not be aware, Kelly, but Justice Jackson is black, and that may be what he meant. Yeah, I'm sure that he is not aware of that, and that was just, you know, a good faith. Yeah, I'm sure. The second, fuck this guy for me is going to be the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which, you know, whenever you hear that a group is called

like the Liberty and Freedom Caucus or something, or the Bald Eagle Brigade always means that they actually went the opposite, but for everyone but themselves. They did sue to stop Biden's College Jet Relief Program, and that's actually stalled in federal court right now because six states are also trying to stop it. But in their specific complaint, they said that because the White House had touted the program as beneficial, and a bunch of different ways, actually, but one of the things they listed was that it will narrow the racial wealth gap, but that is a improper racial motive in aiding black borrowers. And a judge threw the case out for lack of standing. They took it to, they appealed to the Supreme Court and the court is not going to take it.

It's actually Justice Amy Coney Barrett turned down the emergency application, which I guess is sort of vaguely interesting. Yeah. But, you know, it's not that there hasn't been centuries of U.S. policymaking that have been based on the goal of maintaining white supremacy. It's just that generally people don't scream it with such clarity. So definitely, fuck. you to them and I'm glad to see they've at least failed in their mission for now. Yeah, it is, like you said, it's, I guess in a way it's good that they're just outright coming out and saying we don't like this because it might help black people. Do you want to know who my fuck that guy is? Absolutely. You are probably familiar with him. He's been in the news a decent amount lately.

His name is Vladimir Putin. He is the president of Russia, not the Soviet Union, although I think he would like it if he were. But obviously there's a million reasons for him to be fuck that guy, but I just want to focus on one sort of tiny one. He gave a speech on Thursday. He's trying to align himself to the West. He's saying he's not anti-West. What he is is he is opposed to what he calls cosmopolitan values, which he says differ from traditional values. And basically, in language that just sounds a lot like Tucker Carlson, for lack of a better person to think of, but also to a lot of what passes for conservatism this day. He went off on quotes about dozens of genders, gay parades, neoliberal elites. You know, for those of us who

were old enough to remember when the Republican Party was, you know, the anti-Russian party, it's just this weird sort of confluence now between the head of Russia and what's becoming the mainstream of the Republican Party, which is just this full-on, you know, anti-gay, anti-gay, anti- trans and, you know, anti-anything that might make America not look like it did in the 1950s. Look, to me, this is just obvious what he's trying to do here. He's just trying to suck up to people like Tucker Carlson and stuff like that. I don't think they see it that way. I think they just see it as they're just basically bros at this point.

And it just sort of fuels their fire. And I think it does make them, you know, it's not like they were anti-Putin to begin with. They always like a good autocrat. But it brings them more in alignment and setting aside how bad. it is for Russia and Ukraine, it's obviously really, really bad for America. So, uh, so fuck that guy. You're here. Hope you enjoyed 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. See you next time.

Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the dailybeast.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.