No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Marjorie Taylor Greene faces career-ending scandal

Episode Date: May 1, 2022

Marjorie Taylor Greene contends with her scandal of having sent texts advocating for martial law to the White House on January 6, as she desperately tries to avoid being questioned for it. Brian interviews Senator Elizabeth Warren about the news that Biden is considering eliminating some amount of student loan debt, her response to the slew of Republican scandals from Marjorie Taylor Greene to Kevin McCarthy, and the key to winning midterms in November. And the co-founder of Run for Something, Amanda Litman, joins to talk about an essential new project to help save our election administration positions from the far-right election deniers and Steve Bannon acolytes who are trying to fill those seats.Run for Something: runforwhat.netDonate 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 Marjorie Taylor Green sending texts advocating for martial law to the White House on January 6th, and her desperation right now to avoid being questioned for it. I interview Senator Elizabeth Warren about the news that Biden's considering eliminating some amount of student loan debt, her response to the slew of Republican scandals from Marjorie Taylor Green to Kevin McCarthy, and the key to winning midterms in November. And I'm joined by co-founder of Run for Something, Amanda Lippman, about an essential new project to help save our election administration positions from the far-right election

deniers and Steve Bannon accolites who are trying to fill those seats. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So last week, we spoke about Marjorie Taylor-Green's hearing to determine whether she'd be disqualified from the ballot in Georgia for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars members of Congress from engaging in insurrection. So we are still waiting on the ruling from the Georgia state judge, and even then, that ruling is only a recommendation for the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger. So still a lot of uncertainty as to what's going to happen on this front.

But this week, one issue has really seemed to stick, and that is Merger-Tiller-Green's January 6th text to Mark Meadows, suggesting that Trump declare martial law. Now, Green's been claiming that she doesn't recall ever sending that text. Here's her, in court and on Fox, repeating that same talking point. Ms. Green, did you advocate to President Trump to impose martial law as a way to remain in power? I don't recall.

You're not denying. You did it. I don't remember. I don't remember. Okay. So you didn't advocate. You never advocated martial law that President Trump should use martial law to stop, you know, the transition of power. You never advocated for that, did you?

I don't recall ever advocating for martial law. I think, I don't know if you have that up on the screen right now because I can't see it, but if you put that text message up, it's clear and easy to read that if that's my text messages and that's what they're reporting. I don't recall if they are. But if they are, those text messages do not say calling for martial law. That is, I don't know about that. And look, I won't pretend to know what Marjoriezo Green is thinking here.

But let me just say, right off the bat, if I was texting the White House chief of staff on the day of a coup attempt at the U.S. Capitol and mentioned the president declaring martial law, I think I'd remember. Like, that's just the low-hanging fruit there, right? I feel like just that part alone goes to show how full of it green is. But her defense is so baffling because, on one hand, she keeps maintaining that she doesn't recall ever sending that text. And then, on the other hand, she keeps actually defending the thing that she refuses to even

take responsibility for. Here's her with Jim Acosta, pretty much melting down when Acosta confronted her on exactly that. Did you send a text asking for the president to declare martial law? Did you do that? You know, I don't recall those being my text messages, but have you read the text message? that is, that you're referring to? I did. Because it actually says if you, it was misspelled, but it seemed to say that we're calling for

Marshall Law. If you read it correctly, Jim, your problem is, is you're lying again right now. It says, I do not know on those things. That's what that text message actually says, no, why don't you be honest? Why haven't bring it up, why don't you bring up Marshall Law? No, you know, your problem is you're just one of those liars on television. And people hate it. They can't stand the liars on television.

I'm not the one saying I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall. Quote the supposed text message. She's like, this text message that I don't even know is mine is actually fine. Like, it's bad enough that she doesn't want to take responsibility for it. And yet, at the same time, she's still going to bat for it and pretending like it's totally okay. And the defense that she's using is, well, if you look at the text, it says that members are saying the only way to save our Republicans for Trump to impose martial law. I don't know about those things. In other words, Green only surfaced the idea on behalf of other members.

But she certainly wasn't advocating for martial law. She's just, you know, the completely innocent messenger who doesn't know nothing about nothing, and we're all just supposed to believe that by adding that little disclaimer sentence, that suddenly that negates the fact that she's texting the White House Chief of Staff during a coup attempt calling for martial law. I mean, come on now. Are we really being serious here? Does she really think that anyone is that dumb that thinks that her writing the sentence,

I don't know on those things, absolves her of any and all guilt for talking about declaring martial law? that maybe if everyone else was as dumb as she is, it would be a different story, but fortunately for the rest of us, we're not. And so we are able to see through this really, really obvious effort to diffuse responsibility. And I know that it feels like Republicans have gotten away with everything as far as January 6th is concerned, but I really hope that reporters continue to press Marjorie Taylor Green on this. Like, I hope that this doesn't get absorbed into the black hole of apathy that's consumed all of our politics, because she was caught violating the Constitution, and all of this only works if everyone agrees to the rules. Like, once we start

picking and choosing which part of the Constitution actually counts, and which part we're just going to ignore, then none of it works. This isn't only about accountability for people like Marjorie Taylor-Green. It is about confidence in the system for the rest of us. It's about making sure that people know that when they turn out to vote for Democrats, that those Democrats are actually going to defend the system that Americans want protected. Otherwise, what's the point? So if the Georgia State Judge has any integrity, if Braddock Rad Raffensberger has any integrity, they will recognize that she violated the 14th Amendment and act accordingly.

And not because she's a Republican. I don't care that she's a Republican. And I definitely, definitely don't think that being a Republican is a reason to be barred from appearing on the ballot. The reason is because she broke the law. She violated the Constitution. She posted videos onto Facebook demanding that Trump not participate in a peaceful transfer of power.

She texted the White House the day of the insurrection and suggested that he declared martial law. And to this day, she continues to promote the big law. which was what incited the insurrection in the first place. So the fact is that no matter what issue is your top issue, whether it's abortion or climate change or voting rights, police reform, living wage, it is all dependent on having a functional democracy. Without that, everything else is moot.

So we should make sure that we fight the big lie, fight its purveyors, fight the people setting the stage to do it again in the next election with everything we've got, because we've got nothing if democracy doesn't work. Next up is my interview with Elizabeth Warren. Today we have the U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Thanks for coming back on.

Oh, thank you. It's good to be back with you. So the luck of being able to talk with you of all weeks on the week that we have reports that President Biden is considering eliminating some amount of federal student loan debt. So a couple of questions on this. But first, what would this mean if this happens? It would mean that literally tens of millions of Americans would see that. their lives fundamentally changed.

And that would mean that folks who are struggling with student loan debt would have a chance, chance to move out of mom's basement, a chance to save up and buy a home, a chance to buy a car, a chance to start a small business, a chance for some to start a family. This huge debt burden that people have taken on is holding back all of that for people. And for many people, shaping their lives. And we have a chance to get rid of that, to change that, and to do a little intergenerational justice, a little racial justice, a little gender justice,

just make this a little fairer world. Now, there are, of course, the opponents out there who are making the argument, you know, I tighten my belt, I paid off my loans, I did it the right way. Why are these people getting it for free? So what's your response to that? But let me start with the whole question of we invest in education as a nation, right? We don't ask second graders to pay to go to second grade.

We invest in public education. And I grew up in a family. My daddy ended up as a janitor. My mom ended up working the phones at Sears. I wanted to be a public school teacher. Meant college, first of my family, who was going to go off and try this. ended up graduating. I had a chance to follow my dream because there was a college available, University of Houston, that cost $50 a semester. So for a price I could pay for

on a part-time waitressing job, I was able to finish a four-year diploma and become a public school teacher. Why was that college available at that price? Because America invested in kids who didn't have enough money to be able to get a post-high school education. That's not the case today. Today, that option just isn't out there. There just aren't those four-year colleges, even two-year schools, technical schools, training schools, where people will have an opportunity to get an education. And the idea of saying to young people don't get an education unless you're 100% sure that you're going to be able to pay it off on down the line, I think it's not only something that is not who we are as Americans.

We're about build opportunity, invest in yourself, make something. But it's also not good for our economy. You ask me when I started what all this would mean. It is not good for our economy that the data show that student loan debt is holding people back from starting small businesses. I mean, ask yourself, how many really good ideas that somebody had actually have not made it to market here in the United States because somebody said, yeah, I'd live on ramen noodles and have seven roommates and do everything I can to put all I can into starting these business, but I can't make a $400 a month student loan payment for months after month after

month into the future while I try to launch this business. So I say all that by way of saying, Look, we have to keep in mind the investment is one we need to make. We need to make collectively. It's about canceling student loan debt. It's about finding a way to pay for college for everybody who's coming online right now. And it's about holding those colleges accountable. And if I can, I want to say one more thing about this. We've got to keep in mind who these folks are.

40% of the people who are dealing with student loan debt don't have a college diploma. These are people who tried, but life happened, got pregnant, working three jobs, mom got sick, family had to move somewhere else, and they were never able to make it to a college diploma. So they're earning what a high school grader earns and getting crushed by college loan debt. That isn't how we build an America that is one of opportunity for everyone. What can we do in the way of confronting the root of this problem? I mean, granted, there are ways to help people like eliminating student loan debt for people who've already incurred that debt, but we have generations of kids who are coming up who are

going to deal with the same problem. I mean, do we just keep slapping band-aids on this? What can be done to actually deal with the root of an education, you know, that costs what I think the most expensive schools are like 70 grand these days? Yep. So look, let's look at a really big picture. You know, if you pull back to 100,000 feet, my view on this is we need to put a wealth tax in place in America, and one of the many things we could pay for with a wealth tax is we could make college free.

We could make all of our state colleges accessible to everyone, and I think that's exactly what we should do. We could also make an extra investment into our historically black colleges and universities, and our minority-serving institutions. For me, it's like an investment in roads and bridges. A well-educated workforce is a part of what makes us a strong country. We could make bigger investments in technical education, one-year programs and two-year programs. So all of that is, for me, the right answer in where we ought to be heading. But let me say, even in a little shorter range, even if you can't get all the pieces in place,

we can do a lot through income determined repayment plans so that how much you're paying in student loan debt depends in part on how much you're earning. That's a part of what we could do. And another part that we have to look at is holding colleges and universities accountable on cost increases. If they want access to federal support, then there has to be some accountability for that. So I do not deny there is a lot of work to be done. But a good starting place is to say to the millions of Americans who are struggling with student loan debt that we're going to cancel $50,000 of student loan debt, which for about $34 million would mean all of their debts wiped out. Their life changes in an instant. And I think that's powerfully important.

Yeah. And, you know, like you said, bringing all of the those people, even if you don't agree with the personal responsibility argument, which I don't find particularly compelling. But even if you don't agree with that, just look at the benefits from a countrywide perspective, bringing all of those people into the economy. Think about how your businesses and your restaurants and your retail will all thrive if more people have money, if more people are able to spend that. I love that. And let me just say on that personal responsibility, we're not talking about people who went to the mall. Right, right. And just ran up big bills. We're talking about people. They committed the cardinal sin of trying to get an

I'm trying to get an education. And just like I said about second graders, we recognize the value of education for all of us. We're better off with an educated workforce. It lifts GDP for the entire nation. Go back and look at the GI Bill and the consequences of offering what was in effect free college or debt forgiveness. However, you want to frame it for all those GIs returning from World War II. And most economists now, say it lifted our economy way beyond where it would have been in post-war America. We all benefited whether we were actually in a family that got those benefits directly or not. So this past week, we saw an avalanche of scandals on the right related to January 6th. Marjorie Taylor Green pretended in court that she had no recollection of telling Mark Meadows

about imposing martial law. Kevin McCarthy lied about telling his colleagues that Trump should resign and then he lied again about lying. What's your response to these Republicans like Marjor Tillergreen, like Kevin McCarthy, who seemed to not even care at all anymore about the appearance of even overt corruption? This really tells you, this is the leadership of the Republican party, and they're laying it out there in full view for everyone to see. They believe in power, and they want power no matter what. And if it means they lie, if it means that they undermine our democracy, if it means they try to overthrow an election, if it means that they talk about high prices in America, but their only ideas are to go back and refite 2020, they don't care

because they think they can stir up enough people to seize power in the House of Representatives. They hope to do the same thing in the Senate and come 2024. They want to do the same thing in the White House. What really just bears down on me is they have no ideas to try to help create more opportunity in this country. No ideas for how it is that we're going to make sure that people can afford their health care. No ideas for how it is that mamas and daddies are going to get access to child care. No ideas for how they're going to bring down prices at the pump. They don't want to regulate giant businesses, even if they're engaged in price gouging. They don't have ideas about making government work for people.

They just have ideas about how they can seize power, be the ones on top, and make this country run for a smaller and smaller and smaller group. I really believe in the 2022 election, the 2024 election, democracy is on the line. I think it's ironic, too, about, you know, these are the people who will go on Fox News and wail about every single. problem there is about prices at the pump, about inflation, and yet when there are bills on the floor that would actually solve these problems, bills that would lower the costs for Americans, like all the elements of bill back better to allow the government to negotiate lower drug prices, child care, universal pre-K, they vote against all of it. That's right. Anti-price gouging. They don't want anything on that, right? And the thing is,

I say, we've got to just call them out. Just enough of that. this. We cannot pretend that we have two political parties in America who are just putting out competing ideas about their vision of how to make this economy work better, how to make opportunity available for more people. That's not what's going on at all. These are guys who are all about seizing power. And if democracy is thrown out the window, but they can end up with more power, evidently, that's okay with them. Let's finish off with this. Looking ahead to midterms, we've got a tough fight in our hands.

Obviously, the president has a low approval rating, or although perhaps less low if he canceled student debt, and the party in power historically loses seats anyway. So in an era where the zone is so flooded, you know, there are so many scandals, so many issues, so much stuff happening. What should Democrats focus on? What specific narrow idea should the Democrats focus on as we head into this election cycle? Well, first of all, we've got less than 200 days. We need to deliver. That is my message in all capital letters. Deliver. And that means, let's take a look at what we've got 50 Democrats in the Senate, because obviously this is where the bottleneck is. And look at the pieces that I believe we could deliver. We could attack corruption head on. We could ban stock ownership, individual stock ownership, stock trading for all members of Congress. And actually, we could put some ethics rules in place for the United States

Supreme Court. That stuff we could do. It's stuff that's wildly popular, not just among Democrats, but Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Price gouging. Antitrust law enforcement. This would help bring down prices in the short run and help bring down prices in the long run. And again, the American people get it. By a margin of two to one, American citizens are saying that price gouging is contributing to the increased costs that they're experiencing every day. Taxes. How about a little tax reform that puts some fairness into this system? 15% minimum book tax on these giant corporations, corporations make more than a billion dollars in profits and end up paying zero, zero in taxes.

We put an end to that. That brings in a lot of revenue. Fund the IRS so that they don't just go after taxpayers who make little math mistakes, middle class folks who are working to try to get it right. But go after the big time tax cheats. Those two things on taxes, minimum corporate tax and funding the IRS that go after tax cheats.

Do you realize that would bring in over $700 billion? And what could we do with money like that? We could do universal child care. Just to pick one. As you mentioned, drug negotiation, we could do it. And it's not just what Congress can do. Mr. President, you've got a lot of tools. Cancel student loan debt.

Raise the level where people have to get overtime pay. So more Americans have more money. The president can do a lot on his own to lower the price of prescription drugs. Now, I know, you said, can we just do one or two or three things? I think what we have to do is we need to be out there fighting every single day. And when we get one in the W column, then let's say hallelujah, but let's fight for the next thing and the next thing and the next thing. And when it ends up in the L column, let's call out.

the Republicans who voted against it. Because everything I'm talking about, everything I'm talking about, it's not just a liberal agenda, it's not just a progressive agenda, it's not just a democratic agenda. These are the things the American people want to see us do. We are in the majority. How about we do the stuff that people elected us to do? We do that. I think we can walk into those elections in November with our heads held high.

Perfectly put. Warren, thank you so much for coming on, and you're welcome back anytime. Thank you for having me. It's always good to have a chance to visit with you. Thanks again to Senator Warren. Now we have the co-founder of Run for Something and returning guests many times over Amanda Littman. Amanda, thanks for coming back on. Thank you for having me. What a delight to follow. One of my favorite senators. Yes, Elizabeth Warren is constantly restoring my faith in humanity. So jumping in here, by now we're all well aware of the slew of Trump acolytes who are running for offices related to the actual administration of elections. And I mean, just the fact

that we had competent and honest people in those jobs last time was really one of the only safeguards against Trump actually succeeding in stealing the election. So what does Run for Something's new venture to safeguard against that? So just last week, Run for Something announced our three-year, $80 million plan to save democracy from the ground up by recruiting and supporting candidates to run for and hopefully win in the more than 5,000 positions across the country that are elected to help run our elections. We call this program clerk work because a lot of these offices are things like city and county clerk or election clerk, but they also include things like county auditor, probate judge, tax assessors, city council members. It's a whole mess

of positions that ultimately ladder up to give us our democracy. So there are a few states that are especially worrisome, like, you know, the, the Michigan's, Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona. Are you doing anything specific in those states where the threat is especially pronounced? You know, we are working in all 35 states where these positions are elected. You know, of course, prioritizing battlegrounds, but I do think it's really important to hammer home that democracy exists everywhere and is at stake everywhere. we need to make sure that there is not a QA. Qa non-conspiracy theorist or a Nazi or a far-right extremist or just somebody who's incompetent running these elections in Michigan and Wisconsin. And it's just as dangerous if they're running elections in Idaho or Utah. Because we know, as we've seen, especially with, you know, for one of many examples with a lot of the abortion laws over the last six months or a couple of years, what happens in a red state does not stay in a red state. We need to be on guard everywhere. Just to kind of put the threat on full display here, you've got Trump advisor, Steve Bannon,

who's been urging election deniers on his podcast to get involved in party politics and, quote, take this back precinct by precinct. How effective has that strategy been by the Bannons of the right to get involved in these races for administrative roles? What we've seen so far is that the Republican parties in a lot of these key states are seeing a surge of Bannon followers and far-right activists showing up and trying to take over some of these election positions, both within the party and outside of it. We have also seen folks like QAnon where at the top of the Q&N forum is a call to run for local office.

Proud boys who are often violent street activists have said we're pivoting to local politics. Oathkeepers have already engaged in local politics in a meaningful way. And the Republican Party for years has put their time and their effort into these local positions because they understand when you control the structures of these institutions, you can control the outcomes if you want to. One of the things we're really prioritizing here is we don't want election officials who are going to predetermine what voters think or how elections are going to go. What we want is for them to be pro-democracy and pro-voter. We want to make sure that we are finding and electing people who are going to make it easy and accessible for as many people to make their voice heard as possible.

And hopefully that means elections will go our way more often than not because we know our ideas are more popular. But at the very least, these elections will be fair and they will be equitable. Now, run for something is an amazing progressive organization. Have you encountered any worries from candidates, though, in red states or red districts who might not benefit from any association, you know, from a progressive organization? And if so, like, how are you dealing with that? Totally. And we work with candidates every cycle who are like, I want your help behind the scenes. I want to be able to talk to your staff. I want to get the resources you need. please don't post about me on social.

Like, please don't publicly endorse me. We totally understand. You know, every candidate has to make that decision for themselves. And we're really, you know, appreciative of the honesty that comes with candidates who know exactly the kind of community they're in. We're here to help them, whether they want us to take credit for it or want to give us credit for it or not. No, you did a pilot program, I believe, in 2021.

How did that go? So we spent about a million dollars towards the end of 2021. over a course about six-ish weeks to focus on some of the top 50 worst possible targets that included a bunch of counties in Texas where the filing deadline was in December, as well places scattered across another dozen or so states. And what we found is that even in just five or six weeks, we were able to recruit candidates for more than half of all of these positions. That's a pretty big deal when you consider the fact that we had a pretty limited

tool of tactics available to us. You know, we did text messaging. We did outreach. We worked through our pipeline. We ran ads. We did more text messaging. We worked with our network of alumni. And that we were able to fill more than half these races in such a short time period told us that with more time and more investment and especially more folks on the ground going door to door, hosting events, being in local press, working with more local partners that we will be able to recruit for as many of these races as possible. Now, you have a pretty unique window into people who weren't involved in politics but decided to become involved in politics. What is the main motivating factor for these people? Like, what's the main thing that they want to fix? Because I think that'll give us some insight into what regular people are actually concerned about versus like what Chuck Todd tells you you're concerned about. The thing I love about the candidates we work with is that they don't really share a problem they all want to fix. But what they all have is that they care about solving a problem in the first place.

They're running on everything from democracy issues to paving roads to school funding, opioid crisis, health care, you know, drug law, criminal justice reform, court reform. It's a whole range of things. But the thing they all have in common is for them it is personal. It is specific. It is tangible. It is almost never about whatever Congress is talking about or whatever they're talking about on Fox News or even on MSNBC. It is what's affecting their day-to-day life. And I think that's what makes it really powerful. And it's what drives them in their campaigns, especially because most of campaigning is pretty shitty. It's like not fun to run for office. And I would never say it is. But you do it because you want to solve a problem,

and they've got that drive. Yeah. It's weird that there's candidates out there who aren't running to fight the war on Christmas. I know. Isn't it crazy? On kind of that same vein, like, what would you like to see happen?

What do you think would make it easiest for Democrats to get elected and reelected in 2022 from student loan debt cancellation to marijuana legalization, lower drug prices. Like on that whole spectrum, what would make your life easier? Well, I think Congress, if they would like to win re-election, as individuals, they should do something that earns that. So, you know, basic governance would be nice. But I think the reality is we're not going to see a lot out of this Congress. We're not going to see a lot from Mansion and Cinema in the Senate that will allow us to get meaningful stuff done.

So for me, Democrats as a party, as activists, as donors, as voters, you need to think about what races are going to be able to excite people. Like, where can we show tangible progress and where can we make realistic promises that we can keep? So that's school boards, that's city councils, that state legislatures, that's making sure that those candidates running for these offices have every resource they need and that they can talk to voters about meaningful, practical things. And then hopefully the energy around those races will be enough to also get some members of Congress over the finish line. Now, we call this reverse coat tails. We've worn it out in research.

Local races can gin up turn out for the top of the ticket anywhere from 0.6 to 2.3%, sometimes more, sometimes less. That's meaningful. So let's make sure that these local candidates who do have something specific to talk about can do it well. Finally, how can we help? Such a good question. So if you're listening to this podcast, you're the kind of person we need to run for office. So go to run for what. dot net look up the offices available to you this year it might not be too late it's definitely not too early to get started for 2023 or 2024 um if you do want to run or maybe not yet uh or you know you definitely don't want around but you want help you can make a donation at run for something dot net slash donate every dollar helps awesome we'll put that link in the in the show notes Amanda

thank you for the work you're doing and uh for coming on talking to us today thanks for having me thanks again to Amanda uh one last thing if you're listening to this podcast for first time. Please subscribe, and if you feel so inclined, throw me a review. And please suggest the pod to a friend. Word of mouth is the best way to get new people to listen. All right. Appreciate your help. Thank you for listening. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, 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.