No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Jamie Raskin on finally calling Trump to publicly testify

Episode Date: February 6, 2022

Democrats secure some major redistricting wins that could mean the difference between a Republican majority and a Democratic majority in the House. Brian interviews Congressman Jamie Raskin about the January 6 Committee, whether Trump will be called to testify, the dangers of the DOJ and state attorneys general not moving fast enough, and how Rep. Raskin is holding up after his own personal traumatic events. And Texas state representative James Talarico joins to discuss yet another cold snap that’s left tens of thousands of Texans freezing and the reason that Greg Abbott was content to let that happen.Donate to the Tommy Raskin Memorial Fund for People and Animals: https://tommyraskinfund.org/Shop 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 some major, major redistricting wins for Democrats that could very well mean the difference between a Republican majority and a Democratic majority in the House. I interview Congressman Jamie Raskin about the January 6th Committee, whether Trump will be called to testify, the dangers of the DOJ and Attorney General is not moving fast enough, and how he's holding up after his own personal traumatic events. And I'm joined by Texas State Representative James Tellerico to discuss yet another cold snap that's left tens of thousands of Texans freezing, and the reason that Greg Abbott was content to

let that happen. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So we have a lot of good news this week, and we don't get it often, so God damn it, that's what we're going to cover. So according to the Cook Political Reports, Dave Wasserman, for the first time in the redistricting process, Democrats are potentially set to gain two to three seats through redistricting. And of course, you know, a few caveats. These are predictions, first and foremost, and there are still more states that have to finalize their maps. So, you know, the needle could move in either direction. But as it stands right now on paper, Democrats are in a position where we could actually see a relative benefit from redistricting. So let's start with some of the

biggest redistricting weapons that Democrats were able to use. In New York, where an independent commission drew the maps, but the legislature, which ultimately has the final say, took over, those maps are going from 19 to 8 in Democrats' favor to 22 to 4 in Democrats' favor. That's three gained seats for Democrats and four fewer seats for Republicans in a state that's probably the Democrats' biggest redistricting weapon. In Illinois, we're looking at two fewer Republican seats and one more Democratic seat, another major redistricting weapon. Maps in New Mexico and Oregon would also add another two seats for Democrats.

Dems are also benefiting from governors, acting as buffers to Republican-led state legislatures, and we've seen Democratic governors vetoing maps in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin, and in Kansas, all of which would have been devastating for Democrats if we didn't have those buffers given how extreme the Republicans in those states are. And of course, can't forget the Democrats have benefited big time in the courts. In Alabama, a federal court

has blocked Republicans' congressional maps telling lawmakers that a second black majority district is required and that could shift Alabama's congressional delegation from six to one, which is what it currently stands at and what the new maps would have been to five to two. so a gain of another seat for Democrats. In Ohio, which I spoke about a couple weeks back, the state Supreme Court struck down the state's congressional maps

on a four to three ruling with the Republican Chief Justice siding with Democrats in finding the map on constitutional. And that map was a 13 to 2 gerrymander, as opposed to the 12 to 4 current gerrymander in a state that Republicans only won 56% of the votes in. So now lawmakers have 30 days, and if they can't manage to figure out a suitable map, then a redistricting commission steps in.

In Pennsylvania, just before a lower court Trump-appointed judge was set to decide which congressional map to choose, the Democratic majority Pennsylvania Supreme Court stepped in and took over the process. And like, just so you know how much of a bullet we just dodged in PA, this is what that pro-Trump judge's website says, the judge who almost ruled on the maps. Here's some quotes. She is the only judge in America to order the 2020 presidential election results not be certified. And here's another one. She is the only judge running for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to be praised by President Trump. So, yeah, a bullet definitely dodged.

And finally, in North Carolina, the 4-3 Democratic Majority Supreme Court struck down Republicans' 10-4 gerrymandered maps as unconstitutional. So now it's possible the Democrats could even gain on the current 8-5 maps, considering this is a state that's basically split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. So that's where we're at right now. You would be hard-pressed to say that Democrats haven't caught a ton of lucky breaks and that Democrats aren't being well-served by lawyers like Mark Elias who are working their asses off to make sure that some of these egregious gerrymanders are struck down. And granted, before we celebrate, just know that Republicans still have weapons of their own.

We're still waiting on Florida's maps, Texas's maps, and George's maps are still being litigated. But there's something to be said for being in better shape than we expected and to take the wins where we can get them. But here is my biggest caveat. None of this is to say that gerrymandering is good. That Democrats were able to at least momentarily put themselves in a good position doesn't mean that we benefit from gerrymandering because the truth is that without gerrymandering, if gerrymandering was illegal,

imagine how much bigger our majorities would be. Like, we're not a 50-50 country. Our house majority should not be on a knife's edge. Republicans got 7 million fewer votes than Democrats in the last election. In the last eight general elections, Republicans won the popular vote once. So, like, if we're able to hold on to the house, thanks to some fortuitous events, and that's a big if, it doesn't mean that we benefited from this process. It just means that by the skin of our teeth, we didn't get royally screwed by it.

But either way, we do still get screwed. It's still Republicans who net an advantage from redistricting. All we're talking about here is how much we're able to chip away at that advantage and to keep our heads above water. And one last point here, remember, despite all of this, that it means nothing. if people don't turn out. Let Virginia be a lesson. We could have the voters, just like we could have winnable congressional districts on paper, but unless we turn those voters out, we could still lose. So none of this is to suggest that we got this in the bag because we don't. Biden's approval ratings as they stand are still low, and we're fighting against history here when it comes to the

party out of power's performance in midterm elections. But a lot can happen in the next few months. Biden's presiding over record jobs numbers. We've just had seven million jobs added in the last 12 months, which is the most in U.S. history. COVID cases and deaths are dropping. Supply chain issues, inflation will hopefully ease up, and we can still see some iteration of buildback better. So time will tell. But if you needed some reasons to hold out hope, I think we finally have a few. Next up is an interview with one of my all-time favorite people, Congressman Jamie Raskin. Today we have someone who needs no introduction, Congressman Jamie Raskin. Thanks so much for coming back on. I'm delighted to be with you, Brian.

So, you know, the last time we spoke, Trump's impeachment lawyers went on to use a clip from our interview as part of their fight compilation. You'd uttered the word fight during our interview, which very clearly achieved their goal of proving that Democrats are exactly the same as Trump who incited an insurrection on the capital. Right. You know, I always wondered, why didn't they show that we used the word the, and they used the word the? Yeah.

It wasn't like our case for his having incited a violent insurrection against union was based on one phrase or one word. It was an entire course of conduct. So they may as well have said they used the word Congress and Trump used the word Congress. I mean, it was silly. Right. Well, you know, that among among other airtight elements of their argument, you know, surprise they couldn't, surprise that didn't work out for them. We'll live in history together because of that phrase. Because I said, fight like hell on the Brian Tyler Cohen shows. If it's a choice between being on Jamie Raskin's side or Trump's side during that impeachment trial, I wear it as a badge of of honor that I showed up alongside you on that screen. So I appreciate that. So with that said,

you sit on the January 6th committee. I think a lot of people out here are impatient. You know, we've seen indictments for low-level January 6 participants, and we've heard about subpoenas and private testimonies through the January 6 committee. But otherwise, as far as the general public can tell, there's still very little we can point to, especially in terms of holding the big fish accountable. So can you give an overview of where the committee stands and what the next major benchmarks or milestones are going to be? Well, first, let me say a word about the prosecutions because I think that's an unduly pessimistic reading of where the Department of Justice is.

I mean, 750 prosecutions and investigations and lots of people in jail now. I mean, you know, I've got colleagues, Marjorie Taylor Green and Matt Gates, who go down to the D.C. jail and demand the release of what they call these political prisoners. And, of course, Donald Trump is talking. about pardoning them. Like most organized crime prosecutions and investigations, this one is working its way up. You start with the little fish and then they helped to point you to the medium fish and then they helped to point you to the big fish and that's how it works. So don't forget that there's been the indictment for seditious conspiracy of Stuart Rhodes and the oathkeepers

ring, that's just one of multiple domestic violent extremist groups who operated in what I call the realm of the insurrection, the people who came in planning for violent struggle, smashed our windows, broke down our doors, beat up our cops, and helped turn the outer ring of the demonstration into a mob riot. But you're right to point our attention to the very inside of the seditious activity in that day, which was the realm of the coup. And it's an odd word to use in the American parlance because we don't have a lot of experience with coups. And we think of a coup as something taking place against a president. This was a coup orchestrated by the president, against the vice president, and against the Congress. And we've not seen any criminal

prosecutions there yet, but I seem to believe that the evidence is building. In any event, over on the congressional side, the bipartisan select committee on January 6th, we have made remarkable progress in terms of assembling information at every level of seditious activity taking place. And we're getting a much more comprehensive and fine-grant portrait of what happened. Even though it's true, you know, Donald Trump and his immediate entourage have been trying to sandbag and obstruct the committee. But we've won pretty much every case in court that has been filed by either side. And we have rulings at every level

all the way up to the Supreme Court that executive privilege is just not operative for a former president trying to hide his involvement in a violent insurrection against the union. Now, when will public hearings be? And using your best judgment, do you believe that issuing a subpoena for Trump to testify publicly will be necessary?

Well, if we want Trump to testify, definitely using a subpoena will be necessary. necessary. As you might recall from the second impeachment trial, I sent him a letter saying that he had put into issue specific facts that we had alleged and documented in our case. And therefore, he needed to come and testify to clear it up because only he could. His team rejected his participation in less time than it took him to respond to the insurrection in the Capitol. which was a pretty long time by the way that was three hours we heard back from him I think in two hours maybe it was an hour and 45 minutes but so we will need to subpoena him if we're going to hear from him I think that hearings are likely to come at the end of April or in May you know they have definitely slowed us down by a month or two by the stuff they've been doing but we're going to get all the information that we need and those hearings I hope will be two or three weeks of daily hearings. hearings, perhaps in prime time, or they might vary in time, but the tell complete story of what took place, how it took place, what are the causes behind it? And then significantly, what do we need to do to prevent this from ever happening again to fortify our democratic institutions against coups and insurrections? Now, you'd mentioned that you've won just about all of your court

cases. Those include issuing subpoenas, forcing people to comply. If you do issue, to Trump to come and testify, is there any way that he can get around it? Is there any way that he can deny his involvement? Well, I mean, of course, he has a right to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which I suppose he would do in the end. Now, that is a privilege that you have to assert in person with respect to specific questions. It's not a magic wand that you wave over an entire inquiry. And, you know, his executive privileged claims are, former executive privilege claims are absolutely fraudulent, just like his claims to be able to keep secrets about insurrections and coups, have no standing in law. So all that stuff is going

down. I mean, it's pretty much already gone down. So it, you know, it may be a race against time. We'll see. You know, he will either get up there and tell the truth and completely convict himself of being at the center of this attack on American democracy, this attempt to overthrow the 2020 election and coerce Mike Pence into unilaterally rejecting electoral college votes, or he'll lie, he'll commit perjury. And, you know, I know it's a matter of enormous frustration to the public. It's just maddening to people that he's gotten away with so many crimes. I mean, he is a, you know, one-man constitutional crime wave and old-fashioned felony crime wave, too. And he travels with an army of lawyers, and he's always at his daddy's money

to bail him out. But, you know, I'm with Dr. King. I think the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice, and it's going to catch up with him. Well, you know, you'd mention delay tactics. Bannon didn't comply with his subpoena. He was indicted in November, and then his trial date was set for July. That's obviously a really long time. And so if the goal is delay, then that tactic appears to be pretty effective. So would the precedent of Bannon's delay be enough to dissuade the committee from trying to compel Trump to appear? And if so, wouldn't that be just given the guy exactly what he wants? Well, I don't know. I mean, there are a lot of different tactics that are out there. We've tried different things. Different things are working better than

others. You know, there are criminal contempt actions. There are also civil contempt actions. inherent contempt actions within Congress itself. And, you know, what's happening is that the velocity of participation is so powerful that a lot of witnesses and potential witnesses are thinking to themselves, I better testify because otherwise, people are going to testify about me. Yeah. And they're, you know, so a lot of people are getting in it because they don't want the train to leave the station without their offer.

opportunity to speak. Right. Now, Trump has dangled pardon pledges for January 6 participants. How does that impact how you're approaching this on the January 6th committee and how should the DOJ approach this separately? Well, let's start with how America should approach it. I mean, what you have is a guy who waged violence and unlawful battle to overthrow a presidential election who is saying his conduct was perfect and he would do it again. And not only would he do it again, he would do it again, he would get in, and then he would pardon the insurrectionists. I mean, that's quite close to being a declaration of war on our constitutional order. And so that's something that primarily the American people need to take seriously.

You know, we've already seen that Donald Trump is lawless and incorrigible. So, you know, we will try to get testimony from him. We will try to get him to answer questions on the record, but nothing in our strategy depends on that. Now, the last Trump question here, a few days ago, we heard Trump admit that his goal was to get Pence to overturn the election results. He says this in broad daylight. And that's in addition to, you know, as I mentioned, Trump openly dangling pardons for

January 6 participants. Of course, his demands of the Georgia Secretary of State to find 11,780 votes, which was recorded. I've said over and over that just because you say something in broad daylight doesn't automatically make it not criminal. It just makes it criminal in broad daylight. How confident are you in the DOJ and in state attorneys general that there will be accountability? And what's at risk if we don't hold Trump accountable? Well, you're right that if you rob a bank in broad daylight, you still rob a bank. Just like, if you rob a bank with a mask on, that is not more culpable than robbing a bank with taking your mask off.

And Donald Trump, of course, won't wear a mask anyway. So all of that is true. Look, I think they're all going to get their comeuppance. I think that the public is increasingly sick of the lying. The problem is that he's been consolidating his power and control over the Republican Party, which today voted in the executive committee to censure Liz Cheney and Adam Kinsaker for the crime of telling the truth. They should be censoring Donald Trump and ejecting him from their party, but instead they're trying to expel and censure Liz Cheney.

What a scandal for Abraham Lincoln's party. He started that party as a party of union. He hated the no-nothings. He hated the racism. His Lyceum address was all about the dangers of mob violence after the attack on Elijah Lovejoy and abolitionist newspaper editor. And he said, if downfall ever comes to America, it will not be from monsters abroad. It will be from the evil within.

And he was clearly thinking about the slave power and racism in the country, the same forces, the same kind of forces that have arrayed themselves today against the constitutional order. The DOJ is looking into the fake electoral college certifications, and that's in a number of states. It's in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, PA, Wisconsin, Nevada, and New Mexico.

I know you have no visibility into justice, into DOJ, but how much criminal exposure is there for those fake electors, and those who sent the certifications in? Well, that varies from state to state. And it also depends on what specifically they were saying. Some of them were extremely nervous about what they were doing. And they took care to make provisos that mitigated somewhat the claim that they were the official electors from particular states.

But others just, you know, they just shot for the moon. And they said, we are the, we are the official electors from this state. And which, of course, you would need to do if you wanted to contest the election and try to throw the whole thing into chaos. And that's what I believe their centralized organizers were urging them to do. So we have to look very carefully at what they said in what context to determine whether there was forgery, whether there was mail fraud, whether there was wire fraud, whether, you know, it was part of a seditious conspiracy. to overthrow the election and the government. And would that be something that's prosecuted on the state level or at a federal level? Again, you have to look at what specific offenses are in play.

I mean, there's no generalized federal offense of fraud in 18 USC, but it's mail fraud and it's wire fraud. So you can't use the U.S. mails to deprive the public of its right to honor services. That's been upheld by the Supreme Court, that component of the male fraud statute, just like you can't use it as a device or an artifice to deprive someone of their property. You can't deprive the public itself of honest services. So I think they're on very shaky ground there in terms of both mail fraud and wire fraud. But there are clearly state fraud and election fraud statutes that are in play. I read today about a woman who just got sentenced to six years in jail.

jail in Tennessee. And she's in Memphis, Tennessee. She was in jail for, and then she was on probation and she got out. And by getting out, she thought she could register a vote again. But her probation wasn't actually over. But you can see what the confusion was. But the prosecutor brought the hammer down her down on her and brought her prosecution for election fraud, for voter fraud. And she just got sentenced to six years in jail. Six years. And that's, that's one person, what's going to happen to these people who tried to deprive the voices of tens of millions of people? Well, that's exactly my point. These are these fake electors, these fraudulent electors, were trying to deprive the entire public of its right to participate

in the presidential election by essentially stealing the election. That's a much bigger deal than one person voting illegally by accident. She's an African-American woman, so you've got to ask other questions about what's taking place there. But if we're going to take voter fraud seriously at that micro level, which is so episodic and essentially irrelevant in terms of election outcomes, certainly we've got to take it seriously in terms of people trying to hijack the entire election. Right. Well said. So I want to move over to you a few days ago on January 30th, that would have been your son, Tommy's birthday. You honored him in your book, Unthinkable, Trauma Truth, the trials of American democracy. How are you doing? Are you and your family as okay as you can be?

Well, I suppose by definition, we're as okay as we can be now. I mean, I can certainly talk about Tommy without dissolving into tears and grief, which is what it was like for the first several months. I mean, I just couldn't talk about him, you know. And usually I can do it. And, you know, why the book and all of the writing helped me to articulate a lot of different solemn emotions I've been experiencing since we lost him. But, you know, a dazzling bright star went out in my life when we lost him. But I do believe I carry Tommy with me in my heart and in my soul and there are just a lot of people who love him, including a lot of people who didn't know about him before, but are like reading his poetry and reading his plays and learning what

he was all about. I mean, he was like a visitor from a time 500 years from now when everything's worked out all right and we've gotten beyond war and poverty in these things. I mean, Tommy used to say there was a time when there was slavery and there was a time when there were witchcraft trials and there was, you know, a lot of brutal things took place. And we got beyond them as a species. We got beyond them as a people. And so we can keep evolving, but we need to hang real tough for democracy right now because we got forces not just in America, but all over the world,

that would drag us back to the worst darkness of the 20th century, the fascism, the Nazism, the racism, the racism. I know you've done a lot of interviews about the book. And so you don't really ever get any relief from talking about this traumatic event because the traumatic event is the book. Has that been harder than you thought or, you know, because you've been, you've done a lot of media appearances. Has that been in some way therapeutic? No, it's been good to talk to people and to, you know, to connect with other people about it. I mean, we're, we live in an age of trauma, really bad trauma.

and we're not the only family that's lost someone, you know, in 2020. It was in the last day of 2020, but, you know, we're up around a million now from COVID-19, a million in the opioid crisis, people we've lost, gun violence and the mental and emotional health crisis, you name it. I mean, so there are a lot of people out there who have written me about their stories and what's going on with them. And, you know, trauma cheats you of what's most precious and important to you in your life.

But the other side of it is it connects you to people and allows you to grow in wisdom and understanding of other people's pain and sorrow. So that's all right. It was therapeutic writing my book when I did the audio version. And that was very difficult. It was very hard to read it aloud. But I found this process of talking about it a nice thing, you know, in terms of connecting me to other people and, you know, in getting to talk about Tombo like that. Well, you'd mentioned people writing to you.

Was there any feedback that was especially memorable for you? Oh, man. I mean, you know, we've got, I don't know how many letters now, but certainly more than 15,000 letters and emails. And I think about lots of them, you know, a lot. You know, there are other people who've lost family numbers in the same way that we did. And, you know, people have very meaningful things to say

about that and how to think about it. You know, we've heard from a lot of people who were traumatized by January 6th and who had their faith in America shaken by what they saw on that day. And, you know, and they're finding hope in seeing other people fight for America and fight for our institutions. They want to see people fighting back. And I agree, I want to see people fighting back too. I mean, this has got to be personal for us. You know, the people that came to tear down America on that day were serious.

And if you look at their websites, they're saying the only thing they regret is they didn't bring their firearms with them. They left them back in the hotels of the cars. And Donald Trump wants to whitewash the whole thing, says his rioters greeted the police with hugs and kisses, which is presumably how 150 of them ended up in the hospital or wounded or injured. Yeah. How can people who watch or listen to this help?

I know you have a memorial fund. Is that the best way that we can help? Oh, yeah. Well, we created a memorial. The Tommy Raskan Memorial Fund for people and animals, which you can find if you check it out. I'll put the link to that in the post description as well. Great. I mean, it's, you know, it's run by Tommy's sisters and cousins and his friends.

It's a kind of a younger generation thing. And they've already given away hundreds of thousands of dollars to causes important to Tommy. including civilian relief and resettlement from the Civil War in Yemen, which Tommy was working on, and relief in Haiti from the most recent earthquake, and Tommy was a passionate vegan, and so a lot has also gone to animal welfare, animal rights groups. They're doing really interesting stuff, and they've raised more than a million dollars, and they've been able to put it back into the cause as important to Tommy. And of course, politically, I'm going to be spending this year on the project that Tommy helped me to create

when he was a boy called Democracy Summer, which is for young people to come and get involved in, well, not just my campaign now, but Democratic campaigns across the country. It's been adopted by the D-Triple-C. and to learn about the history of social struggle in the country and the struggle for the right to vote and to participate and then where we are today with all these, you know, anti-democratic instruments, the whole bag of tricks that the GOP uses to thwart majority rule,

the filibuster voter suppression, statutes, right-wing judicial activism, gerrymandering of our congressional districts. So we study all that and then we study what can be done and then we mobilize the young people to go out and to register people to vote and educate people and to canvas in the neighborhood. So people can check out democracy summer too. Great. I would highly recommend if anybody's listening and has anybody they can refer that to that would be the experience of a lifetime. So look, you know, I can't even begin to imagine what you went through, but I can say that between losing your son and then showing up a few weeks

later to be the face of the movement to protect American democracy that you've shown more strength and courage than anyone on this planet will ever show. You know, you're as good as it gets. So thank you for taking the time today. It was an honor to have you on again. Well, thank you, Brian. It's kind of you to say that stuff. I don't think it's true. I see people acting with extraordinary courage every day. I just, I did exactly what I felt I had to do. I didn't know anything else I could do. But I appreciate your saying that. And thank you for having me on. Thanks again to Jamie Raskin. Now we've got Texas State Representative James Telerico.

James, thanks for coming back on. Thanks for having me. Glad to be back here. So Texas is now dealing with another cold snap. So, you know, first of all, how are you doing? Is everybody safe or all your people okay? Yeah, thankfully, you know, this time around, we've got power and heat and water, all things we didn't have last year during the statewide blackout.

So, but this was a much milder storm. So glad we cleared this, this very low bar. Well, you know, Texans were told by Governor Abbott the last time around. I guarantee the lights won't go out. And yet now, you know, already as of this recording, there are over 70,000 Texans who don't have power, you know, even despite the fact that this is a milder storm the last time. So, you know, what's the deal? What, what happened to Abbott's guarantee? Yeah, so you're exactly right. You know, in November, he's, you know, he's, said that he can guarantee the lights will stay on. And then a few days before this most recent winter storm, he said, no one can guarantee that there won't be a load shed event. And that

kind of sounds confusing to folks who aren't well versed in the Texas electricity grid, but a load shed event is just a planned blackout. So he's essentially walking back his guarantee in real time because he realizes that, you know, the root causes of last year's blackout have not been addressed and haven't been fixed. And he knows that because he took massive campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry for not fixing those problems. And so he's well aware of that fact. And that's why he started to walk back his promise just a few days before the latest winter storm. And obviously, you know, Texas lawmakers last time around, they offered companies a loophole to opt out of weatherization requirements. The loophole being that natural gas

companies could just not declare themselves to be critical infrastructure with the state, and then all of a sudden they don't have to weatherize their equipment. That's right. Why allow a loophole undermining the entire point of the bill? Well, the answer to that question is almost always money, right? We operate within a corrupt political system, and I don't just say this as a Democrat going after Greg Abbott. It's true for both political parties at all levels of government, unfortunately.

But in Texas, there are no campaign contribution limits. So unlike federal races for Congress here in Texas, anybody can give you as much money as they want. And in fact, Greg Abbott got a million dollar check from a guy named Kelsey Warren, whose company made billions off of the blackout last year. So Kelsey Warren's company is raking in all these profits from the blackout. He turns around and writes a million dollar check to Governor Abbott to ensure that reforms aren't made that would interfere with his profit margins, and as a result, are going to endanger the lives of more Texans in the years to come. And I know, Ryan, you know this, but it's really important

to remember that 700 people died in our state last year because of this blackout. People in one of the richest states in the richest country in the world froze to death in their homes. Texans died from carbon monoxide poisoning because they turned on their car in their garages to try to stay warm. I heard from mothers who were clutching their babies to their chest just to try to keep them warm. I mean, it was a moral crime what happened in the state. And the fact that people like Greg Abbott are lining their pockets as a result of this mass casualty event is unconscionable to me. And I think should be unconscionable to everyone no matter what your political affiliation is. And you know, this issue wasn't even Republicans' priority, wasn't even Abbott's priority.

I mean, you know as well as anyone that when they could have been actually, solving this issue. They were focused on passive voter suppression bills and abortion restrictions, both of which were passed, by the way, against the desire of the vast majority of Texans. What's the response to this gross mismanagement of priorities been like in Texas? Do people realize, do people recognize that misprioritization? No, and let me explain why. And this is what's hard about some of these things. It's very reminiscent of Obamacare back in 2009, 2010. It's such a complex policy. issue that it's really easy to confuse voters. So Texans, Texas Republicans like Greg Abbott are going

around saying they passed reforms to the power grid, which is true. Now, the problem is that they reformed the wrong part of our energy system. They focused on power plants rather than fossil fuel industries. And as everyone who understands the power grid in Texas will tell you, the natural gas industry is to blame for the blackout last year. It wasn't power plants. It wasn't renewable energy. I think you may remember that Governor Abbott went on Fox News during the blackout to blame wind turbines, which was absurd.

But the culprit is very clearly the natural gas industry. They were the first dominant to fall in kind of a series of cascading failures during the blackout. But if the natural gas industry had spent the extra money to fall, to winterize their facilities in Texas, we would not have had a blackout, period. And that same industry knows they don't want to spend that money, and that's why they turn around and pay off Texas Republicans and Greg Abbott to ensure those reforms aren't made and that their profit margins aren't reduced, even when it would save people's lives. So the point is Texans and people around the country need to call bullshit when people say

that they have reformed the power grid because it's not true. They may have made some cosmetic reforms, but true reform would require that we mandate winterization of the natural gas industry. That's so weird because I remember watching Fox around this time last year and was definitely told that it was the fault of the Green New Deal, which I didn't think was in place in Texas, but apparently not only was it enacted, but it was actually responsible for the entire power grid failure. Well, and let me just say, so yesterday during this latest freeze, and I, and I, and I,

And we should all recognize that this winter storm here in Texas this week was much less severe than the one in 2021 or the one in 2011, 10 years earlier, that had led to similar blackouts. So this was, like I said, a very low bar to clear this week. But even with that low bar, we still saw some pretty significant decreases in natural gas supply, which, as I mentioned, was the cause of the first blackout. So clearly the problem has not been addressed. and this should be a flashing, you know, flashing red light, a ringing alarm bell that we haven't addressed the root causes of last year's blackout. And we need to. Otherwise, we're going to see, you know, with climate change and with these severe weather events, we're going to see this occur again in the near future. And we need to know why that is.

It's because Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans are corrupt and they've chosen their donors over the lives of Texas. Yeah. Well said. I want to switch gears a little bit and talk about midterms in the upcoming election. You know, obviously we are in a big midterm cycle this year. Republicans have done everything they could to give themselves the advantage in the state. How are democratic efforts to get people registered going in spite of all of that? I mean, we're trying our hardest. I'm out there knocking about 100 doors a day in my district. And I'm spending most of my time helping people overcome the voter suppression policies that were passed last year by the Republican majority here in Texas. So, for instance, part of that voter suppression

bill that we were protesting that we broke quorum over, and I know you were very involved in helping us do that, one of the main provisions of that bill was making it harder to vote by mail in Texas and adding more stringent requirements to your mail-in application. And now those rejection rates are as high as 50 percent, correct? That's exactly right. We are seeing the direct result of that policy change here in Texas as we speak in the primary, where up to half of mail-in ballot applications have been rejected, not because counties want to reject them, but because the new law, you know, forces them to because there's a technical problem on the mail-in application or the voter wasn't able to jump through all the various hoops that Texas Republicans have

now put in place. And so, you know, it's the law is working as intended. It's up to us to try as best we can to inform voters about what they need to do to overcome voter suppression. But it's a difficult task ahead of us. But if anybody is up to the challenge, I know it's Texas Democrats. As the nation saw last year, we have spines of steel and we're not afraid to fight. And I know that will be true in 2022. And by the way, you yourself were a victim of those exact voter suppression efforts. You were gerrymandered out of your original district. That's right. Yeah. So, you know, Brian, you helped us raise funds to support our quorum break, which was an expensive endeavor to stay out of the state for that long. And we were able to stay out for more than a month because of

your help and the help of a bunch of your listeners. And I was involved in coordinating and organizing that quorum break. And so predictably, I was punished for that effort. And I was drawn out of the district that I represented in the House for two terms. And they did it by, you know, dividing communities of color and robbing people of color of their, of their political power in my district. So not only is it, you know, a partisan ploy to get rid of democratic opposition like me, but it's also a time-honored racist tactic of preventing people of color from accessing the franchise. Well, again, thank you, James. And stay safe. and you're welcome back anytime.

Thank you, Brian. I want to make sure I thank you and your listeners for always having our backs here in Texas. I know you and folks who listen to your program don't necessarily live here, but both fighting back against photos oppression and also trying to prevent another blackout. You and your listeners have always had our back,

and I just want to thank you for that. Thanks again to James Tellerico. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Coen. 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 brianthalercoen.com for links to all of my other channels.