The Daily Beast Podcast - The DOJ Is Coming for Donald Trump Quicker Than Ever

Episode Date: February 17, 2023

On this week’s episode of The New Abnormal, MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner talks about Trump's latest legal jeopardy. Plus, The Lever’s Julia Rock gives us some less discussed details of the Ohio train derailment. 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.

MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirshner will join us to talk about Trump's latest legal jeopardy, including what to make of Fannie Willis recommending charges. Then we'll talk to Lever News, Julia Rock, who's going to give us some less discussed details of the Ohio train derailment. But first, let's have some fun. Well, Andy, it is another. glorious day in America where we have multiple mass shootings in a week. And, you know, at this point, I feel like every week we are talking about mass shootings in America. What makes what happened in Michigan even more disgusting and alarming, which we won't dig into because we've said everything there is to say. This is the America that the right wing wants, that the NRA wants, that their rights Trump everyone else is,

is that there was a young woman who gave a heartbreaking interview that this was the second time that she was under a desk sending her final text messages to family and friends that she loved them because she has experienced two school mass shootings in her life. I can't be even more disgusted than I already am, that there are people that have the ability to do something and they're just going to continue to do absolutely nothing.

And then, oh, another mass shooting. shooting at a mall in El Paso, Texas, where we see on security feeds people running for their lives. But that's just part for the course, I guess, to shop in America. It is absolutely unreal that we are now in the era of the second mass shooting for some of these kids. And, you know, you mentioned Emma Riddle, I think, was the one who tweeted that it was 14 months after this Oxford High School shooting in, I think, East Lansing, Michigan. And she tweeted that again, like you said, she's sitting under her desk at Michigan State. And there was another girl who had been also in the same two shootings.

And it's just unbelievable. The other girl's mom said, I'd never expected in my lifetime to have to experience two school shootings. And then she said, there's several kids there that are daughters friends with that are going through the same thing. So we're now at the point where it's bad enough. We've got an entire generation that has to deal with school shootings. we've now got, you know, multiple people who are living through, I mean, thank God, they're living through

them, but who are having to experience more than one school shooting. And it's just, like he said, there's nothing more to say about this, unfortunately, that we haven't said on this podcast, and that millions of Americans haven't said over and over again that this shit needs to stop, and there needs to be something done, and nothing ever gets done. And at best, we get little, tiny, you know, tick-tack things like bump stocks and stuff like that that sort of get banned. And the ultimate tool never gets banned. The assault rifle never gets banned and it never even gets made harder to get, let alone banned.

And we're just going to keep being here. And we know that. And it's going to be one of those things where we could talk about a mass shooting, unfortunately, probably every week on this podcast, a new mass shooting. And it's just, it's such a sad state of affairs. but what else can we say? I mean, maybe if you put a book at the end of the rifle, maybe it'll get banned. So there's that.

Yeah, seriously. So in other news of things that I wish were banned, but not, Nikki Haley has decided to announce her lackluster run for the presidency in the Open Republican primary. And lo and behold, I woke up to text messages saying, congratulations, Danielle. And I said, on what at 7.50 a.m. And it was the acknowledgement that I was one of the black faces that were used to talk about how wokeness is the biggest threat to America as Nikki Haley decided as the brown skin Karen to announce that racism and freedom are fucking made up by people like myself, the 1619 Project, AOC,

and whoever else was in her video montage against anti-wokeness. And I got to tell you that Nikki Haley to me is the fucking worst of the worst. And it is because she only uses her brown skin when it's convenient and has been that person that loves her proximity to white supremacy, that loves her proximity to patriarchy, that loves to be the token. Oh, you know, racism can't possibly exist because look at me. I was governor. Racism can't possibly exist because it doesn't happen to me.

Funny enough, it was one of her Republican colleagues that called her an awful, disgusting, derogatory name a couple of years ago. I won't repeat because I'm not a piece of shit. But those are her constituents. That's who she's going after. So I, for one, cannot wait until all of these white men that she's been sucking up to and standing next to decide to turn on her in her climb to. the White House. What I found really interesting was that in her little announcement speech where she talked about how basically there's no racism in America, one of the things she did not tout is how she led the movement to take down the Confederate flag from the South Carolina State House

after the church shooting. Mother Emmanuel. Yeah. And I thought it was interesting that she didn't tout that. But of course, what she knows and what she's definitely going to find out again during this primary is that taking down the Confederate flag is not going to be a net gain for her in today's Republican Party. And there's a reason she didn't bring it up in her announcement or touted as one of her achievements because she knows damn well that there's going to be a sizable number of Republican primary voters who think that it was absolutely awful that she did that. And again, the irony of her sitting there and claiming that there's no racism in America is just, it's, I hate to say it's delicious because she's going to get eaten by that same racism.

Here's hoping. Here's fucking open. Yeah. There was a brief period when she was the ambassador to the UN when I thought, I actually remember saying this on CNN or HLN when I was over there, that I thought she had a chance to be one of the few, if not the only member of the Trump administration that actually came out looking better than she did when she went in. And then she quickly dispelled that, like, not long after that. And I felt really bad for having said that. I think it was when,

I think it was when Trump did his shithole country thing. She kind of pushed back against that a little bit, maybe. But no, it didn't last long. And now she's obviously getting questions about why she's running against Trump. She always said she'd never run against him. And she won't say anything bad about him. No, no. She won't talk about any policy differences she has with him. She went on the air and said that he could easily pass a competency test. She is very clearly lacks the fortitude to stand up to him at all. And it's going to be really interesting to see if that is one of the main takeaways from whatever Republican primary there is, if anyone is going to take on Trump. DeSantis certainly hasn't yet. I mean, he's not a declared candidate. He's just the governor of Florida. So we'll have to wait and see.

But it's clearly not going to be Hallie. She has already signaled that she has not. not going to do that. And Trump, of course, then came out. And, you know, at first he was being sort of nice to her because he realizes she's no threat. But he's now come out and said that he did the voters of South Carolina a huge favor by making her the UN ambassador because it gave them a better governor, the person who replaced her. He also called her overly ambitious. Yeah. Which we also know is a insult that men in power use to keep women down. Of course, but I'm assuming that Nikki also thinks there's no sexism in America. So I didn't want to go there, Danielle. No, because she gets to wear high heels and she's going to kick things

into high gear with them. Exactly. So I don't want to burst her bubble, but even though you are obviously completely right, that all that is is male code. But yeah, she's in for, I think, a very rude awakening for however brief period of time she is a candidate for president. Yeah, I hope Nimrata, Haley, does as well as to be expected in this Republican primary. And, And, you know, I think that I forget who says this quote. I know Jesse or you will tell me who says it. But there is a special place in hell for women of color that use the backs of other women of color in order to rise in the world of white supremacy and patriarchy.

And there is a special place in hell for Nimrata. Yeah. And she is going to learn very quickly, in addition to the racism, she's going to face and the sexism. She's also going to face religious bigotry in her. Republican primary, and she does not tend to play up her origins. I believe she was sick, and she doesn't play that up too much because she knows. And so I keep saying she's getting to be in for a rude awakening, except she's not, because she knows, in her heart, she knows all that stuff is real and all that stuff exists and all that stuff is pervasive among

Republican voters. So it's just sort of like she can pretend they don't exist and she can give speeches, acting like those things don't exist, but we're going to see firsthand evidence of it during her actual campaign. I think that she really just wants Republican voters to think that she's just really tan, you know, that she just had a really good, she had a really good winter vacation. And hopefully they'll ignore everything else. Hiltlet's a really clear beach. I should point out, I just want to sort of self-correct a little bit. Her parents, parents are Sikh, and she converted to Christianity. But I don't think that's going to make a difference to a large swat of Republican voters.

Bigotry doesn't have nuance. Yeah, exactly. We know that. Cross-stitch, that's saying. She's about to find out the bad side of intersectionality, which is that the racists are also the sexists or also the religious bigots. Yeah. Speaking of the possibility of chickens coming home. to Roost, which we sort of were.

Jamie Raskin, who is the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, has renewed a request to Jared Kushner because I believe the first request was never replied to for documents pertaining to how he managed to get $2 million from a Saudi investment fund and looking into whether he improperly traded on his government work for his own financial interests. This is all being reported in the Washington Post. and Raskin wants Kushner to identify all the foreign investors in his company. And again, so far Kushner has declined to provide any of this information. And so, you know, it's kind of interesting in a world where the Republicans are so fixated on Hunter Biden

and trying to turn Joe Biden into the head of the Biden crime family, which is a phrase that always just cracks me up. Once again, we are shown that everything they do is projection and that there was an actual crime family in the White House under the rubric of the Republican Party. And that was the Trump family, which includes Jared Kushner. And boy, there's just so much shady shit that I feel like could come out. I don't know if it ever will, but it would be amazing if it did. Let's just look at the evidence, shall we, which I know, again, that no one likes to look at. Jared Kushner received national security clearance after the Department of Justice didn't want to give him national security clearance, was pressured by Donald Trump to provide that clearance, and then walks out of that administration with not one billion dollars, but two billion dollars from MBS. So I just like, don't talk to me about a motherfucking laptop and what you hypothetically think is on there when we have actual evidence that Jared Kushner was using Intel that he received while being a part of his father-in-law's administration in order to create and wheel and deal with the fucking Saudis.

Like, are we dumb here? the projection from the Trump administration and Republicans on the Bidens is on like, I mean, we should just have people on from psychology today to really unpack the fuckery here of like projection on a level unbeknownst in any DSM-4 book. I'm so tired of the Hunter Biden bullshit when we know that this family is in fact a crime family. Yeah. There's so much evidence of the Trump administration being in bed with MBS, not endorsing the CIA report that MBS was behind the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, among many other things. And then, I mean, boy, you couldn't have a more quid pro quo looking thing than the Trump's doing that for MBS and then MBS giving Jared Kushner

$2 billion for his fund. It is absolutely unbelievable. And as you said, the Republicans are so luridly fascinated with Hunter Biden dickpicks that that's you know it's it's just unbelievable they're like the pictures of Hunter Biden with a prostitute are to them of more national security interest than Jared Kushner playing footsie under the table with the Saudi government and it's absolutely unreal this is DSM 7 stuff like this is not even the next edition can cope with this it's going to have to be several more editions before psychiatrists can even wrap their head around all the shit that has gone on here, I think. And you know what's so amazing about these people is that, you know, you're right. Dick picks and blowjobs to them are the real offenses in America.

These are the same people that went after Clinton. Like, we need to impeach him because he had a blowjob in the White House. But my God, you put together an insurrection and decide to overthrow the government and people have flags with your names on them, beaten police officers, that's just normal, regular everyday shit in America. But like, if you were to have sex, then my God, something needs to be done. Books and sex are what this party goes after. But guns and insurrections, they're like a-okay. It's so bizarre.

It's 2023 and they are absolutely terrified of non-procreative sex. This is the shit that's supposed to be in history books. This is the shit that we're supposed to read about, well, this is how people used to be, you know, hundreds of years ago. And it's like, no, this is what they're like now. And it's just absolutely unbelievable. And it's not going away, and they're getting louder and louder about it. And you mentioned the books, and it's not a coincidence that, you know, a lot of the books that they don't like portray, if not actual sexual encounters, they portray relationships between people who have non-procreative sex.

It absolutely terrifies them that someone somewhere might be having a good time in bed. And I don't know if it speaks to their abilities or lack their up. Oh, we know what it speaks to, Andy. In those spheres, but they're just so scared of people having a good time. Why Tucker Carlson needs to do documentaries on tanning testicles and masculinity. That's where we are. I know. I am super excited to welcome to the new abnormal.

My friend, MSNBC legal analyst, host of Justice Matters, Glenn Kirchner, who is a 30-year former federal prosecutor. And Glenn, it's a week where we have actually some news that makes me feel like I'm not losing all hope in the possibility that Donald Trump, who has had, I don't even know how many cases the man has had opened against him, but has never been held accountable for any crime that he is committed. So I want to get your reactions first with Jack Smith, the special counsel that was appointed by Merrick Garland a couple of months ago. we learned about this and you and I discussed it. But now it seems that Jack Smith is going after Trump attorneys with regard to client attorney privilege. If you can break that down for us and understand why Jack Smith would take those steps. Yeah. So it might not be all that impressive or exciting to folks who don't operate in or haven't lived in the criminal justice system for decades. But I think in legal circles, it probably registers about a nine on the legal Richter scale

when prosecutors subpoena to appear before the grand jury, the attorneys that are representing the target of the investigation, the person that they are seeking to indict. So Donald Trump is the target. We know that. And prosecutors are putting the target's lawyers before the grand jury to talk about what they know regarding Donald Trump's classified documents, crimes. The reason that's so kind of earth-shaking in the legal world is because there is an attorney-client privilege. So usually it would be pointless for prosecutors to subpoena the attorney of the target of the investigation, because that

attorney could just say, attorney-client privilege, can I leave now? But here's the thing. It looks like Jack Smith has evidence suggesting Donald Trump. was having his lawyers commit crimes for him. Now, whether that was knowingly or unknowingly, on behalf of the lawyers, wittingly or unwittingly, we don't know. But there have been some legal filings and some legal wrangling that suggests Jack Smith is trying to pierce the veil of the attorney-client privilege. And if Donald Trump was providing false information to his lawyers, Evan Corcoran and Christina Bob, telling them, listen, just fill out these certifications saying we gave it all over.

I have no classified documents in my possession anymore. And they did that, and that was false information. It was fraudulent information. Indeed, it was criminal information because it would have been in violation of a grand jury subpoena that was issued to get Donald Trump to give over all the documents. Well, then his lawyers can be forced to testify about that. They can basically incriminate their own.

client and prove that he was involved in obstruction of justice. Some of the revelations we've gotten in recent days include that Christina Bob has already testified before the grand jury, that Evan Corcoran has already testified before the grand jury, but he apparently asserted some attorney client privileges, and now Jack Smith is trying to defeat those privileges with the crime fraud exception, saying no, Donald Trump was having you commit crimes either with him, or for him, and therefore you can be forced by the judge to testify about that information. Let me dig in here with some clarifying points. Is the assertion then that we can make based on the maneuverings that Jack Smith is doing that you believe that he would have evidence then

that Donald Trump's attorneys have committed crimes on his behalf? That's question number one. Yes, and committed crimes on his behalf, but that doesn't mean the attorneys are complicit or knew that Donald Trump was feeding them false and fraudulent information. So the crime fraud exception can involve one of two things. Either the attorney and the client doing crime together, for example, as part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice, or it can be just the client committing crime, and using the attorney unwittingly in furtherance of the commission. So what I am not suggesting is that Evan Corkren was necessarily complicit in any of the crimes of Donald Trump.

I know Evan, I worked with him. I had a case in common with him many years ago when he was at the DC U.S. Attorney's Office. So I would only suggest that, you know, the evidence shows he committed a crime if we saw that evidence. But we're not there yet. All we know is that Jack Smith is apparently alleged. that Donald Trump committed a crime. He used his lawyer in furtherance of that crime. So the lawyer can be forced to testify.

Now, we know that Donald Trump only surrounds himself with the best people. And I say that in complete and total, just with the deepest of eye rolls. What is the assumption here that these lawyers who understand their role, the law, how to protect their client, but also, you know, protect their ability to do their job and not break the law. Because in my mind, it's kind of a slim percentage that they were unwitting, that they had no idea what was going on because we all know who Donald Trump is. We also know that he changes lawyers the way that most people change socks.

Yeah. There is that humorous line. Trust me, I'm a lawyer. Yes. And let's face it, Donald Trump has surrounded himself with lots of crooked lawyers. Now, I think we only need to look at guys like John Eastman. and Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, right? When Donald Trump turned to John Eastman as one of his lawyers to try to come up with this fake

elector scheme to try to corruptly overturn the results of a presidential election, saying that John Eastman is a crooked, corrupt, and criminal lawyer is not my opinion. Well, yes, it is my opinion, but it's not just my opinion because a federal judge ruled that Donald Trump, together with his lawyer, John Eustman, Eastman committed two federal felonies. They obstructed the official congressional proceedings, the certification of Joe Biden's win, and they were in a conspiracy to commit crimes against or defraud the United States. So there is a prime example of how one of Donald Trump's own lawyers was involved in criminal conduct with Donald Trump. Okay. So we know that these are the moves that Jack Smith is

making that have become public. Is there anything else that we can kind of surmise from these movements where Jack Smith is headed? And what, if any, timeline on his investigation do we see? Yeah, my magic eight ball is in the shop for repairs. I wish, I only wish I had it here so I could predict the timeline. Here's what I will say, just as it seems like the Department of Justice couldn't get out of its own way for two years and didn't seem to make any progress. on the insurrection investigation, since November 18th when Jack Smith was appointed, I don't think you can reasonably argue that Jack Smith has been dragging his heels. He's been going 100 miles an hour. I mean, not only is he putting Trump lawyers in the grand jury,

he subpoenaed a vice president, former vice president, he subpoenaed Mark Meadows. Today there was reporting that he is fighting eight legal battles. Eight cases are being fought and litigated by Jack Smith right now before Chief Judge Beryl Howell in the federal district court. She's the one who has supervisory responsibility over the grand jury. He's fighting eight grand jury battles right now as we speak, trying to obtain incriminating evidence against Donald Trump. I don't think anybody can say he is not moving quickly. So that gives me some hope that we could see indictments in, let's just say, the coming months. Of course, I think we're going to, we're likely to see indictments out of Georgia long before we're likely to see federal indictments,

but, you know, that's another topic. All right. Before we head down to Georgia, you know, on the Jack Smith front, we know that right now, as you'd mention, Mike Pence has been subpoenaed. Mike Pence has written a book. Mike Pence has gone on a book tour saying a lot of things about the day of the insurrection when he decided not to get into his motorcade for what reasons we still don't. know, except for the fact that he didn't know the guy, didn't trust the driver, which leads us to believe that, oh, if it's a Trump person, I didn't trust them. So he is now on the heels of potentially announcing a lackluster run for the presidency in 2024 is battling Jack Smith and saying,

I'm using privilege, I'm using, what is it, debate and speech as a way to not show up for his subpoena. Can you explain that and the kind of maneuvers that former vice president Mike Pence is using to stay out of quote unquote trouble? Yeah, I wish I could explain the Mike Pence maneuvers, but I can't explain the inexplicable. Mike Pence is the smallest and most cowardly man in America. Mike Pence was not only a witness to Donald Trump's crimes, because in a very real sense, Donald Trump was urging Mike Pence to violate federal statutes. He was pressuring him. He was threatening him, trying to get him to violate the Electoral Count Act, trying to get him to obstruct the official congressional proceedings. And when you are threatening a government official to violate the law and to decline to perform his official governmental duties, you are committing a crime. Mike Pence has direct evidence that Donald, Trump committed crimes. Not to mention, Mike Pence is actually a victim of Donald Trump's crimes because when Mike Pence refused to join Donald Trump's conspiracy, when he refused to throw the

election to Donald Trump by declining to certify Joe Biden's win, Donald Trump sent a tweet out to his angry mob that was in the process of attacking the Capitol saying, Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what I told him to do. And they tried to do. and they tried to kill him. They were attempting Hank Pence. Mike Pence is a witness to Donald Trump's crimes. Mike Pence is a victim of Donald Trump's crimes. And yet he's still covering up the criminal behavior of Donald Trump

by refusing to testify about it, claiming he used to be a member of the executive branch as vice president. Now he's saying, oh, but I'm also a senator and or congressman. I'm a member of the legislative branch because for that, you know, one day I'm asked to preside over the ceremonial opening of the envelopes, and we count the electoral college votes. We already know what the tally would be, Mike. But because of that, I'm also a member of Congress who enjoys speech or debate clause protection

so I can never be asked about, well, if that's true, which it's not, Mike, but if it is true, that just means you can't be asked about what you did on that day. But let's set that aside because next maybe Mike Pence is going to tell us he's also a member of the judiciary. I don't know, right? Let's make it the trifecta. I'm a member of all of the co-equal branches of government. Mike Pence is the smallest, most cowardly man in America because he is hiding evidence that a president tried to overturn the election and tried to corruptly criminally and unconstitutionally retain the power of the presidency. And Mike Pence is a. assisting him, yet Mike Pence laid it all out in a book and on TV. I mean, how despicable is all of that? Mike Pence is all the things and more that you just laid out. And the fact is, is that he thinks that by telling the American people the truth and actually showing some backbone and some merit, that he is going to be able to, what, gain the support from Trump's followers to run for president? it's laughable at best, right?

It's laughable at best because these are the same people, like you said, wanted to bill the gallows to hang him for not trying to rewrite the Constitution so that Donald Trump could remain president of the United States and overturn a free and fair election. With the few minutes that we have left, Glenn, tell us what is happening with the release of five pages of the grand jury report down in Georgia, the case that Fannie Willis is pushing forward, what do we need to know about that?

It's a highly redacted few pages that were released, but what's in there is pretty darn important and compelling, and it sends a clear signal that indictments are coming. Fawnie Willis will be my hero. She will go down in history books as being the only one willing to do the hard work of saving our democracy by taking. a risk and indicting a former president for the crimes he inarguably committed. So they released a few pages of the special grand jury's report. And we learned a few things. We learned that they presented more than 75 witnesses to the special grand jury. These are people who desperately did not

want to testify. That's why they needed a special grand jury to compel them to testify. We learned that the grand jury unanimously decided there was no election fraud. That is a a beautiful springboard. And it's a springboard that when they unredact the rest of this will lead us right into why they are recommending that a number of people be indicted for violating Georgia state law because the evidence was overwhelming that there was no election fraud. So when Donald Trump said, just find me 11,780 votes, it wasn't based on a belief that there was election fraud, it was based on Donald Trump's determination to steal an election, to solicit election fraud, which technically is one of the names of the Georgia state charges.

And before I get to the, I think the biggest reveal, which is about the grand jury concluding that one or more witnesses lied to them and urging Fawney Willis to indict the liars. That's a beautiful thing. I'll talk about that in a second. There's another sentence that hasn't gotten a lot of play. This is a report from the special purpose grand jury, and we set forth for the court our recommendations on indictments and relevant statutes, including the votes by the grand jurors. This includes the votes, respective to each topic indicated in a yea, nay, abstain format throughout. They're announcing in those two sentences, Danielle, we have recommended people be indicted for their crimes, and then, Unfortunately, the rest is redacted. So several pages when they are released, or more precisely, when Fawney Willis has the grand jury actually

issue public indictments, will show exactly who the special grand jury said must be indicted based on the evidence. And then let me finish up with the liars. Because anytime somebody goes into a grand jury and lies, that's a beautiful thing. We don't encourage it. we don't embrace it. I would argue until I'm blue in the face with every witness that I put before the grand jury if I knew they were going to lie or I sensed they were going to lie. I would say, I can promise you if you lie to my grand jury. I will ask the grand jury to consider indicting you

for perjury, for obstructing justice because you lied and obstructed the grand jury's investigation, for accessory after the fact because your lie will have the effect of helping the target of the investigation, get away with his crimes, and I'll probably consider you for a conspiracy, because you're probably talking with others about lying to protect the target. I promise you I will do all of that. So when they went in and lied, Danielle, it was a beautiful thing because now I had leverage. Now I could charge them with everything. I promised I would charge them with. I can flip them. I can turn them into cooperating witnesses against the defendant. And, you know, the lies ended up, you know, hurting them, hurting the defendant, but helping the American people

and helping the cause of justice. So I love the fact that the grand jury in Georgia concluded that one or more people lied to them. I mean, here's the thing, Glenn. We've been talking about this for, you know, years at this point. And my only hope from these revelations that have come out this week is that we are actually moving. There is movement. There isn't just the appearance of an attempt to hold people accountable for their crimes, namely Donald Trump and all of his co-conspirators, but that there's actually movement to do so. And maybe both Georgia and the federal government will come colliding at the same time. I know that we've spoken before about who goes first, and I'm wondering if this isn't a signal that these things are all coming together quite spectacularly.

I'll give you the last word. Yeah, they might be. And this is not a legal argument. that I'm going to spit out here. But I hope once Fawney Willis takes the lead and indicts Trump, and I really do believe, especially given the release of this report, that it's going to happen, and it's going to happen soon, I hope to hell DOJ has her back. And what I mean by that is, no, DOJ doesn't indict cases to atmospherically assist or support other prosecutors who have indicted cases against the same target. But we know that DOJ has had the goods on Donald Trump for a very long time. And in my opinion, they've been too slow and too timid when it comes to pulling the trigger and actually indicting the man. I hope they realize that the heat that will come

down on Fawney Willis and her team, her prosecutors, her office will be significant. And I hope DOJ says, you know what, we've been waiting, you know, a very long time to indict. Donald Trump, let's do it. And they begin. They don't have to indict him on everything. Just give us a handful of indictments on the classified documents crimes and keep investigating the insurrection if you need to. But you know what? Let's have the prosecutors backs nationwide and let's all of the jurisdictions that are investigating Donald Trump consider pulling the trigger and indicting him because he committed the crimes and they've got the goods on him. All right. Glenn Kirshner, I appreciate you. immensely and your insight. Folks, check out his show, Justice Matters. Follow Glenn if you're not

following him on Twitter to stay up to date on all things legal and all things Donald Trump. Hope to have you back on the new abnormal soon, friend. Thank you. Thanks, Daniel. Nothing is more abnormal than the rise of the radical right. Fever Dreams is a daily beast podcast taking you inside the rights push to retake power from the maga acolytes to the straight up grifters. They recently released their 100th episode, so there's no better time to listen. Head to beast. pub slash fever dreams to check it out. The February 3rd derailment of a Norfolk Southern train carrying volatile and noxious chemicals

near the town of East Palestine, Ohio, is only now beginning to get the coverage it deserves from outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post. But one outlet that was on this horrific story much earlier is The Lever. And joining me now is one of their journalists, Julia Rock. Julia, thank you for joining us. Thanks so much for having me on. So there are obviously a bunch of facets to this story, first and foremost being the health and safety of the residents of East Palestine who have shared their anger at a town hall meeting

Tuesday night that Norfolk Southern declined to attend, citing fears for the safety of its employees. But another important aspect is the political and economic decisions that led almost inevitably to this derailment. And you, along with Rebecca Barnes and others at the lever, have done great work on that aspect. So I want to focus on that. It all starts in 2014, doesn't it, with the Obama administration trying to get stricter safety regulations for trains carrying hazardous materials? Yeah.

So at that time, you know, the Obama administration was watching things happen like this massive derailment in Quebec in 2013 that had left 47 people dead, sort of increasing derailments of crude oil trains and other hazmat trains in the U.S. They decided they were going to attempt to institute some stricter safety rules. rules governing these trains carrying hazardous materials. And they got some stricter regulations through, but they ended up having to be watered down, am I right? Yeah.

So at the time, the administration proposed a somewhat narrow rule that was primarily focused on crude oil and the safety regulations that were going to be implemented and involved things like speed limits on trains, retrofits for tanks carrying crude oil, and improved braking systems on trains. One thing that happened at the time was the National Transportation Safety Board, which is the federal investigative agency that comes in after transportation accidents to figure out what happened and make recommendations. Urge the Obama administration to adopt a very broad definition of what constitutes a high hazard flammable train.

They urge for a definition that would have included vinyl chloride, which is the chemical that was being carried on the train that derailed in East Palestine. The Obama administration ignored that. recommendation. They were also under pressure from lobbyists in the chemical industry to keep the rule very narrow, which created a situation where the train that just derailed in East Palestine was actually not being regulated as a high hazard flammable train. So the other thing that happened during that rulemaking was the finalized Obama rule included sort of the main thing the railroad industry had not wanted, which was a requirement that these trains upgrade their

airbreaking systems and replace them with electronically controlled pneumatic brakes. and these are breaks that can reduce stopping distances on trains, which is sort of aimed at preventing derailments. And if a derailment does happen, they can also prevent the type of situation where you have different train cars basically crashing into one another, leaving them punctured. But this provision of the rule was later repealed by Trump. Well, that's what I want to talk about. In 2017, the Trump administration after lobbying by the rail companies, including Norfolk Southern, of course, they rolled back this part of the regulations that the Obama White House did manage to get.

through concerning these electronically controlled pneumatic breaks or ECP breaks, as I've been learning about all week. So as you sort of mentioned, these breaks, from what I've read, might have actually stopped or at least reduced the severity of this derailment. Yeah. So that's what we were told by rail workers as well as former federal railroad administration employees, administrators, is that these electronically controlled pneumatic breaks would have sort of massively reduced the damages caused by this derailment. And so sort of it's helpful to understand how the brakes work. The air brakes functionally stop trains one car at a time because they stop them using an air pressure signal that sort of runs through a pipe along the train, whereas the ideal with the

ECP brakes is that it can stop all the train cars simultaneously. This was a very long train that derailed. It was over a mile long. It was sort of made up in a way that workers generally know to be dangerous, which is that heavier cars were put behind empty cars. So part of the idea behind these ECP brakes is not just that they stop the train more quickly during an emergency stop, which is what had happened with the East Palestine train, but also that they stop all of the cars simultaneously. So you don't get what I'm assuming is like the accordion effect of the front cars stopping and the rear car is continuing to move at speed.

Exactly. Yeah, there was some industry insider had told the Washington Post anonymously in 2016 that trains are like slinkies. And I think that's sort of the best analogy I've heard for thinking about why these brakes are necessary. Yeah, that's perfect. So one of the things I read in your reporting, which boggled my mind, was that the rail companies, again, including Norfolk Southern, were originally in favor of these ECP breaks. So what changed their minds and does it rhyme with Moffins?

Yeah, you're exactly right. So I think it was in 2007 Norfolk Southern equipped one of its trains with ECP brakes. It sort of bragged about being the first rail company America to do it, and it bragged about how these breaks could reduce stopping distances by up to 60%. And then in the 2010s, they turn around and try to fight these Obama rules. And what people told us was basically, this is the buyback era of the railroads. So during the 2010s, they're under pressure from Wall Street to, you know, return all of their profits to shareholders, not invest them in their workforces, in safety features like ECP breaks.

And so they were not, even though, you know, they knew the brakes would make the train safer and maybe even lead to long-term cost savings, they were unwilling to pony up to install the brakes on their trains. That's absolutely unreal. And you mentioned earlier one of the other big issues here, and that is what exactly qualifies as a high hazard flammable train. That makes a difference in terms of how the train is regulated. Before I read this, I would have assumed that a train such as the Norfolk Southern one, which had 20 cars full of hazardous materials, including flammable chemicals. would qualify as a high hazard flammable train, but I learned that I'm very stupid because it doesn't qualify. Do I seem stupid?

How is this possible? Well, yeah, so we've all seen the pictures of the train on fire. So it certainly was a flammable train. One of these former regulators said to us, it just completely defies logic that this was not being regulated as a high hazard flammable train. And so, yeah, there are some sort of additional restrictions that are attached to trains,

which do have this classification, such as they're required to make disclosures about what chemicals are on board. So there was the situation in East Palestine where first responders weren't immediately aware of what chemicals this train was carrying. And if it was being regulated as a high hazard flammable train, that would have already been disclosed. Those trains also have stricter speed limits and are required to have certain tank retrofits aimed at safety.

Amazing. And before the Trump era rollback, it was the high hazard flammable trains. that were required to have the ECPs? Exactly. And of course, the thinking being, you know, that a derailment with highly hazardous, flammable materials is obviously a much higher stakes derailment. Yeah, obviously. Well, you would think, obviously. All right. So let's talk about the Biden administration's response to what happened. What has it been, and in your estimation, has it been adequate?

We've got Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg tweeting, quote, we're constrained by law on some areas of rail regulation, like the breaking rule withdrawn by the Trump administration in 2018 because of a law passed by Congress in 2015. So Secretary Buttigieg seems to basically be saying here, you know, there's only so much I can do, my hands are tied. This is a congressional thing. Is that accurate or are there things the administration could be doing on its own through federal railroad administration or any other regulatory bodies?

So on the break rules in particular, you know, after Pete, We did that. We called like four law professors who are experts in administrative law, some former federal railroad administration officials, some other people who are experts on executive branch rulemaking. And they all said, no, obviously Pete can do this rule. He's referring to the fact that it was repealed under a cost benefit analysis, but, you know, that doesn't have any bearing on whether he could redo the ECP break rule. The spokespeople in the transportation department actually didn't even deny that they could redo this cost benefit analysis. So that, that, That was a dubious claim by Mayor Pete, but the broader point is, you know, that the Transportation

Department, which contains the Federal Railroad Administration, has pretty broad authority to issue regulations that make train saviors. So there's one rule being considered right now, a two-man crew rule, which is, as it sounds, required two-man crews on trains. The Department of Transportation proposed a rule, but it hasn't moved to issue a final rule on that front yet. But there's a lot more that the transportation department could do that rail workers have been calling on them since day one to do to make the railroad safter. So there are other things like there's a, you know, a rule being considered about shipping liquefied natural gas on trains. There are rules being considered around fatigue management. So obviously a huge problem in the railroad industry

is that workforces have been slashed by nearly 30% over the past decade. And the federal railroad administration has really brought authority to issue rules ensuring that railroads aren't just completely exhausting their workforces. So there's quite a bit that can be done. Very little has been done so far by the Biden administration. And of course, I don't know if we know if this played any role in this derailment. But, you know, several months ago, we went through a whole thing where the railroad unions wanted to strike. And they were denied that ability by the Biden administration.

And one of the things that I learned back then was that, as you mentioned, the railroads have drastically cut their workforce. and their solution because they've made the trains longer, so they need fewer crews because I guess there's fewer actual trains. There's just trains that are longer now. And that also seems to be, you know, a safety issue. No, completely. I mean, the calculus on this train was that, you know, there were two Norfolk Southern employees and one trainee covering like nearly a mile

and a half or maybe it was over a mile and a half of train. I think anybody can probably imagine that that's a pretty crazy crew makeup. And yeah, you know, another thing that the unions wanted and didn't get in those contract negotiations was longer inspection times, which, you know, potentially could have played a role here because there was obviously a mechanical problem on the train that derailed that perhaps could have been caught in an inspection. I was told recently that inspection times have fallen from two minutes to something like 30 seconds on train cars. So you can obviously see how that's a safety issue. Wow. I started off this interview by calling this derailment, you know, almost inevitable.

And this is why, because it feels like we've been warned about things like this from the railway workers, from the railway unions. And we have not listened to those warnings. And the things they said were going to happen seem to be happening. Totally. I mean, it's sort of easy to imagine that there would be costs at some point for sort of slashing workforces, providing regulations, making the trains longer and heavier, not regulating the industry. You know, one thing that I've heard from rail workers reporting on this story is like what

is sort of terrifying is not this accident, but the many accidents that are waiting to happen that are certainly going to be much worse. Is this our future? You talked about the buyback era, and we've seen this in other transportation industries, particularly the airline industry, that in a company like Southwest doing stock buybacks instead of investing in updating its software. And we're seeing it with the railroads doing similar things, doing stock buybacks, and then deciding that the ECP breaks that they were for, they're now against because they'd rather do stock buybacks. Is this just our future? I mean, it's certainly the past.

It's certainly a trend over the past couple of decades as these industries have become financialized and all about enriching shareholders and having very little to do with the actual services they provide. But, you know, I mean, there's been congressional legislation. There's stuff that Biden could do through the SEC to limit or ban stock buybacks altogether. Obviously, if these industries were subject to strict or regulations, they'd be forced to make these investments because they're certainly not going to do so voluntary.

So I won't predict the future, but that certainly has been the trend and it's leading to accidents like this one. And what do you make of Republicans, like I know as you and other places reported, you have senators, you have J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio talking about whether these crews are too small. And you have Vance talking about raising issues of the quality of the breaking systems. Where were all these people when all of this deregulation was done when Trump did his rollbacks? I know Vance wasn't in the Senate. Marco Rubio certainly was. And where were they when the trains were slashing their workforces? I don't feel like they were too concerned about that stuff until there was a derailment in Ohio.

Yeah, they certainly seem to be seizing a political opportunity. And it's pretty wild, actually, to read, you know, a Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance press release calling for, like, stricter regulations on high-hazard flammable trains. I mean, I guess, you know, if there's a political opportunity here for bipartisan legislation to make the railroad safer, great for everybody. Sure. They're certainly not the heroes of this story and they were certainly, you know, cheering on Trump's efforts to deregulate every industry in America. Yeah. I mean, I think that sort of goes without saying. That's why it was just, as you said, it's absolutely wild to see them now talking about maybe we need more workers and better breaks, which is exactly

what the Republicans have been opposed to. Julia, thank you so much for joining us. Again, And you're doing great work along with your fellow journalists at the Lever covering this story. And you're really filling a gap that the New York Times and the Washington Post seem to be leaving wide open, unfortunately. So thank you again. Yeah, thanks a million for having me. This is great. Danielle Moody. Andy Levy.

So who is your fuck that guy for this glorious day? Oh, dear God. You know, every day in America feels like another day inside of Dante's Inferno. And Virginia, now being the center for that place, we've moved a little bit up from Florida, from my fuck that guy, to Glenn Yonkin, the Republican governor in Virginia. And why is that?

Well, according to reports, Glenn Yonkin basically has slocked an attempt to ban law enforcement from obtaining menstrual histories of women in the state. I just want to stop here for a moment for people to really allow that to just sink into them. Can you say that again?

Yes. The Republican governor of Virginia, Glenn Yonkin, appears, according to the Guardian, to have thwarted an attempt to stop law enforcement from obtaining menstrual histories of women in the state.

It is not enough for Republicans to overturn Roe v. Wade. It is not enough for them to upend abortion now in, states and for women and people with uteruses to have patchwork protections. Now, we are moving into criminalizing women where police officers who, by the way, aren't just a few bad apples, but a poisonous fucking orchard in this country, now are giving them access, right, that only your fucking OBGYN should have, which is your menstruation history. Now, you think to yourself,

self, why would police need this information? Well, I don't know. Maybe if you're a Republican governor that is going on a witch hunt and targeting trans people in your state, maybe if you are going after women to see whether or not that trip to New York was for vacation or for an abortion and you want to be able to have evidence in some type of way? No, folks, this is not the Middle East. This is not Iran. This is not Saudi Arabia. This is the good old U.S. of A, where if you have a uterus, you are now. a second or third class citizen because, you know, that you tend to drop down the ladder when we add in other identities, like being black or being Latinx, right, or being queer. This is so fucking reprehensible. It should be breaking news everywhere, Andy, but it isn't, right? Because there's just so much fuckery that we're allowing things that are happening state by state to women and people with uteruses to kind of go underneath the radar. This is an all-out assault and war that the right is waging against women.

We just had the fight in Florida to remove the optional question from girl athletes on putting in their latest menstrual history. They just had to take that to court in order to get that question removed from physical fitness tests. And now here we are in Virginia. When will it end? I don't think it will. until we're in full-fledged, handmaiden, tail. And then they start to say, oh, but this already passed as well. In another Midwestern place where women on the floor that are in their own state houses have to cover up, right?

Because clearly women show too much skin. But these are the same people that have the audacity to talk about Sharia law coming to the United States. And this is the hot shit that they are doing. Yeah, it's unreal. And the only thing I want to add is this seems like, you know, you said it's a war on people who have a uterus. I would argue that it's also a war on some people who might not have a uterus like trans women. Yep. And that this could be used in the same manner if they want to track transgendered athletes or whatever, they could look for information like this to say, like, well, you know, in their minds, this person isn't really a woman. It's ungodly. It's absolutely. unreal what they want to get away with. And you have a woman, unbelievable. From the Youngton's staff, she's telling the subcommittee that wanted to ban these kinds of warrants, she's saying, well, no, because this might be a future threat to the ability of law

enforcement to investigate crime. Bullshit. The crime of having or not having a period? Yeah. Tell me what the crime is here. I mean, it's absolutely unreal. And they do it because they can get away with it, which is unfortunate, but nobody's really stopping them. And that's the problem. Yeah, we need more outrage. And this is why Yonkin, the state of Virginia, Republicans in fucking general, are my forever fuck that guy. Yep. So, Andy, who's on your list today? Well, mine's a little more lighthearted than that. It's still bad. It's not on that level of absolute fuckery, as you said. Mine is CNN this morning anchor Don Lemon in a segment about Nikki Haley that involved one of the things that Haley has called for is mental competency tests for

politicians who are 75 or older, which again, she has assured people that Donald Trump could pass with no problem. She said that, and then Lemon said, you know, well, Nikki Haley isn't in her prime. Sorry, when a woman is in their prime, is in the 20s and 30s and maybe 40s. And Poppy Harlow, one of his co-anchors, was like, what the fuck did you just say? And he was like, well, that's not according to me. If you look it up, Google it. And he went on and on and on. This became a thing, as it should have.

More than one person pointed out that if a Fox News anchor had said something like this, CNN would be all over them, which is absolutely correct. Don Lemon is a jackass. And this is not the first time he's been a jackass. And yet he keeps getting rewarded for being a jackass. And he has since apologized. Oh, yes, I just saw. He said, the reference I made to a woman's prime this morning was inartful and irrelevant,

as colleagues and loved ones have pointed out, and I regret it. A woman's age doesn't define her either personally or professionally. I have countless women in my life who prove that every day. I'm guessing every one of those women read him the fucking riot act. And that's what led to the apology. But of course, Nikki Haley, wasting no time, is fundraising off of this. Hunter Walker from Talking Points memo sent out a, text he got from Haley saying, did you see what CNN's Don Lemon said?

He's going after Nikki Haley because blah, blah, blah. And then he said Nikki Haley isn't in her prime because she's a woman who's not in her 20s and 30s. The liberal media is completely out of touch and sexist. We need you to help push back. Chip in now. Yeah. It's an artful, right?

And tacky, almost like saying that you could grab a woman by the pussy. It's so weird. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. In artful, I know. How about I was just fucking wrong. You know, and I'm an unmitigated ass for saying what I did.

At least, at least say that. Stop with this inartful, you know, PR language bullshit. So it's just, I mean, it was immediately obvious that Haley and Republicans were going to be able to make hay of this and fundraise off of it. So on top of the fact that it's just an asinine thing to say, it's not good for the country because Republicans raising money is not good for the country. So my fuck that guy for today is jackass Don Lemon. And I just, unfortunately, CNN won't do shit to him, but he sucks. I'm just glad that his female co-hosts read him, the Riot Act, in real time. Yes.

So, bravo to them. Absolutely. 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. 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.