No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Jamie Raskin issues bad news for Trump

Episode Date: December 25, 2022

There is a silver lining to the Republicans taking the House. Brian interviews Congressman Jamie Raskin about the extent to which the January 6 Committee is now working with the DOJ, whether he heard from any Republicans behind the scenes about the Committee’s work, and if he’d ever consider running for president. And Chris Cuomo joins to discuss how the GOP moves on beyond Trump and whether his own personal grievances with CNN are why he’s pushing for 3rd party candidates now.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 silver lining to the Republicans taking the house. I interview Congressman Jamie Rask and about the extent to which the January 6th Committee is now working with the DOJ, whether he heard from any Republicans behind the scenes about the committee's work, and if he'd ever consider running for president. And I'm joined by Chris Cuomo to discuss how the GOP moves on beyond Trump and whether his own personal grievances with CNN or why he's pushing for third-party candidates now. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. Okay, so I'm coming to you from New Jersey this week where I'm visiting my family for the holidays and experiencing a level of cold that I didn't think was possible. And granted, I live in Los Angeles and I'd consider anything below 50 cold, but this weather is like not fit for humans. I don't know how people do this, but I applaud your toughness and I do not understand why you choose to live this way.

So, that aside, I wanted to take some time this week to kind of look at big picture and not just focus on one bit of anane Republican bullshit. And I know that so much of what we talk about is despairing, but as we head into 2023, having retained our Senate majority, I actually wanted to focus on the silver lining of losing the House majority, which is a weird thing to say, but I have two points here, so bear with me. Trying to be optimistic, so this might be tortured, but hear me out. the first silver lining is that we'll have something to contrast heading into the general in 2024. Like Republicans bank on people forgetting who they are and how they govern and who they are as extremists who will seize onto power to strip you of any rights that don't comport with their theology

and how they govern is to ignore what people want and just shove religious extremism down everyone's throats. And they lose jobs and they cause recessions. And in the last 30 years, there is not a single Republican administration that's created more jobs than a Democratic administration. And our last two recessions were under Republican presidents and our last two recoveries were under Democratic presidents. But people forget really quickly. And so having a small taste of what it's like having a Republican House majority will make it so that there isn't some romanticized

idea of what a Republican majority would look like, you know, of fiscal responsibility and family values and small government or however else Republicans frame themselves on paper. Because in reality, we'll be able to just open our eyes and see them melting down over a Hunter Biden's laptop and trying to get trans people killed. And so while from the minority, they'll, you know, do their little speeches and pretend that they would be responsible stewards of our government, at least now from the majority, they won't be able to pretend to be anything other than exactly what they are, which is extremist theocrats pandering to the farthest fringes of their base. Also, they'll do all of that while not being able to actually enact any of their agenda.

I know that also means that we won't be able to pass any bills either, but there is a lot to be said for just not letting Republicans pass stuff. Sometimes just keeping them out of power is a big enough win to appreciate. Here's the other kind of silver lining, although I guess it's more of a consolation. And that is that when you look at the last two years, we kind of did almost everything we set out to do. And granted, while we didn't get a voting rights bill, which is on Mansion and Cinema, or a law codifying row, which is also on Mansion and Cinema, or a $15 minimum wage, which is on cinema, we got an absolute ton of other stuff in what was arguably one of,

if not the most effective congresses of our lifetimes. We got the American Rescue Plan and free COVID vaccines. We got the first upgrade to our infrastructure in our lifetimes, roads, bridges, rural broadband, EV charging stations. We got the first gun safety bill in three decades

that will close the boyfriend loophole and expand background checks for those 18 to 20 and fun red flag laws in the States. We got health care for veterans with the PACT Act. We got tens of thousands. of new jobs and billions of dollars in investments thanks to the Chips Act, which will bring semiconductor chips to the U.S. We passed the biggest climate investment in history,

finally allowed the government to negotiate lower drug prices, capped out of pocket costs for seniors at $2,000 a year, and insulin at $35 a month, beefed up IRS enforcement for wealthy tax cheats and imposed a 15% corporate minimum tax for billion-dollar companies that pay zero. We started the process of removing cannabis from the list of Schedule I drugs, got $10,000 in student loan debt forgiven, which is currently working its way through the courts, got a record number of judges confirmed, created 10.5 million jobs, 750,000 manufacturing jobs, kept the unemployment rate near a 50-year-low, and their longest war, oversaw strength in NATO, stood up for democracy versus autocracy in Ukraine,

got the last few months of inflation down almost flat and gas prices below what they were even before Russia invaded Ukraine. By any measure, all of that is a hugely, hugely successful congressional term. If we only got two years of unified control of government, those are two years that we're able to look back on and know that we left it all on the field. And so, look, none of this is to say that Democrats are perfect. You know, we've got the mansions and cinemas who can't get out of their own way. Just this week, we had Kathy Hokel nominate an anti-abortion, anti-union chief judge to New York's top court, which, if there's one story that I hope you know about and raises stink about,

it's that one because we're very close to having enough New York Democrats in the legislature come out and say that they'll oppose that nomination, which is good news. But anyway, not to say the Democrats are perfect, but I am proud of what we were able to accomplish in the last two years. And we all worked our asses off to give them the opportunity to do that. So I hope you're all proud, too. So before we get to two great interviews, I also wanted to thank you all for listening to the show this past year. I am under no delusions about there being people out there who are leagues more qualified to opine on this stuff than I am. So I appreciate you giving me a little bit of time each week.

I don't take it for granted in the slightest. So thank you. Happy holidays. Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah. And if you're anywhere north of, like, Costa Rica, I hope you stay warm. Okay. Here's my interview with Jamie Raskin. Now we've got member of the January 6th committee, Jamie Raskin. Good to see you again. Great to be with you, Brian. Now, the January 6th committee was reportedly not cooperating with the DOJ prior to the final report being least released while your investigation was still ongoing. Is the committee cooperating with the special counsel now? and to what extent?

We're cooperating in the sense that we're turning over evidence and materials that are being requested by them and that are relevant to their investigation. Yeah. We're not cooperating in the sense that we are strategically coordinated in any way. Yeah. You know, they've got their investigation, which is prosecutorial and in the executive branch. And we've got ours, which is the congressional investigation. And ours is complete now.

So we, you know, wrapped up our final report. You know, we made our criminal referrals you saw. And we're essentially out of business. You mentioned in your closing statement in this last hearing that the January 6th committee is sending criminal referrals for Trump, John Eastman, and others who you didn't name. But this is the final January 6 committee hearing. So why have a cliffhanger? Why not just come out and name all the names? Well, all of it is in the report.

the report. So, you know, I didn't want to take the time to get into all of the different potential offenders and all the different potential offenses. It's in the record. And there, of course, there are going to be people who the Department of Justice is aware of who are not aware of. And there are going to be offenses that are aware of that we're not aware of. But we wanted to make sure as much as possible, nothing falls through the cracks. And certainly that the kingpins are identified. So this is not just an event where the foot soldiers go to jail. Right. So this wasn't a situation where you were trying to hide the identities of certain people because there was the possibility that they were still cooperating with law enforcement

or something? No. Okay. You know, the purpose of the January 6th committee was never criminal. So will there be a legislative remedy here? Like, will the committee members be introducing any type of legislation to prevent all of this from happening again? And if so, what would that legislation look like? Well, there are a dozen different legislative recommendations that are contained in the report. Some of them have already been introduced. For example, Lofgren and Cheney put in a bill for the Reform of the Electoral Count Act, some sensible, modest changes to clarify that the vice president can't run away with the football and just declare who's president. Nobody ever believed that, but it's worth restating, making it more difficult

to object so that there have to be weightier objections with more members involved, stuff like that. I mean, I'm fine with all that, although I'm an opponent of the Electoral College, and I think we need to move to a national popular vote for president, but I think as long as we have this antiquated obsolete system, we should try to make it function as well as we can. I mean, another one that's that I've introduced with Debbie Wasserman Schultz is to set up a process. Well, one is a resolution to declare that January 6th was an insurrection, restating what the House and the Senate have already found in the impeachment and trial, where concurrent bipartisan majorities determined that there was incitement to insurrection.

But our resolution would declare defined definitively that this was an insurrection and then set up a process where the Department of Justice or private parties could go to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in order to assert that someone is disqualified from running for federal or state office. because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says, if you've sworn an oath to support the Constitution, you've violated by engaging an insurrection or rebellion, you can never hold public office, again, federal or state, military, or civil. Is there seem to be any appetite for some of the other remedies that you've laid out, some of the other recommendations that you've laid out, for this stuff to actually pass, given what the makeup of the House is going to be? Well, yeah, that all goes to the question of whether the new,

GOP, House majority, with its extremely narrow hold on power, will be interested in doing anything positive or really all they want to do is just throw a lot of mud about Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton and Russia Gate and all of that. So it's a good question because there are things that we need to do from the ground up in terms of of fortifying Congress and all of our political institutions, our electoral offices and boards and machinery against coups, insurrections, electoral sabotage and political violence. So I hope they have some appetite for it. And if not, well, we're hoping that we're going to have a big blue sweep in 2024, and

we will continue the progress we've been able to make. You know, the irony here is that this could actually help them out because if nothing else, Donald Trump has shown that he's an albatross around Republicans next. He's led them to losses in 2018, 2020, and now in 2022. And it's not like it's not like this is sinking Donald Trump specifically. This is a way for them to say, okay, well, if you engage in insurrection against the United States, which is a pretty low bar to have to clear, then then you'll be disqualified from running for office in the future. It's not like, it's not like they're saying we have to protect Donald Trump at all costs.

is just saying that if somebody engages in insurrection, that's a disqualifying action at some point in the future. And, you know, the irony is that if they won't pass it because they're trying to help Donald Trump, then they're just telling on themselves in terms of their expectation that the guy is incapable of not doing it again. Well, back during the impeachment trial, when I would talk to Republican senators, I'd say that they need to vote to convict because the facts and the law compel it, because the country needs it in order to support the Constitution. But if none of that convinces them, they've got to do it for their own party because I said Donald Trump will come to destroy your party. And I think

that even more strongly today. Because, you know, he is obviously politically wounded in the eyes of huge parts of the country because everything he says and does, including just a couple weeks ago that the Constitution should be set aside in order to reinstate him into office. But I think, you know, it's clear who he is. On the other hand, he still exercises this spellbinding hold over millions of people in the Republican Party. He will run. And if he doesn't win, he will take a walk on them. He will leave and run as an independent. And so he will exercise that kind of coercive leverage over him that he tried to exercise over Mike Pence and other people on January 6th. So they've made their bet at this point, and now they've got a lie in it.

They've created a monster in Donald Trump, and he will devour their party. This question is for you in your personal capacity and not as a representative of the January 6th committee, but what do you personally hope to see from the special counsel as far as Trump and John Eastman and others are concerned? Just justice, you know, I think that Jack Smith, the special counsel, whom I've never met, seems like a very serious guy and a rigorous lawyer. And I think people should, you know, people should face the consequences of their own actions. And, you know, a lot of people were saying, you know, you guys only came forward with four criminal offenses.

there should have been 25 or 50. Well, we followed the law and the facts where we thought the evidence took us. And so, you know, members of Congress were obviously there on January 6th. We were victims of this attack. We were targets of this attack. So I'm glad that we've got prosecutors who are not involved in that way. we're going to be making these objective, cold, hard facts, decisions about what should be charged. Did you hear from any Republicans behind the scenes about the work that you did on the January 6th committee?

And, you know, because I know that they'll do their posturing for the cameras in public to prove that they're adequately loyal. But what about when there were no cameras? Did you hear from any of these Republicans? Just a handful, maybe two or three, who were very encouraging and wanted to make sure that we left no stone unturned. And obviously, we got tips from Republicans about what had happened. But, you know, Mike Pence is such a great embodiment of the cognitive dissonance that exists. I mean, here was a mob trying to kill the guy saying, hang. Mike Pence, hang Mike Pence. Donald Trump concentrated the wrath of the crowd on him, saying in the middle of the riot, when Trump knew what danger everybody was in, Mike Pence just didn't

have the courage to do what needed to be done. And although Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6th, now is still doing everything in his power to placate Donald Trump in Curry favor with his followers. And that's all he can think about. So he's saying publicly, oh, it would be divisive to prosecute Donald Trump. Well, whether or not it's divisive is not a test for whether or not you prosecute someone for committing a crime. The question is whether the facts support probable cause that the person committed a crime. You can say it's divisive not to prosecute Donald Trump. It's just irrelevant. I mean, it's amazing to me that the the vice president of the United States engages in such nonsense.

You know, that cognitive dissonance that you're talking about, it's so evident to everybody else, except the people within that party who are actually victim to it. Is there ever any acknowledgement from these people, from your colleagues on the right? Like, is there not any acknowledgment of the fact that you can have Mike Pence who was, who they wanted to hang that day and yet who still has to come out and grovel at someone like Trump's feet to remain to maintain any any relevancy in that party you know the whole experience is like an experiment in the frailty of the human mind because you know these people are able to convince themselves of you know completely ridiculous things and I go back to Voltaire and said

anybody who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities and we saw a vivid demonstration of it on January 6th. I mean, these people were told patently absurd things about the election, which had been rejected by more than 60 federal and state courts across the land, including eight or nine judges who Donald Trump had appointed the bench himself, and still they're going in and saying this was a stolen election without any evidence at all. And so he was able to convince them to believe in absurdities, and then he was able to unleash the wrath of the crowd and the mob on. on Mike Pence and on Congress committing this atrocity

against American democracy. Yeah, and hopefully if the absurdity of all of this isn't enough to dissuade them from following this guy in the future, just the fact that he's a loser will, you know, like electorally speaking. My next question is, what was it like to work with Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who are two people with whom you likely agree on nothing

as far as policy is concerned, but who were obviously able to come together with you and get this report done? Yeah, well, you know, some of the, our Republican colleagues have said this was partisan, which is absurd. If it was partisan, it was Republican because 90% of the witnesses were Republicans. These are people drawn from the Trump administration, the Trump White House, the Trump family, people coming in.

So the facts came from Republicans. So if they say it was one-sided, I guess I say, yeah, you're right. We were all on the side of the truth. And that was it. And that was the commitment we made. And so we were unified by that basic mission to get to the facts. And it was very refreshing. I think the country loved seeing a bipartisan committee that was not just made up of people getting up and having temper tantrums and throwing diatribes at one another. I mean, that's what happens in most of our committees, that the Republicans immediately start denouncing us and attacking us. And then we get sucked into. it, and then it's just five minutes of ad hominem attacks back and forth, and nobody watches anymore, and you can't make any progress. But look at the progress we were made on this, you know, very complicated question of what happened on January 6th and what caused it. I mean, remarkable

progress. We didn't agree on everything, but the divides we had were not partisan. They were based on intellectual disagreements that different members of the committee had. And there's different personalities and so on. And so it was just refreshing not to be locked in mortal partisan combat. Imagine if we could have hearings like this about gun violence or about climate change or about other problems instead of just people getting up and reeling at each other. What's your reaction to the fact that, you know, likely the only reason that these people, or one of the principal reasons that these people were able to carry out, their mission on this committee was because they didn't have to pander to the base because they don't

have a political future in the Republican Party right now. Yeah. Well, you know, Donald Trump and all of his enablers have conditioned the Republican rank and file to BS, as William Barr put it, to propaganda, to disinformation, to conspiracy theory to lies, and, you know, that gets to be cognitively addictive at a certain point. So, you know, we need the equivalent of deprogramming for people who are saturated in the big lie and all of its subsidiaries and corollaries. You know, I mean, if you believe in the big lie, then you go with Trump and you say, well, January 6th wasn't the insurrection.

that was the real election, the insurrection, took place in November. That's what Trump says. Then you've got to lie about that. Then you've got to lie about the fact of Antifa involvement. You've got to say, oh, it was really Antifa, even though we made very clear findings. Antifa was nowhere to be found and was telling people not to go anywhere near Washington. And they have to turn themselves upside down to ignore the injuries and the wounds of our police officers. 150 of whom ended up with, you know, broken shoulders, arms, legs, strokes, heart attacks.

Several officers died in the immediate wake of the attack, and they just didn't complete denial about it or they lie about. Yeah. What does this moment of finishing your work with the January 6th committee feel like for you? Because, you know, this is the bookend of a really difficult personal journey, you know, one that's you know that started with the death of your son that kind of broke everyone's hearts and and then and then ended with you know you you showing perseverance and integrity more than i think anybody could possibly imagine in in working on this committee anyway and and now

finishing your work so what does it feel like to close this chapter well um You know, it's been a hard time, not just for my family, but for millions of families across the country. It's been a hard time for everybody because of the division and the polarization. And the online hatred and the unearthing and unleashing of really primitive tribal impulses, the racism, the anti-Semitism, the misogyny, and there's so much suffering from COVID-19 and the mental-emotional health crisis that has swept so many people into it. So I'm glad that we're closing this chapter. It was sad to say goodbye to the members of the January 6th committee. These people will be my brothers and sisters forever because of what we've been through together. But I'm glad we're

closing this chapter and we're closing it on the note of the truth and the note of accountability and it's up to other people to see if they follow through on that. But democracy can't just be about the past and rectifying injuries. It's got to be about the future. And our kids are counting on us and our grandchildren are going to be counting on us and their future generation. So we've got to save democracy in order to save the human species from climate change because the autocrats in Russia and the theocrats in Saudi Arabia and Iran and the kleptocrats in Mar-a-Lago are not going to do it for us. I mean, in order to be serious about protecting humanity as well as democracy,

you need to put Democrats, small D Democrats around the world, big D Democrats in America in charge. Nobody else is going to do it. And that's not to say the Democratic Party is perfect, far from it. We've got all kinds of weaknesses and limitations. But we are a party committed to democracy, unlike the other guys. So we've got to keep democracy moving forward in the interests of everybody's family. You know, people would be really upset if I didn't ask. this next question. And I don't know that I'm going to get an answer to it, but would you ever

consider running for president? You know, first of all, I'm psyched that people saw with Joe Biden in the 2022 elections. What a good job he's been doing. I think there's a lot of ageism in people's dismissal. Joe Biden, when you look at the actual concrete accomplishments, his administration has had. But the truth is, Brian, that I have no bloodlust to run for president of the United States or any office at this point. But I would do anything to get us through the darkness of this period. And it's hard for me to believe that I would be the strongest candidate for the Democrats. But if I were and people were able to convince me of that, I would definitely consider it.

But I think there's some great people out there who, you know, seem to be engaged with the possibility. But never say never, you know, all of us need to be engaged in any way that we're needed in this moment. Okay. Well, definitely take that answer. Jamie Raskin, thank you not only for your time right now, but for everything that you've done. I mean, I could sit here and thank you until the sun goes down. And so, you know, what you do is appreciated. Well, and thanks for what you do, Brian.

And I always love getting the clips from your show. So hang tough and thanks for having me. Now we've got the host of Cuomo on News Nation. Chris Cuomo. Thanks for taking the time. Thank you. And thank you for the forbearance with my setting. I'm visiting someone in the hospital.

But I wanted to have this conversation with you. So hopefully this will work. Yeah, appreciate you taking the time. So let's start off with one question on Donald Trump here, and that is, how do you think the Republican Party reconciles having put all of their cards in the Trump deck, knowing that the guy is going to go scorched earth and never cede power to Ron DeSantis or anyone, with the fact that they'll likely want to win moving forward. And that'll probably mean at some point not nominating the guy who's already lost in elections

in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Like, how do they deal with the Frankenstein's monster that they create? Well, there are a few different steps in what you're laying out. So here's what we know. When it comes to parties in a binary system that is fundamentally zero-sum, meaning they win because the other one loses, winning is everything. And that's the only thing that explains them getting this caught up with Trump in the first place, not a real conservative, doesn't check many or any of the boxes that usually mattered to that party, except the biggest box that needs the biggest check, which is, can he win? And that was the deal that they made. Now, you can say,

well, that's what every party does. Yes, but Trump was always a perversion of the underlying idealism and the intellectual construct of what was the conservative movement. He's not a conservative, really in any way. So they only made this move because they had to, because he was beating them and they were scared. And this was very much in conscious. contrast to the methodical, thoughtful, deliberative, consistent move that the GOP has made on the state level. They have had a very consistent campaign of winning state legislative seats and governorships that helped them deal with districting, that it improved their lot beyond where they should be nationally because they're at a big registration disadvantage nationally. So that methodical nature and what they had been about and that discipline was completely disrupted by the Trump move. And now, look, there's so many different cliches and metaphors and stories that go with what happens when you make a bad choice.

But now they are where they are. And the question is, how do they get anywhere else? That's a two-part answer for me. One, Trump is helping them by doing what he does worst, which is, you know, what we see right now between the trading cards and all that. other BS. But the second one is a transcendent newness. Will that be DeSantis? I have a big question mark in the charisma column for him. But that's what gets them somewhere else. What it should be is a populist move, is a ground up move. But I don't know that our party politics allows for that right now. I think the only way they get away from Trump is the collection of his implosion

continued and a transcendent figure that grabs the base and hopefully more for them. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's spot on. I think like you said, I mean, he's helping expedite that process right now, not just by, you know, the shameless grifting. But at some point, Republicans are going to have to have to accept the fact that if they want to win elections, it's not going to be the guy who's just lost them their third election. So remains to be seen. But I want to talk about your show here. And you recently spoke with Ukrainian president. Zelensky and one point that you touched upon was this idea that the war already happened that's obviously not the case we're heading into with winter

Russia is trying to take down Ukraine's energy grid back home in the US the funding for that effort is going to be largely dependent on a political process where Republicans have already decided that Ukraine is some liberal agenda item and so out of pure partisan spite many of them on the right are opposing it what do you see as the outcome here do you think that Republicans will ultimately blink. And what would you say to Republicans who don't think that helping fund this war is important? Let's chew on it a little bit. What do they think about Ukraine? The GOP has had a mixed mentality when it comes to foreign activities. Isolationism, what used to be

jingoism, had found a home there, but not always. Not always. There are certainly many examples in recent history of a robust notion of fueling the move of democracy, of what is seen as an expansive idea of America's interests abroad. So it's a mixed bag. So where are we on Ukraine? I think right now their analysis is completely limited to two things. One, that their base is not necessarily xenophobic. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, but they definitely want to stay close. And yes, they'll argue the money thing, but that's an article of convenience. You know, we always have money for whatever people want. The other thing is Zelensky. Zelensky is bad for Trump. Zelensky was part of going after Trump. And that colored the entire

situation, much to the bemusement of not amusement, but bemusement of Ukraine's president. He can't believe that some stupid phone call in Trump trying to put the arm on him for something could be seen as tantamount to reason to let him get slaughtered by Russia. But I think it could be. And I think McCarthy saying there's going to be no blank check for Ukraine is a very gentle suggestion at this reality. I think that's why Zelensky came to America. He left a war zone. We haven't really seen this since Churchill. And I'm not saying that Zelensky is Churchill. I'm just saying that Churchill took time to come here to massage America on its own ground many times. And it was very important because we were a very reluctant participant in World War II. People don't know that.

And Zelensky is coming here, not because he needs a frequent flyer miles, and not because he's looking for a photo op. He's desperate. And he's really worried about not having what he needs to hold off what he believes is coming from Russia. Now there's another question, which is, why don't we care more? What's your thought on that? I mean, look, my thought is that it's easy for the Republican Party to not, you know, to rely on people's ignorance about foreign affairs. But also, honestly, and this is going to be like,

this is going to be as jaded as it gets, but I think it's just a matter of Democrats are in support of it, and so Republicans aren't. And it's just a simple and reductive. as that. I mean, look, I think that it's obviously, it's obviously tantamount in this world to care about, about supporting democracies, especially in the face of invasions by an autocratic nation led by a warmongering lunatic. But as bad as it is, like, that's all it really comes down to. It's that Democrats want to fund this effort. And so just as reactionary as it gets, Republicans say no, because that's the calcification of our politics right now. I don't know

if you agree with that. I think you make some good points, though it's sad because you're so young. Look, first of all, a good line from Jordan Peterson has always fear a single factor explanation to a complicated situation. And I think you're avoiding that well. And too often in our politics, you know, we do single factor explanations because it's more about agendas than it is really assessing any situation fairly. Because again, the party system is poison to promoting a more perfect union. I've never been more sure of that than I am today. People need to leave the parties. Lawmakers leaving the parties is more complicated because they got in because of the party. So for them to now become independent is a little bit of a dicey proposition. But I think people should leave

their party affiliations. I think it's the best way to get the parties until we have more of them or more choice or a different system to cater to people on an independent basis. The more independent, the electorate is, the less of this binary zero-some stuff will have. Now, to what you were saying, I do believe that the Republicans, therefore, are not reading the room correctly because veterans are very much in favor of helping Ukraine because of their feelings about Russia and Russia as a contagion and the desire to expand once again. And the message it sends to China. It's no coincidence that Zelensky comes here and Putin sends an envoy to Beijing because President Xi not only has a ton of leverage over us because of how much of our

debt China owns, but he likes annexing. He likes this. He likes this vibe of Russia getting away with it. Now, what does it mean to us? Here's my biggest, my biggest concern. I spent so much in my life in covering the wars after 9-11 in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. We were never going to make those places anything like what we value in America. And everybody knew it. I'm not saying people didn't need our help. I'm not saying any of that. I'm just saying Ukraine is such a no brainer for what we say we're about. Oh, but there's no terror there. Yeah, but it wasn't just about terror. We all knew that was an idea. And every time that you have people who are disaffected, poor, uneducated, they're going to be angry and they're going to be susceptible to messaging. And in that case,

the messaging is extreme Islamism and it works. But in Ukraine, you can actually get something there. And you can actually have a bulwark against Russia right there. And we just seem, now people say, what are you talking about? We've given them billions of dollars. And, you know, hey, do you know how much money we've given in the Middle East that we'll never see a return on any investment. That was also stolen in a, you know, tremendous amount and going to all these payoffs and people who are never, that place is exactly like when we found. Yep. So that's the part I don't get is that this people even look like the merit.

Like I don't get why there's not more of an affinity to the cause. There was for a moment. I was out of the job, but I was watching. And there was a flash with blue and yellow flags and you still see them on people's, people's Twitter avatars, but the constancy isn't there anymore. You don't see people like me in Ukraine anymore. I'm going to go in the beginning of the year. It's like a battle for me to get over there because they're like, oh, nobody cares. Sometimes you have to go because nobody cares. I think that what we saw in, you know, after 9-11, for example, when everybody came together

and then George W. Bush was re-elected on the back of what happened in 9-11. I think that can't happen right now because I don't think that it's in the Republicans' interest to allow that to happen again. I think they saw that. And if they say, okay, everybody comes together because there's a war effort, that's not going to help them politically. And so I think they have a vested interest. And we've seen that party is more important than country or democracy more broadly in the world. And so, you know, when there was that, that flash, that moment where everybody was pro-Ukraine because it's the right thing to do. And that was so obvious, at least in the beginning, I think that the political incentives weren't there to the point where you needed that turn.

You needed to create that conflict. And that's why you have guys like Tucker Carlson who've come out outright and said, I am supporting Russia because if there isn't that political conflict, if everything is, if everything is, you know, symbiotic, then then, then that doesn't, that doesn't help create like the conflict that they need to then, you know, create that contrast so that one party can be here and the other party can be here. You're right. sometimes you have to be about something bigger.

Well, of course. But no, sometimes there's opportunity in that. I'm not being idealistic. I'm saying sometimes there's opportunity in that. And because Ukraine has made a mistake in my mind in hiding the death and the slaughter. And I get why they're doing it. I understand the morale reasons. I think it's a mistake.

I think that if Americans saw how butcher people get in these situations and how absolutely arbitrary the attacks are. That's what surprised me most when I was over there. The reporting of that it's like, yeah, if we kill women, we kill women, we kill kids, we keep kids, whatever it is, whoever we hit. We're not used to that being so flagrant. And I think it's a mistake in Ukraine's part to hide it. But I get what their mentality is and I get what their concerns are.

I do think there's an opportunity in this. But you're probably right that ultimately the safest play is oppositional just out of advantage and to keep the fight home because home is always going to matter more than a way. And until Russia does something else to somewhere else and it seems like it's, you know, it is NATO, I think that it'll stay the way it is now, even with Zelensky coming here. I don't think that any, there's any will for Americans to be on the ground there. And it'll just stay the way it is. much money. Who cares? Really, who cares? In terms of who's going to win the next election,

who's going to be president of the United States, I don't think what happens in Ukraine will matter enough. So the best position is, you know, Tucker Carlson's a great straight read on the righty, fringe mentality of how they stay relevant. Yeah. And that, you know, it's good to have that, actually. You know, it's good to have something that's such an ugly and obvious indicator of what you have to be careful about. Yeah. Chris, what do you hope to do with your show? My show is the first show I've ever had that actually has a plan of what to do with it because every other show I've ever had or been a part of is just about, hey, take it as it comes. You know, we try to get it right. We try to fight the good fight. And, you know, we see what

comes our way. If that means I got to get out of the house and go to a place, it's a bad place for a while, that's what I do. That means you have to get in the investigative business right now or the crime business or the confrontation business, whatever it is, you know, you suit to fit. And now I'm not doing that. My show is for when it comes to politics, okay? When it comes to politics, my show is for independence. My show is anti-partisan. It's not just non-partisan.

It's anti-partisan. The party system is a problem. It is stopping us. It will always be party first. It has always been party first. I am not making this up. You have never had leaders in this country. Say anything else.

Washington, the Federalist Papers, Teddy Roosevelt, Monroe. I mean, it goes on and on. It's not even easy. It's not even a hard argument. Nobody could win the debate otherwise. Factions, then into parties, then into machines, and then whatever we have now, which is an amalgam, it's always been part of the problem.

And I, if I'm going to be in this game, I'm going to play it the way I want to. And the way I want to play it is, parties are bad. You should be an independent. And I'm not saying they're bad people. That's cheap. It's easy. But when it comes to politics, I'm not simply just populist. It's that people need to leave the parties.

We have to attack the party system and show it for what it is. And we have to make government responsive to the people that they govern and not vice versa. And someone will say, well, that's not journalism. I disagree. I disagree. If journalism is an expression of hope for the future and communicated in truth, then that's exactly what this is. Objectively, the parties are a problem. And the reason that we cater to them is because it works for rating.

And I want it to be better than that. Now, non-political or political adjacent, I don't cover the insider wars the way I used to. Even as a referee, I do much less Trump stuff, insider stuff, who's Zoom and who, what is, of what isn't at the investigations. I'm light on that. And I do politics adjacent meaning, hey, you want to talk about energy and why gas prices are so high,

how come we dismiss nuclear power? You know, I grew up thinking that every time the word nuclear was said, we started to glow. What's really behind it? What's behind long haul and COVID? Asking those second and third questions and talking a lot about self-care

and personal struggle and what we all deal with. with. I want the show to be more of a salon effect of a discussion about what everybody has to deal with. And I use myself more than I ever considered doing in the past as a lens into related ability to struggle. I do it a lot more on the Chris Cuomo project, the podcast. I actually have specific segments that are set up for, listen, you know, I'm a fortunate person in many regards, but I know what struggle is. I know what it is to deal with your own health and how and therapy and what that means and why evaluate. And I want to talk to that so that you don't have to talk about yourself.

You can just hear me, you know, go through my own flaws and my own failings. And, you know, if that shines a light for you on what you can do for yourself, great. And I never did that before, but I'm older now. And I was given the gift of getting knocked on my ass. So I had time to think about why I do what I do and what matters to me about it and what boxes I want to check. You know, everybody's checking boxes sometimes, whether you should or you shouldn't. I've been number one at a big shop. I know what that's like. I know what that relevance is, that resonance is, that shine. I've had it. I wasn't happy despite that. So I don't need that to be what I want to be and who I want to be and how I want to be. So that's what the show is

about. It's about politics. It's for independence. And it's anti-partisan. And if it's about what I like to cover on a regular basis, it's going to be about the things that don't get covered as much. Because I got a small audience. We're building something. So I might as well do what I want to do instead of following the pack because they're not watching me anymore. Look, as far as the end of the two-party system goes, you know this better than anyone.

The side to blink and start voting third party doesn't get stronger. It just fractures one side and allows the other side to consolidate all the power. And that sucks, but that's just how it is, isn't it? it like in this country that's how it would that's how it would play out so isn't it like while the idea behind this might might be virtuous like in in reality when this actually plays itself out it's just going to hurt the side that's actually agreeing to these terms it is true but a few points on it you're right i can't rebut it it's all that has ever happened whenever even back to the days of bull moose um with teddy roosevelt he didn't win until he went back into the game um

That's why I say that it's not about a third party. It's about a third, fourth, and fifth. If you look at other major democracies in Europe, less so in South America, you know, even if you just want to look at the direct analog of the UK, they have two main parties, but there are three other parties that are relevant in seats in parliament. They have to make deals. And as dysfunctional as it seems there or in Italy or in Israel, they still deal with the business of the people better than we do. Let's put that to the side. Virtue. It is virtuous. It's a good word. I appreciate you using it. I believe it's all that matters. As an old, flawed man whose life is very often a function of what I've done wrong and how I'm haunted by it, pursuit of virtue is all that matters. So that even if it is impractical, even if it's not the way it works, even if those in power control how it works and they like that. party system the way it is because that's how they got there and that's how they stay there

and that's why they won't even put term limits in Congress, you still should push for what is virtuous. Because just like in life, you know, I screw up on a regular basis, on a daily, if not hourly basis of not doing what I want to do and making bad choices and hurting people that I don't want to hurt, I shouldn't hurt, hurting myself, you still just keep trying to do the right thing. And that must be applied to politics. We get politics a pass. We don't treat it the way we treat every other dynamic in our life. You would never allow someone on your podcast to talk about anything else the way people will talk about politics. You'd never hire anyone to do anything for your fast-growing digital business or anything you have going on in your life

the way you do what you'll let a politician sell you on. So I really do believe that virtue matters. to it. And you could say, yeah, yeah, but it's not going to happen. I don't disagree. It's unlikely. But look at what we're doing right now. Our presidential election comes down to like 30 counties. Yeah. Across the country. And people, you know, in America, being independent is so cool. We all say we're free, man. You know, don't mess with me, man. You'd have to take me out before you take my tongue. Yeah, yeah. And then we default to these tribes and these teams and we surrender our individuality again and again and again. That's why I started free agent. You know, a free agent, we know what that means from sports. And if you're a, you know, a big brain, you know what it is

from philosophy. But everybody says they're independent. If you ask somebody, hey, you're a free agent in terms of you a politics, you're free thinker. Yeah, of course I am. Really? No, you're not. Most of us aren't. We default to the teams and the tribes and we just come out with a reason of convenience. That's why I started free agent and I sell the merch, the money I'm putting into a Kitty, did then make donations to people who do good stuff, try and make their communities better. It's not a revenue generating enterprise, or profit generating enterprise. But I want people to wear their independence, literally and figuratively. You know, I really do that.

Messaging Matters. One of the things Trump knows very well is I say to you, hey, is this podcast a good podcast? People say it's a good podcast. You know, this is a really good podcast. You know, repetition matters. Messaging matters. And I think that somebody has to want to do this. And that's why I agree with you that I don't think it comes from the power side, even though the power should be on the people side. I think people have to leave the parties. I think that that's something we can do. I think that's something you can do. I can do. And yes, as a journalist, it's easy. We all register independent anyway. But I think that that's the answer. The answer is for people to say, no, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. You got to earn it. You got to earn it. What are you going to do for me? I don't care what you just said about that guy. I don't care. I'm not going to vote for you because he's worse. It doesn't work for me. It doesn't work anywhere else in my life. It's not going to work here either.

I think that's our best bet. And I don't think it's just theoretical. Look, while you were at CNN, I think it's safe to say that you were on the Democrats team. And you may, you may reject that, but that's my opinion. I think it would be a lot of a lot of people's opinion. opinions. So grant me that and then and then I'll get to this question here. I absolutely will not grant that. But you are open to your opinion. Okay. And I don't, I don't mean any, any offense by this, by this question. But, you know, since, since leaving CNN, you've been, you've called for the end of the two party system. Do you think that that's stemming from a degree of resentment owed to feeling like you were alienated

by your party because of the way the end of the CNN tenure came about? Like, that that's pushed you away from the two-party system because I don't think that you at CNN would be advocating for the end of the two-party system like like you are now. That is true. However, I have always had problems with the party, but I evolved because I was trying to figure out how I can help. I have zero resentment towards CNN or certainly the Democratic Party. I don't give a shit about the Democratic Party.

They never had. Or not necessarily the Democrats, but the viewers, like if your viewers, if your viewers, were like liberals and then and then there came a point where it was like very easy to feel like you were alienated by those same people who you'd served as an anchor for all of those years like no i don't push you away no i don't i don't blame people for anything they had nothing to do with this this this was politics this was politics of new ownership and this was politics of media um media resented my brother being on my show to begin with i always knew that would happen and I just didn't know how high the price would be.

I also didn't anticipate him having all those problems. And this was about ownership at CNN, not liking the look, and a boss deciding to save himself by getting rid of me. And I understand it. I'm not hateful. I'm not even resentful. I just, it was wrong, and I don't like it. CNN, in my opinion, is the best media agency in the world.

Their audience is not decidedly left, by the way. It probably breaks that way. Most audiences do, okay? So I don't see that as some type of bias. And I just refuse to accept the idea that going after Donald Trump's historical fictions and lies and malice towards not just the institutions of our democracy, but of our media and our society does not make me a lefty. Last night, well, just keep it to CNN. I would have Trump supporters and people from the right on more than anybody else at CNN.

And in House and at a house, people didn't like it. In the media, people said, oh, you're giving them a platform. All they do is lie. I disagree. I disagree then. I disagree now. And I would fight with them. See, that was the difference is I'm not going to have someone come on and just

give them a platform. I've never done that anywhere for anything. Okay. That's why I wind up getting into fights with people. Now, not fights the way Tucker Carlson does it or theatricality. I've had almost every guest I've ever been in an argument with on my show. Thank me for the appearance at the end of it. You can go back and check. And it's because they know I'm not coming from a bad place. I just think that that person on that point is full of shit. Yeah. And that they're selling some. And it's wrong. And I will say that. And they'll say, no, you're wrong. But at the end of it, it's not personal. I'm not going to say anything personal about them. That's not you win an argument. That's Twitter. So never playing for the Democratic team. If your name is Cuomo and you're running as a

Democrat, I will vote for you. Okay. My father's Democratic Party no longer exists. Okay. My brother is a different kind of Democrat than my father was. And I had problems with both of them. I'm a rich guy. I hate taxes. So the idea that I'm a Democrat is just fundamentally untrue. You don't find a lot of gun owning left. But I do think that it's a logical question that you ask, that I make a change because I'm angry. And the answer is yes, but not because I'm angry at CNN, not because I'm angry at the audience, not because I'm angry at some political party. It's that I'm angry at myself for, I was angry at myself for not finding a way to be more helpful to the change that is obvious and that we need and the advocacy that we need on people's behalf. That's what

it's about for me. It's not about being rueful. It's not about going after anybody. It's not about the past. It really is. Given where you are right now and it seems like you're happier where you are and with the direction that your career is going to take and with the show that you're able to make, do you not regret how everything played out because it got you to this point? Or do you still have regrets about how everything played out? Look, that's the right way to see it. You know, as somebody who clings very closely to the ideals and rules of stoicism, that's absolutely the way to do it is that everything that happened in your life got to where you are

so you can't really regret any of it. Yeah. I also think that that is almost magical thinking. Yeah, it's like easier said than done. I do not like how I got to where I am. I do not like where I am in a lot of ways. I mean, News Nation, I'm very thankful to Nextdoor for giving me the opportunity and seeing it.

I'm happy with my decision to not pursue any other media opportunities. I don't think it would have been a good fit anywhere else. I would have had problems. If I were at an MSNBC, I would have had problems with that audience because they're coming for confirmation every night that they're still right. and that the left or the right is wrong they wouldn't have been happy with me i would have had

sparring messages messages uh matches with the other anchors i don't want to go back to any of the big three news agencies because i don't like what they do and you can't be on every day in a way that i want to be on uh i know i know i'm respected enough and good enough at the craft to be in those places but like even 60 minutes is not 60 minutes anymore um it's boring and a lot of the storytelling is tired and it's rarely relevant and you're not on enough so i really believe that the digital space was the right space and all i was going to do was the podcast you know the chris promo project i love it i own it you know i love having conversations with people where i can say yes this is only going to be what i want it to and i don't give a shit

what anybody else thinks because it's my business literally and figuratively i do have more freedom at news nation than i've ever had anywhere else before i do every night exactly what i'm what I want to do. I've never had that at any other news agency. And not because of something sinister. It's just group think and having a different institutional structure that news nation doesn't have because it's still evolving as a culture. So, you know, no, I don't like how I got where I am. I don't like this process. It was unfair. I was lied about. And that's why I'm going through litigation because I'll deal with it there. I don't blame CNN. I don't blame the people there. They're great people. I wish them well. I hate that the media

has made it sport going after CNN, and it's almost purely out of jealousy. Everybody was covering Trump the way CNN was. Were they doing it as much? Were they doing it less? To me, that's irrelevant. They just weren't as good at. And Trump didn't see them as threatening as he did with CNN. So he made CNN relevant, and that made everybody else jealous.

And I lived there. And I've been in this business for 25 years. I know it up, down, left, right. There are no surprises for me. So I don't buy into this CNN hate parade. And they'll be not back because they haven't gone anywhere. But when the news changes and it's about coverage and it's about intensity and purpose, unless the new management really screws it up, CNN's going to be right where it's always been,

which is going to be at the front of the pack, at least since I knew it. Before Zooker was there, CNN was an afterthought. it was just like a panic button. We used to call them the red coats. And we just used to look at CNN for where to set up our cameras in a live situation. You know, what areas were they in so that we could then go there at ABC News and dominate the cover? But look, I am where I am. And all I know is that there are certain things I control and certain things I don't.

What I control about my past is how I litigated and how I will never settle for anything less than what I want. to be known it's not about money and i control the show i do i control how i feel about where i am and i control why i'm doing what i do i don't control what happened in the past i don't control how people feel about it it pisses me off every time somebody says i was fired because i helped my brother go after his accusers and manipulate the media that's all bullshit and i hate hearing it but the only thing that'll make that stop is to have the people who started it having to own that that's not true. But that's the past. And you know, the truth is, and you probably've learned this. People don't care about you, man. They don't care about you. They care about themselves in their

life. And that's where my focus has to be as a storyteller and as an advocate for their interests within the field of the media is they care about them and what matters to them, not me, not my story. They've already made the decisions about me. And if they're with me, they're with me. They're not, you know, and there's very little I can do to change that. So it's not about being resentful. It's not about acting out and trying to punish. That's not who I am and that's not what I'm about. And that wouldn't be helpful to anybody else.

So where can we see and hear more from you? Well, you can invite me on and I can invite you on. And I believe in that. I really believe in a salon effect. I'm very careful about which podcasts I go on and what I do because I know would be better for growing the Chris Cuomo project to be everywhere and like, you know, go smoke a doobie with, uh, Rogan or more or whatever it is. But I want to be more selective about that. Not because I'm anti-wheat. I love weed. I was one of the first card carrying

THC people that I knew. I have my, uh, my city. Not that you need it necessarily in New York, but I just, I wanted people to understand that, um, I really believe in it is medicine. And I really have, uh, all but stopped, uh, drinking. Because it just, it just doesn't, work for me because I'm you know it's just too easy to use it yeah in a way that you don't need to but I have the Chris Bomo project podcast which is free and it will always be free um and I do some really cool stuff on that I yeah I have the big guess that you need to have but you know I do sessions where I just talk about what I've learned about struggle in my own life and the lives of people around me and it's there's so many people who deal with the same kinds of things you know we all

think that our suffering is special and that while pain is personal, it's so common. We're dealing with the same things. And if we just talked about it more, there'd be so much alleviating of what people just struggle with and they don't have to. And News Nation, you know, it's a growing thing. If you want to watch it, you know, it's 8 o'clock and 11 o'clock Eastern. The show is different than any other show. I mean, last night, it had Zelensk, you know, on a recent show, I had Zelensky, O'Reilly, and Joe Manchin on. Yeah. The dinner party right there.

And, you know, look, by the way, I'm working on that. I'm working on a show where I sit around and eat with some people and just talk about what comes up. I actually think that'd be a really interesting format. And people do loosen up, even though they all know they're still on camera. Yeah. But I'm looking for different venues and ways to have the right kinds of conversations. Let me let me ask you this like why what just as a quick aside Why why why do this show because if you are selective this is I mean I I I am I'm a partisan I'm I'm a progressive activist I

Yeah, my views are kind of antithetical to the idea that that we need an end to the two party system because my whole my whole thing is that like I I recognize not not that you don't recognize but I'm I'm recognizing right now the dangers that are posed by the Republican Party and the only antidote to that is to make sure that Democrats get elected to keep these people who are dangerous away One, I like you. And you believe what you say. You're not saying it because you think it's going to get you somewhere. That's been my assessment of you. And otherwise, I'd be tearing you up in this interview, even though it's on your podcast. So that's why I'm here. And yeah, but lefties aren't going to like you hearing that. They got problems with their party too. Nobody hates on their party the way Democrats do. You guys don't hold together well. And you know, message your success as well. And that's one of the reasons that you're so screwed in our immigration debate right now. And you better focus on that. And you better figure out how to secure that border, how to deal with how you screwed up on Title 42. I don't understand. COVID's supposed to be a concern everywhere in society except on the border. And the Republicans have the same party. Problem in the obverse. COVID's not a big deal anywhere except on the border where nobody can come in if they've been within a mile when somebody who has COVID. Look, it's

politics. And we got to do better. And I believe that the power that makes that better resides from people not giving support to a party putatively, automatically. And are Democrats the answer to problems with Republicans? Maybe depends on the Democrat and how good they are and what they're supposed to do. Are you right that the two parties are not equal offenders? Hell yes, you're right, there's no way that you can look at what's happening in the Republican Party right now and say, oh yeah, but the same shit's happening on the left. Look at AOC. Look at Antifa. Look at BLM. That is a specious analysis on a flawed premise. And I have never bought into that. I get hit with that both sides stick every time. That's a bullshit stick, man. You know, balance is a real thing,

and you have to look at it. And I love many of the ideals of liberalism. And I think there is a place for balance with conservatism. And there always has been until very recently when the party's figured out it's just better to hate the other. You don't have to work with them. Cooperation isn't in your interest. And that's terrible for us. And I think the only way to get away from it is for people to demand

more of government. Because as long as it's just they're worse, you see what happens in government. They don't do things. How can they not pass this immigration bill? How can they not do this? How can they not give dreamers, a pathway to citizenship. Everybody knows they did nothing wrong. Three out of four Americans agree on it. It's such a WTF. It's so maddening to me. But it's the only thing that works in this process. And that's what I want people to get away from home. I'm not anti-democrat.

I'm a Cuomo, for God's sake. I'm not anti-Democrat. I'm not anti-GOP. I'm married into a Republican family. I just don't like the way they do business. And I don't like the way Biden is doing business. You don't try. your success is enough. You don't explain what's going on. How did you guys not make more out out of the semiconductor situation? How did you let the right make that situation about Biden being in Arizona and not wanting to go to the border? Are you kidding me? You've brought more manufacturing into this country than Trump even lied about bringing in. And you guys let it become about him not wanting to go to the border? What is going on with you? Yeah. That's all fair. All fair assessments.

We'll leave it there. Chris, I'd love to have you back on. So in the meantime, happy holidays and thank you for taking the time. Appreciate it. You are very appreciated and respected for having someone come on that's not going to say what you want. That is very rare. And I think it makes you a stronger advocate. I've been paying attention to you for a while. And your side, I hate that there are sides, but liberalism is real and it's deep and it's valuable. And they need people who see the playing field and not just play it opportunistically. You guys lead with your heart too much for that. But you are part of the future of that movement as someone who sees the state of play and understands it and doesn't just hope that if they pretend it's not,

there, everything will go the right way. There are real problems. You guys have great opportunity. You're a little jammed up going into the presidential. You got a bad map in the Senate that you're going to have to deal with. But you're nowhere as bad a situation as the Republic. I don't know if Biden's going to be your guy. I think you got a problem either way. I think if he's your guy, you got a problem. I think if he's not your guy, you got a problem because Democrats need to love their candid. And you need a transcendent figure. And you're doing one. I just don't know who it is. But I'd love to talk to you about it. I wish you well. I want good ideas and people who are fighting the good fight for the right reasons to matter in this country. I'm not against anybody.

Thanks again to Chris. That's it for this episode. Again, happy holidays. Stay safe. Stay warm. And I'll 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 briantylercoen.com for links to all of my other channels.