The Daily Beast Podcast - Middle America Gives Trump the Finger at Iowa Football Game

Episode Date: September 12, 2023

On this week’s episode of The New Abnormal, a reminder that the enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend. Plus! A status check on the various groups protesting Atlanta’s “Cop City” project and a chat with Meagan Burrows of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project about Alabama’s attempts to criminalize those who help young women seeking abortions.  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. 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 Cannon, 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.

The Intercept columnist Natasha Leonard is here to tell us all about Cop City, the name given to the over $90 million training facility being built for the Atlanta Police Department and the movement that has swelled up to stop it. Then we'll talk to Megan Burroughs, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. We'll talk to us all about the case the ACLU is brought against the Alabama Attorney General. over pregnant people's freedom of movement. But first, let's have some fun. So, Danielle, I know you're a huge college football fan, and I'm sure you were watching the big Iowa versus Iowa State game on Saturday. I'm sure you saw this, but Donald Trump was in attendance at the game.

A bunch of fans in, you know, Middle America, real America, as Republicans like to call it. There were some good pictures of a bunch of fans flipping them off, giving him the finger, shooting him the bird. Everyone had a good time with this, and I did as well. And then it hit me that they're probably doing it because they don't think he's conservative enough. I mean, I think that their gesture towards Donald Trump, maybe it's the new you are number one. I have no idea, right? I'm sure as he was looking at it through his double plexiglass, that that's what he interpreted as.

Look at all these people telling me I'm number one. I think it was amazing. One, because like you said, this is supposed to be real America. Where we live, apparently, is the Truman Show, and only real people live in the middle. So the fact that a stadium of people audibly booed, and this was reported in right-wing outlets as well, audibly booed and then turned around and gave him the finger was amazing. Bravo, Iowans, because it's exactly how the rest of us feel. Yeah, and then there was, which I hadn't seen until just before we started recording, there's a picture of

behind his plexiglass where it appears that he's giving them the finger back, but he's doing it in an interesting way where his palm is facing out, which is not generally the way that you give people the finger. And as our producer Seamus pointed out, it sort of echoes back to him holding the Bible upside down. Yeah, because I'm sure it was hot when he was trying to hold it. So, you know, like a hot potato, you know. Yeah, Donald Trump is an ass and everything that he does just seems stupid. What amazes me is that I would love just the momentary glimpses of what happens inside of his brain when he leaves the everyone loves Trump bubble. Because between him and DeSantis, this is how the two of them are bubble wrap with people that are just bowing to their every win, telling them that they're amazing.

You can do no wrong. Everyone is against you, but you're the king of everything. and then when they actually are placed in reality, they don't know what to do. And so, you know, maybe that's Donald Trump's way of winning votes. Like, you give me the finger, I'm going to fuck you over more. Speaking of assholes, Politico had a big story with the headline, what Ginny Thomas and Leonard Leo wrought,

how a justice's wife and a key activist started of movement. And it basically lays out how the two of them, in conjunction with Harlan Crow, who we know loves to, gift vacations to his dear friends. They got together and they used the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which basically allowed for dark money and loosened restrictions on campaign spending and all that good stuff. They got together and used that money to build a network to, what's a good word, I don't know, force conservative values on people through the Supreme Court. and other fun institutions. Danielle, at any point, will any of this matter?

No, because we live in America and we don't do anything to the rich and powerful and white. Like, you know, maybe she'll get a monument named after her because that's what we love to do to traders. But here's my thing about this continuing story is I applaud the journalists who are going deep in, hoping that at some point in time, the Department of Justice, who I'm not saying their plate isn't full, but my fucking God, how much more evidence do you need that, like, Ginny Thomas is not your average spouse of a Supreme Court justice? Like, we know her name just as much as we know Clarence Thomas's name because she is a fucking insurrectionist, because she's been using her power and her husband's influence as a way to redo the judicial map for the conservative right

wing. And the fact that we don't, this Justice Department is not digging into building a case against them really just doesn't make any sense. But this is all par for the course. This is Citizens United. This is the free money flow into politics. This is influence. And essentially doing a way with the electoral system altogether so that the Supreme Court justices can have their way with America, people whom we did not elect and who have lifetime appointments. And if that doesn't scare people, honestly, I have no idea. But it was more important to be concerned about Hillary Clinton's emails than three Supreme Court justices that Donald Trump was given.

So what we saw here was there was an organization called Liberty Central. And it was created by Ginny Thomas and Leonard Leo. It was created to fight against Obama-era stuff like, you know, horrible, horrible stuff like health care reform. Yes. It was sort of created in secret. And then it got publicized and Jenny Thomas had to leave the group. And so she leaves the group.

This is called Liberty Central. And then she starts another group called Liberty Consulting. And this goes on and on and on from 2010, basically, to the present. Like this just sort of lays out the roadmap for how this happened. And it was all made possible by the Citizens United decision, which, of course, Clarence Thomas was part of. They formed these groups and they claim that they're not for profit. or then they claim that they're charitable organizations, but if you look at them, you're not really

clear on what the charity is. This just goes on and on and on. And as Politico shows, it's just, it's a clear pattern. And it's a clear pattern of using, again, this dark money, this money that doesn't have to be declared to further this political agenda, which, you know what, would be fine if it wasn't the exact same political agenda that her husband is helping to further on the Supreme Court. You know what's funny is that we always want to call this kind of money, dark money. The money is white as fuck, right? Like, I want people to understand that. The money is dripping, right? It's dripping in whiteness and white privilege. The money is glowing. It is glowing, right? It is not dark money and also it's being spent in broad fucking daylight just like you said they are building

organizations which you know in a court of law they would probably call shell companies in order to do their bidding and have some distance between what it is that they are actually doing so that they can put up this farce and say that it is some type of non-profit it isn't everything that the thomas is do is for fucking profit okay like that's why harling crow is given off trips and paying to a and all of these things because everything that they are doing is for profit because they are tricks of the justice system. So I just, it's so disgusting to me that there is nothing. There is nothing that is going to trip these people up. And what's so obvious is that it does not take much to do what's right.

Like Citizens United should have never been a case that had, you know, just been opened up. oh no, there's no problem with money and politics. There's no problem with these racist states and their voter suppression that they've done for years. The way that Roberts's court has just literally unraveled equity and accountability and responsibility and justice over his term is absolutely fucking wild. And we don't talk about it enough. But Ginny Thomas and Clarence Thomas are like the pictures, like the pictures of immorality, the pictures of grift and the pictures of injustice. And we just will continue on because, you know what, he'll be on that bench until he dies.

Yeah. And, you know, another thing I always find interesting about these nonprofits is the people that work there make a nice little profit for themselves. They get a fairly decent salary that allows them to live a very, very comfortable life. So you can call it a nonprofit all you want. but they are personally profiting from this stuff. What they do, and this was, you know, apparently specifically done, there was this group called the Judicial Education Project.

It was a tax-exempt group that, again, claimed to be a charitable organization. It had been dormant. It had been just lying there not being used at all. And after Ginny Thomas was forced to leave Liberty Central and she comes up with this other business Liberty Consulting, Leonard Leo reactivates this tax-exempt group, this judicial education process, and to pay her a salary. And at the same time, they're paying her a salary. They are submitting amicus briefs to the Supreme Court.

As Politico says, it's not even remotely clear what charitable services Ginny Thomas provided, even though she was being paid by this group that was tax exempt because it was supposed to be a charitable group. It's not even gray areas. Like, we, whoa, this is a gray area. This is not a gray area. This is fucking immoral and unlawful. unethical and it seems to me illegal. But we always couch these things. Like they're always like a little bit of sneaking admiration for people who are able to game the system. And that's fine at a low level. Like,

you know, if you read about a low level employee at, you know, at Walmart or something like that, figuring out a way to game the system, you're like, good for you. You know what? Good for you. But when it's rich and powerful people gaming the system, that is not good. We have this double standard, but I almost feel like to double standard is backwards. Like, I'm fine for not powerful people gaming the system. I don't like it when powerful people do it. I don't like when anybody does it. All of the systems to me at this point are absolutely broken when you have such glaring discrepancies like those that are being reported by the Thomas's and nothing will be done about it except for us to be like, oh, well, here's another story on top of the 50 million that we've been reporting on and nothing will be done.

This is why these people never stop. When the people who have rigged the system to begin with, then game the system? Like, that's just like, come on, man. Mm-hmm. That's the point I'm trying to make. Like, I agree with you. It would be great if nobody had to game the system, but I can appreciate and understand it when an ordinary person does it and looks around and says, you know what? This system is not set up for me to begin with. So if I can get away with some things, I'm going to get away with some things. I'm like, yeah, okay, I understand that. Last words, they say before this cell closest. I know. And that's part of the system being rigged. But it just really gets me when the people who are the beneficiaries of the rigged system,

like that's not enough for them. And they have to keep finding ways to game the very system that they've rigged. It just really rankles me. So Andy's pro GameStop stock, but anti-Enron got you. All right, I retract everything I said. A perfect example of what I'm talking about is Donald Trump. Donald Trump has lived his whole life in a system that is rigged to his benefit. And that is not enough for him.

So he gets up there and he lies his ass off and he cheats and he does all these things and then claims he's just like sticking up for the little people. And he's not. We've sort of taken to calling the claims of Trump actually winning in 2020 to Big Lie. And Michael Tomaski and the New Republic points out that we're now living through sort of the big lie too. And it's something that's not unfamiliar to our viewers. And that is that all these indictments against Trump are nothing more. than election interference and an attempt by the Democrats and by the Biden administration and I guess the Biden crime family and whatever to prevent Trump from winning the 2024 election because that's

the only way they can think of to stop him. And Tamaski points out correctly that it's obvious that this isn't true. You know, I was even a little tentative about doing the story because I'm like, our listeners, no, that's not true. But Tamasky makes a good point. And Danielle, you and Jesse and Seamus swayed me, that we need to talk about this more because there are polls that show that an unbelievably ridiculous percentage of Americans believe this. Yeah. Believe that all these charges and all these indictments against Trump are politically motivated to stop him from winning election and that we need to engage with this more instead of just

saying, well, that's just ridiculously untrue and there's no point even talking about it. You know what gets me is that, I mean, this all started, what, eight years ago at this point, at this point with the lie about the crowd sizes at inauguration. This all started with the alternative facts and allowing every single little lie to just be absorbed into our system, into our politics, into our media coverage of Donald Trump. And so when you start to pepper in all of these lies and falsehood, some big, some small, some ridiculous, what have you, is that what you are doing is seating the ground for people to lose faith in our systems. And because it was not called out with the full-throated rebuke that it needed from that fucking inauguration picture, from Kellyanne Conway

saying that there are facts and then they were all alternative facts, because that shit was allowed to be looked at as a joke, then you move on to close to eight years later and we're here. that people don't believe that our justice system actually goes out of its way to ensure, right, that systems hold by prosecuting people regardless of their status, regardless of their bank account, who break the law? Because how was it, Andy, that we looked at fucking James Comey deciding several weeks before the November election, oh, I think I'm going to open up another investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails? That wasn't considered politically motivated.

That wasn't considered like a huge issue at a moment. Like he didn't think twice about the fact that the election was in four fucking weeks. And you're talking about charges being brought a year plus out from this election, right? After years of investigation, after an entire 12 months of Merritt Garland fucking dragging his feet, which is what brings us up against this timeline for people to think that it's politically motivated. Because had Garland done his fucking job when he was sworn in, we would have been two years removed from the election. Yeah. No, I was going to say that's the ironic thing is that everyone on the left wanted these charges brought a long time ago. One, I appreciate the Georgia case and Fannie Willis for her meticulous investigations because she was looking at RICO charges.

That's not something that you run up on, particularly when you're looking at a former twice impeached rapist-ass president, when you're looking at bringing those charges with such a wide net. But if you look at the appointment timeline of Jack Smith to him bringing charges, you're looking at eight to ten months. So had Merritt Garland, because he was chicken shit and wasn't going to do this on his own, had he appointed Jack Smith back in 2021, you're talking about 10 months from. that time. So I just like, I know that it is important for us to cover and to bring up, but I'm like all of this is born of fruit from a poisonous tree that Donald Trump and the Republican Party began to seed eight years ago. Absolutely. And, you know, Tamaski points to these polls and these numbers are so much worse than I even thought. And I am literally the most cynical person on planet Earth, I thought. Okay, first of all.

Okay. Do not take my spot. Okay. Fair enough. We can be co-captains of cynicism. Okay. That's fair. I can accept that.

So there was a CBS UGov poll done about a month ago. People were asked if they believed the Trump indictments were an attempt to stop his 2024 campaign. 59% said yes. 41% said no. And I looked at that number and I was like, all right, but you have a lot of Republicans there. But the numbers are even worse among independents. Among independents, 63% said yes. the indictments for an attempt to stop Trump's 2024 campaign. Only 37% said no. That's not good. I mean, we're talking here, like the independents, however you want to define them, have a good chance of determining this election, i.e., their votes are going to matter in the handful of states that matter. And you've got almost two-thirds of them think that these indictments are politically motivated and just a straight-up attempt to stop Trump's campaign. We are in such a bad place right now as a country to matter.

is right. We need to talk about this more and we need, you know, this needs to be, I guess, shouted from the highest mountain tops. The only problem is I don't know how you change people's minds anymore. Like it used to be, oh, well, if someone didn't know something, you could show them the facts. Facts. But you can't do that anymore. It just doesn't matter. We're in a post-factual world. So I don't know what to do other than rant about it on this podcast. I mean, that is a sad truth because as, as, you know, we're talking about this, I'm thinking to myself because we have these conversations all the time. How do you change people's minds? How do you really move in that way? And it's like, but this is why we've had people come on this show to talk about defining what a cult is and how people

get brainwashed. Because this isn't just about showing them facts and figures. This, we've moved so far beyond that. It's them believing that Donald Trump is their redemption, is their savior. Yeah. That Donald Trump is the person that is going to carry on a new day, a new dawn for Christo-fascism in America. And so, I mean, there was no way to convince the Nazis as Hitler is reigning, right, in Germany, in Europe, and say to them, you're following a madman, right? Like, you weren't going to do it. Even if Donald Trump somehow manages to stay on the ballot, these trials don't actually get off and he doesn't get convicted. And then we have these whole long, you know, times for appeals and all of these things. And he doesn't manage to become president again.

I mean, I honestly genuinely think it will be through the grace of God. It's not going to be through the grace of independence or through the grace of, you know, Republicans who have been so deep in this cult, like somehow having like an aha moment. That's not what's going to happen. It's like, we're like, oh, my God, is there a serum at this point? Is there a vaccine for this shit? There isn't. But they won't take it anyway.

Correct. Jesus Christ. You're right. You're right. Cop City is the not-so-playful nickname critics and activists have given to the over $90 million training center being built for the Atlanta Police Department. And protests against a facility have been going on for months. Last week, the Atlanta Community Press Collective discovered that

61 protesters had RICO indictments filed against them by Georgia's Attorney General. Joining me now to discuss as columnists for the intercept Natasha Leonard. Natasha, thank you so much for being here. Oh, thank you for having me. Hi. Hi. So let's talk about the protesters first, or maybe fairer to call it the movement against Cop City. Who exactly are we talking about here? And why is their opposition so fierce? So I think using the term movement as opposed to protesters is more correct. So the movement against Cop City, which is also known as the movement to defend the Atlanta Forest, has been very active, in fact, since 2021.

So that's quite a long-lasting movement to be situated around one specific struggle, especially if we think about other major resistance movements largely from the left in recent years, from Occupy to the fight against the pipelines at Standing Rock, even the mass crucial uprisings in 2020. They've often not had this kind of staying power. So we are talking about a kind of pretty diverse movement based in Atlanta, but with nationwide resonance. but it is largely an Atlanta residence-based movement that is both community members from the area around the Atlanta forest where the police training facility, Cop City, is planning to be built. This is a majority black community, and the forest area that will be raised and decimated

were this facility, this highly militarized facility to, in fact, be built. This forest is known as the land. lungs of Atlanta. So there's environmental threats to the local community. It's also the risk of increased militarized policing in a majority black community. And if this is not just local Atlanta police, this will be, if built, the largest police training facility in the nation. And police departments from all around the country, specifically surrounding states, will go there. Aside from local community members, you have faith leaders from atlantic. who oppose further militarization and environmental decimation. You have organized abolitionists

who have been part of the anti-racist struggle against police violence from 2020 and before that and certainly onwards. You have environmentalists. You have people involved in indigenous struggle who have been attending demonstrations and weeks of action and workshops around the defend the Atlanta Forest movement at various points in this year's long struggle to point out. that indigenous peoples, the Muskogee tribe specifically were moved away from this land. So when I talk about this being a movement, it is actually very unique in both its diversity of tactics that have been deployed from encampments that have been, in fact, swept away by the Atlanta and DeKalb County police departments, but also very family-friendly, let's say,

rallies led by faith leaders, including people who are trying to get involved in an election electoral referendum-based fight against Cop City, gathering over 100,000 signatures of local people to get a vote on Cop City and whether it should be built or not on the ballot to vote on for the whole city in Atlanta. And then you've got more sabotage-based action that people have taken up and, you know, moving from a diversity of tactics, but also a diversity of participation, people with different political backgrounds, different involvement in other movements in the past. But what's really interesting is you don't often see this really robust and resilient combination of abolitionism, environmentalism, pro-democracy, anti-racism. In one movement actually worked pretty well together whilst facing some really extraordinary ongoing state repression.

So it sounds like the movement doesn't think the police can be trusted to train themselves in ways that will be. best serve communities, which other than looking at pretty much all of American history, seems hard to believe. Yeah, I like myself, I'm a columnist. I don't have to pretend to not have a fucking opinion. Like, I'm a police abolitionist. I don't think in the grand history of, you know, attempted police reforms, we've seen police do anything as a force.

And I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about policing as a set of practices. Do anything except stand for white supremacy and the defense of property against. the lives of people. That is the history and unbroken practice of policing as an institution. Does that mean that every single person who is protesting and demonstrating against Cop City is a committed police abolitionist? No, there is room in the movement for different kind of positions on that. But everyone is deeply aware of the dangers of a hyper-militarized police training facility organized around so-called counterinsurgency, as in populist repression. And the people of

Atlanta specifically a deeply aware of this. This is a city well embedded with the legacy of civil rights struggle where even though there is a powerful black elite, black working class remains deeply repressed and oppressed and the consolidation of power between a black elite and white corporations has been well established. There's a term for it, the Atlanta way. So I think people are deeply critical of these systems of power, even if they're not like, fuck the police, like, you know, a considerable number of us are, and people in the movement, certainly that's a contingent of it. But the idea that everyone comes from the same sort of like radical positionality in the movement, I don't think it's true. But everyone has like a rightful critique of what Cop City

would be. And that is essentially a fix for capital. And now 61 people in the movement are being charged under Georgia's RICO laws. Why? Because this seems nuts on its face. But also, some of the groups involved in the protests have been warning that they expected this to happen. Yes, and your view of it, of it being bonkers and groundless is indeed true, unless you understand the grounds as movement repression, which I can only see it as. Georgia has quite an expensive RICO statute, but to be clear, the grounds on which this indictment came down, and this is in the 109-page document, include such activities that are supposed to be grounds for charges of conspiracy, involvement in mutual aid practices, you know, standard issue

social justice stuff, alleged claims for money laundering charges are donating to people arrested in these pretty infirm mass raids that the police have carried out against the movement encampments over the last month. You've got people raising money for First Amendment protected activities like sign making and, you know, paying for things like people, having Stop Cop City t-shirts. This has been called money laundering. And the alleged conspiracy is to stop Cop City, where one would argue that people living in a certain neighborhood

in a certain city have every right to resist a project that they feel would be a violent one and an environmentally dangerous one. It's a deeply, deeply problematic indictment, but it's also not a complete shock to those involved. There was whispering about this for a number of months, partly because there's been a number of really excessive charges thrown at movement participants. 48 people prior to this were already facing state domestic terrorism charges for if there were crimes committed at all,

what could only be called minor violations, minor property damage to building equipment at the site where Cop City is planned to be built. And then also just affiliation by being in the nearby area. If you look at some of the arrest warrants for people who are now facing state domestic terror charges and RICO charges on top of that, the grounds for arrest was shit literally like they have mud on their shoes following what had been some sabotage activity, low-level sabotage activity against building vehicles like bulldozers. Another group of people who are now facing RICO charges also their previous arrest and charges that carried up to. 20 years on felonies were for handing out flyers in a neighbourhood nearby that named a police officer who was understood and actually is named as being involved in a really brutal shooting of one of the forest offenders, a person called Manuel Terran, who was shot 57 times by police. And all these people did was hand out flyers. They were charged with felonies for that

and now also face RICO for being in this alleged enterprise that is, the movement. If these sort of RICO charges were applied or if attorney generals and grand juries wanted to apply these to any social justice or civil rights movement in history, the same thing would apply. Like what is being criminalized here is the basic practice of social justice movement behavior. Well, that's what I was going to say. The indictments claim that this so-called racketeering conspiracy began on May 25th, 2020, which is the day George Floyd was murdered. And all of this sounds like, I don't know how to look at this other than basically a proxy indictment of Black Lives Matters and other protest groups that have risen up over the past several

years. And also very much an ominous warning to protest movements in general in this country. Right. It is kind of an unabashed chilling technique, whether these extreme charges will stick. I mean, who knows, they're damn groundless. And we've seen malicious prosecutions like the J20 charges that were slapped on over 300 people during Trump's inauguration day. There was a mass arrest. Crazy, crazy charges. None of those stuck, but it still chilled a shit ton of people who were ready to go on the streets and be active.

So I think we're seeing that again here, pretty malicious charges that nonetheless take resources, promote fear, spread anxiousness around those who could otherwise be involved. And so, yeah, I think that's certainly what we're seeing here. And I think, yes, it's absolutely no accident. kind of shocking in its explicitness that the indictment cites the day of George Floyd's murder as the kind of beginning point of a movement called Stop Cop City and defend the Atlanta Forest, even though the plans for Cop City were months away from being announced then.

So it is, yes, a pretty clear signal that this is an opening, an aperture for the ability to criminalize anything like Black liberation, organizing and struggle and support. And so, yeah, it's unabashedly racist. It's dangerous. It's chilling. But it's only in a certain sense as chilling as those involved or those wanting to be involved or those who care at all about social justice and, you know, to use a more like liberal framing, American democracy are willing to let this be something that chills them and their ability to act. Yeah, I have a theory that I espouse on this show a lot that, you know, we always talk about saying the quiet part out loud. And my theory is that the quiet part is gone. They just say it out loud now. And I feel like, you know, dating this indictment from the day of George Floyd's murder is just further proof of this. It's so blatant. It's like, oh, no, no, black liberation, no thank you.

Police, more police. And, you know, the fact that the defendant in the Atlanta Forest slash cop city as a movement also did this fantastic job of being intersectional, of talking about environmentalism, of talking about indigenous displacement also shouldn't be forgotten. But, you know, the fact of what the police are treating as threatening and are being explicit about what they want to crush just three years after the largest and in many ways most potent uprisings, certainly in my lifetime. You know, it's clear, like, Black liberation will not be allowed to happen without massive state repression anywhere they can find it. Even in a city and area like Atlanta, which has a lot of Black Democratic leadership. So you're seeing a certain allegiance of where power lies, and it's certainly not with black proletary youth, black working class. Yeah.

So much of this to me, as I have been reading about it, sort of reminds me of the late 19th century and early 20th century, you know, things you'd read in history books about the police crushing anarchist movements and stuff like that. This all sort of reads the same way to me. But I want to get to something that you said, you said that while the aim is to chill protest and movements, but it can only be as chilling as the movements. let it be. And as you wrote at the Intercept, towards the end of last week, five people who belonged to the Defend the Atlanta Forest Movement, broke into the Copsody Construction Area, chain themselves to a bulldozer, and were then arrested by DeKalb County Police, who say they're now working with the Georgia Bureau in an investigation. So two things here. One, you call this a good example of Georgia law enforcement treating typical acts of civil disobedience with a heavy-handed

multi-agency response. And also from the sound of this, I get the general sense that at least in the moment, the Stop Cop City movement is not being chilled or deterred at all by these indictments. Well, yeah, indeed. It seems like it's in fact motivating a deeply angered response and provoking more resistance as it should. This is a defiant movement. This is a movement that did not stop when malicious state terrorism charges came down. This is a movement that did not stop when its encampments got swept away. And in fact, it's moments like this that actually you see that there are moments of solidarity coming from all around the country and in fact, all around the world. I don't want to be polyanish about it and like, oh, they'll try and chill us, but we will

stay strong. And in our solidarity, we prize. I mean, there are just like the material conditions of facing prosecution, the resources that takes. And, you know, the idea of many years, even at any time in prison is absolutely terrifying. But I think there is, for very good reasons, real commitment in this movement and those around it that Cop City cannot be built. It stands for too much violence. It carries with it too much violence, especially in the wake of the uprisings, especially given that it's just all too clear what powers investment in policing and policing institutions as a fix for capital. Cop City, both as symbol, but also as a real devastatingly dangerous place, cannot be built. And I think people are so committed to that that, you know, that's why it's been

such a resilient movement and actually a very kind of, I would say, thoughtful movement in not pushing out people of perhaps different political persuasions, in not taking only one specific stance, but understanding points of unity and solidarity. Does that make it a criminal enterprise? According to the powers that be right now, yes, I would just call it a crucial social justice movement in our time. But no, I think, yeah, as you mentioned, just two days after these very, very groundless, baseless, but scary, RICO charges come. down. You have a group of five people, but with other protesters standing outside the actual site area that the five people went into to support them. But five individuals who took on that

kind of very classic act of both civil disobedience, but also direct action because the idea is to stop construction and changed themselves to a bulldozer and then were subsequently arrested. Two of those individuals were clergy members. One was another faith leader and then also are just two other supportive activists. But, you know, these are people carrying on a legacy of the civil rights movement. But to do so just two days after activities like that and no less no more are being called racketeering and criminal conspiracy, there's a boldness in that. And I think it's a boldness that carries a lesson that, you know, this is in fact a time

for solidarity. This is a time for solidarity actions. And truly, do Georgia prosecutors plan to make a habit? of arresting clergy members engaged in civil disobedience as criminal conspiracists. It's to be seen. Certainly they've shown that they're willing to go extremely far with their charging practices and their policing practices, which is all the more reason to strengthen the resolve that Cop City can't be built because we're seeing what they're doing even before it's being built.

Right. Yeah, this is one of those stories that this is not a local story and it's important, I think, for all Americans to keep an eye on this and to see how bad. this gets with regard to the RICO charges and whatever's going to come in the future. Natasha, thank you so much for being here and offering your insight. It's been an absolute pleasure talking to you. Oh, thanks so much. You too.

Thank you for having me and for showing interest in this crucial story. I totally agree. Folks, I am very happy to welcome to the new abnormal. Megan Burroughs, who is a staff attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project and is part of a case that I think that. Many people across the country are looking after in Alabama, where you've had the attorney general there decide that apparently freedom of movement for pregnant people should no longer be allowed. Now, of course, I'm not a lawyer, which is why we have Megan on to talk about the case that ACLU has brought against this attorney general and their egregious actions that are being taken against pregnant people in the state of Alabama. So, Megan, please welcome and give us a 50,000 foot view as to what is happening.

Thanks, Danielle, and thank you guys so much for having me here today. So what's happening here is really the next frontier of the fight for abortion access and reproductive freedom. We, the ACLU, have brought a challenge in federal district court in Alabama on behalf of our longstanding clients in the state, West Alabama Women's Center, Alabama Women's Center, and Dr. Yushika Robinson, who are all former providers of abortion care in Alabama when abortion was legal there, and current providers of comprehensive reproductive health care to pregnant people in Alabama. We in this case are challenging Attorney General Marshall's threatened use of Alabama criminal laws to prosecute those who provide assistance to pregnant Alabamians seeking to travel across state lines to access legal abortion in states where abortion is legal.

Now, last summer, after the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs came down overturning Roe v. Wade and Alabama's near total ban on abortion took effect in the state, Attorney General Marshall, publicly stated his intention to use Alabama criminal laws to prosecute those who hold themselves out as facilitating or assisting people seeking to leave the state to access abortion in states where abortion remains legal. Since he made that statement and since Alabama's abortion ban took effect in the state, our clients have been, you know, afraid for fear of being criminally prosecuted to provide their patients with the information and support that they feel ethically obligated to provide and that many of their patients depend upon in order to access reproductive

health care. They are still operating as providers of other reproductive health care services. They still, on a day-to-day week-to-week basis, receive inquiries from pregnant people in Alabama who are overwhelmed by the prospect of having to travel outside the state to access abortion care and are asking their trusted health care providers in Alabama, how can I access this care? Where do I go? What providers are safe in other states? Up to what point in pregnancy do they provide abortion care? And our clients, as reproductive health care providers, have this information.

They are the best suited to be able to advise patients of where to go out of state, particularly in this chaotic environment where we see abortion bans, you know, taking effect in a variety of of states throughout the past year where we see clinic closures, where we see gestational age limits on when people can obtain abortion in their pregnancy, changing and fluctuating across the nation. They're the ones who have all this information, and they simply want to be able to provide it to their patients rather than telling them, we're sorry, we can't help you. You have to go look on your own, because if we do help you, we might be criminally prosecuted. My issue, as I'm assuming, is so many other people, Megan, is this.

One, your case is being brought against the attorney general on a basis of freedom of speech. Am I right about that? That what you're fighting for is the ability of these providers to at least, if they cannot provide abortion, is to be able to provide information on how these pregnant people, can care for themselves outside of the state of Alabama. Because Alabama is saying, we're not allowing abortion. But now they're also criminalizing movement as well as information. That's exactly right, Daniel.

We actually have three claims that we're bringing in this case. One of them is a First Amendment claim. So as you've just identified, it's an argument that, you know, our provider, plaintiffs have a right to free speech. And a speech about conduct that. is legal is fully protected by the First Amendment. Now, the Attorney General in a legal paper has motion to dismiss that he filed recently has argued that the First Amendment provides no protection for speech that is integral to criminal conduct. But the fact of the matter here is is that there

is no criminal conduct. Abortion outside of Alabama in states where it is legal is simply put legal and cannot be criminalized by Alabama by projecting its ban across its borders. So that's our First Amendment claim. We also have two other claims. One is a due process claim on behalf of the provider plaintiffs, which is that, you know, the due process clause of the federal constitution, Danielle, for reasons that may seem obvious, protects people by requiring that state criminal laws make clear what conduct is permitted versus. prohibited so that people have, you know, fair notice of what they may be criminally prosecuted for and can adjust their behavior accordingly to avoid criminal prosecution. In this case,

the Alabama criminal laws that Attorney General Marshall is threatening to use against our providers provide them with no fair notice that their speech and the assistance that they provide to their patients to help them get legal out-of-state abortion is something that could subject them to criminal prosecution. The laws on their face, if we look at, you know, the Alabama criminal laws on things like conspiracy and solicitation and aiding and abetting, all of them make abundantly clear that what is required for those statutes to be used to prosecute someone is that in their, you know, formation of an agreement for a conspiracy or in their solicitation of someone or provision of assistance to someone in doing something, that they have the intent that conduct that is a, quote,

crime or offense be performed at the end. That is the object of the conspiracy or the solicitation or the provision of aid is in fact a crime. And again, we're in this situation where there is no crime here. Out of state abortion that plaintiff's patients are seeking is legal. Alabama does not constitutionally have the power to criminalize abortion outside its borders and effectively impose a national ban on abortion for its residents. So that's our due process claim. Also, as to that, Danielle, the attorney general has identified this 1896 ancient criminal conspiracy statute that the text of which says that it is a crime of conspiracy to form an agreement in Alabama to do something outside of Alabama that if done in Alabama would be a crime. And so the Attorney General is really

hinging his argument on the existence of this statute in saying that, well, it doesn't matter that abortion is legal in other states. What matters is that Alabama has banned abortion so we can still prosecute people for conspiracies to help someone get an abortion where it's legal because it's banned in Alabama. But as we've explained in our complaint and as we will go on to explain to the court in other briefing that we'll be filing in this case, the history of the statute does not support Attorney General Marshall's argument. Alabama Supreme Court has actually definitively and authoritatively construed this statute only to apply to out-of-state conduct that is also illegal where it occurs. Right. Because this is the distinction that I really want you to be able to

hammer in here, which is the fact that one of the things that I've heard that, that Alabama has also wanted to use is this idea of trafficking, that you're helping to traffic people and to use their trafficking laws as a way to criminalize these providers and advocates of abortion. And the fact is, is that that doesn't make any sense either because sex trafficking is illegal everywhere. The claims that they are trying to make is in exactly what it is that you said at the top, which is this projection of Alabama's power and authority outside of its state boundaries. Because what they are trying to say is that if the act that your committee is criminal inside of our borders, then it must be prosecuted as criminal elsewhere.

And that's not the case. Yes, that's exactly right, Danielle. And that's what makes, you know, analogies that the attorney general might try to make to things like homicide or robbery, just totally in opposite, because homicide and robbery are things that are universally criminalized across the U.S. That is just not the case with abortion. You know, that's something that was recognized even by the Supreme Court and Justice Kavanaugh in the Dobbs decision that, you know, abortion is a hotly contested issue. States adopt different policies on abortion, and states can and should be able to do that. That is what the Supreme Court was doing,

according to what it said it was doing, at least, in overturning row. And so those examples are totally different. And just to your trafficking point, too, Danielle, the third claim that we've brought in this case is a right to travel claim. And that one is brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of their patients. And again, here, you know, there is no trafficking at issue. Like the attorney general has even said publicly that Alabama law does not prevent anyone, any individual pregnant person from leaving the state on their own to access abortion.

What he is effectively trying to do, however, with his threats, is to force these people in Alabama who are pregnant to struggle on their own to try to get across state lines to access abortion without the assistance and help of the people, including health care providers, that they depend on in the state to do so. The Supreme Court's case law is a abundantly clear that states cannot purposely or otherwise penalize the right to travel in this case. They cannot impose criminal penalties on those who assist people in entering or leaving a state. And that's effectively what the Attorney General is trying to do here by threatening criminal prosecution for all those who assist pregnant people in trying to make the sometimes, you know,

hundred mile journey outside of Alabama to access vital reproductive health care. Okay, let me say this. I'm a pregnant person and I walk into what was formerly a provider's office now trying to seek information. And the provider then points me doesn't walk me through the process but says, hey, Danielle, go to this site and this site will help you navigate your situation. That is a way for them to protect themselves from prosecution, the provider, as well as the person. So how would the attorney general's case hold up in that realm? Like, is he going to also try and black out certain sites from people inside of Alabama being able to access that kind of information? I mean, I think, Danielle, it's unclear how far the attorney general is willing to go here.

I mean, he has already obviously crossed the bounds of constitutionality with his threats. to prosecute providers in Alabama for simply providing information and resources. It is really unclear how far he is willing to go here with his threats, and they are rather broad. So, you know, I don't know where the limiting endpoint is, but what I do know is that plaintiff's patients, if we look at the population of people who are accessing abortion, it is primarily people who are low income. There are many patients who have limited English language proficiencies who don't have ready access to technology or aren't technologically savvy.

So any argument that these people should be left to their own devices to navigate a medical landscape that is overwhelming even to those of us who are immersed in it on a day-to-day basis because it is constantly changing and evolving through different litigation, clinic closures, etc. is just ridiculous, to be frank. These people, you know, depend on their health care providers, not only to tell them, you know, to recommend providers in other states where they can go to that provide safe abortion care and that they know would be able to see these patients, given where they are in their pregnancies. They also depend on them, given the fact that many are low income, to help refer them to abortion funds and other practical support.

support networks and organizations that can help them secure funding not only for their abortion procedure, but also, you know, to make the 100-plus mile cross-state trip to access that care, which involves not only, you know, sometimes arranging child care because most people who are seeking abortions already have one or more children, also arranging transportation, whether that is bus fare, train fare, airline fare, and arranging hotel accommodation. to stay in the state where they're obtaining an abortion, as even still today, many states have waiting periods, depending on how far along someone is in their pregnancy,

they may need to stay close to the clinic or have a two-day procedure. So all of these logistics, financial concerns, are things that are overwhelming for people to navigate on their own and depriving them of the assistance and support provided, not only by health care providers, but also others in Alabama, who may want to provide help but are afraid to do so because of the Attorney General's threats is really going to mean the difference between them accessing abortion care and not and being forced to remain pregnant in a state that statistics show has one of the highest

maternal mortality rates in the nation. Megan, last question for you, how confident are you that your case, these cases are going to be heard on their merit and haven't already been decided on ideological lines given the conservative bench that you're up against? I think, you know, as a litigator whose job it is to do this to bring cases like this, I have to remain confident in the justice system, in the federal constitution, and in the fact that judges who have these cases before them will hear them and will pay attention to this and these important issues. And I do think, Danielle, that the arguments we're raising in this case and the claims that are at issue, they're important

and relevant not just to Democrats or those who would consider themselves, you know, liberally minded. They also are important to conservatives, and they should be important to conservatives. Again, what Alabama is trying to do here, it isn't necessarily just confined to abortion. What it boils down to is an attempt of a state to project its criminal laws and project, its policies across the country nationally by forcing their residents to carry those laws and policies with them on their backs when they leave the state. If this is allowed, if this is permitted to continue, if the attorney general is permitted to do what he's attempted to do, you know, there is really no limiting principle here. Other states could try to do the same with

respect to gun laws on which states have differing views, obviously, or marijuana laws. This is really something that, you know, comes down to the framework of our federal system, principles of sovereignty and comedy and respect for the legal system within other states' borders, and respect for the fundamental right of the people of the nation to travel across the country and avail themselves of the legal environments and offerings of other states, which is a principle upon which the nation was founded. Yeah, we will have to leave it there today, Megan. Thank you so much for making the time for the new abnormal and for the fight that you are waging to protect pregnant people in Alabama and across the country. We would genuinely appreciate you. Thank you guys

so much for having me. Danielle Moody. Andy Levy. Danielle, start off this week by telling us who your fuck that guy is. So he is one of our Hall of Famers. You know, a man that was investigated for sex trafficking minors was not indicted. Let me say that. But the fact that one would need to be investigated just tells you the values of this motherfucker. But Matt Gates, I am choosing to highlight Matt Gates in a series of Republicans, including the former twice impeach rapist president of the United States, Donald Trump, who keep not hinting, Andy, but keep saying, keep calling for, keep inciting that if Donald Trump is not elected president in 2024, that there will be violence. Because when that,

violence happens and we have mainstream media that says oh I just we could have never fucking known I want us to be able to roll the fucking tape of every single Republican that has been calling for a civil war so last week it was former governor Mike Huckabee right the father of smoky eyes now it is Matt Gates who was on the driveway liberty podcast he's talking about Trump and the efforts to make him ineligible under the 14th Amendment because what is being looked into on a couple of ballots is that Donald Trump should be ineligible to be on the ballot because of his involvement in January 6 inciting an insurrection, which should invalidate you from being able to run for president. And this is Matt Gates' response. I really worry that type of action

could lead to violence. And I am so widely opposed to violence. I don't think it's how we should resolve things, how we should resolve our disputes. Quote, but when you start telling people that they can't express their participation in this American experience through a vote, then they start looking for other ways. And they're not the vote is the best way to do it, he says. In other ways are not so good. And I worry if they start to take the vote away, you could see bloodshed in this country like none of us want.

The irony of this fucking statement about taking people's votes away when that was the entire thought process behind the insurrection, behind January 6th, 2021 was to nullify the votes of the people, was to find Donald Trump 11,740 some odd votes, was for these people to quote unquote, go take their country back from people who duly voted in the most free. and fair election that this country had ever seen. But this motherfucker is talking about, well, if people aren't able to cast their vote for an insurrectionist twice impeached rapist, then my God, there's going to be blood in the streets. If this is not the continue wink and nod to their stand back and stand by militias, I don't know what is. And for that reason, Matt Gates starts us off this week as my, fuck that guy. Yeah, it's funny how they all phrase it the same way.

Like you mentioned Huckabee and now Matt Gates and they're all like, you know, they all sit there and go, I don't want there to be violence. Violence is bad. Violence is terrible. But they know what they're doing and what they're doing is trying to incite violence. But they phrase it, you know, which, look, it's a smart move legally and whatever because there's absolutely no way you could accuse them in a court of law of inciting violence because they very clearly. say violence is terrible. We don't want violence before they get to their, so they've clearly, it's like they've all been trained to say it the same way. Just listen, every time now that you hear one of them talk about this violence that might just spontaneously erupt that they, you know,

play no role in inciting. This is how they'll phrase it. And yeah, fuck all those guys. So, Andy, how are you starting off this week? I'm going to stay in the same part of the country as you. So hell. I mean Florida. Yes. and I'm going to pick someone. I don't know when the last time he was a fuck that guy was, although, wait, it could have been our last episode when we both picked him. It's Ron DeSantis. Like, I hate picking him all the time, but he's so bad.

And this was a press conference. This was last week. And it kind of got overshadowed a little bit because it also, there was like a shouting match that went on between DeSantis and a Black Air Force veteran. and at the same time, and that got a little more publicity. Because with DeSantis, you have to choose the awfulness that you want to highlight. There's never just one. But anyway, something he said was there's a new COVID vaccine rolling out probably either this

week or next week. Ron DeSantis, who started off when he was governor of Florida pretty good on COVID and then had the opposite of a come to Jesus moment. He had a come to Satan moment, I guess, or whatever you want to call it, when suddenly he realized that, oh, I have to be anti-vax and anti-science if I want to be the Republican nominee for president. So he kind of turned on a dime. And he's still out there doing it, even though his campaign is going nowhere. But he is basically opposed to this new vaccine.

He's saying that it is nothing more than a money grab for big pharma. And his surgeon general, who is an absolute moron and completely unqualified, he's unqualified to be a surgeon private. let alone a surgeon general. That was good. He's out there saying that the new vaccine hasn't even been tested on humans, which is it's a flat out lie. There's no other way to describe that other than a flat out lie. It has been tested on humans.

So between the two of them, they're trying to get people killed or they don't care if they get people killed because it's all in service of their political agenda. I've absolutely had it. And COVID cases we now know are rising across the country. I think at this point, I know more people. that either have COVID or had it in the last month, which includes me, then I know people that didn't have it in the last month or currently have it. Like, it's clearly on the rise again.

Yeah. And these assholes are out there telling people not to get this new vaccine. And the surgeon general has a history of saying that the vaccine is no more effective than a healthy diet. I mean, these people are bad people and they're looking to get people killed. And I just, I can't take it anymore. So, Ron DeSantis, you are going to continue to. to be my fuck that guy until you prove otherwise. Which he won't.

Which he won't. Because I'm still waiting for him to prove he's not a cyborg. COVID is back on the rise. As Andy said, we know several people that have COVID. Some are not faring well. And the reality is that vaccines are the reason why we've been able to be able to get back to some semblance of normal ish in America. And so if you're going to listen to people who do not have your best interests at heart, go with God.

You know what I'm saying? Like, like we said at the top, there's no way to convince people who are neck deep in this cult and believe that people aren't trying to do their best for you. So if you think that Ron DeSantis gives a fuck about you and your health and that of your family, then like I said, living on a prayer. Fuck that guy and all of them. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of The New Abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder.

Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all. of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.