No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Adam Schiff on whether Trump could face consequences for election subversion

Episode Date: November 22, 2020

Trump is trying to overturn the election results in the courts, Rudy Giuliani argues his big case in PA, a Trump lawyer brings forward a conspiracy theory too insane even for Tucker Carlson, and Trump summons Michigan lawmakers to the White House to intimidate them into not certifying the results for Biden. And Brian interviews Adam Schiff about whether Trump can face legal consequences for trying to undermine the election.Written by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CAhttps://www.briantylercohen.com/podcast/Visit votesaveamerica.com/georgia or votesaveamerica.com/getmitch to do your part for Georgia's Senate runoffs.See 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 how Trump's efforts to overturn the election results in the courts are going, Rudy Giuliani's big case in Pennsylvania, a Trump lawsuit too insane for even Tucker Carlson, and what happened when Trump summoned Michigan lawmakers to the White House to intimidate them into not certifying the election results for Joe Biden. I also interview House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, where we talk about whether Trump can face legal consequences for trying to undermine the election results. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. Okay, let's start out with a caveat. You have nothing to worry about.

The states are continuing to certify the election results, and Joe Biden will take office on January 20th, 2021. But with that said, that's not for lack of trying on Trump's part. So let's talk about those efforts. First, the lawsuits by his campaign and his allies, which objectively have been an unmitigated disaster. As of this recording, these pro-Trump legal teams are two for 34 in court. 2 for 34.

They've lost cases claiming that their observers didn't have access to ballot counting, only to have the Republican lawyers admit that they did have access. They lost cases claiming that votes were illegally cast despite having no proof. Cases about so-called Sharpie Gate, where they claimed poll workers were handing Trump supporters black markers that counting machines wouldn't pick up, which was immediately debunked. They brought a bunch of Trump voters to court who complained that their votes weren't being counted. But when they were under oath and asked by the judge if they had any reason to believe that their votes weren't counted,

All of them said no. There was a case where they brought a boatload of affidavits from voters decrying fraud. Only the Republican lawyer himself admitted to the judge that a number of the affidavits were spam. Here's a fun one. As part of a larger case-slash-conspiracy theory that Dominion voting systems was leading to widespread fraud, Republicans used as proof the notion that more votes were cast than the number of eligible voters in certain counties and towns in Michigan. Only the places listed weren't towns and counties in Michigan, they were in Minnesota. Minnesota. The lawyers had confused Michigan's abbreviation, M.I, and Minnesota's abbreviation MN.

So, I guess this is the part where we applaud them for only hiring the best people. And, oh, my favorite. Remember Rudy Giuliani's big case where he'd try to get all mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania thrown out because of mass fraud? It would be the first time he'd make a federal court appearance in 28 years. Yeah. On Saturday, the judge, who, mind you, is a member of the Federalist Society, so, you know, not exactly Ruth Bader Ginsburg here, delivered a ruling dismissing Giuliani's suit with prejudice, meaning it can't be refiled. The judge wrote, plaintiffs asked this court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formatively armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption.

This is not happened. Instead, this court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all of the voters in its six most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more, end quote. The word floating around to describe this is a shalacking. Who'd have guessed that a case that was pumped up at a press conference in a landscaping

parking lot between a sex shop and a crematorium would end so unceremoniously. And now, with all of these suits having failed, we've got another crackpot lawyer, Sidney Powell, showing up at her own press conference claiming that Cuba, China, and Venezuela have all conspired to steal the election from Trump. She literally invokes Hugo Chavez, the former president of Venezuela, who died in 2013. And uncovering more by the day is the massive influence of communists. through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China in the interference with our elections here in the United States. The Dominion voting systems, the smartmatic technology

software and the software that goes in other computerized voting systems here as well, not just Dominion, were created in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez to make sure he never lost an election after one constitutional referendum came out the way he did not want it to come out. We have one very strong witness who has explained how it all works. His affidavit is attached to the pleadings of Lynn Wood in the lawsuit he filed in Georgia. It is a stunning, detailed affidavit because he was with Hugo Chavez while he was being briefed on how it worked. That is what they've resorted to.

It's now not only dead voters and illegal voters and Sharpies, Cuba and China and Venezuela are in on it too. It is so insane that Tucker Carlson rejected it. Tucker Carlson. What Powell was describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history. Millions of votes stolen in a day. Democracy destroyed the end of our centuries old system of self-government, not a small thing. Now, to be perfectly clear, we did not dismiss any of it. We don't dismiss

anything anymore, particularly when it's related to technology. We've talked to too many Silicon Valley whistleblowers. We've seen too much. After four years, this may be the single most open-minded show on television. We literally do UFO segments. So that's a long way of saying we took Sidney Powell seriously. We had no intention of fighting with her. We've always respected her work. We simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them? So we invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would have given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week, actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt detention. That's a big story. But she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests, polite requests,

not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given them any evidence either, nor did she provide any today at the press conference. Powell did say that electronic voting is dangerous, and she's right. We're with her there. But she never demonstrated that a single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another, not one. So why are we telling you this? We're telling you this because it's true. And in the end, that's all that matters, the truth. It's our only hope. It's our best to offense. Like, what does it say when you've lost Tucker Carlson? Tucker Carlson may be the single

worst human on television. He's an avowed racist and misogynist and, yeah, a conspiracy theorist who thinks that this conspiracy theory is too insane even for him to co-sign onto. And aside from all of this, even the wins were completely inconsequential. They won two cases in total. One case allowed observers to move a few feet closer. The other changed a cure deadline from nine to six days. That's it. And so clearly, if Trump and his allies, plan was to actually try and win this thing in the courts, it's not happening. But with that said, this isn't necessarily about winning in the courts. And this is where I think that their strategy is a little more insidious than just a bunch of embarrassing failed litigation. Because

just by virtue of presenting these lawsuits, it buoys their disinformation campaign. I don't necessarily think this is about winning in courts of law. I think it's about winning in the court of public opinion, right? Because once he's got enough public pressure mounted and his supporters are thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that non-existent fraud does in fact exist, the theory is that he can use that to pressure Republican officials in key states to delay certification. And if you think that sounds way too blatantly authoritarian, even for Trump, consider the fact that he's already doing it. Trump summoned Michigan Speaker of the State House and leader of the State Senate to the White House this past week in an effort to get them not to certify the

results of the election that he lost, having relied on the exact public pressure campaign that he himself created, and they accepted that meeting. So we all sat around watching as the most powerful man in the world used the biggest bully pulpit in the world to bring a couple of members of the state legislature in Michigan to the White House, where he would demand that they override the will of the voters and refuse to certify the election results. It is so incredibly undemocratic, it's anti-democratic, it's despotic, and it happened in broad daylight. And so we sat here holding our breath. And then finally they left that meeting

and released a statement and that said, quote, we used our time in the White House to deliver a letter to President Trump making clear our support for additional federal funds to help Michigan in the fight against COVID-19. They went on to write, quote, we've not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan. And as legislative leaders, we will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan's electors, just as we have said throughout this election. And then they added this part, quote, Michigan certification process should be a deliberate process free from threats and intimidation.

They had to say that they shouldn't be intimidated during the certification process because the president of the United States can't stop trying to literally do exactly that. I should say, too, that by saying what they said, those two Michigan lawmakers managed to do what most of the National Republican Party still hasn't had the backbone to do. And look, we're not out of the woods yet and anyone can say one thing and do the other. But credit where it's due, that statement was exactly what should have been released. Meanwhile, we've got what? Two Republican senators who've spoken out against Trump and they're supposed to be the party of patriots, the constitutionalists who aren't willing to respect the peaceful transfer of power? If you ever needed proof that the GOP stands for literally nothing beyond their own grip on power, that every platitude they've spouted about respecting the rule of law and are founding fathers, that it was all meaningless, look no further than what we're seeing right now. And for what?

To, it's a coddle the ego of a failed, one-term president who's too insecure to admit that he lost? That's what they're willing to undermine the longest standing democracy in the world for? Seriously, the U.S. is the oldest democracy in the world. And basically, half of our nationally elected politicians would sacrifice that because Donald Trump is butt hurt. And so that brings me to this last point, which is that we don't get to stop. paying attention once Joe Biden takes office. We're not going to be able to just go back to our regular lives and ignore politics

and never look at the news again. This isn't solved. It's better for sure. But while Trump's gone, A, he's clearly got influence in the party that even as a losing candidate, these clowns in the GOP are still afraid of even just acknowledging that he lost. And B, those very people are all still in office. The Jim Jordans and Ted Cruz's and Matt Gates's, they're all still.

there. Trump was the embodiment of the worst things about the Republican Party, but those issues didn't start with him and they won't end with him. And if anything, all they've done is normalized anti-democratic behavior within that party. So for the sake of this country, for the sake of every issue that's important to you, whether it's climate change or health care or women's reproductive rights, or immigration or a livable wage, your job is to stay informed. Because these last four years, these last four days, are the best reminder we've got of what can happen if we don't. Next up is my interview with the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff,

where we discuss whether Trump can be held accountable for his efforts to undermine the results of the election. Okay, today we have the chairman of the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff. Thanks for coming back on. My pleasure. Good to see you. So first question, just for clarification, if for nothing else, then the fact that it's helpful to hear it reiterated, and I think people are worried in general. But does Trump have a path to subvert the results of the election?

No, he doesn't. He has a path to do a lot of destruction on his way out of the door. He seems intent on trying to pull the house down around him. But there's no way for him to stay in office. And what he's doing is singly destructive. It's annoying. It's frustrating. It's dangerous.

During the midst of a pandemic, it is terribly irresponsible and might even result in people losing their lives. But no, there's no hasting in office. Is there a concern that Trump is delaying? you know, basically to gin up this disinformation campaign or even for the results to go to the house for them to decide? You know, I think that his Hail Mary at this point, having, you know, failed spectacularly at the polls and then failed spectacularly in the courts. Yeah. And if you want to look for the most graphic, you know, failure, you could just look at Rudy Giuliani's last screwball comedy press conference. Yeah. So his last Hail Mary is, well,

maybe he can twist the arms of Republican state legislators to send Congress a slate of electors that ignore the popular vote. It's just not going to happen. And even Republican leaders in these states are speaking out and saying, we're not going to do that. So I think he's just, you know, to whatever degree he has a reputation left destroying it even further, trying to, you know, enlist people like Lindsey Graham to weigh in with the Secretary of State in Georgia. really prompted the Secretary of State from Georgia to push back and say, you know, what you're trying to do is unethical, if not illegal, in so many words. It's not going to work, but it is, I think, merely causing questions in the minds of voters that undermine our democracy and, frankly, hold us up to ridicule around the world. You know, we're supposed to be championing democracy.

Right. When we see other countries where a autocratic kind of ruler is refusing to accept the results of an election, you know, we deplore it. We condemn it. We withhold funding from a country that would do that. Yeah. And now our own president is trying to do the same thing. Yeah. I mean, if we had seen this happen anywhere else in the world, this is the kind of thing that the United States would sanction another country for. And now it's happening right here. And you have the party of supposed patriots that are, you know, completely. silent, save for two or three Republicans. That's exactly right. You would imagine that in these circumstances, all the Republicans in Congress would be speaking out and saying, no, that's not how our democracy works. And the election's over. We accept the results. We move on. That's when the hallmark of a democracy.

Is Mitch McConnell saying that or Kevin McCarthy or any of them? And the answer is no. I mean, they're going along with this anti-democratic charade, this dangerous charade. Mitt Romney has been the only one. I think that's had the guts to speak out. Ben Sass rebuked him as well. But yeah, it's, I mean, hardly a representative sample, you know? Yeah. No, that's true. So with this disinformation campaign from Trump, it seems that Democrats in general seem to be relatively quiet, which personally I've found frustrating at times. Do you think that the lack of pushback emboldens those on the right to basically continue ramping up these election fraud claims since they pretty much have. have a clear runway to do so?

Well, you know, I think many of us in Congress are speaking out. You do see Republicans outside the government speak out. I think that the president-elect has done a good job walking the fine line of staying above the fray, not allowing the outgoing president to make an even greater food fight. And at the same time, underscoring the need for the new team to be briefed, to get to speed on the pandemic, on other national security threats, to be prepared to hit the ground running, and that this continued obstinence is just grossly irresponsible. You know, Donald Trump has made the pandemic bad enough as it is. This colossal loss of life wasn't inevitable. He made it

inevitable, but he's making it even worse now. I think the vice president, the president-elect has maintain the right posture. He may have to get more aggressive depending on how long Donald Trump intends to string this out. Right. At what point does what Trump is doing by calling Michigan's Republican Speaker of the House and majority leader to the White House by calling up the Wayne County Board of Canvassers member to have a chat with her? At what point are these efforts to influence people to basically circumvent the law to entrench his own grip on power criminal? Because it would seem like actively trying to subvert the results of an electioner up there? Yeah, you know, I don't know, you know,

whether this transgresses a particular statute. I haven't really looked at that issue. But there's no doubt that what he's doing is deeply destructive of our democracy. And I think a violation of his oath of office. But, you know, this is who he is. It's, you know, we can't claim surprise at this point. You know, 10 months ago, we were talking about exactly this flaw in his character. at the impeachment trial and warning of the damage that he would go on to do if he was left

in office, knowing who he is, knowing his lack of morality, knowing how he abuses his power in an unconstitutional fashion. So it's not as if this is a surprise, but nonetheless, it continues to do grave harm. There have been murmurs about whether or not the Biden administration would want to pursue investigations, but regardless of what they want to do in the executive branch, would investigations into corrupt administration officials, people like Lewis DeJoy, people like Emily Murphy, head of this general services administration, would those occur totally independent of the executive branch? Like, would it be Congress's job to bring those forward in the next Congress if that's

something that's chosen to be pursued? You know, there's certainly an independent jurisdiction and responsibility in Congress. It's a different role than the Justice Department plays, you know, in Congress. Congress, you know, we do oversight and investigations to determine what problems exist and what solutions are necessary, what new protections are required of our democratic institutions. I introduced a package of pro-democracy reforms a couple months ago, probably the most comprehensive package since Watergate, to stiffen penalties under the Hatch Act, to expedite congressional subpoenas, to prevent the abuse of the pardon power.

you know, these are the kind of remedies that come from the oversight that's done by Congress into problems. And so it is entirely possible that freed from the threat of retaliation when Trump leaves office that career public servants are willing to speak out about abuses they saw during the course of the administration. And I don't think Congress can ignore that, particularly where action is necessary to correct abuses that have taken place or to prevent them from recurring, you know, we will have to balance the need for accountability and oversight with the desire to move forward and not to be constantly looking backward. I don't know that you can draw a bright line. That will be a discretionary call, and it will be a discretionary call both the administration

will need to make and the Congress will need to make. That brings up a good point. what would you say to those who say that investigations are only going to beget more investigations and that if you want to unify the government, you have to turn the page? How do you reconcile that with the fact that, you know, if people who act corruptly aren't held to account, then what's to stop it from getting worse the next time? You know, those are definitely two competing forces and intentions. I think the reality is that we will need to operate on a case-by-case basis and identify where the real priority needs are, depending on the severity of the allegation of wrongdoing.

You know, I don't think there's a bright line here. I think we'll need to balance the importance of oversight and investigation, depending on the severity of the allegations, with the need to move on. And it won't be a simple answer in each case. It will, I think, require the weighing of the different considerations and factors. You know, I do worry about any future administration getting the message that it can commit whatever offenses it wants, and it will always get a pass from the incoming administration, and likewise get a pass from the next Congress. At the same time, you know, there is a need to heal to bring the country together that is a very important priority, not just for the president's elect, but for the Congress as well. And so I think

we'll have to take it on a case-by-case basis. I guess a part of that, too, will be seeing how the Republican members of Congress react immediately to a Biden administration. I mean, a lot of it's going to, you know, be determined on whether it's just another four years of obstructionism. If that's, you know, the first thing that we heard from Mitch McConnell when he came in was our goal is to make, you know, our goal in the Senate is to make Barack Obama a one-term president. And so it was just obstructionism from the beginning.

So I think, you know, that's also going to play a role if we, you know, that will kind of determine their appetite to move forward as well. Yes. I mean, the most that we can do is operate in good faith and try to work across the aisle to get things done for the American people. We can't control whether they reciprocate. And, you know, I do think we make the effort. You know, I think Barack Obama in talking about his recent memoir has made this point too. You make an effort. You don't be polyanish about it. You see if it's reciprocated. If not, you press on. And yes, the climate and whether we can come together and heal will also be determined by the other side of the aisle. They get a vote in that too. So you're right. That will have an influence as well. So I know it's too early for an autopsy because they're still counting votes right now. But looking back to the election, there's concern that Democrats possibly focus too much on the ACA, for example, while in Florida, the issue of a $15 minimum wage passed 13 points ahead of Joe

Biden. So there are issues like this that are popular, like raising the minimum wage, like legalizing marijuana, including passing in the liberal bastions of Montana and South Dakota. Do you think we should be focusing on these issues that have a more populist appeal than an issue that might be less immediately gratifying than protecting the ACA? You know, I think the analysis is still underway, because as you say, the votes are still being counted. But one thing I think is already clear, and that is this was a referendum in Donald Trump. and the country is very polarized. He made that essentially the heart of his campaign strategy.

He never really tried to reach out beyond his narrow base. Yeah. And his idea was so inflamed partisan tensions that everybody has to go to their corner. And in that kind of an environment, people were not really eager to split tickets. And those that were able to survive who, you know, Democrats in the Trump district were able to survive because they made a compelling case why voters should split their ticket. Others who were candidates, and we had some phenomenal candidates for House and Senate, didn't succeed because they didn't have the opportunity through their work on the job to demonstrate why voters should split their ticket if given the opportunity. And so I think that

probably explains in the most significant part what took place. I do think that the paramount challenge facing the country, and this gets to the heart of of your question, is the economy is not working for millions and millions of Americans as result of hugely disruptive forces in the economy with globalization and automation. Millions have lost their jobs with no fault of their own. Millions of the middle class are worried about dropping out. Millions among working families are worried they'll never get into the middle class. Those are the issues that we have to address as a party. And I think there are a lot of good and frankly, very popular and very populous solutions to that, like raising the minimum wage.

Now, raising the minimum wage is just one piece of it, but you point out that's enduring popularity. And so I think we need to focus on solutions that leave no community behind, leave no family behind, that make sure the economy is working everywhere and for every family. And if we champion those issues, then I think we can not only, win big, but we can once again convince families all across the country, whether they're in red or blue states here to four, that the Democrats are the party of working people, that we're the party of those that are struggling to succeed. And we are, we always have been, but not all working families understand that. Yeah. Well, a lot of that hinges on our ability to, you know, win these

runoff races in Georgia. So what would Congress's top priorities be? if we are able to take back the Senate, if we have unified control of government? You know, I think almost regardless of the configuration, and obviously I'm working very hard and hope and pray that we are successful in Georgia, but under any configuration, the top national priority is going to have to be ending this pandemic. Yeah. There should be a lot of room for common ground and bipartisan work when it comes to ending the pandemic.

We want to make sure that the administration has the resources to ramp up testing so that anyone can get test results within 24 hours, that we have the tracing capacity, that we have the protective gear necessary to protect people on the front lines. And we need to get relief out to families, ASAP. Now, I hope that gets done in the lame duck session. There are lots of businesses that won't be around in January to await the outcome of the race in Georgia or the new administration right if they don't get help now and there are millions of families whose unemployment has already run out are you suggesting that the $1,200 check that was sent in March wasn't wasn't enough to cut it I'm afraid not but you know something some of those stimulus checks and unemployment compensation

other benefits they lifted families out of poverty and now those families are falling back into poverty as that support dries up so you know this pandemic actually has taught us some some pretty important lessons, even if they were obvious ones, about what it takes to address poverty in this country. It's not rocket science. And so, you know, I think our highest priority, emergency priority, is pandemic and economic help for families. If we don't get that done before Georgia, but we are successful in Georgia, obviously it will enable us to provide that much more support for families. My big fear is that not just that we don't get something done, but that what we get done is just not enough. It's too small for the magnitude of the economic

devastation out there. So most importantly, to wrap this up, I'm wondering, what do you think Joe Biden's nickname is going to be for you? You know, that is a very important question because I'll tell you something, I'll tell you how much credit I take for Joe Biden's win. During the last two weeks of the presidential campaign. When the candidates' times are at a premium, this is the time to make your closing argument to voters. Every word, every phrase, every minute, every hour is precious. Well, Donald Trump was out talking about Adam Schiff, the watermelon head. You know, to the degree, I forced him off message. You know, I take full credit for Joe Biden's success. Although I don't necessarily think that that's off message. I think after four years of Donald Trump, that's

pretty much his message is that exact. I went from pencil neck to watermelon head, and I got to tell you, watermelon head on a pencil neck, that's a very difficult balancing act for me. But in terms of the new administration, I would be delighted if my nickname was just Adam. Yeah. Something tells me that we'll probably be able to accomplish that. Something tells me, I don't know what it is, but I feel good about that one. So, Congressman, thank you so much for taking the time. I really appreciate it. My pleasure. Good to be with you. Thanks again to Adam Schiff. That's it for this week.

Happy Thanksgiving. 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.

Thank you.