The Daily Beast Podcast - There’s a Reason We’re Seeing Videos of RFK Jr. Shirtless

Episode Date: June 27, 2023

Andy Levy, co-host of TNA, suspects there’s more to the 2024 presidential hopeful’s workout vids than just stupidity. He discusses his theory with co-host Danielle Moodie, along with what he thinks is happening in Russia. Then, Kelly Weill, reporter at The Daily Beast who covers far-right groups and trends, tells Danielle what we should know about “Moms for Liberty,” a mom group that operates like Proud Boys and are just as dangerous. Plus! Law Dork newsletter’s Chris Geidner breaks down a recent Supreme Court case ruling, Jones v Hendrix, which essentially prevents some legally innocent people from challenging their conviction. 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. 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. Daily Beast reporter Kelly Wilde joins us to talk about moms for liberty, the radical right-wing group that's been doing lots of fuckery with the schools and who caused a lot of controversy this weekend. Then we'll talk to law dork newsletters, Chris Geidner, all about the recent Supreme Court rulings and what they mean. But first, let's have some fun. So, Andy, a lot of kind of. has happened over the weekend, but I think the most important and pressing issue that we should dig into first is the continued expansion of paranoia that is Marjorie Taylor Green. So, you know, a couple of weeks ago, we were talking about another far right figure who may go

on a hunger strike because he can't decide what's inside of his fridge and whether or not it's woke, is the ketchup woke, is the mustard woke, like, doesn't know. And now Marjorie, Taylor Green, maybe because she sat on the remote, Lord only knows the TV went on. And she has stated in a tweet, and Lord, let me just state this for people because, you know, you would think that this was an SNL skit. I think our lives are now an SNL skit, just or Twilight Zone or a combination of the two. But this is what she tweeted. Last night in my DC residence, residence, because she uses that word. Anyway, the television turned on by itself and the screen showed someone's laptop trying to connect to the TV. Just for the record, I'm very happy.

Which also, like the rest of what she's stating, I'm very happy. I'm also very healthy and eat well and exercise a lot. I don't smoke and never have. I don't take any medications. I am not vaccinated. So I'm not concerned about blood cuts, heart conditions, strokes or anything else, nor do I have anything to hide. I just love my country and the people and know how much They've been screwed over by the corrupt people in our government, and I'm not willing to be quiet about it or willing to go along with it. What are you talking about? Yeah, I don't even know where to start.

First of all, girl, you should be taking medications. Yes. Yes. Obviously, you should be vaccinated, but that's, you know, that's your own insanity. If you have to say, just for the record, I'm very happy. Yeah. Yeah. I think we know what that means.

But let's get back to the original thing. itself, because what she's saying here is basically the government is spying on her. Yes. No. What's happened here is, and I can say this because I have an Apple TV box and every once in a while a thing pops up on my screen saying someone is looking to connect to it because that's what happens with electronic gear and it goes away quickly and or I quickly hit a button and it goes away because someone does it by mistake.

Like they're trying to connect, they're trying to screencast basically. they're either chrome casting from a computer to a TV or, you know, using Airplay to go from a Mac to a TV, whatever they're trying to do. This is now like a commonplace thing in the world. And sometimes the signals get crossed and people try to connect to the wrong TV. And that's exactly what happened here. So it's just hilarious for her to go on this long rant about the government trying to spy on her when all it shows is that surprise, surprise, she knows nothing about technology, which would just be laughable except, of course, she's in Congress, which, you know, likes to pass laws about technology.

So as usual, it just becomes this stupid thing. And I know this is before a lot of people's time, but all I kept thinking when I heard this was the old MTV slogan, but I made it, I want my MTG. Oh, my God. Because it was just, like, I don't know, it was just so funny because she just thought someone wanted to spy on her so badly. Also, we only spy on people who are smart, right?

Like, what are you getting? Like, let's just think about it. for a minute. If you're spying on Marjorie Taylor Green, what are you getting? Honestly, what are you trying to be after? Like her workout regime, like, you know, her cleaning a gun. Like, what are you really getting? Like, you're not getting secret strategy in Intel. It's not like she's hiding her crazy beliefs. Right. Like, it's not, you know, what is someone going to go through her computer and find out that she's a bigot? Thanks. We didn't need you to do that. You could save the taxpayers some money there. Just call me in, I can tell you. It is just unbelievable, but I got a really

good laugh out of it because just the whole thing, I mean, it would have been bad enough if she just thought they were spying on her, but for her to have to go into that whole little thing about how she's happy and exercises a lot. And she's so awful, but this actually gave me a laugh. So thank you, MTV. Thank you, MTG. And also, like, again, just folks, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you have to aggressively state how happy you are? Yeah. Chances are you're fucking not. I'm just going to put it out there.

And actually, you know what? Nancy Pelosi pointed it out on the house floor the other day and said, you're just a miserable bunch of people. Right. I forgot about that. Yeah. You look miserable. You look miserable.

You look miserable. Yep. She's absolutely right. There you go. Fool. So speaking of a. other things that popped up over the weekend. This one didn't give a chuckle, but like, Jesus Christ, can we just have a relaxing summer

weekend? But apparently not, because there was, I guess, an attempted coup inside of Russia by a band of mercenaries who were trying to take over a particular part of Russia because they do not like the way in which Putin is dealing with the war. They believe that Putin has risked the lives, which he has. and basically had killed tens of thousands of Russian soldiers who were ill-prepared for his egotistical desire to take over Ukraine.

And so what I find really interesting about this coup news, I guess the coup that didn't happen, or maybe this is just like a kind of whack-a-mole, let us pop our heads up and see what sticks and then pop it back down again, is that normally the people in Russia, because of their lack of access to actual news, the lack of access to, you know,

things outside of what Putin wants them to know and say, for an attempted coup, they didn't put up much resistance. Like, they were not willing to go to bat to this man. It was like, oh, you're coming in to be the next dictator. Can we take a selfie? Like, that was the pictures that I saw. And I was shocked because normally,

I feel like the Russian people have been in a lot of ways emotionally and physically beaten into submission by this man. And so to see them kind of gleefully wanting to be in the presence of the mercenaries was kind of a wild sight to see. See, I don't think this was an attempted coup. I think Prigosian was just taking a vacation. I think it was just a vacation, Danielle. And I think the fact that there was a gallows that said hang Vladimir Putin, And I think it was ironic. And I don't think this was a coup at all.

Obviously, like a lot of people, I followed what was going on. And then in the end, like you said, it didn't happen. And apparently, Progosian took exile into, I think, Belarus. And I've seen experts saying, well, this just shows how weak Putin is, that this could even happen. And the fact that he let Progosian live after this just shows how weak he is. And I'm like, maybe, but also maybe not. And I don't think we really know. And so I just want to let our listeners know right now.

You're not going to get any fake expert advice for me here or expert commentary here. I don't have a fucking clue. And I am brave enough to say it, Danielle. And I just think that, look, people are saying, well, he left him alive. Well, for today. If I'm progosian, I think I would be staying on the lower floors of buildings. I don't think I would be taking a room up high anywhere with a window. Or walking everywhere because I hear driving a car, not a good idea.

Exactly. So the fact that he's still alive today, that doesn't mean that there aren't plans a foot to kill him. Maybe Putin comes out of this stronger than ever. Or maybe the people who say he's been weakened by this are right. I just don't think we know. I think it's too soon. I understand that there are people who know a lot more about this than I do, and I'm thankful

for them. But I think as much as even they know, I don't think they really know, because, first of all, you know, Putin is not necessarily the world's most logical actor. And we have a situation here where a guy, the Evgeny Progogian, who, you know, started off, he was a hot dog vendor. And now he commands this Wagner group, this huge mercenary force. What it looked like over the weekend was that basically we were going to have a former hot dog vendor taking control of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

And that's fucking scary. To me, it just points out how sort of how little we know. And I think it's a mistake to think that the wall. You have to understand this about the Russians. I was like, I don't think you understand as much about the Russians as you think you do. 100%. And I just think, you know, we should back off on this in terms of trying to, you know, draw any conclusions from it. Because I don't think it's played.

I just don't think it's played itself out yet. I think, you know, we'll see what happens in the coming weeks. And look, maybe this leads to other mutinies. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe Progoshin is a one-off. Maybe he was a unique figure. And maybe he mysteriously dies in the next week or the next. next month. So who knows? That's my hot take. Who knows? Who knows? But, you know, cable news doesn't

stop cable news from doing wall-to-wall coverage right now. Yeah, I know. But something that actually should be getting more coverage, which is something that, you know, we talk about on this show and pray for on a regular basis, which is for Democrats to wake the fuck up and realize that Donald Trump is actually not a punchline, not just a ratings hook, but is an actual real threat. to our democracy and is an actual contender to become president of the United States again. And so now it is apparent with the new reporting that Democrats are finally like, oh, Donald Trump actually winning in 2024 is a real thing. And I'm just like, where the fuck have you all been? Yeah.

Like you thought that because the man was twice impeached, he's now been indicted for a second time. He's facing so many fucking criminal charges and other hovering indictments. But guess what? Those people still have not left his side. And as a matter of fact, he's gaining more and more with, you know, taking off little bite sizes of marginalized communities by getting them to, I guess, what it is, collaborate around the fact that they all hate the gays. I have no idea. But this is what is happening. And if Democrats want to pretend that like Biden is a sure thing, does no one learn anything? Like, do we just not have any attention span

that has us understanding what happened in 2016, what happened in 2020, and what is happening right now? Like, that does not mean that Donald Trump, like, people are going to flee from his side. As a matter of fact, they're doubling and tripling down. 100%. I don't like the idea of underestimating Donald Trump.

I don't at all like the idea of helping Donald Trump get the Republican nomination because you think, you are sort of secure in your belief that Joe Biden will beat him. I think there are arguments for why Trump might be a weaker general candidate than DeSantis, and those arguments basically boil down to indictments. But I don't think those arguments are necessarily going to be borne out as correct. They're just possibilities. We see all these polls, and I know there was a recent one, I think it was an NBC news poll

that showed Biden leading Trump 4945. I put no stock whatsoever in nationwide polls because, as we have learned over and over again under our stupid electoral college system, nationwide don't matter. The Democrats are going to win the popular vote. I would be absolutely shocked if Joe Biden doesn't win the popular vote. What I don't know is whether that will matter. And so when still we start seeing polling coming out of places like Ohio and Pennsylvania and Arizona and other states that are close, that really, you know, determined 2020,

it's absolutely insane to say, well, Biden leads Trump in these polls. First of all, four points is nothing. Second of all, the poll itself is absolutely meaningless in a presidential election. So stop quoting it to me. Like, I don't care. There's no point even doing them. The only polls that should be done are state polls. They're the only one that matters for something like this.

I just think we've learned this in 2016 and we came damn close to learning it again in 2020. You underestimate Donald Trump at your own risk. He's a buffoon, yes, but he is a popular among many segments of the population buffoon. Just saying that he's a buffoon doesn't get you anywhere. That's baked in. That's a given. For a lot of people these days, that's a plus. So absolutely, I am glad to see that there was this big NBC News article where a lot of Democrats

were basically saying just this. And a lot of them are people who have lost elections. It was Tim Ryan who lost a J.D. Vance. It was Mandela Barnes who lost to Ron Johnson. They're both out there saying, you guys got to go on the offensive against Trump. You know, they were basically warning the party apparatus. Don't take anything for granted. Don't sit there and pray that Donald Trump is the nominee.

You got to get out there and take the offensive and fight. And it needs to start now. It doesn't need to start next week. It doesn't need to start after the primaries. It needs to start now and continue right up until Election Day or up until the point where Donald Trump is not the nominee. if he's not. But you need to get out there and you need to hit the ground and get this shit rolling. Yeah, I think that you need to actually fight and you need to understand what is at stake.

And if you, at this fucking point, can't figure out a way to articulate that to the American people with everything that has happened over the last several years, like, I don't know what to say. But I guess the first part is to wake up and open your eyes and recognize that like, this is not a normal campaign season. This is not going to be a normal candidate. And like we've been saying this time and time again, but maybe this time they fucking get it. The other piece of it though,

which is concerning, but again, you know, much like you, Andy, I don't take a lot of stock in polls either because I think that when we looked at the matchup for 2020, we were scared to death and rightfully so, but historic numbers during a pandemic

to ensure that Donald Trump would not become president, again. And that was when we still had Roe v. Wade. That was when trans people still had rights. So I think that we have to also take these polls with a grain of salt. But another poll that came out, one done by CNN, pretty much shows that Americans don't want this Biden-Trump matchup at all, that they're actually exhausted by these two men, by the idea of this rematch. And for the first time, a historic number of people don't want either candidates. And I think that one, that is a testament to the hangover that we're still dealing with from 2020 in so many ways that, you know, I will say Merrick Garland could have fucking dealt with sooner, but didn't. And maybe we would be in a different place. I think that

that CNN poll about just the hangover of 2020 and what Americans don't want says more to me. I agree. And look, I think a lot of this also boils down to the, there is no getting around the fact that Joe Biden is old. Yes. And a lot of people are not comfortable with a person of his age being president for another four years. And I don't think that it's that that is not something that can be dismissed. You can say whatever you want about it and you can disagree with it. But it is out there and it is real.

And I know a lot of Democrats who feel that way and they're going to vote for Biden. Don't get me wrong. But they're not comfortable with Joe Biden. simply because of his age. They may like everything he's done in office, but there is a realization that it's not ideal to have someone that age running for a second term. I think that's a lot of what the poll that you're talking about, the CNN poll, I think that's a lot of what goes into that. Obviously, there are people who just dislike Joe Biden for whatever reason or reasons they have. I think at least a good portion of that is it's not that they dislike him personally. It's that

they're just not comfortable with a man of his advanced age looking for another four years as the quote unquote leader of the free world if that's even true anymore or if it was ever even true. But I don't think that that's something that can be discounted. There's not much that the Democrats can do about it at this point. But when you see just an absolute conspiracy mongering idiot like RFK Jr. polling at close to 20 percent or whatever it is, I think, don't think those are not people who want RFK Jr. to be president. Those are people who are like, I don't really like the choice I'm being given. And as you said, this goes both ways. You know, a lot of people don't want Trump either. And the idea of a Biden Trump rematch has got a lot of

people just sitting there going, are you, this is the best we can do over 300 million people in this country. And this is the best we can do, you know, a guy who's going to be pushing 90 in a second term and a guy who's under two indictments right now or indictments into localities or places and maybe more come, you know, before the end of this year. That's the best this country can do. And there's a lot of dissatisfaction. And it's not something the Democrats, I think, can just shrug about. They have to find a way. Look, Reagan found a way. He did it with one joke in a debate, but he found a way to make the issue of his age disappear. And I think the Democrats need to be looking for something. similar to that for Joe Biden.

I mean, look, he did do that. During the White House Correspondence dinner, he has been making little barbs about himself and, you know, and his age and moving forward. And the reality here, too, is that, like, Donald Trump is nobody's spring chicken. Let's just all, like, be real clear about that. And he just turned 77 years old, right?

So he's not young. Funny note about RFK Jr., though, apparently he thinks that the best way to win the presidency is to be shirtless in showing people that he can lift weights and do pushups. So we're just in hell. Agreed. But I do think there's a reason for that because it's a contrast with Biden. And it also, frankly, is a contrast with Trump, who, you know, doesn't look like he's ever

seen the inside of a weight room or a treadmill or anything like that. That to me is incredibly calculated. And it's calculated because of who the two guys who are maybe going to be the nominees. I mean, Biden definitely is Trump, who knows. but I think it provides a stark contrast to both of those guys. And so I think, like, I don't need to see those pictures. I'm like at the point where I'm blocking anyone online who sends those pictures of RFK Jr. around again, I don't need to see those anymore.

But I do think there is sort of a crafty little strategy there to say, look at what great shape this guy is, and then look at Joe Biden. And then you put that next to a picture of Joe Biden falling on a stage or something like that. And suddenly, you know, there are people out there who are going to be like, oh, yeah, This is the guy I want because that's how half this country thinks at this point. I mean, I guess all you need to do is, you know, ride with no shirt on on a horse like Putin did. And this is what we performative toxic masculinity, ladies and gentlemen. That's what we all give a fuck about.

Folks, I am very happy to welcome to the new abnormal Kelly Weil, who is a reporter at The Daily Beast. And recently wrote a piece entitled, Indiana Moms for Liberty chapter apologizes for quoting Hitler in first newsletter. Because who doesn't quote Hitler in their very first newsletter that they release? Kelly, tell us what you have discovered with regard to Moms for Liberty, which honestly, most folks in the trenches, right, those that are battling against these anti-LGB policies that are being created at the school board level, that are fighting back against, you know, the erasured,

of black history and culture in schools. They don't know who Moms for Liberty are. So give us the 50,000 foot view. For sure. I mean, it's really forgivable not to know who Moms for Liberty are because they're really new. They came out in, I think, early 2021. They had a little bit of trying to find their footing.

First, they were anti-masking in schools. And I think they used it for some pushback against mandatory vaccinations at school. but they really got the ball rolling when it came to book bands, when it came to removing mentions of black history, removing mentions of LGBTQ existence from schools. That is when they really, they got rolling. And so these days, they are a pretty well-financed, extremely well-connected, right-wing group. They have a bit of astro-turf going on. They try and have local chapters that further these agendas in individual schools, as well as, the national coordinating body that works with politicians across the country to push some of the

most pernicious education agendas going on right now. So if you run into somebody on your local Facebook page who's mad about the existence of the library, not a horrible chance their moms for Liberty Connected. But it's so real. Like you say that and I chuckled because I have to otherwise I'll cry, which is the fact that these groups, right, and you say very well funded, they have tried to create the perception that they are just this really concerned group of moms that just want parents to have choice. This is how all of this originates. And what has been uncovered over the last several weeks is that not only, you know,

did they quote Hitler and they actually did folks. And I want to just, because you presented in your piece, this is what was at the top of the newsletter. that is called the Parent Brigade. And it said, quote, he alone, who owns the youth, gains the future. This was a quote from Hitler, from the Nazis, and from building up their youth Nazi movement.

To me, that is absolutely wild because a couple of weeks ago, we learned that they had ties to members of the proud boys, which should shock absolutely fucking nobody. But people were just like, what? Oh, my goodness, this must be. for liberty? They have relations and connections with the proud boys and the oathkeepers. Yes, because they are the white female component of that. So can you just talk about this, the kind of

softening of their name, their approach and how it differs, but with the desire for similar outcomes that we have seen with these other groups? Oh, absolutely. And I'm glad you make that connection to the proud boys because they are doing almost exactly what groups like the pro boys do, but they put this white womanhood spin on it, right? You know, we're the concerned, nurturing component of it. And that's really not true. I mean, these groups are, they're not militant in the sense that they're out brawling, you know, hitting someone over the head with a big baton, but they are working hand in hand with groups like the proud boys. You'll see them at the same demonstrations outside of school, outside a library, outside a place where decisions about vaccines are being made.

This is the soft core proud boy agenda here. And yeah, I mean, they do work in very similar ways where they will overwhelm and intimidate a community. You know, we've seen in the past proud boys show up in uniform to school board meetings. I think people object to that pretty frankly. Even some people on the writer are like, oh, whoa, this is a little bit too explicitly brown shirt for me. And moms for liberty really bridges that gap between far-right politics and acceptability politics. So they'll have, you know, regular moms, regular concerned parents, but pushing again these really extreme agendas, objecting to mentions of Martin Luther King Jr. in schools, objecting to, you know, frankly, gay educators.

It's really hard-boiled hatred wrapped up in this package of nurturing and care and compassion. So I think they were pretty canny to identify that as a way in on the right. You know what's interesting is that this is actually nothing new in history, that the way that white supremacy and patriarchy has always worked has been hand in hand with help from white women, frankly. You know, it's the same question that folks had after the 2016 election. Oh, my goodness, how do you have 53% of white women that decide to vote against another white woman in order to bring in a man who said that he could grab you anywhere that he wants at any time

and place. And, you know, it is this, let me bring this soft, quote unquote, virtuous idea of what femininity is, what a woman should be, which is carrying the water for patriarchy. So if the oathkeepers are coming in and their full regalia to a school board meeting, Moms for Liberty is baking them cupcakes. Yeah, I mean, Mom's for Liberty, they're having a summit in Philadelphia this weekend, and they're calling it the Joyful Warrior Summit. It's part of this new branding. They're rolling out, telling each other, be a joyful warrior, i.e. don't be just all out bigoted, you know, visibly on the Facebook pages. And just something about that branding is like so handmade sale to me.

Be a joyful warrior. And yeah, I mean, I think it is really interesting, right? that there's this idea of how are these women voting against their interests, right? How are they working against other women? Well, I think they've actually taken a pretty savvy look at the political environment and said, okay, well, my whiteness is going to gain me more than my womanhood. So, you know, school other women. I'm stepping in with the proud boys.

And so that's what they're doing, right? They are discarding gender studies, things that will empower queer students, students of color and being like, this is our gilded cage and we're going to stick in it. I mean, it's really, you know, I'm looking into your piece again. And the quote, the now infamous Hitler quote, this is from your piece, ran alongside the newsletter's table of contents, including, quote, liberty lesson, a class in biblical citizenship, and quote, parent wins. The latter described a successful campaign to remove roughly half of the books in the teen section

of a local library and move them to the quote, adult section. These women are dangerous. And I think on one hand, while we can, of course, make connections to the Handmaid's Tale, make connections to Stepford wives, is that these women have been successful in their desire to assimilate everyone into white Christo values. And if you do not assimilate into that role, then we will force you into that place or we will make you the enemy of the state, which again is no different than what the proud boys and the oathkeepers are doing. Again, these men are going in and they are quote unquote storming the castle and the women are at home baking Hitler cupcakes. But they're feeding you the same things and they support the same

things. And I think that your piece really illuminates that these two strategies go hand. in hand. Totally. One is the more, you know, outwardly acceptable one, and one is the more aggressive branch for anyone who, you know, happens to wear a flack jacket around in public and open care. There really are two wings of the same thing. And so when it came to this instance of a Moms for Liberty chapter quoting Hitler and not just in their first ever newsletter, but like at the top of their first ever newsletter, it was like, here's our branch, here's the Hitler quote. You know, it's interesting to me because they came out and they said, oh, well, you know, we didn't mean that to endorse the Hitler quote.

We meant that it's bad to control the youth and that that's what the Nazis wanted to do. And one, I'm not sure there's that much daylight between them and Third Reich. And also, listen, I think it's fine to critically analyze what the Nazis did. In fact, I think we should do it. I think that should be part of a rigorous history education in schools. But you cannot claim to disavow Hitler. Well, effectively running modern book burning, right? You can't say that what the Nazis did to control the education of their country was bad,

while on the same page boasting about removing almost half of the books from the teen section. I mean, that is like, that's textbook authoritarianism. And so to see so little open recognition, frankly, to see them weaponize atrocities against Jewish people, against LGBTQ people, against religious and ethnic minorities in this really callous way, while also perpetrating some of those same attacks on people and their ability to read about themselves and recognize themselves in literature and learn their history. I mean, that's so cynical to me. Let me ask you something because you're a reporter. And what I find really concerning these days about mainstream media is the lack of attention to groups like this.

In mainstream media and cable news, folks will do wall-to-wall coverage. on absolute nonsense that is not affecting the day-to-day lives of people. Removing books from libraries, banning books, changing curriculum, changing textbooks, coordinated attacks against marginalized communities. This is all happening on a day-to-day basis at the hands of groups like this. But the media will have some mentions of the Oathkeepers and the Proud Boys as they're being sentenced, those that were on the ground at the January 6th insurrection, we'll have conversations about them while they're being sentenced,

but we're not actually connecting the dots. Why do you think that that is? I mean, I think it really speaks to a hollowing out of local media. We've seen just, you know, bloodletting and local newsrooms. There's a huge problem of VCs, basically buying up local media conglomerates and axing reporters left and right. And it becomes very hard for local outlets to cover. just the breadth of what's going on in their communities.

I do want to flag the Indianapolis Star. They're the ones who noted this hitler quote in the first place. I mean, that is local media serving its community and, you know, doing the best for its readers. But in a lot of cases, I think it's really hard for journalists on the ground who are stretched super, super thin to cover these assaults on their schools, on their communities. Frankly, you see a lot of it playing out. And I keep coming back to Facebook groups, but that's really where a lot of the, not so much boots on the ground are, but, you know, boots on the web are. And so it can be tough to connect the dots when you're reporting on what might seem like a disparate strain of incidents, right? This county has a wingnut running for school board.

This county is trying to ban these books on queer history. In and of themselves, those might sound like isolated incidents, a couple oddballs. But when you pull all those threads together, you see this national assault on learning on memory. And so it's just one of those cases where it doesn't show up like some giant event like the storming of the Capitol. It's a million little attacks. And just the way the news media is financed right now can make it really hard for those pieces to come together. You know, I'm really proud of what the Indianapolis Star did. Because I think that to your point, to be able to, one, continue to have a newsroom in the way that we've seen journalism attacked, we've seen massive layoffs, you know, across the country from big media outlets, not to mention the smaller local ones that are closing their doors because they don't have the funding or they're being taken over to your point, you know, to go against a local group that you know has muscle, national muscle,

money pouring in from these right-wing, you know, and I will say this, my thought is that it's coming in from the deep pockets of right-wing billionaires who are funding groups like this and allowing their messages to spread is that that's really an act of courage. It's what we want journalism to look like. But in the face of being attacked, whether it just be on social media or we've seen, you know, those attacks move from the Internet space. into the real world is a big deal for the Indianapolis start to be like, oh, no, we're going to cover this. Like, look at what these people are doing. Look at what they did.

And not just, you know, turn an eye to it. I think it's also something that needs to be lifted up. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there's great reporting coming out of Maine where a reporter covered, I think, some pretty stunning sexual assault allegations and got, you know, just bombarded, right? It's very easy, especially in a small community where you know folks, where you're connected with folks. That's your home base. That, I think, is where these pressure campaigns from the right, these intimidation campaigns, can be the most successful. And you see that not just with journalists,

but on local politicians, on even sheriffs, on educators. And so that's one of the places where a lot of these grassroots battles are being fought. You will see librarians either cave to these demands or stand their ground and sometimes get really viciously harassed. They're reported on some librarians who were accused of being groomers and all kinds of things just because it had, you know, LGBT-friendly policies at the library. And that's it. And so that takes guts. And it's sad that we're in a place where we have to say it takes guts to stand up for the library, but it does. And, you know, I don't know, love and support to the journalists who are fighting there because it sucks. It's really, really rough to get attacked in line anonymously, but it's worse to get attacked by the people who

are physically around you. The fact that you just said, like it takes courage to stand up for a library, just really tells you where we are, right? Like paints a really stark picture that a couple of years ago, this would have been something that was crazy. But if you, again, just going back through time, you know, book banning is not new in this country.

Like there have always been these pockets of white evangelical Christians. There's always been these pockets of groups, You know, the one in the 80s was Save the Children, which was, again, an anti-LGBQ organization that was led by a white woman who was about referring to and attacking the queer community as, guess what, pedophiles and groomers and creating an entire campaign around it under the guise of, I'm just here as a mother trying to save children. And here we see it again, anew. in the 21st century. And it's just, you know, it's something that I think is really important, Kelly, that you did with this reporting

and people need to pay attention to that these are coordinated attacks, but they are all part of the same white supremacist patriarchal beast that has many layers and many sides. So last thoughts for you on how people can continue to connect the dots here.

Well, you know, one thing that I want to underscore before I leave here is just last week, I headed out to a library in Queens where they were having a drag story hour. That's basically a performer in a drag costume, you know, fun colors and everything read stories to kids. When I got there, there were dozens of locals and queer folks from the community and families and kids standing outside supporting this. They had rainbow umbrellas and they were doing a dance party because they knew that a small but committed group of bigots would come and yell obscenities. He's over the microphone and call the people attending this event groomers.

And it's just so untrue. But one thing that came up again and again in the conversations that I was having with drag defenders is they said, those people across the street yelling at us are really loud. But look at them. There's 10 of them. They're the 10 people who show up every single time we have this event. And so, yeah, these folks can seem loud. They can seem everywhere, but they're not a majority.

Most people don't support book banning. They don't support bigotry. you know, at least an open presentation. And so that's one thing that, you know, I kind of signed off on in my reporting there is that this is not a winning position. It's just a really loud and a really angry position. And when you get a community like that Elmhurst, Queens community coming out and saying, you know, stand up for your library. That's just incredibly powerful and I think really affirming. Oh, Kelly. Thank you so much for ending on a positive note. Really appreciate. I really appreciate it. Kelly,

while the article, folks, is Indiana Moms for Liberty Chapter apologizes for quoting Hitler in First Newsletter, and it is at The Daily Beast right now. Kelly, appreciate you. Thanks for having me. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that didn't grip the mind of the public, but blew mine to the point where I thought that I must have misunderstood it. But then I read some of the excellent coverage from court watchers, and I realized that I think I understood it just fine. It just doesn't make sense. Here to explain is one of the aforementioned excellent court watchers, former BuzzFeed Legal Editor and Deputy Editor for Legal Affairs at Grid News,

and current publisher of the outstanding legal newsletter Law Dork at LawDork.com, Chris Gidner. Chris, thanks so much for being here. Of course. Glad to be here, Andy. May I call you Chris, or do you prefer Mr. Dork? Hmm. So the case in question here is Jones v. Hendricks, and the headline you chose for your Law Dork piece on it was, Scotis rules that some legally innocent people can't even challenge their imprisonment. Please explain what this means as if I were a five-year-old, which some days, man, I wish I were. I mean, you're not alone. This is as bad as it sounds from the start. The only upside of it is that the things that prove how bad it is ultimately are going to let us

know that this won't necessarily affect a ton of cases. So with that understanding from the start, what we have is there are basically three things that can happen regarding innocence if you are accused of a crime. You could find new evidence that proves that you are innocent. You could get a constitutional ruling that proves that you are innocent. This is after you've been convicted, we're talking about here. I mean, after you've been charged. Okay, okay. Or you could get a new statutory ruling.

The law that is being used to charge you, the interpretation of that law is changed. Or it's amended or something like that. And when those things happen, if you are, at trial, if you've been charged but not convicted, obviously, your lawyer's going to use that and say, look, we've got new evidence. Look, there's a new constitutional ruling. Look, the statute is interpreted differently. And you'll be able to use that in court. Okay. If you've been convicted, there is what's called direct appeal, which is your initial appeal. You take your decision. you go to an appeals court, you go to the state Supreme Court.

If there's a constitutional question, you take it to the U.S. Supreme Court to ask them to hear the case. That's direct appeal. If any of these things happened, new evidence or a new constitutional interpretation or a new statutory ruling, during that time, you would be able to bring it up and it could be addressed. Then there's a thing called post-conviction review. And what that is is you might have heard of habeas corpus. That's when it's technically in Latin, like bringing the body to the court. And it's when the court would demand you to bring a person who is in prison to the court

so that either the state or the federal government could justify their imprisonment. Those cases need to be brought in the district where you are being jailed or prisoned. And that makes it really awkward, evidence-wise, if you were decided in a court across the country. Because none of the witnesses would be there. And so Congress eventually passed a law that said post-conviction relief can go through this statute. And it's basically the same in terms of, what you can bring as what you would have been able to bring under habeas corpus. And so that's where you go, generally speaking, after you've been convicted, after you've done that

direct appeal, if something happens that leads you to want to challenge your conviction. And that would include if there's new evidence. That would include if there's a new constitutional rule. And before last Thursday, that would include what you would do if there was new, statutory rule. But what happened on Thursday is that the Supreme Court said, this majority said that there are provisions in the 1996 amendments to that law that say that basically set the rules for when you're allowed to bring what's called successive petitions. So not your first post-conviction relief, but if something happens later, a second or third request. And it sets limits on when and how and what

the rules are for those successive petitions if it is related to new evidence or if it's related to a new constitutional ruling. So the question that was before the court and what was brought by Jones to the court was what about if there's a new statutory ruling? And that's what it happened is he is serving time in prison on basically the rule, the law about a felon in possession of a firearm. And there was a Supreme Court decision in 2019 that said that that has to be knowingly. You have to know that you are a felon. What Jones said is, I want to challenge my conviction because I am serving 236 months in prison, I think it was, based on the Eighth Circuit's interpretation of that statute, which didn't include that knowing element. And what the Supreme Court said on Thursday is you're not allowed to bring that as a

successive petition. And what that means is that if you are still at trial, you can bring those change statutory interpretations. If you are on direct appeal, you can bring those change statutory interpretations. If you are in your first post-conviction request, you can bring those change statutory interpretations. But if you've already had one bite at the post-conviction apple, you cannot go back, even if the Supreme Court says the way that the circuit in which you were tried was interpreting the law was wrong. Right. Am I correct to say that Jones was found guilty in 2000 for a crime that SCOTUS in 2019 said kind of didn't actually exist? They basically added an element to the crime.

Right. The way that the Eighth Circuit had been interpreting it didn't have a knowing requirement. And so just the fact that he was a felon and that he had a firearm was enough to prove that he violated it. And the Supreme Court in 2019 said, no, there's a. also an element that it has to be knowing. Now, that might very well, and even in her dissent, Justice Jackson makes clear, like, it's entirely possible he might lose on appeal if he got in the court and the prosecutors might be able to show, and DOJ argued in this case that they would be

able to show that he obviously was knowing that he was a felon in possession of a firearm. and so this shouldn't be tossed out ultimately. But the point is, he can't even go to court to argue that because he had already brought it. And in this case, it was even more absurd because this isn't like he was bringing frivolous claims. His first post-conviction relief petition was for ineffective assistance of counsel, and he won. And that has a one-year statute of limitations. So had he not brought that claim, then he would have lost out on the statute of limitations on bringing that ineffective assistance of counsel claim back in the 2000s, based on a hope

that at some time in the future, the court would interpret the felon in possession of a firearm law differently. Like, it's an absurd interpretation. And, like, the majority and Thomas's opinion just said, they, truly were dismissive of the fact that this could result in some pretty clearly unjust punishments. Yeah, it seemed to me that Justice Thomas's opinion basically boiled down to shit happens, sucks for you, shrug emoji. You're not as wrong as you should be. I wish that I could say otherwise, but it truly was.

dismissive. I mean, like, he has one point where he has like a page of citations to the way that appeals courts had been addressing this issue. And he referred to it as a workaround for those prisoners to allow them to challenge this question. Because, I mean, the argument was that there's a thing called a savings clause within this post-conviction review statute. And what that says, basically if there's no adequate way to challenge your sentence under this statute, you can still go back to the habeas law. And so what some courts were interpreting it as and what Justice is Kagan and Sotomayor said here was that the savings clause should be implemented, that like, yeah, the limitations put under the post-conviction review back in 96 made it clear that this should focus. only on successive petitions should only be allowed for new evidence or new constitutional rules. But it doesn't toss out the possibility of there being new statutory rules. And so therefore,

there's no adequate relief under the post-conviction review statute so those can go back to habeas before we had that statute. Now, that's a roundabout way. And in Jackson's dissent, she's like, yeah, sure, you can do that. But she sort of went with this more frontal assault on Thomas's opinion and said, no, Thomas's opinion is absurd. It's literally based on a negative inference by Thomas's own language. He calls it a negative inference because the 96 amendments to this post-conviction statute don't address statutory changes.

changed interpretations of the statute. What Justice Jackson says in her dissent, she has a few bits of evidence that making a negative inference based on the lack of information about statutory changes, that it's unjustified. The primary one that was really strong in my mind is that it tracks this law, the anti-terrorism an effective death penalty act is the 96 law at issue. It was rushed through in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. There's all sorts of sloppy language throughout it, careless legislative crafting. And this provision about federal post-conviction review was borrowing from the state post-conviction review section. And there is no ability to challenge,

in federal court a changed state statutory interpretation because that's a state issue. You can go to federal post-conviction review of your state conviction if you have new evidence or if there's a new constitutional rule, but you can't for change statutory review. And she points to a bunch of evidence from people who say that it basically appears to have been an oversight that when Congress moved into the federal. section. They just borrowed the provisions from the state section. And so they dealt with the new evidence. They dealt with the new constitutional rule, but they just didn't address the statutory language. And so if anything, if you're going to make an inference from what exists in the 96 law,

the inference should be whatever had been allowed before 96 for statutory interpretation should be allowed after 96. But Thomas somehow just makes magic and does that we're allowed to make a negative inference by the lack of any information about this. Yeah, it's just unreal. All right, turning to the big news at Scotis today, this is Monday, there's a case that the court sent back to the Fifth Circuit, right? A case involving redistricting in Louisiana. Yeah. So back when the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the Alabama case that came down a few weeks ago, the Voting Rights Act case, about majority minority districts. They later in June held up a Louisiana redistricting decision that also would have added another majority minority district in Louisiana's congressional

district. They have held that literally, I looked, and they held that for 300, They had actually issued that stay on June 28th, 2022. This morning, what they did was the way that they take these redistricting cases is note probable jurisdiction, which allows them to hear the case. And they basically, they dismissed that case as being improvidently granted, which is just a way of getting rid of a case without issuing a decision. They often will do that if the party settle or if there's an election change and a new governor changes or new attorney general changes their position or a new president. But in this case, it was because of their own doing that they had taken up this case and then put it on hold waiting the outcome of the Alabama case. Now they tossed it back, but what they said was that it will allow the matter to proceed. before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review in the ordinary course and in advance of the

2024 congressional elections. What that means, there was some debate after the order came out, but what it happened by getting rid of the stay is that the original district court order that ordered the two majority minority districts. That is the court ruling in effect right now. Okay. But this was going to go up on appeal to the Fifth Circuit before the Supreme Court issued the stay. And so what the Supreme Court said is, well, now that appeal just continues. Gotcha. Now, in light of the Voting Rights Act decision that we got a couple weeks ago, this case should be easy and should be to majority minority districts in Louisiana and the map maker should get to work. But I knew there was a but, Chris. I knew it.

We've got lawyers and we've got the Fifth Circuit to deal with. Now, the Fifth Circuit had originally actually denied a stay pending appeal. And so what they had been planning on doing was basically having the district court ruling go into effect for the 2022 election. So we would have had the two majority minority districts for the 2022 election while they heard the appeal. But now it's back to them. So you could argue that the chances are good that if Louisiana seeks a stay pending appeal again, that they'll be denied again and that new maps will have to be issued and that will go forward with a likelihood of two majority minority districts in Louisiana. But there's a chance that a new panel could issue a stay. There's also a chance that an appeal could be heard quickly and that an appeal

could end up siding with Louisiana and deciding that there's something different here than was in the case in Alabama. They shouldn't, but they could. And then there could be an issue of whether the U.S. Supreme Court stays that decision and allows the district court decision to go into effect. I mean, there's just a lot up in the air for people to have been issuing headlines this morning that there will be to majority minority districts in Louisiana. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. I've seen some maybe starry-eyed headlines suggesting that this was a huge win, but who the hell knows? Chris, thank you so much. As always, I encourage everyone to go to lawdork.com and sign up. There's some great, great stuff there from Chris. Always love having you on the show. Thanks, Chris.

Thanks a lot, Andy. Andy Levy. Daniel Moody. How are we kicking off this good, good week in America with your fuck-that-guy? My fuck-that-guy, this is not the first time that he's been a fuck-that-guy for us. It's probably the funniest time, though. It is Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who over the weekend tweeted out, he quote-tweeted a story that was tweeted by a Twitter user named Flaggall. Flag, with two G's,

Flaggleton, which right away sounds like a real name. Mm-hmm. And it was an article from a site called the Dunning Kruger Times, which if that doesn't alert you

to the fact that it might be a parody site, I can't help you. And the article said that country singer Garth Brooks took the stage at the 123th annual Texas country jamboree in Hambristin only to leave in shame under two minutes later

because of comments about his own fans being assholes. Governor Abbott retweeted this. quote tweeted it saying, go woke, go broke. Good job, Texas. Now, not only did this never happen because it was a parody thing, there is no such thing as the Texas country jamboree. So there couldn't have been a 123rd annual one. And there's no place in Texas named Hambriston. He is the governor, right? I just want him to make sure of the state. Got it. There are those people who would say that if you're the governor of the state, you should recognize.

a made-up name for a town in your state and recognize that if something is the 123rd anniversary of something, you should probably know about it. To those people, I would say you are correct, but Greg Abbott would obviously disagree. He did eventually delete the tweet after being roundly mocked. Everything about this is just so perfect. They just, they cannot help themselves. They see something that, you know, fits their worldview. And without taking five seconds to fact check it, they just run with it. And that pretty much sums up where conservatism is circa 2023 in a nutshell to me. So yes, Greg Abbott gets my fuck fat guy for doing this. But also, thank you Greg Abbott for doing this because it gave me a good laugh. And also it really does get to the

heart of, like I said, of what conservatism is all about these days. Maybe we should send him a map of his state with the towns and the cities. Maybe that would be good. With, you know, do a Donald Trump, you know, Sharpie. Exactly. Exactly. A circle of idiot. So who is your fuck that guy, Daniel?

Well, because we believe in inclusivity on this show. It's a woman this week. And, you know, but it's also Elon Musk. So let me just say these two things. So the stupidest thing that happened at the end of last week was this kind of, I guess billionaires pretty much are really fucking bored. This is what we are learning like as a global world is that billionaires are bored and will look for anything to do. And apparently Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were banging on their chest deciding that they were going to enter into some type of cage match together. If only.

Yeah. If only. Honestly, really. you know, let's dole. Let's bring back duels, right? Like, I'm about that life. But anyway, I digress. So as everyone is getting all amped up about this matchup, apparently nothing spells I'm a big strong man than your mommy and literally entering into the chat, entering into the Twitterverse and putting the kibosh on your big man plans, which is what Elon Musk's mother did. So May Musk entered into. to Twitter and told people, don't encourage this match.

It's what she said in one tweet, where you can just feel her shaking her finger, probably filled with stolen African diamonds. Anyway, and then she goes on to then say, actually, I canceled the fight. I haven't told them yet, but I will continue to say that the fight is canceled just in case. And then followed up with quote tweeting that the fight has, in fact, been canceled. to great relief because, you know, she wouldn't want a precious hair on her idiot, racist, transphobic son's head to be touched by Mark Zuckerberg. So for that reason, literally Elon Musk and yo mama, get a fuck that guy for this week.

The best thing about this story is all the headlines that refer to her as Elon Musk's mommy. Yeah. And I'm just, I'm getting such a kick out of that. And then she also went on to tweet that she said, fight with words only in armchairs, four feet apart. The funniest person wins. This is literally two of the least funny people, if not the two least funny people on the planet, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. So I don't know in that context what funniest person means.

And I don't want to find out. I would watch the cage match. I would not watch the two of them try to be funny. No. Because that would be far more painful. I mean, the cage match would be more painful for them. For them, yes. This would be more painful for me and for us.

So, yeah, I mean, look, we knew this fight was never going to happen for whatever reason it turned out to be. But it is sort of fantastic that it was, like you said, this, you know, big, tough alpha man, you know, hero of the people who love alpha men. And his mommy just came in and said, Ely, you can't fight. Yeah. I don't even know what the hell the nickname is for. for Elon, like what a mom's nickname would be. So I went with Ely. I don't know. Anyway, fuck those guys.

Fuck them. Crimes calls them E. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of the new abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded the Daily Beast podcast at

The DailyBeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.