No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Adam Schiff on Trump testifying for the January 6 Committee

Episode Date: October 24, 2021

Democrats finally put a voting rights bill with full Democratic support on the floor for a vote and Biden makes a major statement on the filibuster. Brian interviews Congressman Adam Schiff about the January 6 Commission and whether we’re likely to see Trump testify. And The Daily Beast editor-at-large, Molly Jong-Fast, joins to discuss the lopsided media coverage of Democratic and Republican administrations.Donate to the "Don't Be A Mitch" fund: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dontbeamitchShop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today we're going to talk about the Democrats finally putting a voting rights bill with full Democratic support on the floor for a vote and Biden's major statement on the filibuster. I interview Congressman Adam Schiff about the January 6th Commission and whether we're likely to see Trump testify. And I'm joined by the editor-at-large at The Daily Beast, Molly Jong-Fast, to discuss the lopsided media coverage of Democratic and Republican administrations. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. This past week, the Freedom to Vote Act,

was put on the Senate floor for a vote. It was the first time that a voting rights bill with full universal support from every single Democrat was introduced. This came after months of negotiations led by Joe Manchin and ended with a bill that was endorsed by everyone from Barack Obama to Stacey Abrams. And it includes desperately needed provisions, like allowing for automatic voter registration,

at least 15 consecutive days early in-person voting, same-day voter registration, no excuse mail voting with free postage, the ability to count all mail-in ballots, postmarked by election day, and to count all provisional ballots, regardless of the precinct they were cast in, makes election day of federal holiday, restores voting rights to former felons, combats partisan gerrymandering, establishes federal protections to protect election officials from partisan interference, protects election workers from intimidation, requires paper trails for voting

machines, and there's more, but those are the main provisions, so needless to say, a good bill, and one that was very expectedly blocked by Senate Republicans. Schumer put the Freedom to Vote Act up, and every single Republican filibustered it. The vote was split down the middle, 50-50, before Schumer changed his vote to know so that he could bring it up for a vote again later. So it failed 49 to 51. And remember, this was just to start debate on the bill. It didn't even get an actual vote. But again, because there's an arbitrary 60-vote threshold that we could make go away but choose not to,

we're stuck suffering the consequences of passing no legislation. However, with that said, there was actually some movement this week as far as the filibuster is concerned. Joe Biden held the town hall and he was pressed on voting rights in the filibuster, and here's what he had to say. But I also think we're going to have to move to the point where we fundamentally alter the filibuster. The idea that, for example, my Republican friends say that we're going to default on the national debt because they're going to filibuster that and we need 10 Republicans to support. toward us is the most bizarre thing ever heard. I think you're

going to see, if they get pulled again, I think you're seeing an awful lot of Democrats being ready to say, not me. I'm not doing that again. We're going to end the filibuster. But it's still as difficult to end the filibuster beyond that. That's another issue. But are you saying once

you get this current agenda passed on spending and social programs that you would be open to fundamentally altering the filibuster or doing away with it? I am open to fundamentally all in. Well, that remains to be seen.

Exactly what that means in terms of fundamentally alternate whether or not we just end the filibuster straight up. There are certain things that are just sacred rights. One's a sacred obligation that we never are going to renege on a debt. We're the only nation in the world. We have never, ever reneged on a single debt.

But when it comes to voting rights... Voting rights is equally as consequential. When it comes to voting rights, just so I'm clear, though, you would entertain the notion of doing away with the filibuster on that one issue? Is that correct? And maybe more. And maybe other issues. Now, of course, Biden can't reform or eliminate the filibuster himself, but let's not pretend for a second that his voice in this fight wasn't desperately needed.

Without Biden supporting filibuster reform, without him using the bully pulpit of the presidency, there was no chance that the other filibuster defenders changed their position, namely Mansion and Cinema. but to see Biden move on this issue, knowing that he himself is a defender of the filibuster and has held out for, you know, an uncomfortably long time will hopefully be the kick in the ass that Mansion and Cinema need. Like, to know that the ultimate institutionalist Joe Biden recognizes the need to alter his position here

is arguably more effective than the pressure campaign that they've been dealing with for the last several months by, well, by people like me. And by the way, Biden's movement here is especially needed given the fact that, you know, my main criticism is that this administration hasn't been able to see the forest through the trees thus far, and they're focused on the Build Back Better Act and infrastructure, and that's all fine and good. But voting rights are foundational. Without voting rights, without shoring up the foundations of our democracy, let's be honest, it won't matter what we stand for because we won't have the means to enact any of it. If we sit by and let Republicans gerrymandered

Democrats at a government, we could take to the streets and march for women's reproductive rights and climate change and a living wage all we want, it won't matter because we won't hold any power to actually implement any of it. It all starts and ends with voting rights. And so to see Biden spend this precious sliver of time where we have unified control of government on roads and bridges is frustrating because what are we doing? Are we trying to pass the last ever infrastructure bill?

Is that the goal? It's just bizarre to me that we're worried about roads and bridges while Republicans are focused on the bigger picture of allowing themselves to entrench permanent minority rule. Now, with that said, here's the flip side of that argument. Most people in this country don't know that Republicans are suppressing votes and gerrymandering districts and purging voter rules. And even if they did know, they probably wouldn't care

because what most people care about are issues that impact them. And so in response, we do need the Bill Back Better Act to pass. Because even if the most pressing need right now is to shore up our democracy, the mandate that Biden was elected with was to, you know, quote unquote, build back better. It was to lower housing costs and drug costs. It was to combat climate change, to fix our crumbling infrastructure, to rebalance our tax code. And so I don't think his decision to focus solely on this is without merit, even if it's still frustrating for political junkies who see the raging inferno in front of us and wonder why the fire department isn't showing up. So now, you know,

with Biden on board for filibuster reform, all eyes turn to mansion and cinema. And I just want to focus for a moment on the principal argument that they use against it, which is that eliminating the filibuster could ultimately hurt Democrats when Republicans take the majority. But here's the thing. Think about what Republicans' top priorities are. Tax cuts for the rich and confirming conservative judges. The filibuster is already eliminated for both of those. As of 2017, you only needed a simple majority to confirm judges, which led to the confirmations of Gorsuch, Cavendon, Barrett. And they passed their 2017 tax cuts for the rich with only a simple majority as well. It is Democrats who are disproportionately hurt by the inability to pass legislation.

Republicans benefit from the status quo. They'd be fine if nothing else passed. Republicans benefit from a tax system that overwhelmingly favors the rich, from having zero federal protections for abortion, from allowing red states to suppress voters of color or other traditionally Democratic voters, doing nothing helps Republicans. And by the way, everyone knows that,

but that still hasn't stopped people like Kirsten Cinema from pretending that we shouldn't pass any of our agenda because the threat exists that Republicans could, possibly pass bad laws at some untold point in the future. And so instead, we're supposed to just sit around with our tails between our legs because we're too scared of the prospect of something bad happening. As if something bad isn't already happening. As if states aren't gerrymandering Democrats out of government right now. As if states aren't suppressing the votes of minorities right now. As if states aren't banning abortion right now. As if the ultra-rich aren't paying a fraction of what

their secretaries are paying in terms of percentages of their incomes right now. So we can either fix things today. Or we can, you know, cower and fear at the prospect of Republicans abusing their power in the future while also watching them abuse their power at this very second. So at this point, here's what will happen. We'll pass the Build Back Better Act on the bipartisan infrastructure package and deliver a transformational package to the people that elected Democrats to do exactly that. And then, all eyes will turn to voting rights. And it will be up to Biden and Schumer and anyone else in Democratic leadership to ensure that this gets done to convince Mansion and cinema to reform the filibuster so that the very bill that Manchin himself crafted could actually

pass. And that'll be make or break. If Biden makes that happen, he deserves every ounce of credit for it. And Democrats can govern a country where its people have fair representation and where we still have the ability for a fair shot at being in power. And if he doesn't, then the consequences will become pretty clear. But for now, even though things are moving slowly, there's something to be said for the fact that they are moving in the right direction. Next up is my interview with Congressman Adam Schiff. Today we've got the congressman for California's 28th District right here in L.A., the chair of the House Intel Committee, and the author of the new book, Midnight in Washington,

How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could. Adam Schiff, thanks for coming back on. It's great to be with you. So let's start off with the January 6th Committee. The House has just voted in favor of this. So what does a full House vote in favor of holding banning contempt mean? Like, what are the next steps here? How will this process play out?

Well, I think it means, in its essence, that the rule of law is back, that no one's above the law. If you thwart a lawful subpoena, that you'll be prosecuted. You know, it should be the same for everyone. I know if my constituents got a subpoena to appear in court or before Congress and just ignored it, they would be arrested and they would be prosecuted. It shouldn't be any different for Steve Bannon. So now that it's past the House floor, it will go off to the Justice Department. The Justice Department has a duty to present it to the grand jury.

It's not always the case that they do. But here, I think there's good reason to be optimistic. I think the Attorney General understands that we have to validate the principle, that no one's above the law, and we have to give meaning to compulsory process when Congress is doing its oversight. So I think it'll send a powerful message to others who might contemplate, lawful process. And also Steve Ben is a key witness predicting the day before January 6th that all hell was going to break loose. Well, you know, speaking of the DOJ and some of the action that

we've seen or lack thereof, you know, aside from the committee itself, we do have the DOJ that's given the responsibility of taking action here against some of what we know are illegal offenses. Like, we have audio of Trump literally asking the Georgia Secretary of State to find 11,780 votes. Do you think that Merrick Garland should be more aggressive here? And I know this is a leading question, but isn't the failure to impose consequences just tacit permission to do it again? I am deeply concerned that Donald Trump and others take away the message that you can't be prosecuted while you're the President of the United States. And when you leave the presidency, you can't be investigated or prosecuted. I understand, look, it's a difficult decision to

potentially prosecute a former president. But I think you have to conduct the investigation. You have to find the facts. And then you make a decision about where the public interest lies. But we can't ignore what took place. And you point to Exhibit A, in my view, which is Donald Trump tried to get the Secretary of State in Georgia to commit a fraud, to declare that there were thousands and thousands of votes for him, Donald Trump, that didn't exist. I think if anyone else had done that, they would have been indicted by now. Now, it may be. be that the Justice Department is pursuing it. They're just keeping it a very good secret, but generally when their grand jury proceedings, at least the existence of them, makes its way

into the public domain. So I am concerned that we not establish a precedent that a president is too big to fail and a president is too big to jail. Yeah. And just to speak on the fact that it's a difficult decision to move forward with prosecutions for people like Donald Trump. I don't think that it's any more difficult than it would be to contend with another January 6th. Well, I agree. Right now, the former president is pushing the same big lie that led to the insurrection and also working to try to get state legislatures around the country to strip independent elections officials of their duties so that the next time they try to overturn an election and run it to someone like Brad Raffensberger who won't find 11,780 votes that

don't exist, they will have a place somebody who will. So I think we're on a very dangerous path to undermining the integrity of our elections, casting doubt on the whole process. And if people don't believe that their vote can be used to determine who governs and to decide disputes, then it leaves the country open to violence. And we saw that all too clearly on January 6th. Right. Now, do you imagine that Trump and Pence will, A, be called to testify for the January 6th committee and, B, comply with calls to testify? You know, I think all of us on the committee, Democrats and Republicans are determined to get to the truth, and we will call anyone necessary to do so. So we haven't taken anybody off the table, including the former president.

or the former vice president. I'm not in a position to announce any decisions with regard to that. I think there's a lot of investigative work that we want to do, need to do before we reach that point. But, you know, our view is we want to write the definitive report. We want to shed light on this terrible tragedy. And we want to write recommendations that will help protect the country going forward just like the 9-11 Commission did.

And anyone who has relevant information that we need, we will go after. will go after. And what are the range of outcomes in terms of consequences for some of the major players like Donald Trump, like Steve Bannon, or even the other congressmen who were alleged to have been involved in planning? And does the committee have any authority beyond recommending punishments to the DOJ? Can it actually, you know, is there a way to, is there any enforcement mechanism? There's no way to really enforce a prosecutorial decision.

And so we are left to the discretion, properly exercised by the Department of Justice. This is why, frankly, over the last four years, our system broke down. Bill Barr, when he was Attorney General, was not about to enforce the law against those lying to cover up for Donald Trump. Indeed, he was using the Department of Justice to intervene to reduce the sentence of one liar, Roger Stone, who was convicted of perjury, and to make the whole case go away against another liar, Michael Flynn, who lied to the FBI. and pled guilty to it twice.

So, you know, Bill Barr was also someone, frankly, that we held in criminal contempt. And if he wasn't about to prosecute himself and he wasn't, he wasn't going to prosecute others who were similarly covering up for the president. But it's a whole new ballgame now because we, once again, I have a justice department devoted to justice and not the person or personal interests of the president. And so just going back to the previous question, you know, the range of consequences for some of the major players. In terms of what the DOJ can do, what would we be looking at? Well, you know, I guess there are a couple different parts to that. There's the question,

what happens to people who don't cooperate when they're subpoenaed? And they here will face up to a year in jail and up to $100,000 in fines. For those that may be implicated in the insurrection itself, Congress doesn't have the power to prosecute them. But we do have the power to expose their role, their misconduct, whatever involvement they had. And that might help inform the Justice Department about whether a crime has been committed. We also have remedies in the House. We can bring people up on ethics charges. If their involvement was serious enough, we could even consider expulsion from the House. But the criminal remedy, the prostitorial remedy, is not one that Congress enjoys. Unfortunately, there's a feeling that I think a lot of us get,

that we won't actually see any accountability in that, you know, yet again, the same people who've committed crimes before in broad daylight with the whole world watching, we're going to get, get away with it now. So can you speak to that sense, you know, and do you echo that same same sense of futility, really? Well, I can understand why people feel that way. And it was certainly a great frustration to me over the last several years that you had individual number one named an indictment in the Southern District of New York, who it was clearly Donald Trump. And in that indictment, it says individual number one directed and coordinated a criminal scheme involving Michael Cohen. Well, the Justice Department argued that Michael Cohen had to go to jail

because he was coordinated and directed. So what's the argument that the guy who did the directing and did the coordinating gets the pass? So I understand the frustration is a frustration that I share. And more than that, you know, people watched witness after witness in the Russia and Ukraine investigation decide that they just were not going to cooperate. Now, we ended up impeaching Donald Trump for obstruction of Congress. But there didn't seem to be many repercussions for the actual people who did the individual obstructing. That's changed because we now, as I mentioned, have a Justice Department devoted to justice. But I certainly understand the frustration. I share it. And I view this contempt, this criminal contempt that we have voted on with Steve Bannon

to be an early test in terms of whether our democracy is recovering. Has there been anything else that you've done with in Congress to rectify some of the more egregious examples of corruption from the internal side? Yes. In fact, I talk about this in the book. I raised with a speaker about a year and a half ago the need to have our own post-Watergate reforms, a whole series of measures designed to address the abuses of the last several years. So I introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act. We hope to take it up as early as next month. And it would expedite. congressional subpoenas. It would stiffen penalties for violating the Hatch Act and using the federal workforce as part of your campaign. It would provide enforcement mechanism for the emoluments clause so President can't enrich themselves by having Gulf nations stay at his hotels and not even use the rooms. It would strengthen protections for Inspector General's and whistleblowers and a whole host of other reforms to protect the independence of the Justice Department.

I view that as a key part of our democracy agenda, along with H.R. 1, as well as the Voting Rights Act. Well, now, that's a great segue into exactly that into voting rights, which I think is the most important. I mean, that's a foundational issue. So everything beyond that kind of relies on the fact that we get voting rights passed. What's the likelihood of a constitutional crisis occurring if Republicans take the House ahead of 2022 and then Trump decides to run in 2024, in your opinion? Well, look, if Ken McCarthy were ever to set foot in the Speaker's office, it would mean it would mean essentially that Donald Trump was the speaker because Kevin McCarthy will not stand up to Donald Trump in any way no matter how unethical the demand may be. If Kevin McCarthy had been Speaker after the last election, he would have decertified the results of the election. Someone with that little regard for a Constitution, oath of office, can never be allowed to set foot in the Speaker's office. So it would be, I think, the path to the end of our democracy.

It would pave the way for a return to Donald Trump. And who knows what the country would look like if we had to endure another four years of Donald Trump. So it's no exaggeration to say that in the midterms, our democracy will really be on the ballot. Now, I'm optimistic about those midterms. And I know people point to the historic trend in which the party in power in the White House loses seats in the country. congressional races. But that precedent depends on the fact that in the presidential election, the president sweeps into office a bunch of people from the same party. Well, Joe Biden didn't sweep into office a lot of House Democrats. In fact, House Democrats lost their seats

in that presidential cycle. So we've already had our correction. And I feel optimistic about the midterms. We're going to have to work hard, particularly to overcome these efforts at disenfranchisement. But our folks are heavily motivated. without Trump on the ballot, I think their folks are less motivated. And at the end of the day, it's going to be determined by who gets out to vote. Now, I know you had mentioned before these Republicans targeting elections officials and replacing elections officials. Now, a lot of this happens at the state level. So is there anything that can be done federally to confront this issue?

I know that, you know, even within a bunch of the, you know, the for the People Act, the Freedom to Vote Act, there are ways for us to confront a lot of the issues that we're facing, but with regard to these, you know, that one issue of taking out, uh, independent elections workers and replacing them with partisan officials, because that's done so much at the state level, is there anything that, that can be done federally? Uh, you know, it's very hard. I think HR one and the John Lewis bill go, go some distance in trying to protect the country from those efforts that disenfranchisement and those efforts to, uh, essentially tee up,

uh, overturning, uh, legitimate election. But we also need to work at the state level. You're absolutely right. If, you know, they replaced Brad Raffensberger with someone who's willing to do whatever Donald Trump tells him to do, there's only so much that can be done to protect against it. Now, were that situation to arise, were there a situation where Georgia, instead of sending a slate of electors that was chosen by the popular vote sends an alternate slate because

Donald Trump demands it, of course, we would challenge that action in court. But I hate to rely on the courts, particularly when we have a Supreme Court that is more partisan than it is conservative. Now, is there any discussion with you all about the risks associated with not reforming the filibusters that the freedom to vote act can pass? And I know this is done on the Senate side, but still, these, you know, these are your Democratic colleagues because I feel like if anyone could appreciate what's at stake with letting Republicans rig the game and gerrymander their way into the majority with a possible Trump run on the horizon, it's you. Yeah. Look, I think we should do away with the filibuster, but at a minimum, there should be a carve-out for voting rights because, as you point out, voting rights are fundamental, foundational. And if the foundation is weak or flawed, then the whole edifice on top of it comes crumbling down. If the Republicans were willing to make a carve-out of the filibuster so that Mitch McConnell could stack conservative justices on the court, there should be a carve-out for voting rights. We cannot allow this archaic mechanism that was used to protect Jim Crowell. laws in the past to be used once again to protect Jim Crow laws in the future. So I think that's essential. I think the only pathway is persuading Joe Manchin of the importance of this.

And I hope that, you know, taking up voting rights in the Senate and seeing the Republicans are not going to support it will help make the case to Joe Manchin that Republicans will not support this because their whole business model is fewer people voting and particularly people of color. So I view that as a vital priority for the Democratic Party and for our democracy at large. Now, in your book, you covered, obviously, the impeachment trial at length. And that was a trial that was marred by most Republicans' loyalty to a criminal president. But still, our institutions were just barely able to hold. But now we're in a position where there's a systematic purging of all the non-Maga Republicans within the party. So if we just barely held on before, how do we survive

with even fewer moderates after 2022? Like, God knows even if Liz Cheney is going to be around 14 months from now. Well, you know, one of the things that I do in the book is I profile, frankly, the people that have been courageous over this time, because their examples are really important. Some of them we're very familiar with now. They've become almost household names like Ambassador Marie Ivanovich, like Alexander Vindman. People should. showed great courage in testifying and defying the president who called on them to remain silent and participate in his cover-up, if you will. But there were many others. People like Dan Coates, Republican Senator of Indiana, became the head of the intelligence community, refused to

carry Donald Trump's lies about Korea, North Korea, or about Russia, and was willing to risk his job and lost his job because of it. And these are the examples that we need to inspire us. We can't all be Maria Ivanovitch, but we can all figure out in our own lives what we can do to protect our democracy at a time where it's at great risk. But you're right. Donald Trump has been on a four, now five-year quest to purge any element of dissent within this party, anyone willing to speak out the truth, anyone not willing to carry the big lie. And as long as the Republican Party is this autocratic cult of the former president, this anti-truth cult, this anti-truth cult, They're just going to need to be beaten at the polls. There is no alternative. There's no accommodating an autocratic party.

They just need to be beaten at the polls. Yeah, well said. And what would you say is the juiciest part of the book? You know, I think there are a lot of stories that would be of great interest to people. I tell one, for example, of Kevin McCarthy, of sitting next to him on a plane flying back to Washington, D.C. And this was this was 2010. So this was a preview of things to come. We were talking about the midterms, still six months away, and I said Democrats were going to win, and he said Republicans were going to win, and it was a total nothing of a conversation.

And we get to Washington, we go our separate ways, and little do I know. He goes off, and he does a press briefing. And he tells the press that Republicans are going to win the midterms, and everybody knows it. He sat next to Adam Schiff on an airplane, and Adam Schiff admitted Republicans were going to win the midterms. And this comes out the next morning, and I'm just beside myself. And I rush up to him on the high. house floor. I said, Kevin, I would have thought if we're having a private conversation, that it was a private conversation. But if it wasn't, you know, you told the press the exact opposite of what I said. And he looks at me and he says, yeah, I know Adam, but you know how it goes. And I said, no, Kevin, I don't know how it goes. You just make stuff up and that's how you

operate because that's not how I operate. But it is how he operates. And I told that story because people often ask me, do the Republicans really believe what they say in public? What do they say in private? And in private, even the leader of their party will basically admit that he feels completely free to deceive others if it'll help him gain power. And that's why they can never be allowed to govern. A party with that little regard for the truth just cannot be, you know, third in line of succession. somebody shows you who they are, believe them, you know? Yes, yes.

The situation in California is pretty fluid right now. Diane Feinstein's political future is probably uncertain in the coming years. If you weren't a congressman, is there any other role that would interest you? You know, I certainly have interest in serving my district, my state, my country. I want to be of use. My father once gave me some very good advice when I was a kid. I write a lot about my dad in the book. He said, if you're good at what you do, there will always be a demand for you, which was a very liberating idea, because then I just had to try to be good at what I was doing.

That's what I intend to continue trying to do, and you could be the judge of whether I'm succeeding or not, but I'm content to let the future take care of itself. And for right now, while our democracy, I think, is hanging by a thread, I know what my mission is. Well said. Well, again, congratulations on the book. That book is Midnight in Washington. how we almost lost our democracy and still could. Congressman Schiff, thank you so much for taking the time. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks again to Adam Schiff. Now we've got the editor at large at The Daily Beast and the host of the new abnormal podcast, Molly Zhang Fast. Thanks so much for coming on. Thank you for having me. So let's start with the media. I mean, this is a space that you're in. I think you'd be well positioned to speak on it. So with the build back better plan, a criticism now has

been that the media is reporting more on the conflict of negotiations rather than on the substance of the bill itself. And so Pelosi had come out recently and actually slam the media for focusing more on that fight, you know, than the substance of what the fight is about. So what's your position on this? And how does it inform how you do your job? You know, it's a really good question. And it's something and a lot of Democrats have come out and complained about it, including Bernie to. And like, they're well within their rights to complain. And you'll see, I mean, and they do have a good point, which is when you report on the top line number, don't talk about what's in the bill. So people will say, oh, it's studded a trillion

dollars, but they won't be like, I can't afford to get my teeth fixed. Bernie Sanders wants to make it so that I don't have to pull out my own teeth. Now, that, in my mind, is a pretty good gig. I mean, you don't want to have to pull out your own teeth. And there are people in this country who can't afford dental. I mean, what are there other choices, right? I mean, and we are a country with a lot of wealth and a lot of really extreme poverty. So these things like eyeglasses and dental care and universal pre-K,

which we have never had in this country. so like three-year-olds just stay at home or I don't know what happens to I mean if you can't afford to pay you know thousands of dollars a year your three-year-old stays at home and stares at the wall I mean there are some real fucked up am I allowed to curse here yeah yes okay there's some real fucked up problems with American life I had I had Betto O'Rourke on I think my second ever episode and he dropped a bunch of f-bombs and since then the podcast was labeled explicit so so go for it okay good So the things that these Democrats are fighting for are things that like normal countries have, right? Like they have in the UK, they have it in Denmark, they have it in Norway, they have it.

And I mean, these are like, you know, Canada, you know, countries that are these wealthy, industrialized countries don't have people pulling out their own teeth. Yeah. Period. Paragraph. Now, it's not the job of the media to sell the Billback Better Plan. I personally am on the opinion side, so I can do whatever the fuck I want. But, I mean, I shouldn't say that. I can't do whatever the fuck I want.

But I don't, I'm not a reporter. I don't do straight reporting. So I can write an opinion piece where I say in normal countries, people don't pull out their own teeth. But reporters have to report. Now, I would say one of the biggest problems in our country is that we have this horse race journalism. So we have, and as things get shorter, like you have all these newsletters, and things are like, get smarter, like one line. Environmentalists are really down that the planet is going to be destroyed.

Two sides. Winners, you know, oil companies, losers, the rest of us. You know, that kind of world. Right, the world. Your grand. Humanity, yeah. Right. I mean, so that kind of reporting is very problematic.

That said, it's really not the responsibility of journalists, straight journalists, to sell democratic policy. Now, the thing that I am always struck by is how bad Democratic messaging is, right? Like who, you know, the reality is if Nancy Pelosi got up there and said, look, we don't want you to have to pull your own teeth. We want you to be able to afford to go to the dentist, right? That's a pretty no-brainer, you know. So some of what's happened is, and I think it's good, and I think Democrats are starting to

try to catch up with it. And you saw Bernie did a what's in the damn bill event with A.O.S. which was really smart. That kind of stuff is really smart. But fundamentally, you know, you don't want a media that's selling you things, especially a straight journalist media. I think the media has been very terrible lately. And especially when it came to Trump, you know, the guy got so much attention, nobody ever

took him seriously. We were undermining, you know, the media was undermining the democracy and they didn't even know it. You know, I mean, it just, but again, how do you cover an autocracy? There is no playbook for a free and fair media in an autocracy. Here's what I think, just building on what you were just speaking about. I do think that the Democrats are at an inherent disadvantage, and I spoke about this on my podcast last week, because on the right, you know, during the Trump administration, which

is an ideal scenario for them, they had unified control of government, they've got Fox, they've got OAN, Newsmax, the Blaze, Steve Bannon's podcast, whatever it is, lining up to to sell you, you know, their agenda, even if that agenda is absolute dog shit. I mean, Trump blew up the debt to give like 80 people a tax cut. You know, I'm kidding, but like, not really. But no, I mean, a corporate tax cut that is preposterous, yeah. But on the so-called liberal side of the media, we've got, you know, now a plan that would be transformational, a package of deals with climate change and housing and education and

childcare and health care all paid for through popular provisions fixing the tax code. And our side, you know, or at least the people who have been anointed our side, are so focused on Dems and Disarray to the point that nobody even knows what's in this bill. So we are an inherent disadvantage because the media ecosystems that we operate in are inherently different and there to do different things. Well, I would say that what I have been really struck by is that the mainstream media wants to tell the truth. The conservative media wants to help Trump. Right. So you have a real disconnect. Well, the baselines are different because they're starting at different places.

Right. Now, that said, I also think part of the problem is that Democrats truly believe in their heart of hearts that if they do good stuff, people will see it. And that is bullshit. Yeah. People don't, you know, I mean, like a great example is a child tax credit. Democrats are ending child poverty. Yeah.

This is not a two-size issue. Like, your child, you know, child poverty needs to be ended. Children should not be born into poverty in wealthy countries. Like, they shouldn't be born into poverty anywhere, but they especially shouldn't be born into poverty in a country that can afford to not have them born into poverty. And it's not that popular. It's not that popular because people are not explaining it. So, I mean, that's a crazy thing to not be popular.

I mean, you want, I mean, like, think about that. Think about someone saying you like, oh, yeah, no, we want children to be poor. Like, and starving in the street. I mean, there's no two-size that. So I would say, like, there's a certain sense Democrats have that they think if they do the rights of people notice. And what we know now and what we've really seen from Trumpism, I mean, Trump went to West Virginia and he said, I'm going to make coal great again. There is no way to make coal great again. Cole sucks.

Cole is so expensive that there's no world in which digging it out of the ground makes any kind of financial sense without crazy, crazy subsidies. I mean, it's just he cannot make call great again, but it didn't matter because Trump doesn't care. He just lies. So Democrats have the truth and they still need to sell it, unfortunately. Yeah, I think, and I think that's something that progressive media or media that explicitly presents itself as progressive media, which is what I do, like, you know, I'm not doing straight journalism. This is, this is progressive media, should take those lessons from exactly that. Yeah. So I want to turn to everyone's favorite U.S. Senator, the pride of Arizona, Kirsten Cinema.

So I think it was last week's episode of your podcast, The New Abnormal, where, you know, the question you sought to answer was, what the fuck is wrong with Kirsten Cinema. So I want to know what did you land on? What the fuck is wrong with Kirsten Cinema? You know, I don't know what's wrong with her. I think, I mean, by the way, the thing that I saw the reporting, I guess. saw today that where she's like against raising the corporate tax rate like how can you be the corporate tax rate was like a certain percentage i don't know 34 percent i'm not don't quote me but you know it the trump raised it lowered it to 29 percent right with the idea or 28 or 21 i can't

i'm not exactly sure it was 30 something lower to 20 something with the thought also he doesn't care about blowing up the deficit and also the dumb excuse they used was that they said that if they did this, more companies would pay taxes, which, again, was bullshit. But okay, so she's like, I don't want to raise it. I mean, like, you don't want to raise it to just what it was before Trump came in. Also, what's especially ironic about that is, is they did that operating under the pretense, even though they knew it, they all knew it was bullshit that, that companies would, you know, do whatever they needed to do to, to justify it. They didn't. It dried up federal, federal revenue, it had, it led to a bunch of corporate stock buybacks. Like, it had no impact,

no discernible impact, and only bad press coverage after. So that whole, that whole pretense has just been shot to shit. And so to continue defending it now afterwards doesn't actually make any sense. It is just, I mean, it's just ridiculous. I mean, she is a ridiculous person. The other thing would she, I don't know if she cares, but like, he's up for re-election. Kelly's up for re-election because that's just the fill in seed in 2022. She could torpedo him. I mean, she probably won't,

but she could. She's definitely going to get primary by Ruben Gallego. I'm very excited because Ruben Gallego is great and I can't wait for him to primary heart. I mean, like, I guess she'll go be a lobbyist or something. I mean, I don't even get it, but it's like you, you know, you were a Green Party activist. Clearly, you love wine and traveling Europe

more than you love helping people. you know, it's incredible. I mean, it's just incredible and she's really proven herself to be a huge disappointment. Now, I want to end with this. You participated in the Pfizer vaccine trial, correct? Yeah. So, you know, with a lot of anti-vaxxers saying that this is an experimental drug, that we don't know what's in it, you know, you were there when it actually was an experimental drug. Yeah. And of course, you know, since then, it's gotten full FDA approval and it's as close to a surefire. Yeah, it's as close to a surefire solution as you can find. Right. So how do you feel when you hear people continue to downplay this vaccine that you

yourself helped ensure wasn't just experimental anymore? Yeah, it's amazing. I mean, and you know, my favorite crazy thing about all this is that they, the anti-vaxxers are against the vaccine, which billions of people have taken, but they will take monoclonal antibody. therapy, which well success, you know, is really not that many people have taken. It's just preposterous. No, these people are, I mean, some of these people are legitimately crazy, and some of these people are partisan hacks. I don't know which is which, and I don't even care really, but, you know, we, there were a lot of people who did those trials about 60,000 people, all different people, a lot of doctors. Like 20% of the trial was doctors. So it was pretty

interesting group of people. I was thrilled to get to do it. My husband did a different trial. He did AstraZeneca. One of my best friends did J&J. I encouraged everyone I knew to do trials because I knew with vaccines, first of all, I knew that the MRI vaccine was safe. And with vaccines, you have a much higher rate of what's tolerated, a much lower rate of what's tolerated than like say, you know, the place I actually, I was part of the trial at Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale New Haven Hospital was, did a lot of AIDS research. So they had been testing medicine that really made you say, you know, that had real side effects for people, you know, because people were desperate. But with vaccines, it's a much higher bar to clear, even for when things get to

be experimental treatments. But, you know, I believe in science and I understood how MRI vaccines worked and I'm not a total idiot. So I was happy to do it. But yeah, these people are, I mean, this is an amazing time in American life because you have people who are literally killing themselves. And what you see is the people who, none of the rich people are doing this. Like Tucker Carlson isn't dying of COVID, right? It really, you really do see these people are just kind of encouraging their supporters to take these unnecessary risks because of partisanship. It's nuts. It's like the Middle Ages.

Who, by the way, are dying at higher rates than people who have been, you know, encouraged to take the vaccine. No, I mean, it's 11 times, you're 11 times more likely to die of COVID if you're unvaccinated. Like, period, paragraph, that's it. Molly, the new abnormal pod, is there anything else I'm missing? No, that's it. All right. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to talk. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Have a great night. Thanks again to Molly. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian. Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, interviews captured and edited for YouTube and Facebook by Nicholas Nicotera, and recorded in Los Angeles, California. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app.

Feel free to leave a five-star rating and a review, and check out Brian Tyler Cohen.com for links to all of my other channels.