The Daily Beast Podcast - Ohio Is a Sign That Republicans Should Be Worried

Episode Date: August 11, 2023

On this week’s episode of The New Abnormal, how the latest Ohio election should be a wake-up call to Republicans. David Pepper, the former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, joins to discuss. Plus! Nick Suplina, senior Vice President of Law and Policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, describes how ghost guns are more terrifying than you can imagine. 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.

Formerhead of the Ohio Democratic Party, David Pepper, will join us to talk the implications of Ohio voting down issue one. Then we'll talk to Everytown USA, senior vice president for law and policy, Nick Soplina, all about the ghost guns ruling that Skodas just brought down in the implications of ghost guns on America. But first, let's have some fun. So here we are, Danielle, ready to close out the week. And we actually have some good news, which is always nice and feels like it's increasingly rare. But shout out to Ohio voters who defeated issue one earlier in the week. Issue one would have made it harder to pass amendments to the Ohio Constitution. Basically, issue one would have raised the threshold to 60% from the current 50%.

There was a lot of talk how this was basically an attempt to keep abortion rights from being put in the Ohio Constitution because there was going to be a measure on the ballot looking to do that. And if issue one had passed, it would have required a 60% vote. Now it only requires a 50% vote. So this lost overwhelmingly. It lost in counties that Trump won bigly, as he would say. And it was an absolute thrashing. And whether they want to admit it or not, it is an absolute slap in the face to anti-choice folks and shows that in the wake of the Dobbs ruling, there's been a lot of overreach by Republicans. And most people in America are not with them. I think it's fair to say, Danielle. I am excited for Ohioans because frankly, this is a law of the Constitution being able to be changed.

plus one by a majority of Ohio and has been on the books for over 100 years. Republicans had no possible reason other than to thwart the will of the people in order to make this change. And even Republicans in Ohio voted against this measure because they knew on its face it was going to be taking away their voice and their vote. And here's the thing. You know what I think that Republicans are overreaching on, which is the fact that they've been suppressing people of color, young people, black people's votes forever. And what they are beginning to do, and not in a covert way, is they're beginning to suppress white people's votes as well. And white Americans are just like, yeah, this doesn't feel right. I thought that, you know,

this was the land of the free. It was fine when it was happening to other groups of people, but now they're coming in and saying, yeah, no, your vote does not matter here. And so folks in Ohio were very hip to what it was that they were doing and said, yeah, no, that's not how democracy works. And so I think that this is going to be foreshadowing to see what happens in 2024, but they're fastistic, you know, moves that they're trying to make in these states, the people are waking up to it. No, absolutely. And look, I think what we're seeing is, I think Republicans have sort of long known that

their views on abortion are not in step with the majority of. the country. And there's a reason that they've tried and succeeded to kill it in the courts where you don't need the will of the people. And it turns out that almost not every time, unfortunately, but a lot of the times when they've tried to codify really extreme abortion bans, people have risen up. And women in particular have risen up and said, fuck out of here. We're not letting you do this. And obviously, there are the states where they've managed to do it because they've got control of the state houses. But this was a real wake up call for them that they need to figure out their shit because they are completely out of

step and it's probably going to continue to cost them elections. I think we saw that in 2022. We've talked about that a lot in the midterms and a lot of state races in 2022. And, you know, there's no reason to think this isn't going to continue to really be a drag on their vote going into the future, which is obviously a good thing. I would prefer that Dobbs had never happened and that Roe was still the law of the land. But I guess if you're looking for a silver lining, it's that this might be a real fuck-around find-out moment for them. I love that everyone keeps fucking around these days. It's so amazing. Speaking of silver linings, though, Andy, there is a justice that can't seem to keep silver spoons out of his

fucking mouth. And that... More like a gold lining. Right. Platinum. Platinum. Clarence Platinum Thomas strikes again with yet another amount of trips that he is taken on private jets because, you know, I don't know about you, Andy, but all of my friends have private jets. Everybody's on the BJ. Eating caviar, potato chips, truffles, you know, this is life. But for Clarence Thomas, it is just, I can't stand when I hear analysts say he needs to answer for this to the American people. By virtue of having a position that one has for life where you are not voted in, there is no way to remove you except for you to either die or decide that you're done with this free living

that you're having. Who does he have to answer to? Nobody. He is the, you know, you can't check me, boo, of all of the justices. That's why he has, he has private trips. I mean, the man's lifestyle is outrageous. And yet he's the one making decisions to deny students, any type of relief. He's the one making decisions to deny people of color, access to higher education, he's the one that gets to say, yeah, no. But with billionaires, it's all yes, all the time. Yeah, and we're talking about here. There's a pro-publica is the organization that broke the Harlan Crow story with regard to Clarence Thomas, and they're out with a new one, which is called the other billionaires who have treated the Supreme Court justice to luxury travel, et cetera.

And there's a stat from their article is he got at least 38 destitute. nation vacations paid for, 26 private jet flights, 12 VIP passes to pro and college sporting events, two stays at luxury resorts, one standing invite to an Uber exclusive golf club. And it's more than Harlan Crow, it's other super rich guys. Basically, there's a Forbes 500, and he is trying to come up with a Thomas 500, where he basically just has, it's the 500, you know, richest Thomas supporters. Absolutely unreal and probably lawbreaking. I mean, you know, there's ways to weasel around some of it, but not all of it. And the fact that he declared none of these, and this is really what the issue is, is that he declared none of this. None. You know,

he can say all he wants, oh, I didn't know I had to. That defense, we've said this before. That is not the kind of break that he would give somebody. So I see no reason to give him that kind of break. It is truly unbelievable the amount of free, expensive shit that he has gotten. And Congress needs to do something here. I can't think of anything else right now that can be done other than Congress and looking into impeaching him, which is something that has been brought up before. but it needs to be brought up again

and it needs to actually be acted on because this dude is just he's out of control. I mean you know in honor of hip hop's 50th anniversary, the only difference between a hooker and a hoe is the fee. Clarence Thomas is clearly hooking for billionaires.

The fact that we are relying on a flaccid Senate to come in and do something even hold I mean they said that they wanted to hold a hearing and what did just as Roberts say, yeah, I'm good. I'm good.

Right? Like, thanks so much. I'm golfing. The rest of them, I'm on a fishing trip. So, you know, the fact that they even have the space and the audacity to be able to turn down appearing before the Senate judiciary just lets us know that the people who are creating the laws for 330 million plus people in this country are absolutely fucking lawless. And that we have no checks and balances.

and even bringing up the idea of providing ethics, new ethics rules for the Supreme Court, Republicans are like, no, we don't need them. Of course they're going to say, no, we don't need them because they have no more morals or fucking values. So it's just like what we have learned is that we have nine people, these black robes, that are absolutely lawless and that are bought and sold by billionaires. And there's nothing the rest of us can do with it. And to me, that is what is most mind-blowing. Yeah, we can't vote them out. We are literally powerless.

And the only people who can do anything are sitting in Congress, and they are right now choosing to do nothing. If you look through this article, it's unreal. You have, it's David Sokol, who was a top executive at Berkshire Hathaway. Wayne Hizenga, who, if I remember correctly, he started Blockbuster. He owned a bunch of sports teams in Florida. All of these guys, again,

None of this declared. Wayne Hizenga sent his personal 737 to pick Thomas up and bring him to South Florida at least twice. The five-hour round trip would have cost at least $130,000 each time had Thomas charted the jet himself, according to ProPublica. It's just absolutely unbelievable that he just accepts these things and he just doesn't care. I am not saying that these were straight up bribes as in, I give you this and you vote this way on this particular case. I have no evidence of that.

ProPublica doesn't have any evidence of that. The problem is that all of these super rich people at some point or another have business before the court. Or there are cases before the court that affect these people's businesses or affect them, even if they are not the ones bringing it there. And when a guy is sending his personal 737 to pick you up and fly you, is it possible that maybe you're more inclined? to rule in his favor and because you want to keep taking those trips? Yes, it is. And even if you don't do that, there's a thing called the appearance of propriety. And judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, have to be above that. I'm sorry, you take a lifetime appointment. I know you're not going to

become filthy rich sitting on the court, although you're going to make a nice little salary for yourself and you're going to live okay. But that's the tradeoff, man. If you want to be, Clarence Thomas could retire right now. a law firm would snap him up and pay him millions of dollars a year to sit there and pretty much do nothing but attach his name to them. Go do that. If that's what you want, go do that. More power to you. It would be great for the country, by the way, if you did do that. This is much cushier of a gig.

Exactly. You want a lifetime appointment to a job and know that you never have to worry about where your next paycheck is coming? You got to make some tradeoffs. Speaking of filthy rich people Or just filthy Filthy comma rich people Donald Trump You may have heard of him

I feel like Jay Leno Have you seen this Donald Trump Have you seen this guy? He's out there now attacking Fannie Willis The DA down in Fulton County, Georgia Who we think Is probably within the next week or so

going to bring indictments against him for his perfect phone call. He's running an ad about her, accusing her of wrongdoings. He's out there in his little stump speeches saying that she's racist against white people and he's spreading rumors about her sex life. It's all full on disgusting stuff. And this is not the Donald Trump I know. And he must be getting bad. advice because this is just not something you must agree with me dania yeah you know the donald trump

that i know you know really cares about black people so much that he takes out full page ads calling for their hanging and the thing that always gets me about the republican party the maga party is that they love to cry reverse racism and yet every attack that they make on anyone who is not white isn't cis isn't a man and isn't Christian is fueled with racist and fucking attacks. And so even Fannie Willis, you know, before this latest disgusting ad that is just full of fucking lies. And frankly, she should sue. She should sue for defamation. She should sue for libel. And whatever else she can sue for because what Donald Trump is doing is using racist bullhorns, lies and just putting them in advertisements. And I'm just like, shutting the fuck up is free. And I feel like I say this all the time.

And yet Donald Trump refuses to shut the fuck up. And I've never seen somebody just utilize their platform in such a way that this man is going to bullshit truth himself and run ads for himself up until jail. Because at some point, it's going to become just too much for these prosecutors to turn a blind eye and say, oh, this isn't threatening or this isn't that. It's like, no, he's adding, what is he? He's anying it up, right? Like, with every attack, he ups the ante. And at some point, people are not going to be able to say, like, oh, well, there's really, it's hard for us to connect the dots between, you know, the rhetoric that he's saying and actual threats or violence or this, that, and the other thing. And it's just like, are we all dumb? He's calling for these

attacks against Fannie Willis because he's hoping that one of his deranged, psychotic white supremacist followers will follow his orders. Absolutely. And I mean, we just saw with what happened in Utah in the last few days where the FBI confronted a man who had made direct threats against Joe Biden and others and ended up having to kill him. Those are the people that are being activated. It's so funny because we spent all these years, we had these like, you know, movies. It was everyone was afraid of. of the communists and we had the Manchurian candidate and with all these, you know, agents that were going to be activated to do all these things. And guess what? It was Americans the whole time. They weren't being activated by communists. They were being activated by Republicans.

This is the world we live in now, though. And we've talked about this on the show before. And as you said, they're not dog whistles. They're bullhorns. And, you know, people like Trump and people like Tucker Carlson and a whole bunch of people on Fox now, who are just following in Tucker's wake, just saying things every night that are having these effects on people. And they know this. They know that what they're doing is going to lead potentially to violence. They don't care. Either they don't care or they want it. Yeah. But people are going to die. And at a certain point, it's not going to be the MAGA guy in Utah who ends up dying. It's going to be the Democrat in office who ends up dying or something like that. And it's going to get really, really, really ugly,

unless things are toned down. And I just don't know that things are going to be toned down. I hope you're right that at a certain point, prosecutors are like, hey, we got to do something about this. But it's, man, so far, nothing. Yeah, we just can't continue to normalize political violence. And that's what we've done over the last eight years. What, like, eight years ago, can you imagine a politician tweeting, posting in the way that Donald Trump had and having no repercussions for it? No. The things that have been allowed to just be swept under the rug or we turn away or we say, oh, well, that's just Trump, has allowed for almost a decade of normalizing violence

and attacks against your political opponents. And it's to the point where you have a Utah, where you've had, we can point to other things that have happened, namely the fucking insurrection. Where you're pointing at people in saying, go take your country back because I've told you for the last several months that somebody's trying to steal your vote and your voice. So at some point in time, I'm telling you that the prosecutors, the people that are brave enough and have the courage enough to actually follow their convictions and follow the rule of law to throw the book at Donald Trump in a way that hasn't happened in his four or five decades of scheming and lying in his crime spree. At some point, they have to come out and say, you know what? This is not okay. This is dangerous.

This is not protected speech. This is not First Amendment speech. This man is inciting violence and he just won't stop. Folks, I am very excited to welcome to the new abnormal. David Pepper, who is the author of Saving Democracy and Laboratories of Autocracy, as well as the former chairman of the Democratic Party in the state of Ohio, which you have known, if you've been paying attention to the news, has made how much. Edelines. David, let's just start off. Give us a lay of the land in what it was that Republicans

were trying to do during this special session in August in Ohio and what the voters said no to. Sure. I mean, what they were trying to do, and this is sort of a perfect symbol of their national strategy, they know that their view on abortion in particular, and there's now going to be a referendum in November on abortion access in Ohio. They know that their position is underwater in Ohio, it's about 60-40 pro-choice. Rather than living with that fact, which would mean they would lose that referendum like happening in Kansas, their goal was, and again, as part of a national strategy, will change the rules so that even if they lose, they win. And what about the specific numbers it was, make the threshold to amend the Ohio Constitution 60% as opposed to 50%.

They tried to sneak into an August special election before a November referendum on abortion access so that even if they only hit 41% in November, they still win. So it was this really aggressive, lawless effort to rig the rules of a constitutional amendment process that's been a majority rule for 110 years. And the good news is the voters saw right through it. A broad coalition way beyond Democrats, included independents and Republicans, surged at the polls. We had close to a midterm turnout when they thought we'd only have 8%. And even their own voters did not respond well of this. There was very low, there was lower turnout in the red parts of the state. There were some red counties that voted no. So it really did backfire. And I think that's a good day

for the broader battle over abortion access, but it's also a good day for democracy that a really aggressive, over-the-top effort to literally subvert democracy so that they win, even when they lose, was seen for what it was and defeated so soundly. So a great, great, great day, not just Ohio, by the way, this was a part of a national effort. And if this had succeeded here, it would have been done elsewhere. I mean, I think that what is really fascinating to me is that they weren't pretending. There was no pretense. There was no real messaging from the Republican party as to why they needed to make this change after over 100 years. Because one of the things that was said was because abortion in itself wasn't on the ballot, it was this change to the

constitution in terms of like moving away from majority rule to making it 60, that it was going to be difficult for voters to make the distinction. But clearly, that was not the case. So what do you think went wrong with the Republican messaging and what went right with Democratic messaging? The very beginning went wrong for them because it looked so nuts. I mean, everyone saw this thing building before November. This state house had literally banned August special. election sometime in like January or December. I can't remember the date because they said they were undemocratic too expensive. So then, of course, once the referendum started billing for November, they violated their own law and demanded a special election on a day that they had made illegal.

So the lawlessness of it woke people up like, what is this? How can you even do this? You made them illegal. So from the very beginning, it was clear they were rushing to get ahead of a referendum they didn't like. Then they couldn't figure out their message was. You know, they were, For weeks, they would say to the public, oh, this is not about abortion. This is about good government. But then behind the scenes, and they were caught doing this so often, with their own voters, they would say, this is all about abortion. The problem is when you have a 60-40 state, once it becomes about abortion, you're going to lose. And so in the end, they had no real good message. They really couldn't get away with pretending it was about good government because the very effort broke the law. And then at the very end,

they just started getting desperate and running, you know, they went to the same place they always go, extreme disinformation about parental rights, out-of-state liberal interests, to avoid it being directly about abortion, but they never really could hide that it was about abortion, so they were already in trouble. And then the scare tactics, it might have led to them being, not losing by 60-40 or worse, but I also think it backfired because it looked so dishonest. I mean, I had Republicans go to events I had with the flyers and say, this is very confusing. I don't know what this is about. I thought this was about 60.

So even Republicans rejected, especially in other areas, were not inspired by this egregious disinformation they put out. So from beginning to end, they were flat-footed and they never found a message that worked really with anybody. You know what I find really interesting to, David? I am a black queer woman, child of immigrants in this country and have watched in so many different ways in so many different states, votes be suppressed for the black community, for the Latino community, for young people. And what is curious to me in this moment with the

Republican Party is that it's not enough to just suppress those people's votes, the others votes, because now they're moving into a place where they're trying to steal the voices of white Americans as well. And I think that that to me, aside from this incredibly unpopular overturning of Roe v. Wade, that white Americans are opening their eyes and saying, wait a minute, even for those that may have supported voter suppression in states for particular communities that they may not like, now Republicans are saying it's not enough. I'm coming after your vote and your voice as well. What do you make of that? I think it's a really smart analysis. So when they're on the side of issues that are relatively unpopular but not intensely so,

then suppressing some of the vote, particularly the diversity of the Obama coalition, gets them what they want. And that's what they've been doing. And as you said, others have either not seen it, not been affected by it, not responded. But when you start talking about abortion bans, no exceptions for rape or incest. I mean, that's something only 10% of Ohioans agree with, the 10-year-old rape victim being forced to go to Indiana. So we're talking toxic stuff. And for that kind of thing to survive in a world of politics, they can't just suppress some of the Obama coalition to eke out a small margin. They've got to go

further. And what this was, this was a blunt force instrument to say, oh, we win even if we're only 41%. We win even when, as you said, even a broader coalition opposes us. And one of the interesting things about this result the other day was there were many Republicans who were against it. There were many Republican counties that are quite deep red that voted no. A former governor who said, actually, I'm going to vote no on reproductive freedom in November, but I'm voting no on this too because this is not how it should be decided. This is sort of the point of these books I've written, which is to say much more broadly than those who already get it because they've been the direct victim of suppression. Listen, broader America, these folks are out

to subvert democracy to put into place, equate radical worldview. and it's going to impact a lot more than even the people have already been victims of it. And this kind of effort to lift it to 60 percent, I do think woke up people. And so the coalition that defeated this thing was broad. I mean, you had Kasich and Taft and Red counties and the Libertarian Party all say, this is just wrong. And what we have to do, frankly, is cling to that so that we actually do have more and more people joining, as I put it, an army for democracy that says enough of this stuff.

And that's how in the end, I think we really start to put a winning street together for democracy more than just a few U.S. Senate races every couple years. I do want to talk about your books because the titles of them are just enough to draw people in to where we are. The laboratories and the saving of democracy. And I want to talk to you specifically about autocracy is a word that for those that are in politics, for those of us who are in politics in history, we get. There is not a lot of education and unpacking that has to happen. What we're seeing across this country, whether we're looking at the move that Ohio Republicans tried to do, whether we're looking at what I call the petri dish of the Republican Party, which is the state of Florida, these are laboratories of artocracy, and things are working there. So what is it? How do you

think that Democrats have this conversation that when we see in mainstream media, oh, there's a big gap between Trump and DeSantis, as if if we got DeSantis as president, that's a good thing. When I'm just like, no, all of them are part of the same bag of crap. They all believe the same ideology, which is about subverting democracy. So what do you think needs to happen when we throw around these words like autocracy, when we say Hitler-esque, when we do these things that needs to change in our language to better resonate with the voter? Well, two things. One, and I'm very insist on this, my book, and you're making the point. We've got to stop defining the attack of democracy as if it's just Donald Trump.

Yes. Or Ron DeSantis. It's hundreds of people just like them in state houses that we've never heard of who are in the majority passing laws, crushing democracy right now. Marjorie Taylor Green, as frustrating as she is, her laws aren't getting signed by Joe Biden. So we've got to show people this began before Trump ever ran with gerrymandering and intense suppression in 11. It began as a backlash to Obama winning. Let's be clear. Come on. Yep. If Trump were locked up tomorrow, which used to be more hypothetical than is now, it would continue. So we just see it as a deeper part of a much longer part of our history of a backlash whenever

diverse majority gets its way. That's what this is. Number two, though, and this is where unfortunately, Dobbs came down. But Dobbs, we have to show people outside of a 30,000-foot conversation about democracy and autocracy, the reason they are suppressed, democracy is to push policies that will directly undermine you and they don't want you and your vote to be able to stop them. And the best example of that in America today, and that's what happened in this election we just had, is Dobbs. They are attacking democracy to strip away a right that women have had for generations, and they know they have to attack democracy to do it because most people don't agree with them. And so what you have to do is translate the broader attack

on democracy to how it impacts people every day in their lives. And, And that's why you saw Secretary of State candidates running, election deniers running in swing states. Once Dobbs came down, people who we thought were going to win were in deep trouble. Once Mem and Oz said what he thought abortion should come down to a woman, a doctor, and a local elected official, he was done. You have to connect the democracy battle in that frame to everyday issues where people think, oh, I see now the reason they're attacking democracy is to pose on me their worldview, which I and a majority Americans don't agree with.

When you make those connections, and right now, obviously, post-Obs is the most clear connection. But there are other connections as well to all sorts of other issues, you know, gun safety being another one, the decline of public schools in many states being another one. They are doing this all for a certain end, and most Americans do not agree with that end. So that connection to real-world issues might get people

who are not thinking about the 30,000 foot. Their lives may be so challenging. They don't have time to think about that. But when you say to them, you only have four days of school a week for your kids, or you have no access, or you're in a community where a 10-year-old rape victim had to go to Indiana because they're crushing democracy to get that done in Ohio, all of a sudden, you wake up and see how it affects you, and then you show up to vote. So I think translating is really important to sort of real-world issues that impact people every day. Let's take a look at 2024. And I hate to use the term bellwether. I hate when I hear it. But this is the term that is being thrown around. about the victory in Ohio. And it is about whether or not there are enough of you,

like you mentioned, the hundreds of radicalized Republicans that are in state houses that are across this country, even though they make up only 30%, I want people to remember, 30% of the country, they do not make up the majority, they are just loud, that what we see in Ohio and what we saw in Kansas and Michigan and other places is that their, politics, their policies are unpopular. Do you see us eking out again our democracy, because that's what a

win is for Biden? It is eking out once again, holding on to democracy with our fingernails. Do you see that happening because more and more people are becoming conscious to their overt moves? It's not undercover anymore. They're out in the open saying what they want. So this new book, I wrote, I literally was rushing to get it out there for the exact reason you say. They have been very good until recently of hiding their extremism. They gerrymander to keep it from being sort of held to account. They change a subject and run insane ads about caravans coming from Mexico so it doesn't end up being about their issues. But right now, their extremism is no longer hidden. Marjorie Taylor Green in the face of Congress, Trump and DeSantis showing it every day, state houses

is passing insane things. And I think the reason we have a winning streak, Kansas last August, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April, now Ohio, because their extremism is too much for people. Now here's my challenge, though, to all of America. Take the contrast of their extremism versus what we're trying to do for everyday people. And don't just make it Biden versus Trump. Because when we only win these federal offices,

it does mean that democracy stays on thin ice. As you said, eking it out. We can no longer afford to just be eking out for democracy. It's too flimsy if we do it that way. Take the contrast of Trump Biden and the Trump extremism. And Trump is fully embracing Dobbs. He's taking credit for getting rid of Roe. That's helpful long term in this election. But draw the contrast down all the new statehouse candidates. Don't only have it be about Trump, as we said early. Have that extremism drawn out when you run for the statehouse. Run against all these state reps that are doing this stuff. And that way, when we win in November 24, we're not just winning a presidential race.

We're actually winning in the state level races where democracy is far more under attack and far more vulnerable. And one of the ways to do this again is, you know, half of these people in Tennessee where they kicked out the two Justin's Oklahoma, they're not even being contested in half these races. We've got to get people on the ballot in all these places. Stop allowing their extremism to not be held to account. Run hard. You may not win, but you'll hold them accountable. then you have a 24 where you're not just winning on thin ice a presidency, but you're actually winning the Arizona State House,

gaining seats in all these other states, showing how extreme these state houses have become winning back to House, draw the extremism in the fight for democracy, and make it a fight at all levels in all states. And that's how you start to have a deeper sort of supportive democracy beyond what we have now, which we feel like, as you said, every two years is an election as to whether or not democracy dies.

That's not a healthy system. And the way you avoid that is you start winning at the state level where they have been dominating for too long, crushing democracy, and we have not been waging the fight we need to that we have shown in Kansas, Ohio, Wisconsin, recently, when we wage to fight at a state level and we make clear what it's about and what's at stake, we're winning. We've got to do that all the time at every level going forward. You know, it is a both and approach that you're talking about, right? Where, and I would add the judiciary onto that, right? Where we have also just kind of acquiesced, let it go where they have been able to develop 40 and 50-year plans to remake the judiciary in America because they know what. Congress isn't the one that has given marginalized communities their rights. No, it isn't. It has been in the court system.

And so what were they able to do with Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump? is that they were able to redo the judicial map to benefit the Republican Party. And I think that for too long, Democrats too have just said, oh, well, we'll forego the South. We'll forego the middle. We'll put all of our eggs literally in two baskets, the East and the West Coast. And that will be it. And because of that, they have allowed this ideology to become cancerous because there has been no institution in place to combat it in the state.

that it has grown out of whack. The last question for you, David, is when you see Ohio and you make the point about the work that needs to be done at the state level, do you think Americans have the will? I do. I actually think there's a growing army of democracy. Activists from around the country, we're sending postcards, we're sending, making phone calls. So helping with small dollar contributions. Normally in the past, we've only done that for a few Senate races that reach some kind of celebrity status. This time it was Ohio. April, it was Wisconsin. There is an energy out there to protect democracy that is growing. But what we have to do, especially those of us trying to, you know, sound the alarm, is make sure that as many people's possible understand that this battle

is bigger than a few federal Senate races and a few House races. And once people see that, and see that we have to run against all the Tennessee Republicans who voted the way they did, not just let them, as you said, they're running their extremism through the red parts of red states where we're not even competing. We're making it too easy for them. We have to have a conversation that says to this army of people who care about democracy, hey, the battle is broader. And we need to be smart enough to apply your energy and your resources and your volunteer time more broadly than the past. And we're showing that when people see that, whether it was stopping election deniers running for sector of state in November or again, Wisconsin, Kansas, Ohio. when they see it, they are rallying.

And we just have, so it's out there. The will is there. The scale is not what it needs to be. We need to scale it up more. But once we are clear about where the battle really is, which is in states, a long-term battle for democracy, not some two-year, some kind of sort of set-aside federal battle, but a broader democracy battle. Once we say that to people and they becomes clear, I see them rallying again and again, again,

again, I wrote this book I wrote and I got out as fast as I could because we're once people see that, there's so much more they can do than just helping a few swing state Senate candidates. There is so much people can do every single day to rally around democracy. And once you see how the battle's really laid out, which is everywhere, I hope people feel empowered that, boy, there's a lot more they can do than just watch a few swing states every November. I hope people see inspiration from the winning sweep we've had for almost a year when it comes to democracy being fought out, even in red states like Kansas and purple states like Ohio. David Pepper, I appreciate you. Folks, the books are saving democracy and the laboratories of autocracy. Make sure to absolutely check them out and follow David on formerly known as Twitter.

David Pepper, thank you so much for making the time for the new abnormal. Really appreciate you. Thank you so much. Appreciate the attention. You may have heard the term ghost guns in the news lately, as the Supreme Court issued a stay allowing the Biden administration's regulations on these kits, to take effect. Here to explain what exactly ghost guns are and why the final disposition of this case will be so important is every town for gun safety senior vice president of law and policy,

Nick Suclina. Nick, thanks for joining me. Pleasure to be here. Okay, so before we get to the legal issues, tell us exactly what ghost guns are. I get the feeling we hear this term in the news, but I don't know that everyone knows what exactly we're talking about here. Sure. Ghost guns are do-it-yourself, un-serialized firearms. That means that you kind of complete them or make them at home, and they cannot be traced when they're used in a crime. Now, some people sometimes call them homemade firearms, but that really is a misnomer. That would be like saying the IKEA couch that you assembled was a couch you made. It's really, really simple. They're often sold in kits, where you have all the tools you need to drill and mill a couple parts of the firearm and then and then complete the gun

together. So we call them ghost guns or they are called ghost guns in part because they can't be traced. And that means no background checks. That means no going to a licensed firearm dealer. And for that reason, they're really, really appealing to criminals and extremists who don't want to go through any official channels in acquiring their firearms. And obviously, I would assume no age restriction on these? Correct. And in fact, we're really seeing, sadly, teenagers increasingly, you know, getting ghost gun kits, making their own firearms and using them to harm themselves or others.

Okay. And that leads me to my next question. What kind of numbers are we looking at here? Do we know how many of these kits are out there? How many have been used in crimes? Stuff like that. Yeah. So, you know, generally, right, and by the name and by design, right, we don't know.

know how many are out there. But what we do know is increasingly they're being recovered in crimes. So over a recent five-year period, ATF estimated about 45,000 ghost guns recovered in crimes across the country. That's like a thousand percent increase, right, over that period. And what you're seeing are sort of pandemic kind of numbers. It's doubling and doubling every year. The fact is that when ghost gun manufacturers started offering handgun parts kits, like for a Glock-type model, the numbers really shot up, and so did the crime numbers. And so this is, you know, the fastest growing gun safety problem for the country, because it's a complete end run around our laws.

And, again, you know, anybody who can't legally buy a gun sees this as a very, very attractive way to get their hands on it. And you mentioned the IKEA couch. How easy are these things to put together? What do you need basically like just a drill and that's it? Yeah. So without getting too technical, right, there's a core part of a firearm on a handgun that would be the frame and on a semi-automatic rifle that would be the receiver. And those parts are so critical to the sort of firearm itself that they themselves are

treated like firearms under the law. And what these kits are they take those pieces and they just leave a few holes on drill or a few areas unmilled. And when you buy one of these kits or get the requisite parts you need, not only does it come with the drill bits or milling parts that you need, and it's, we're talking a Black and Decker drill, no heavy machinery, it also comes with a jig kit that like snaps over these parts so that it's basically you can't mess it up.

We've seen demonstrations where guns are completed in less than an hour, and that's fully, you know, fully assembling the firearm. They make it really easy. And before they started catching scrutiny from both the government and groups like every town, you know, the websites advertising these guns called them, you know, idiot proof and, you know, so simple to make and really leaned in to just how easy it was. And, you know, with a wink and a nod, like, isn't this a great way to have an end rounder on the law? Wow. Okay. So in response to the you know, as you're describing it, this sort of exponential rise of these kits. What has the Biden administration done?

All right. So the Biden administration took action with a final rule on ghost guns last year, but it was one of the earliest gun safety measures that the president announced actually after he took office, understanding that the ghost guns were this fast-growing threat. And what the rule does essentially is just clarify pursuant to federal statute, what we mean when we talk about a firearm or a frame or a receiver. And it makes these clarifications such that ghost guns would be captured under the rule. This doesn't, by the way, ban ghost guns. All it says is if you can readily complete a firearm, you need to get it serialized

and go through all of the normal background checks to buy it at retail. And that's really important, too, because you hear a lot of, I think, somewhat disingenuous comments from the gun rights guys saying, oh, this is just a hobbyist pastime. This is for tinkers who like to make their own stuff. It's like, all right, you know what? If building IKEA furniture makes you a carpenter fine, but guess what? You just got to then go serialize the firearm and play by the books. And so it really doesn't get in the way of the fun side of building one of these firearms. Nevertheless, of course, you know, folks got very upset. when the rule went into effect.

So the challenge to this, if I understand it, the challenge to the rule is that it's basically they are saying, hey, gun kits are not guns and therefore the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, firearms, and explosives has overstepped its authority in trying to regulate them as such. Yeah, that's basically it. The argument is essentially that ATF doesn't have the authority to define firearms or frames or receivers the way that it did. And they're wrong about that. And they're wrong about that even before this rule was proposed and finalized, right? These very gun companies, the same ones that are suing now for relief, went to ATF and said,

hey, is this kid okay? Is this kid okay? Is this unfinished frame or receiver okay? And sometimes ATF would say yes and sometimes they say no. It's an admission that ATF has the authority to make these determinations. It's only now that the rule is final that they're claiming some sort of lack of authority under the governing federal statute to do so. That's really interesting. And again, as you said, the rule doesn't make these gun kits illegal. It basically just says, hey, they've got to have serial numbers on them so that if they're used, you know, in the commission of a crime or whatever, we can trace it back to who bought it. It says treat these things that look like guns, shoot like guns, kill like guns, treat them like guns. And that's really not asking very much. Nevertheless,

you know, lawsuits across the country challenge the rule almost right away. I was reading through the lower course case. And it's interesting because you keep using the IKEA example. And I know the government did the same thing, although I have to notice they used bookcases, not couches, Nick. Oh, okay. Okay. I'll update my metaphor. Yes, exactly. But then I noticed that the other side is using taco kits as their sort of metaphor. And they are saying, hey, if tacos were regulated by the government, that wouldn't mean that the government could regulate the sales of taco kits that contained all the ingredients to make tacos. It's this unbelievably ontological argument. It's like, when does a gun become a gun? I mean, you're absolutely right. And it's why the government's rule makes so much sense,

because you get away from the existential question of when does a gun become a gun. And you get to when can you readily make a firearm. And that just makes sense because, again, it's not like you would undo federal car safety regulation just by taking the wheels off a car, right? Like, no other industries are as formalistic and quite honestly as committed to innovating around the law as the firearms industry. And that's why we're in this, as you said, ontological debate about when does a gun become a gun. But like this rule makes it much simpler. It's not about the level of completion. It's about the ease of completion. And I got to tell you, like the taco analogy doesn't really work. I mean, everybody likes a good taco, and I'm no exception to that. And I'd hate to see

regulation of tacos. But the fact is that the federal law as written says firearms are regulated, but also frames and receivers are treated as firearms themselves. Right. And so, it would be as if there was a federal taco law that said also the shell. And that's what the other side, part of what the other side is trying to skirt past. And also, as we've said, taking this hyper-formalistic argument in order to try to win their case. But the fact is that the courts thus far have sort of accepted their argument. And where we stand now is a conservative judge in Texas blocked the ATF's rule from taking effect, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals let that ruling stand, right? So what the Supreme Court just did here by a really narrow 5-4 vote is say,

no, the rule can take effect until we hear the case if we decide to hear the case, right? Right. During the pendency of the case, right, the rule stays into effect. I mean, I will say there have been courts, including in the Eighth Circuit that have gone the other way on this. Okay. But yes, you're right. I mean, this. judge from early on in the case has been interested in granting all forms of injunctive relief for parties in this case. We don't think those decisions are right. I think it would be a stretch to say that the Supreme Court's decision this week on the logic of those opinions, but it is good news in that the court is saying, no, now, now, Texas District Judge, no nationwide injunctions

invalidating this rule for now. But, you know, potentially, should the case make it back up to the Supreme Court, it's possible you have, you know, five justices that aren't interested in overturning the Biden administration's rule here. So it was interesting. Like I said, it was a five-four vote to let the ATF's rules stay in effect while litigation is pending. And it was Chief Justice Roberts and it was Amy Coney-Barratt, who sided with the three more liberal justices in saying that. it doesn't necessarily tell us how they're going to vote, assuming the case makes its way up there. But it's interesting, two of the justices at the very least, we're like, well, until it gets to us,

you know, yeah, like you said, we don't want this ruling by the one judge in Texas to affect the entire nation. Right. That's exactly what it does. And it was interesting to see those two justices kind of, you know, cross over. again, you know, it shouldn't be surprising because the record here is really, really strong for the government. The argument is really, really strong for the government. I think on the merits, reasonable jurists should side with the government at any level of litigation. But at the very

least, what this says is from the Supreme Court itself, like, we're not going to let this one judge in Texas invalidate the rule for the whole country. And again, to the extent that hints at the merits. That's favorable to the government. But for the rest of us, for the American people, it's really good because the rule stays in effect during what's going to be a very long litigation and probably a windy path potentially back up to the Supreme Court. And it's also possible that the Supreme Court would, look, I'm assuming that the government applied for this emergency stay, and I'm assuming that the government is appealing this to the Supreme Court. There is a chance that the court won't even hear this case, though, right? We just

don't know. Absolutely a chance. We do not know at this point. It would very much depend on once circuit courts have weighed in on the merits and whether there would be disagreement among those courts, that would be a factor in whether the court grants cert in the case. But generally speaking, when judges strike federal rules or laws, that the court is going to take a closer look at that. What this said is, even at this very early stage in the case, the justices felt like the status quo should be preserved. The rule should be preserved during the litigation. I would assume that the court would take up this case. It seems like an important case. I saw a lot of coverage of the Supreme Court stay that I thought was just really sort of

overwrought and overblown saying, you know, talking about a huge victory. And I was like, well, it's not yet. I mean, it's good, but slow your role. Yeah. I mean, I think that that's fair. I think that's fair. I think in our current political and judicial climate, favorable decisions for common sense out of the Supreme Court are often heralded with the great manfare. And so that may be part of the coverage. I will say, I mean, it feels like a victory for us. It feels like a real victory for the government. And when you're litigating with the rule and effect, that's a much stronger posture to be in than litigating in the absence of a rule. So there's real, real value to it.

But yes, this is the beginning of the beginning. This is going to be up to lower courts to decide. It could be a while before, if it ever makes it up to the Supreme Court again. And that was going to be my next question is sort of the timeline on this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it. But if a Texas circuit judge has issued his ruling and then the Court of Appeals has let that ruling stand, is the Supreme Court not the next place we're going to to see this case? Are there going to be more lower court cases? The judge in the district court in Texas

has issued several preliminary injunctions in the case. And the ruling that went up to the Supreme Court was for summary judgment for the plaintiffs. And that's what vacated the entirety of the final rule. That is, in fact, appealable and could go itself up to the Supreme Court. But all the Supreme Court decided and all the Fifth Circuit decided was whether or not the stay should proceed as appeals on the summary judgment went up. Is that clear? So basically, right, there's still litigation to be had on the issue of whether the rule should be vacated, but all that was decided by the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court was rather the rule should stay in effect during that appeals process. Understood. So the Fifth Circuit has not ruled on the facts of the case or the merits of the case,

however you want to say it yet. They've only ruled on whether or not this injunction should stand. Correct. Okay. That makes perfect sense. Thank you for clarifying that. Before I let you go, we were talking a little before we started recording. And I said to you that there was a question I was going to ask, but I was afraid it sounded too flipping. But I am going to ask it because, you know, in talking to you, I don't think it's flippant. And it has to do with the name of these things. the fact that they're called ghost guns. And obviously, you didn't name them. This is not on you. But to me, I hear the term ghost guns and facts aside, everything else, I'm like, you know what? If I were 17 years old, I would say to myself, that sounds really cool. I want to make one of those.

And I think is there a way we can change the name so they're not appealing to, you know, young people or whatever, change it to cringe guns or something like that? Yeah, well, you know, there's no doubt that the branding of ghost guns, you know, was meant to make it sound cool, was meant to appeal to those that are, you know, on the edge of legality. And it sounds very special opsie. And when I gave testimony in front of the Senate, Judiciary Committee on Ghost Guns before this was such a widely used term, we were challenged in the room as the gun safety groups coming up with a scary term, trying to be. to scare people into doing something about this. And this is very much not a product of our branding, but the industries that is trying to sell more guns. ATF prefers personally made firearm, PMFs, which sounds dull enough, I think. So we can go with that. But the flip side of it is, right, is that for reasonable members of the public and policymakers, right, like they can see that the branding here is really inviting the very conduct that we're seeing, which is it's untraceable,

it's spooky, it's appealing to criminals and extremists and those who want to avoid the law. And so in that sense, Ghost Guns is helpful to sort of sound the alarm on these firearms. But not my term. We can try PMFs out and see where we get with that. All right. No love for cringe guns, I take it. not today, not today. Okay, all right. Nick, thanks so much for being here and explaining this.

This was really useful and really important information to know. Nick Soplina, thank you so much. Thank you. Danielle Moody. Andy Levy. Danielle, close us out with a top-notch, fuck that guy for the week. It's probably a name that most people do not know. But just to remind folks that Donald Trump and the Republican Party, they only surround themselves with the best people.

The party that talks about the LGBTQ community and grooming and pedophiles seems to be chopped full of them. According to the AP, a formerly well-connected GOP donor by the name of Anton Tony Lazaro was found guilty in March by a federal jury of seven counts involving commercial sex acts with five girls. Get this. Get this. Get their ages, folks. 15 and 16 in 2020 when Luzaro was 30. Like I needed to know this motherfucker's age. I really did not. No.

But I want to remind folks, I think he has received 21 years in prison. I guess the 21 was to remind him of the age of women he should be trying to have sex with. But 21 years in prison. And I just want to remind folks that a couple of weeks ago, Andy, we were on here and playing a clip of Nick Fuentes talking about grooming 16-year-old girls that was aired on his show about why you should look to date well below your age. And then you have this man now go into jail for sex offenses against minors. This is part and parcel of the Republican Party. They think that this shit is okay.

It is just, it's absolutely disgusting and wild and gross. And every time they talk about groomers and pedophiles, I want people to remember that there is, I mean, page after page, name after name of Republican donors, Republican affiliates who have been convicted of these types of heinous crimes. And you know what's funny? most of them just like Anton Tony Lazaro have photos with guess who Donald Trump. So for that reason and all of the reasons, fuck this nasty, disgusting guy. Yeah, I don't have much to add to this.

This is just so gross and not a shock that they would all have pictures next to Donald Trump who basically talked this way about his own daughter. Correct. Yeah. Ew. So, Andy, I don't know, can you dig to the bottom of the barrel and find somebody worse? Well, I mean, I'm going to go with an old standby. And that is the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis.

And I know we harp on him and we pick him so often. But what he did on Wednesday, and this is the second time he's done it now, he has suspended a state attorney named Monique Warrel for what he. He calls neglect of duty and incompetence, and you can translate that as she's a Democrat. And it is just absolutely unbelievable that he keeps getting away with this. This is twice now. What he's doing is overturning the will of the people. She was elected with, she is in the Orlando area.

She was elected with 66% of the vote elected her to that position. And he woke up and realized that his presidential campaign was floundering. and that he needed to do something to appease the base. So what better thing to do than attack a black woman? You know, I mean, it just really worked out perfectly for him. There is a provision in the Florida Constitution that says the governor can remove an elected official for various reasons, including habitual drunkenness, malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, incompetence, none of which apply to her.

But unfortunately, I guess those words are open-ended enough that it basically means the Florida governor can do this to anybody he wants to. He did this before with another state attorney. This guy, it was ruled by a federal judge that DeSantis had acted unconstitutionally here. But the judge also said, I have to dismiss this case because I don't have the power to intervene in this state matter. And then the state Supreme Court just went ahead and threw the case out completely. So it's not looking good for Worell. She did have a great quote, though, after she found out about this, she said, I am a duly elected state attorney for the ninth judicial circuit. And nothing done by a weak dictator can change that.

Oh, yeah. She nailed it. That's a perfect description of him. He is a weak dictator. And he is a weak man in general. And when you're a weak man, you are drawn to being a dictator because it makes you feel good about yourself. And so it is just a really, really great description from her. And unfortunately, yeah, again, I don't know what can be done about it, but something has to be done about people like this.

And it goes about saying this guy should not be allowed even to enter the White House for any reason whatsoever, let alone be elected to it. He's just, he's a bad dude. And it all stems. And again, she nailed it perfectly. It all stems from the fact that he is an incredibly weak man. So fuck that guy. He's a little, little, little man. A little meatball rob.

Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of The New Abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at thedailybeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover

what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.