No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - “Defund the police” – defend or denounce?

Episode Date: June 15, 2020

The “defund the police” movement gains serious traction, Fox News royally fails in reporting on the so-called “anarchy” in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle, and Brian speaks with Congressman Eric Swalwell about steps Congress is taking right now to ensure that Americans can exercise their right to vote in November, as well as the possibility that Trump doesn’t concede the race if he loses the general election.Written by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberMusic by WellsyRecorded in Los Angeles, CAhttps://www.briantylercohen.com/podcast/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 get to the bottom of the defund the police movement and what it actually means. We'll talk about Fox News's favorite new fever dream, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle, and my interview with congressman and former Democratic presidential candidate Eric Swalwell, where we talk about what Congress is doing right now to ensure that Americans can exercise their right to vote, especially after yet another disastrous election in the state of Georgia, and the possibility that Trump doesn't concede the race if he were to lose the election. This is Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. I want to start by talking about defund the police because, obviously, with a phrase like defund the police, it is ripe for exploitation by right-wing media.

So let me just say this, first and foremost. The goal of defund the police is not to eliminate the police. That's an absurdist take. The actual goal of defunding the police is just to reduce the glut of funding to police departments, and instead fund social services that have been completely gutted, social services that would take care of mental health and homelessness and addiction, all of which, by the way, have become criminalized since they've become the responsibility of the police. And it's a vicious cycle.

The more of those programs are defunded, the more that unqualified cops are forced to deal with them, and the more of those unqualified cops deal with them, the more of those problems, which are left uncared for, are exacerbated, right? Reallocating funding away from police officers doesn't mean anarchy in America or that the inmates are going to take over the asylum or whatever other Fox News healthscape were being fed. It just means that police can focus on criminal issues and those who are actually qualified to respond to issues of addiction

and homelessness and mental health can do so so that people can actually get the care they need instead of being deemed criminals or just being killed. So if we're being honest about this, if we're having a good faith discussion about this, then it's clear this would be a win-win. All this is is spending our money efficiently. since when is eliminating wasteful spending not a Republican value, right?

If you're a Republican arguing against a more reasonable allocation of your hard-earned tax dollars, then you've lost the plot. So instead of firing up the old conservative media outrage machine and screeching about how the leftists want anarchy to reign, maybe just acknowledge that the system needs some reform. Most of the country already has. And keep in mind, we're not reinventing the wheel here. Where our tax dollars go has always been a reflection of our values.

So in this case, when we say defund the police, it's just because funding them at the rate that they're currently being funded doesn't represent our values, which according to the GOP makes us anarchists. But when Republicans push to defund everything they want to defund, and I mean education and Medicare and Medicaid and the ACA and meals on wheels and food stamps and infrastructure and literally everything except the military, well, that's totally fine. No one gives Republican shit for taking funding away from our nation's children who need a good education. No one gives Republican shit for taking meals away from low-income seniors, right? Somehow these are totally fine. But when we watch black people getting killed one day after the next by reckless police officers whose budgets swallow up 40, 50, 60% of our tax dollars, well, then suddenly we're out of control. And that's the thing we have to remember, that funding comes from our tax dollars. and we fund and also defund based on our collective values as a city or a state or even a nation.

And right now, the level of funding that police enjoy is just not matching up to our value set. So, I mean, look, it's one thing to spend the vast majority of our tax dollars on the police at the expense of education and health care and the arts and community investment, right? That's bad enough on its own. But to do so for a police force that may kill you, that may beat people or slay. Slash tires or steal bikes or any of the other things. Criminal things that we've seen over the last few weeks is just insane. This isn't me saying that as a Democrat.

This is just human nature. Do you want to hand 50% of your tax dollars from your hard-earned paycheck over to someone who's going to beat the shit out of you? And I say that because we've seen it. We've seen the videos. And by the way, this is coming from someone who's lucky enough to actually trust the police my entire life. I've lived every day in my life knowing that if I called the police, be safe. I'm a hell of a lot luckier than some people out there. But after what I saw the last

couple of weeks, they had to work to lose my trust, and they did. They had to show me that they view themselves as above the law. And I know it's not all police officers, obviously. I have people who I love like family who are police officers, but it's certainly some. It's certainly a number that I'm not comfortable with. Fifty-nine percent of Americans are in favor of the protest because we've seen over the last few weeks firsthand proof of this police brutality. That's what blows my mind. This was a protest born out of accusations of police brutality.

And the fact that they couldn't manage to pull it together when the whole world was watching them is just the proof you need. They couldn't help but validate every single accusation and then some. You know when Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby went into court, they were suddenly old and feeble, right? Cosby suddenly went blind. Weinstein forgot how to.

walk, and the hope was, obviously, to create optics that foster a sense of pity. But what police around the country did when it was their turn to show the country that they weren't as bad as they were being made out to be, it was as if Bill Cosby walked into the courtroom, dropped a pill into a drink, and tried to hand it to the judge. It's like if Harvey Weinstein asked the judge if she wanted to be in movies and then told her to do a little spin. That's how arrogant they were. I mean, it's crazy.

This was their chance, with the attention of the whole nation. on them to defend themselves, to be on their best behavior. And all we got was video after video after video from New York to D.C. to Chicago to Texas, a police beating the shit out of people. Essential workers, medics for the crime of walking down the street, the crime of going home. I mean, they blew it, right? So when you wonder why efforts to reform policing in the United States are gaining so much traction so fast, blame them. It was their opportunity to show that they could live up.

to the moment and they failed. And the whole world saw it. The whole world watched a 75-year-old man from Buffalo get shoved to the ground and smash his head on the cements and bleed out of his ears while the cops who did it walked away. The whole world watched a protester on his knees get kicked in the chest by a cop walking by. The whole world watched Rayshard Brooks get shot to death for sleeping in a fucking Wendy's parking lot. And I'm not saying that all police officers are at fault, not by a long shot, but it was enough. It was enough. And so now we're seeing some of these calls for reforms come to bear. In San Francisco, the police will no longer respond to non-criminal calls,

and that includes matters involving mental health, the homeless, school discipline, and neighbor disputes. And by the way, that's similar to programs that already exist. According to the LA Times, there's the Cahoots program in Eugene, Oregon, where a medic and a mental health crisis manager respond to emergency calls for help with individuals suffering from severe mental illness, addiction, and homelessness.

The San Francisco Department of Human Resources will audit hiring and promotional exams by the police department, and they'll incorporate testing for bias and potential for abuse of force. San Francisco's mayor has directed the police department to establish an explicit policy to ban the use of military-grade weapons against unarmed civilians. Again, if you told me two years ago that conservatives would be the ones pushing back against police reforms, when those reforms are to not use military-grade weapons against unarmed civilians, you could have knocked me over with a gust of wind. This is a a party that clings to the Second Amendment like it'll disappear if they don't mention it every

hour. Now suddenly they're trying to maintain a system where military-grade weapons can be used against unarmed civilians. Isn't that the whole point of the Second Amendment that a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state affords us the right to keep and bear arms so that when the conservative rapture finally comes to fruition and a tyrannical government moves in to take over, that we the people can defend ourselves? And so now when a tyrannical has moved in when our law enforcement is armed like Steel Team 6, suddenly we have Laura Ingram and Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity defending not the people, but the police.

So much for these populace on Fox News, huh? Now maybe you'll understand when I say that conservatism doesn't actually stand for anything that they pretend to stand for. And I want to finish off this segment talking about one more thing, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, or the Chaz in Cesar. Seattle, and I'm sure you've heard about it from conservative media. If not, listen to how Fox News has branded the Chaz. Marcus, militants, Marxists, whatever you want to call them, have looted, vandalized,

and barricaded six city blocks of Seattle, and there are already reports of local businesses being extorted. Well, it sounds like a post-apocalyptic hellscape, doesn't it? Ladies and gentlemen, say hello to the latest addition to the global family of nations, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, formerly known as downtown Seattle. The people of Chas don't have a lot of options for economic development, so they've gone with extortion through violence. Again, just like the conquistadors. There are questions, though, unresolved. For example, what will happen to the American citizens who may have been shopping downtown

in Seattle and are now stuck behind the border of Chas? Can we repatriate them? Are they now prisoners of war? I mean, is this not a Fox News fever dream? We might not even have to hear about migrant caravans this election cycle depending on how much mileage Fox News can get out of this. But of course, even though Fox News was handed their dream story, you know, Democrats ousting a police force and taking over

a city, right? The story they've been waiting for since Tucker Carlson's bow tie days, they somehow managed to blow it already. Because Fox News decided that the images they plaster all over their website, one with a big scary Antifa dude with an assault rifle standing in front of shattered

glass, and another with buildings engulfed in flames would all be fake. The Antifa dude was actually photoshopped into the photo, and the buildings on fire purporting to be Seattle weren't so much Seattle as they were St. Paul, Minnesota. Here's the thing. Without even seeing what's actually happening in the Chaz, you know how you know it's not bad?

Because if it was, Fox News wouldn't need to cook up fake photos of it. That's how you know. If the closest thing Fox can get to a damning picture of the Chaz is a burning building in Minnesota, and guess what? The Chaz probably isn't too bad. But just for good measure, you want to know what actually happens inside the leftist hellscape of anarchy and terror that is the Chaz? Among other things, there are movies in the streets, voluntary night watch signups,

medical tense, food, speeches by various speakers, including representatives of the police. There are murals and street art, music, marching. I've seen footage of all of this. You don't have to take my word for it. Go look up footage of the Chaz, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. Anything beyond the still frame that Fox News is pumping out with the same scary Antifa soldier photoshopped into every picture. Go look at actual footage, moving pictures, and see for yourself.

The reason you won't see it on Fox is because anything beyond their three manipulated photos would undermine the talking point that radical leftists have taken over and are forcing everyone to drink lattes and listen to rap and get health care. whatever other horrific ideas emerge from the left. With that all said, I don't want the point here to get lost amid all the Fox News bullshit, because I think that's their goal, right? Their goal is to make us forget about the root of these protests and instead focus on the minutiaa to argue about one city block in Seattle

and Antifa soldiers and whatever else they can cook up. Even arguing about their own doctored images is achieving their goal of deflecting from the root of the problem here. And that's because they know that the root of the problem, the issue of systemic racism and police brutality and refusal to acknowledge the humanity of black Americans is a real and valid issue that the American people overwhelmingly agree needs reform and that Fox News and Republicans stand against because they'd rather blindly demonize the left than acknowledge that change is needed to make this country better. And that's why Fox News and conservative media is so dangerous because they'd rather cater to their own political interests. interests than the actual interest of the American people. Something to remember when you're deciding which party to punch your ballot for in the next election.

Next up is my interview with Representative Eric Swalwell, and I think it's no surprise that with what are seeming like more and more egregious attacks on our democracy every single day, there's a growing concern that not only will Republicans cheat in the November election, but that even if Trump does lose, he'll refuse to concede. And so who better to speak with than someone on both. both the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees about this. So this is my interview with Eric Swalwell. So we're joined by Congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Eric Swalwell.

Thanks so much for coming on. Of course, Brian. Thanks for having me on. Love the podcast. Yeah, thank you. Appreciate that. So I want to start with the legislation that was introduced and passed out of the House in response to the killing of George Floyd.

Can you tell us what was included in the Justice and Policing Act? Yeah, in the Justice and Policing Act, actually, next week we're going to have the hearing where we actually, we call it a markup where we go through the bill, you know, take amendments, try and hash out, you know, any issues, and then we'll send it to the full house. So the hope is that by the end of the month, it's actually passed by the house. But I would say the top line concept is that there has to be transparency and accountability in America's police departments to make sure that these individual and institutional tragedies that keep happening to black Americans stop happening. So we are getting rid of the qualified

immunity, the protections that police officers have that make it almost impossible to sue them if they violate someone's civil rights. We're no longer allowing the police to use military equipment. We want them to be guardians in the neighborhood, not warriors. We're getting rid of the chokehold tactic, which was used to kill Eric Gardner, as well as the knee chokehold, which was used to kill Mr. Floyd. Now, we are also lowering the threshold to bring a civil rights criminal case against police officers from having to show that the officer acted willfully, which is a very high standard in the law, bringing it down to recklessly, which I think aligns more with how we want our officers to conduct themselves in the community, requiring body cameras on

every police officer in America having independent oversight when complaints are made in a national registry of misconduct among officers. So you can't just go from California to Arizona to Texas, just all over the country. Right. It's bad cop. So there's a lot that we're doing here. it would be the biggest step that we've taken in police reform in our country. By the way, legislation was drafted and introduced within, you know, a week or so, which is pretty fast for a party that Trump has branded the do-nothing Democrats. You know, Speaker Pelosi, again, we're so lucky she is there because this is what she does best, right? She recognizes a moment.

She knows when the moment is to move legislation. And I think she recognized the country was hurting people from all backgrounds in our country wanted reforms and that this was the moment to move it forward. And I do believe it will become law or there will be a severe reckoning for anyone who stops it from becoming law. Now, were there any concessions made to ensure that it passes through the Republican-led Senate? You know, we recognize that we only control the House. We've got to work with the Senate. But there was no desire in the Senate among Mitch McConnell to, to, really take the lead on this. So the speaker wanted to take the lead and put something out there

as a marker and say that these are our values and we think we can work with you. Now, one Republican came up to me at our hearing with Mr. Floyd on Wednesday and he said, I've read your bill, where did you hide all the crazy stuff? And I think what he was saying was, you know, we thought this was going to be, you know, some Democratic wish list and this all looks pretty reasonable. And it is reasonable. It reflects, you know, issues that. that have persisted, and I think it's the responsible thing to do in light of where we're at. We're seeing that despite all the support

for police reform, that Trump has effectively positioned himself against the protests and totally for the police, even though polls are showing that 69% of Americans are supporting the protesters. And that includes a majority of Republicans, 53% of Republicans support them as well. So what is the political upside for Trump here? I mean, just hammer away at the 35% of Americans

who make up his base and ignore everyone else in election year or what? And look, by the way, I'm for the police. I want the police to be protectors and guardians in our community, but I want them to have accountability when they cross the line and break the law. And what he is for, I believe, is using the police, you know, to advance his political interests and not to, you know, keep us safe in the community and make sure that, you know, black men in America, you know, feel safe when they leave their homes.

And too many have told us that the only time they feel. feel safe is when they're at home. So again, I think he's, you know, way out of touch on this issue and as a white male who has enjoyed the privilege of being a white male, I've found that just listening is the best thing I can do right now. And I would really encourage him to listen to people. And he went to Dallas yesterday, the president, and he didn't meet with the three African American leaders in Dallas in law enforcement. And I'm just a phrase, not listening to the people who are most affected by this. Instead, he's just, you know, he thinks, again, police are there as a show of force

and strength and not recognizing how most Americans want to, you know, perceive them in our community, which is, you know, partners to keep us safe, guardians, not warriors. This has been his strategy all along is following this obsolete notion of what a strong man is. You know what I'm saying? So, you know, this kind of follows in line with that. I do want to move on to voting rights for a moment. Yet again, Georgia's elections were a disaster, long lines, broken voting machines, and of course it happens in majority black areas.

So the Voting Rights Act required the Justice Department to review any changes in southern states' election procedures, and the Supreme Court struck down this requirement and claimed that southern states would never make it harder for black people to vote. You know, according to John Roberts, racism had been solved in America. right? So not only did it happen, it happened immediately. More than 1,600 polling places were closed around the country. So what is Congress doing right now to ensure that all Americans can exercise the right to vote in November? The biggest, most impactful step we've taken in the House for voting rights was passing in March 2019, the first 100 days of the new majority

before the People Act, which would update the Voting Rights Act, which would expand polling place access, which would get rid of the purging of the voter rolls that we've seen in Georgia and Florida. And also, you know, put in place, you know, the pre-clearance requirements that were there that the Supreme Court took out, you know, requiring places with historic instances of racism and discrimination and suppressing access to the polls to have to get approval before they can make changes around polling places. Of course, there's the extreme example that we've seen in Texas where in Texas they were putting the polling places inside a gated country club. You know, nothing could be more off-putting or make you feel like you're not allowed in

than if you weren't a member of the country club and you had to go to a gated country club to vote. And so a country without polling places is not a democracy. And we have to fight for that, not only in the courts, put pressure on the Senate to pass the Four of the People Act. And if we can't do that, and I don't think the Senate will do that before the election, we just have to continue to mobilize people to overwhelm the ballot box so that the outcome in November cannot be denied. Right. And is there any real pressure being put on the Senate to pass bills like this? I mean,

and that includes, you know, restoring the VRA. In theory, the Senate's Republican-led. So they have a vested interest in not restoring voting rights to Americans because voter suppression helps their own party. So what's the actual next move here with regard to any movability by the Senate? You're absolutely right. Voter suppression helps their party, but talking about voter suppression suppresses the vote, if that makes sense. So it's kind of like a tofer for them. They can take on these acts in states like Georgia and Florida that suppress the vote. And then when we talk about the concerns we have, the effect that you were giving that is come November, people may say, well, shit, I've got an hour, you know, on election day. I've got to pick up my daughter

her from school, get her fed, get her a bath, get her to bed, and I've got an hour to go vote, and there's going to be long lines, and the Democrats are crying foul that it's not going to count anyway, so why participate? That's like the reverberation effect that they're counting on. And so, you know, we're very careful to not take debate and make voting rights, you know, the top issue when we go, you know, to message what our values are. Of course, it's a value of ours, but we think beneath the surface, it's kind of a submarine attack. on the different counties to litigate and go and make our cases to open up, you know, the polls and not have the purging. And then above ground, do all we can to mobilize people to go out and

vote. Because again, if we are only talking about, you know, the concerns of either voter suppression or Russian interference, the unintended consequence could be that people just stay home and that would be the worst. Right. And that's especially insidious because, you know, it undermines the entire foundation of our country. And the fact that you have half of a political party in this country that's taking an active approach at trying to, you know, undermine trust in our most fundamental right as Americans is, you know. And you saw in Iowa just last week they had a primary election

and they had record participation because of mail-in balloting. And then right after the results were put out and the record participation was revealed, Iowa Republicans in their statehouse introduced legislation to make it harder to do mail and balloting. Again, it's like they want fewer people to participate because when more people participate, they perceive it as hurting them electorally. I don't think any party has an advantage when voters turn out. Voters turn out based on the issues and the candidates and to try and game it that way, I think really just cheapens democracy and makes us less free. With no real upside.

And especially for them because we even see that, you know, attempts by the Republican Party to egregiously suppress the vote frequently backfires. You look at what happened in Wisconsin, you know, when they tried to close all but five polling places in Milwaukee and what happened. You know, Wisconsin is a state that, you know, is no liberal bastion, right? And the fact that that we took that election by a pretty hefty plurality goes to show that, like, Americans don't love the idea of, you know, having no say in our democracy. And you know, Brian, in California's 25th district, there was a special election last month, and it was 100% mail-in-balloting. And the president was just tweeting and tweeting and tweeting saying that the election was going to be a fraud, can't trust mail-in-balloting. And what happened? A Republican won. And then nothing. Didn't hear anything from him. Didn't say that the Republican was an illegitative at Congress member because he won with mail-in-balloting. So if you're trying to game out who it's going to benefit, that's the wrong way of looking at it. It just benefits. you know, civic participation. I also think the fact that he's doing that is always just setting the stage for him to be able to, you know, undermine these results. So, so long as the results go in their favor, then it's crickets afterwards. But, you know, if something were to happen where, let's say, let's say the Democrat won in that district, then all of a sudden, well, Trump has already made the case multiple times, multiple times,

multiple times to be able to say that the election results didn't count. So if it doesn't go in their favor, then all of a sudden he has, you know, clear runway to be able to, you know, deny the results of the election. That's right. I don't know if he knows what this word means, but he's the master of foreshadowing, right? He loves to just kind of seed something and then just be able to call back to it in case that's what ultimately happened. And he's doing that for November. He's trying to cede doubt about what the outcome will be. And so that if he does lose, he can say, well, it's these fraudulent mail-in balance. So actually, going off of that, we've already seen that Trump is trafficking, you know, in these insane conspiracy theories to

put the election results in the question. He's claimed that that California had three to five million undocumented immigrants vote in the last election. He claimed that voters were getting bust into New Hampshire to now he's, you know, his constant attacks on mail-in voting. If Trump were to lose, have congressional Democrats considered the possibility that Trump doesn't concede the race and are steps being taken on your end to, you know, to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. Yes. We sadly have considered the possibility that he would lose, not accept the result, file frivolous lawsuits, refuse to leave the office. And while in our country, you only need a simple majority to win, we believe we actually need almost a super majority, meaning that

it can't be close. Because if there's a bunch of court cases and you need military officials or the Secret Service to make the call that got to get that guy out of the building because he's not the legitimate president, we can't make it close. And that's not fair. If we win just by a simple majority, that should be fine. But I really believe that you can't count on the courts. So you have to have an overwhelming result. So we're putting a lot of pressure on ourselves to turn people out in a way that you can really make sure that the result is obvious. And I really, I hate to say this in our country where we've always had a peaceful transition to power.

but I do believe that we may have a scenario between November and January where he's saying the result is fraudulent and you're seeing outside foreign interference trying to really stoke fear and anxiety in our country so that you can just have this fog of what the result is and he doesn't leave. So the more people who turn out and make it clear to him what the will of the American people is,

I think the easier it is for that junior officer who's going to have to go in and say, sir, You don't live here anymore. By the way, are any Republicans saying this behind the scenes? I mean, do any of them have a shred of concern for democracy? Or they just like, you know, as long as they have power, they're happy. They're enablers. They're complete enablers now.

In the first couple months after he was elected, they recognized how dangerous he was, and they would say so privately. But they have completely transitioned into, you know, enabling him because it helps themselves. And that was the most frustrating, you know, part of going through impeachment and ultimately the different investigations we've conducted is that we saw time and time again. It was just fear of losing their own job. And what's frustrating about that is these are members of Congress. I would hope that they're otherwise employable.

But paramount to them was that speaking out against Trump, it would hurt them in their own job. I mean, so is it just basically Mitt Romney? Yeah, he showed a lot of courage, voting to remove the president. And I think that was it. You've heard, you know, the hundred different ways to say I'm disappointed from Susan Collins. But when it comes to, you know, actually putting, you know, where the rubber needs to meet the road, Mitt Romney was the only one who really had the courage to do that. So you ran for president this cycle. You were 38 at the time. 38 and you ran for president. it kind of makes me feel the way, the same way I feel when I watch a 16-year-old win the Olympics, you know, while I'm elbow deep in a bag of potato chips. So do you think you're at an advantage or a disadvantage by running for president so young? I would say that the disadvantage was that practically was having a two-year-old and a one-year-old and a wife who worked full-time.

Because for me, yes, I get running for president means, you know, extraordinary sacrifices. And then being president is even more so. But, you know, it was really hard to be away from them. And, you know, I wanted to be home and help the family as much as I could as well. And so I, I realized that I was trying to be in three different places. I was trying to be a good father. I was trying to be a good candidate. And in the midst of, you know, the Mueller investigation and about to go into impeachment, I was trying to be a good member of Congress. And, you know, I never felt like I was able to run the campaign I wanted to and put in the energy that I wanted to. And I don't regret that. I think I made the right choice, which was to, you know, try and support my wife

when, you know, she had a full-time job and we're trying to, with two kids and diapers. So I just think if I could do it all over again, I don't regret running, but I do believe that it's very hard. You can be a good father of two kids and diapers, or you can be a really good candidate. I don't know if you can be both. And if someone can, you know, elect that person president because that is a unique person. But I ran on the issue of gun violence. And in the 2018 midterm elections, I worked to try and elect younger members to Congress. And I ran a effort called Future 40, 40 candidates in their 40s and under and 40 flippable seats. 29 of them won, who I had worked to support. And I saw it as an opportunity on gun violence, on student loan debt, on climate, racial

justice to have someone in the White House to kind of meet the momentum that you had in the House. But what I recognized also being out on the campaign trail was that the voters were so anxious about a second term for Donald Trump that they were very risk averse to, you know, really going back to the age, a younger candidate. And I think that's why, you know, the three candidates that really made it to the end, Senator Sanders and Warren and Vice President Biden, and, you know, are more, you know, seasoned, experienced candidates. And that reflected, I think that the voters are really, and I think wisely, you know, wanted to have someone that could, you know,

beat Trump with no lingering concerns about age or experience. By the way, you'll have plenty of time to, you know, ramp up. Stop having kids, right? Yeah. What was the most memorable day on the campaign show for you? The most memorable day was going to Parkland to announce the campaign. You know, typically candidates start their campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, but, you know, I developed bonds with the families in Parkland.

And Fred Guttenberg is like a big brother to me. He lost his daughter, Jamie, at Parkland. And before we went out to do a town hall where Fred moderated it to announce the candidacy and talk about making gun violence the top issue, you. Fred met my daughter, Cricket, who again was not yet one at the time. And to just see Fred hold her so close and told me he, you know, it just reminded him of holding, you know, his little girl. That was, that was hard to hear. It was emotional. And it just reminded me like why I was running, which was, you know, there's too many fathers like Fred and mothers, like his wife, Jennifer,

who, you know, have lost children to gun violence, and, you know, I wanted to be the champion for them. And so Fred declared at the end of that event that, you know, we have elevated the issue of gun safety, you know, to the top of the issue list or in the top tier of issues for the campaign. And throughout the campaign, every single debate, gun safety, whether I was in the debate or not, was discussed, and I felt like we played a small part in making sure that was the case. Absolutely. So you have a book coming out this week on June 16th called Endgame Inside the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, where you basically take us behind the scenes of the impeachment process in Congress. Can you give me an example of an especially high stakes moment in the book

that we don't know about in the public? Yeah, yeah. And I'm very proud of this book, Endgame. You know, I wrote it, I joke to my wife as it's a children's book because every night after an impeachment hearing, I would take my one-year-old daughter and put her down. Instead of singing her children's songs or reading her a book, I would just speak into the app on my phone that would dictate what I was saying what had happened during the day. And so just lull her to sleep with the hellscape that is our political climate right now. But I would do it in a sing-song voice. So I would be like, and Mr. Schiff said, Mr. Meadows, please sit down. The witness is speaking.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Meadows. You are not recognized, sir. Please sit down. And I was just like, you know, so if you listen to it, it's like an audio children's book. But I would, you know, copy and paste what had happened that day and then put it, you know, into a word document. I felt a responsibility to do it because it was history,

you know, only the third impeachment in the history of the country. I thought it was also a call to action to make sure this never happens again. And, you know, I believe we are opposed with, you know, two possible endgames. An end game is, you know, in chess, you know, right before the last move. And it's either we drift into full out autocracy and lose ourselves as a democracy, or we redeem, you know, the values of freedom and transparency, independence of the press, independence of prosecutors, and rebuild in an even better fashion, this great country. The goal was to show, you know, people, just some of the decision points, you know, that we had to

make, you know, as we were, you know, preparing, you know, as a caucus. One of the more lighter fun moments was in the Mueller investigation, you know, we were preparing for Bob Mueller to come testify. And Norm Eisen, you know, from the Brookings Institute, and it was an ambassador in the Obama administration, was playing Bob Mueller. And of course, in our prep, we had to anticipate just the obstacles the Republicans would put up. And so one of our staff members played Jim Jordan. And so we're all in the hearing room. And the staff member comes in and sits down as Jim Jordan

and starts jumping out of his chair going after Norm Eisen. In a serious Bob Mueller voice, Eisen looks at the chairman, Nadler, and says, Mr. Chairman, if this gentleman is not wearing a coat, do I still have to respond to him? because, you know, Jordan never shows enough respect to wear a coat in committee hearings. I would never forget that. And then Dan Goldman, our Intelligence Committee investigator, you know, I was,

Val Demings and I were the only two Democrats on judiciary and intelligence. So we were able to see both sides of the prep. So Dan Goldman was the Intelligence Committee, Bob Mueller, and he had really taken on the method. acting of learning Bob Mueller. And so when he was preparing as Bob Mueller, I mean, he was giving a very serious, you know, a sober presentation of Bob Mueller.

And on one of the breaks, we went up and asked him something completely unrelated to Mueller. And he turned and started answering the question like in a Mueller voice. And we're like, Dan, Dan, we need you to break out of Mueller. Like, you've gone too deep. Yeah. He's kind of like a Christian, you know, Christian Bale or, you know, Robert DeMere. Yeah, exactly, exactly.

Ready for the Showtime series. Exactly. So, yeah, so some of it is capturing the lighter, you know, moments behind the scenes. And then the decision point around which articles to charge, you know, I covered that. You know, a lot of people had different thoughts about, you know, should he be charged with, you know, should the, how long should the receipt be for, you know, his actions? And, you know, we charged him with, you know, obstruction of Congress and abuse of power and kind of go through the, you know, Professor Tribe and other constitutional scholars worked with us to come up with the abuse of power charge, which we thought was all encompassing. And when you looked at the federalist papers,

they thought that was the highest crime anyone could commit would be to abuse their power. That's endgame that's available on June 16th. Congressman, I know you're busy. Thanks so much for taking us to talk today. Great. Thanks, Brian. Thanks again to Representative Swalwell. That's it for this week's episode. Thank you so much for listening. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, and recorded in Los Angeles, California. If you like what you hear, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and check out Brian Tyler Cohen.com for links to all of my other channels.