No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - January 6 Committee exposes Trump's KEY ally

Episode Date: June 19, 2022

The January 6 Committee focuses on one especially deceitful figure, John Eastman, and the most effective pieces of evidence against him. And Bharat Ramamurti, the Deputy Director of the Nation Economic Council, joins to discuss the possibility of a recession, the causes of inflation, the deal with gas prices and why they’re so high, and so much more.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 one especially deceitful figure that the January 6th committee focused on, John Eastman, and the single most effective piece of evidence against him. And I interview Barat Ramamorti, the deputy director of the National Economic Council, about the possibility of a recession, the causes of inflation, the deal with gas prices and why they're so high, really one of the most informative interviews I've ever had. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So we've now gotten through three of the January 6th committee hearings. I just have to say right off the bat that these hearings are remarkably well done.

Like with January 6th, we're talking about something that happened just last year and was, I believe, the most documented attack in this nation's history. It would have been so incredibly easy for these hearings to just turn into a regurgitation of what we all lived through and what we saw during Trump's second impeachment trial. That was my worry going into this. Instead, effectively everything has been not only new, but perfectly laid out and direct and deliberate and clear and concise. I'm not a lawyer, and these hearings aren't intended for lawyers.

They're intended for all of us and laid out in a way that everyone can understand. So I know that the conventional wisdom is that Congress is inept, but this committee absolutely doesn't fall into that category. But I want to talk about one person in particular today, and that's John Eastman. Now, John Eastman is a conservative lawyer. He clerked for Clarence Thomas in the 90s, which will make perfect sense in just a moment. he taught law and was the dean at Chapman University, although he parted ways with the university after he spoke at the rally at the ellipse on January 6th.

Before he clerked for Thomas, he also clerked for a conservative judge named Michael Ludig. I'm going to get back to Ludig in a few moments because his role in all of this is important. Anyway, Eastman started really working with Trump in December of 2020. That was after the election was already over. And he had two theories for overturning the election on Trump's behalf. The first was that Pence could just reject the electors on January 6th. and unilaterally declare Trump president, or he could declare a 10-day recess

and send what Republicans were calling disputed states of electors back to the states. And of course, that would then allow those states with Republican majorities to just figure out how to send a Trump slate of electors, even though Biden actually won the election. Now, of course, both of those theories are absolute bullshit, completely baseless.

They're wholly and unequivocally unconstitutional. Like, if it sounds ridiculous that in our system of government, a system entirely and completely predicated on checks and balances, that the framers would have just casually imbued the vice president with the ability to, like, unilaterally decide an election, an election that he would inherently have a personal vested interest in. Yeah, you'd be right. That would be that would be bat-shit crazy.

And even Eastman himself acknowledged this much. Here's Greg Jacob, that's Mike Pence's former counsel, recounting his conversation with Eastman on this exact point. John, back in 2000, you weren't jumping up and saying Al Gore had this authority to do that. You would not want Kamala Harris to be able to exercise that kind of authority in 2024 when I hope Republicans will win the election, and I know you hope that too, John. And he said, absolutely. Al Gore did not have a basis to do it in 2000. Kamala Harris shouldn't be able to do it in 2024, but I think you should do it today.

So this shouldn't be legal except when it may just benefit us certainly is convenient and what's most damning here Eastman himself knew that his theories on the vice president's role weren't constitutional. He admitted that it wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Here's

Greg Jacob again during the hearing. Listen to what he has to say about his conversation with Eastman on this point. We had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on January 5th and when I pressed him on the point I said John, if the vice president did what you were asking him to do,

we would lose nine to nothing in the Supreme Court, wouldn't we? And he initially started it, well, I think maybe you would lose only seven to two. And after some further discussion acknowledged, well, yeah, you're right, we would lose nine nothing. He conceded that he would lose nine to nothing in the Supreme Court with this idea. He knew that it wasn't constitutional. But did that stop him and Trump from trying? No, of course not. They did it anyway.

which, by the way, is proof of their criminal intent, because they knew the truth, they admitted the truth, and yet Trump went out publicly and pressed Pence over and over and over to do this thing that they all knew he didn't have the ability to do. And that wasn't the only illegal idea he tried to run with. On the night of the insurrection, the night of January 6th, at almost midnight, Eastman sent an email to Greg Jacob, again, Pence's lawyer, and he said, quote, so now that the precedent has been set that the Electoral Count Act is not quite so sacrosanct as was previously claimed, I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation

and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislature to finish their investigations as well as to allow for a full forensic audit of the massive amount of legal activity that occurred here. So listen to this. His beef here was that Congress is supposed to debate the states that are objected to for two hours. That's the part where both a member of the House and the Senate have to object. Then they get two hours to debate. They come back and vote. The vote fails and they move on.

But Eastman's beef here is that the Electoral Count Act had been violated because Congress had debated the Arizona vote for more than two hours because there was an insurrection attempt and so now, well, what's one more minor violation of an act that was already violated? Again, because there was an insurrection. Like, first of all, to claim that the Electoral Count Act was basically nullified because insurrectionist stopped Congress from finishing its business

is like psychopath-level obfuscation here. But second of all, the guy put down a request to, quote, violate the law in an email. You know, I mentioned Judge Ludig before, and I said I'd get back to him. Ludig is important here because he's highly respected in conservative circles. He is Ted Cruz's mentor.

Cruz has said that Ludig is, quote, like a father to him. Again, Eastman clerked for the guy, all of which made it all the more impactful when Ludig testified at the latest hearing and said this about John Eastman and his plan. There was no basis in the Constitution or laws of the United States. at all

for the theory as spoused by Mr. Eastman at all. And here's Liz Cheney reading a short excerpt that Ludig himself had written. If Dr. Eastman and President Trump's plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power

undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the court fears January 6th will repeat itself. Every American should read what this federal judge has written. So for that guy, the guy who Eastman himself clerked for to appear at a public hearing and not only criticize Eastman, but like, sound a five-alarm fire about him really does speak volumes. Neocatio, a Supreme Court lawyer and law professor at Georgetown, he tweeted, this has to be the nightmare

for every federal law clerk ever, having your own judge testify against you in Congress and have another former clerk asked the questions, I think of the two judges for whom I clerked akin to my parents and every one of the clerk's part of my family. Again, just to hammer away at this idea that it is not normal to be publicly dressed down as a singular threat to democracy from the person who's like ushered you through your career. Um, okay, so this guy's a nut job, a dangerous nut job, you get the picture. Here's the final nail on the coffee. in here. After all of this, Eastman then wrote an email to Giuliani seeking a pardon from Trump. Jamie Raskins called these requests for pardons a declaration of consciousness of guilt.

Like, you don't request a pardon if you believe that what you were doing was in any way legal. But of course, Eastman knew that what he was doing wasn't legal. He told Pence's lawyer that what he was doing would get struck down by the Supreme Court nine to nothing. He did it anyway. He said that a 10-day recess would violate the Electoral Counts Act. He requested it anyway. Like, we know that Eastman broke the law because, because we have eyes and ears, and we saw emails where he quite literally put it in writing. But if the goal is to prove corrupt intent, the January 6th Committee has done that several times over. Just like Trump was well aware that there was no fraud, no path to victory, and yet he cried fraud and tried to steal the election anyway.

Trump and Eastman were at the heart of this thing. Both knew that they were defrauding the people of this country, obstructing a congressional proceeding. Whatever charges you're looking at here, they knew that what they were doing was illegal, and yet they chose to do it anyway. Now, consider one last really, really important point. There is a federal judge in California, David Carter, who ruled in March, quote, based on the evidence, the court finds it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021. And while Judge Carter's case wasn't a criminal prosecution, the Department of Justice could use

that ruling to inform its decision to bring charges against Trump and Eastman for obstructing an official proceeding. So at this point, like, we'll continue to watch these hearings, and the DOJ will continue its own investigation at the same time. And look, I'm not a lawyer, but the idea that the DOJ doesn't have what it needs 10 times over is kind of absurd at this point. We know the crimes because we saw them. We know that they were done with corrupt intent because these hearings have shown us

senior official after senior official after senior official testifying that they told these people the truth and that the truth was ignored. So at this point, Merrick Garland and the DOJ can either choose to defend our Constitution or they can decide that, you know, you can commit criminal activity so long as it would be too politically inconvenient to prosecute. For the sake of our democracy, I hope he makes the right choice. Next up, my interview with the Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. Now we have Barat Ramamorty, the Deputy Director of the National Economic Council.

Thanks so much for coming on. Thanks. So I want to talk about the economy and gas prices here. Now, first off, you know, we're hearing a lot about concerns that we're edging toward a recession. And yet, at the same time, we've got 3.6% unemployment. That's a pandemic low, which wouldn't exactly portend a recession. So how would you describe the period that we're in right now? I call it a period of transition.

So the way I would, the analogy I've been using is when we came into office, when President Biden came into office, we were starting a marathon, and we were already a few miles behind some of our biggest competitors, other countries who are recovering more quickly than we were. And so we had to sprint to catch up to where they were. And that's what we've done over the last 18 months or so. We've had the single best year for job growth that we've had in the country's history, with more than 5% economic growth, something we haven't seen in 40 years. And we've been averaging more than 500,000 new jobs a month pretty much since the president took office. But now we're in the lead, if you look at where we are relative to other countries, we've had a better economic recovery

and we're better positioned than they are to deal with the situation ahead of us. But that means that we can't keep sprinting forever. Now that we're in the lead, we've got to settle into a good pace because we've got a lot of miles left to run. And that's really what we're seeing now as a transition to more stable and steady growth. Now, is it possible to take steps as we deal with inflation right now, which is one of the biggest economic issues that we're dealing with? Is it going to be possible to reduce inflation without triggering?

a recession? Yeah. Look, I think that if you listen to both the Federal Reserve and what President Biden have been saying, there is a pathway to get from the elevated inflation that we have now to a lower inflation state while preserving all the games that we have made over the last 18 months. It's not going to be easy. There's certainly going to be bumps in the road. And as we've learned over the last year, unexpected things can come in and mess with that. You know, nine months ago, nobody thought that Russia was going to invade Ukraine and lead to all sorts of disruptions in the global economy. So we have to be humble. We have to be nimble and be ready to react to new developments. But yes, I do think that there's a path to get from where we are today

to stable and steady growth without a significant economic downturn. Now, how do you square what we're told is inflation with record profits from certain companies? And I'm going to talk about gas prices and oil companies in a little bit, but I just mean generally, like in any sector? Well, look, if you look at the data on specific industries in particular, you're seeing extraordinarily high profits. The president has noted that they're particularly high profits in the oil and gas sector with the big five companies that made $35 billion in the first quarter of this year,

which is four times what they made in the first quarter of last year. But there's other industries where we've seen that too. If you look at the ocean shipping industry, for example, where the president just yesterday signed a bill for significant reform to that industry. You know, in 2021, that industry made $190 billion in profits, and that's more than seven times what they had made the year before. And they were raising prices by as much as 10 times what they were previously. So yes, I think what you're seeing is that in a number of industries, corporations are making extremely high profits. Some of that, of course, is because of the recovery

that we've had. People have money in their pockets to spend, and that means that companies can sell more of what they're trying to sell. But some of it, of course, is also of higher margins, right, where companies are able to not just pass along higher costs to their customers, but expand that margin, make more on each item that they sell, and bank all of those profits. And that's certainly happening in a number of industries. How do you hedge against that kind of stuff? I mean, I know that there was legislation that was passed for those shipping companies, but you can't pass legislation to, like, prevent price gouging in every single industry there is once you see that there's price gouging.

And then, of course, you have Republicans, too, who are content to ignore the fact that a lot of these companies are doing that and just blame the whole thing on Biden and kind of carry water for those companies anyway. How do you deal with other sectors who are all doing the same thing? The real limitation on companies being able to raise prices this high is competition. If you're in a market with four other companies, you're all fighting to get the same customers. Then you shouldn't be able to raise your prices through the roof because one of your competitors can come in. undercut you and get that customer. And that competitive pressure keeps prices down. The problem is that in many industries over the last 20 or so years, we've seen less competition and more concentration, more mergers, fewer and fewer companies competing with one another. And that makes

it easier for them to take advantage of the conditions that we're in right now. That's why from the day he walked in the door, President Biden has made restoring competition a centerpiece of its economic agenda. He issued an executive order on this in July. And we're already seen remarkable progress across industries and increasing competition. That's not going to happen overnight, but it is a really important effort that the president is making because that's the number one way to keep prices down for folks. Now, on gas prices, what can the White House do on gas prices and what is the White House doing on gas prices? Well, there's a few important things that the president has already done. Number one, he's released 180 million barrels of oil from our strategic

petroleum reserve to help fill the gap that has been caused by Russia's actions in Ukraine and the effect that's had on global oil supply. That's been a big impact, had a big impact on prices and it's been good for American consumers. He also allowed for more ethanol to be blended into gasoline, which is good on prices and also increases the supply of gasoline in the short term. You know, there are more steps that we are considering and more announcements to come potentially in the short term on this. We understand that for many, many Americans, that price at the pump really bites when you go and you're spending five or six dollars a gallon to fill up your tank, that can make a big difference. And so we're very committed to doing everything we can

to keep those prices down or to provide relief to consumers from the prices that they're having to pay. Just on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we've seen gas prices steadily increase since we've been releasing a million barrels a day from that reserve. So what impact, I mean, has that had the impact of if we hadn't had that release, it would have been even higher? And I guess more broadly, like why have prices continue to increase even as we're doing these massive releases from the reserve? Yeah, I think to answer your question, it's worth taking a step back and looking at what's

driving gas prices up. There's really three stages of the process. got extracting crude oil. That goes to a refiner who refines it into gasoline or diesel. Then that goes to a retailer who sells it to customers. So all three stages of that process are really important. If you look at where the price at the pump was at the end of last year before Putin's actions in Ukraine, it was about $3.30 a gallon, which is, you know, in the normal range. Since that time, it's up nearly $2 a gallon. And so what's driving that? Number one, the price of crude oil, which is globally set, went from about $75 a barrel to $120 a barrel. In large part, that's because of Putin's

actions in Ukraine, which reduced the global supply of oil. So that's a big part of it. But there's another big part of it, because in the past, when crude oil was $120 a barrel, the price of the pump was $4.25. Now, on average, it's $5. So what's that 75 cents difference? That's at that refining stage that I was talking about. Refiners have reduced capacity for refining, and they are making enormous profit margins on every barrel that comes in the door. That's one of the reasons why the president sent a letter to the large refiners just this week, telling them that it's unacceptable to be passing along these kinds of price increases

to American consumers, making this kind of profit level, and trying to figure out ways of working with the refiners to bring those margins down and to reduce costs at the pump for American family. So it's a complicated process. There's a number of stages in it, but we're dedicated to intervening at every stage that we can to keep prices down. Now, the refiners are separate from the oil companies, and yet at the same time, we're seeing record profits from the oil companies. So are there profits being made? Is there gouging happening in both aspects of that, like at the both refiner level and the oil company level themselves? Yeah, it's many of the same companies. A lot of these companies are involved

in crude oil extraction and they're involved in refining. So is it like a like a vertically integrated process? Exactly. And so a lot of the companies that received that letter that was targeted at refiners are some of the large oil companies that you would think of. So yes, I think that there are issues at every stage. Now look, some of this is, is just pure supply and demand. You know, Russia's actions in Ukraine limited global oil supply, just pure economics dictates that the price is going to go up if that happens. But there are some other factors that play here. And it's important to get the diagnosis right about what's going on in order for us to intervene

properly and do what we can to get those prices down. You know, how has this impacted the White House's view on transitioning to renewables? Because on one hand, if the cost of gas is too high, it's more difficult for Democrats to stay in power. And then, you know, if Democrats are voted out, we go backwards on transitioning to renewable energy. But at the same time, if we try to hedge against that and we increase the production of dirty energy, that brings us backwards anyway. And that entrenches our reliance on fossil fuel. So how do you do this dance, really? Look, it's complicated. And I think that we've been realistic. The president has been realistic from the beginning on a few things. Number one, the long-term

goal here is to transition to clean energy. And by long term, I don't mean 40 years from now. I mean, you know, within a decade. That's really important. It's important for preserving our climate. It's also important, as we've seen, for our own financial interests, for our family's financial interests in the United States. The fact that a dictator, half a world away, can start a war, and that causes prices at the pump in the United States to go up by $2 a gallon. We shouldn't put ourselves in that situation and transition to clean energy will avoid putting ourselves in that situation in the future. At the same time, it was never going to be the case that we're going to snap our fingers and be 100% clean energy overnight. And oil and fossil fuels are

going to continue to play a role in our energy mix over the next several years. That's just the way it is. And so trying to figure out a way of providing relief to families now, trying to bridge some of the gap that we have between supply and demand for oil and for gas in the short term, while at the same time setting ourselves up to transition to clean energy in the future. That's the task that we have. That's the task that Congress has. And that's something that the administration is engaged with members of Congress on a daily basis. And let's finish off with this. What would be your message, I guess, to those who are, you know, so quick to to blame the Biden administration in the White House for a lot of these issues that you

that you just pointed out, you know, are caused by like a whole host of other problems, overseas, these oil refiners, the oil companies, and yet, you know, kind of absolve them of any and all guilt. Look, American families are are facing higher prices right now, and it's a serious concern, and what we need are serious attempts to find solutions. And I think that one side trying to blame this all on Biden's energy policies or things like that, it's just not accurate. Remember how I said that we've seen a reduction in the refining capacity and that's helping contribute to higher profit margins there. That huge reduction in refining capacity happened in 2020 under the previous

president. Now it happened because there was less demand for oil and gas because of the pandemic and refiner shut down. But the reason we have those higher profit margins now is because of something that happened under the prior administration. The price of crude oil going from $75 a barrel to $120 a barrel is almost entirely because of Vladimir Putin, not anything that the president has done. Now, that said, the president knows that he has a responsibility to do what he can to minimize the burden on American families because of these forces. And that's what he's committed to doing. A lot of it's going to require good faith partnership from Congress. We're working hard on that. Like I said, we just passed a bill on ocean shipping that's going to provide some relief

on inflation. We've got other policies like on prescription drugs and on housing where Congress can step up and really provide some relief to people. And we're going to need their help on the oil and gas part of it too. Great. We'll leave it there. Barat, Raman Morty, thank you so much for taking the time. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Okay, that's it for this episode. One quick note, if you want to tune into my live streams for these hearings, just go to Brian Taylor-Cohen on YouTube and hit subscribe. Okay. Thanks so much. 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.