No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Republican candidates screw THEMSELVES ahead of first debate

Episode Date: August 20, 2023

Republican primary candidates capitulate to Trump ahead of the first Republican debate. Brian interviews former federal prosecutor and candidate for California’s 41st congressional district, Will Rollins, about whether he believes Trump will go to prison for any of his prosecutions, his own prosecution of a January 6 insurrectionists, and how he plans on flipping the seat he’s running for despite his close loss in 2022.Support Will Rollins: https://willrollinsforcongress.com/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 how Republican primary candidates seem hell-bent on ensuring that the guy who is currently beating them all continues to beat them all. And I interview former federal prosecutor and candidate for California's 41st congressional district, Will Rollins, about whether he believes Trump will go to prison for any of his crimes, his own prosecution of a January 6th insurrectionist, and how he plans on flipping the seat he's running for despite his close loss in 2022. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So let's talk about Ron DeSantis' very...

very sad debate memo that leaked and what it means more broadly within the context of this Republican primary. So that memo, in case you haven't seen it, laid out, quote, four basic must-does. One, attack Joe Biden in the media three to five times. Two, state Governor Ronda Santis's positive vision two to three times.

Three, hammer Vivek Ramoswamy in a response. Four, defend Donald Trump in absentia in response to a Chris Christie attack. Man, just when you thought you really get politics, you see these inner machinations of these campaigns, and all their high functioning glory and you realize that these people are just operating on another level. I mean, attack Joe Biden and the media three to five times is just political consultant

gold and whoever they are, the rest of us sit here humbly at their feet. And look, in all seriousness, this debate memo is just a manifestation, a sad manifestation of what we've already seen and what we could already expect from this upcoming debate and the Republican primary more broadly, that these Republicans are competing against someone who they are not willing to try and beat. I mean, my God, for Ron DeSantis' debate memo to say defend the only guy who's standing between him and the Republican nomination at this point really does say it all. Like the weakness and the capitulation are literally built into this campaign, built into all

of these campaigns, with the obvious exception of Chris Christie, but he's got about as much of a shot at the Republican nomination as I do, meaning that there is no way that any of them will beat him because the only people capable of beating him are the ones currently carrying water for him. Which, by the way, makes it all the more bizarre that we're seeing reporting now that suggests that Trump won't be showing up to the debate. And look, I get it. He's the frontrunner. The target's presumably going to be on his back, although, again, no one is actually willing to throw a punch. But just think about this for a moment. Donald Trump is too afraid to show up to debate people who can't stop defending him. I mean, I'm sorry, but you really could not ask

for an easier debate than against someone like Ron DeSantis, whose entire campaign is currently based on how Donald Trump did nothing wrong. This wouldn't be a debate. It would be an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign. And yet the fact that Trump still won't show up to his own love fest really does put this guy's fragility on full display. And so, in effect, I mean, this is it. Like, barring a conviction before the election

and some realization among the Republican base that Trump's legal baggage or imprisonment is just too toxic in a general election, which, you know, is certainly possible. I don't even know what these guys are doing. Like, you're going on stage two days. defend a guy whose only hope of losing is the very slate of people who are going to be helping him, who are going to be defending him. So maybe they're running on the chance that he does end up

in prison. Maybe they're running for his VP slot. Maybe they're running for a cabinet position. Maybe they're running to bolster their brands ahead of 2028. Or maybe they're running because they've got millions of dollars to burn and their egos know no bounds. I don't know. But what's becoming increasingly clear is that there is really no path to victory when purposefully losing is the strategy to get you there. Next step is my interview with Will Rollins. Now we've got former federal prosecutor and candidate for California's 41st congressional district, Will Rollins. Will, thanks for coming back on.

Thanks for having me, Brian. So you actually helped prosecute one of the January 6th insurrectionists. So let's start with the D.C. indictment, since that's related, what do you think of Jack Smith's decision to only indict Donald Trump in this case? Well, I think it was a smart decision for speeding up the process, no doubt. And I think for me, thinking back about my own experience, what I remember in the wake of January 6th is like a lot of Americans sitting at home, watching TV, seeing the images of the U.S. Capitol breached, seeing the image of guns drawn on the floor of the House of Representatives, being in complete shock for a period of days afterwards, and then in my case at the time, starting to get calls from the FBI and our colleagues in, Washington, D.C., who are still working those cases in one of the largest investigations in the history of the Justice Department and realizing that some people, like Gina Bissignano, who you mentioned, flew back to Southern California after participating in the attack and

working with D.C. to help get those people rounded up before the inauguration was, you know, an incredible lift. It took a lot of work from a lot of agents. and prosecutors around the country. And I think seeing the new indictment in DC, what stood out to me is just how remarkable it is what was going on behind the scenes that at the time those of us who were responding and helping respond to that attack,

we're not aware of. And by the way, I know that we're speaking about the fact that this is a narrow prosecution against Donald Trump and it's intended, it's built for speed basically against him. But do you also think that there were six unnamed co-conspirators in that indictment? Do you think that we'll see another prosecution, another case against those six co-conspirators that may not include Donald Trump, but that is intended to hold them accountable too?

Yes, no doubt. And I think what Jack Smith probably was thinking is if you indict all those folks now, the amount of pretrial litigation and delay that would result from having those co-defendants in the same defense table with Donald Trump would drag this out for a long time. And I think, you know, rightly for the sake of justice and the future of the country and our Republic, the American people deserve a right to know whether they're going to cast their vote for someone who is a convicted felon or not before 2024. Well, I'm sure you've been asked this question before.

And obviously, it's all just conjecture at this point. But do you believe that Donald Trump ultimately does get convicted to a prison sentence between any of the prosecutions that he's contending with right now? I mean, I think he's in a really, really difficult. position. And if I were his defense attorneys, I would be advising him to think seriously about cooperating and pleading guilty given the seriousness of the allegations and the likelihood of a prison sentence. And I think he should maybe think about his historical legacy at this point. And I understand how many folks watching this are going to, you know, I think correctly believe that his personality

would never allow him to do this. But imagine if he actually took accountability. And at this moment decided that he was going to try to help the future of the United States, help our republic move beyond this moment. Think about how that would be written about in history. And I think that he should consider a factor like that. He is going to live for all time at this moment, I think, in infamy. But he has the ability still at this. People are never beyond redemption. And I think his defense attorneys have an obligation to give him that kind of advice as well. Yeah. They may give him the advice. I think there's a higher likelihood of Donald Trump sprouting wings and flying than there is of him doing that. But we'll see. I think you're probably

right about that. But I think, you know, to your original question, I mean, he is facing the legitimate possibility of serious time in prison. And good defense attorneys, when they have a client who are facing airtight allegations in a lot of these cases, would advise the client, you need to seriously think about cooperating it is going to be one of your only chances to avoid prison time i think given the other considerations obviously very very unlikely in this case but um you know he is looking at high statutory maximums now there are currently 19 defendants in the fulton county trial i think we can expect that some of those defendants may opt to cooperate with prosecutors instead of just throwing their freedom away for donald trump can you walk us through the process of what it would look like

if and when a defendant decides to flip Yeah, I mean, some of the same considerations I just discussed a second ago for Donald Trump, you know, those are going to be amplified big time for the defendants who are not running for political office and who do not have this sort of long shot chance at a pardon from a Republican governor in Georgia. I think those defendants and co-defendants with Trump are going to be under a lot more pressure actually to cooperate because they understand the likelihood of getting prison time. if they don't cooperate with the government. So I think what would happen in both cases, even though some of the others have not yet been indicted in the Smith indictment in D.C., they've certainly been able to identify a lot of who those unindicted co-conspirators are. And the sooner the defense attorneys get those defendants or putative defendants to walk in and talk to the government, the more likely it is that they get reduced time in prison

or no time in prison depending on how helpful they are to the government. And so a lot of the defense attorneys representing these 19 or so co-defendants in both of these cases or future co-defendants are going to be talking to their clients and advising them to come in earlier because the earlier you come in, generally the more lenient your sentence is going to be down the road. So I think a lot of those conversations are taking place right now. And why not have done this sooner? Why wait until your name is included in a state prosecution, is included in an indictment for you to finally recognize, oh, shit, this is real. I better do something about it. I mean, I think a lot of them didn't know how strong the evidence was, despite what the public reporting was, and a lot of this

had been publicly reported before the indictment came down. I think the theories of liability also were probably unclear to a lot of the defense attorneys. But what I like in particular about the DC indictment is that it focuses on the criminal aspect of fraud, not this, you know, First Amendment BS that the far right has kind of been spewing. And even frankly, it's made its way into more, you know, mainstream conservative outlets. And I think when you see that this entire conspiracy, really in both cases, involves submission of fraudulent documents or obstruction of official government proceedings, it makes those arguments for criminal liability, a lot clearer and easier for defense attorneys to articulate to their clients, to say, this is how

strong the evidence is against you. This is what your liability looks like. You are looking at some serious time if you don't come in and cooperate. So I think now that those charges are laid out in a clearer fashion, we will eventually see. I think some people come in. It's going to have to be done very surreptitiously given the risk to their lives. I mean, we've seen what happened with the grand jurors being threatened in Georgia. I mean, these are people who just got called in for jury duty. I mean, a lot of them probably tried to get out of it. I think people don't like serving. And I mean, you shouldn't because it's your civic duty. But, you know, we've all been in those rooms if you've ever had jury duty where people are, you know, oh, no, I don't want the disruption.

I want to try and get out of it. I mean, think about these people who were sitting there listening to this evidence. And then now are being confronted with death threats just for doing their jobs. I mean, these are our neighbors. These are people selected at random. There is no partisan pre-screening process. And I think, unfortunately, there's so much disinformation out there around the nature of how our criminal justice system works, unfortunately, because of the lack of political leadership from the Republican Party that we've just seen these horrible threats against law enforcement and now the grand jurors in Georgia developing. And it's really corrosive to our democracy. Yeah, coming to you right from the party that prides itself on being the

law and order party. You know, Will, Judge Chutkin, sticking with this D.C. case, laid out pretty clearly the terms of Trump's release, which included him not committing any more federal, state, and local crimes. Immediately after planting that flag, Donald Trump engaged in some casual witness intimidation by publicly pressuring Jeff Duncan, the former lieutenant governor of Georgia, to not testify against him. Why not remandum? him to custody pending trial. And I'm not asking that lightly because I understand the gravity of doing that. But if the condition was set by the court and then Trump broke that condition, isn't the court's credibility on the line by letting him continue to walk free?

Well, I think she will take this very seriously. And I think, you know, I would not be surprised at some point in this process if an order to show cause is issued by the district judge in Washington, if the former president continues to keep up these kinds of public statements that are either designed to intimidate jurors or witnesses, because it's crucially the integrity of the process that people believe they can come into court, take the oath to swear to tell the truth, and to do it without fear for their lives. And so I think that is a possibility at some point if he continues the behavior. And frankly, it's a possibility already with what we've seen. I mean, the way that this would normally work is the court could issue the OSC.

The court could be made aware of the allegations if she's, I'm sure, you know, seen the reporting about it. The court could do that on its own. The government could also ask the court to make a motion to adjust his terms of release to put him into custody. But I think as you alluded to in your question, you know, putting a former president in custody pre-trial before a jury conviction undoubtedly is going to weigh on any judge state. or federal who is thinking about making that decision. And there is some tension between the idea that all of us should be treated equally under the law. And I think in many cases, were it not for that position, we would already see some repercussions.

But there is a moment in this country right now that I think is, as we saw on January 6th, a level of tension that every one of these judges just is going to have, and as I have in the back of my mind, about a fear for what? that means for the country so it's a difficult they're in a difficult position well to that point then what is the most potent tool in your opinion that she could wield against donald trump if it's not taking the massive step that would be remanding him to custody pending trial i mean she could order i think there are a series of things they have a lot of discretion when it comes to trying to craft conditions of release that would prevent witness tampering or uh flight or danger to the community and

they can be very creative with those conditions so you know if he is using social media she could prohibit him from posting anything on truth social she could require him to provide those posts to his defense attorneys ahead of time who would have to certify that they don't believe the post is being used for witness intimidation that puts the defense attorney's bar card on the line so there are some interesting things that she could try to do i mean i think you know she's also thinking about the backlash that that generates in the political sphere to some extent because he does have, and we should all respect the First Amendment right to speak and criticize the government. That's what this country is about. But when you are facing criminal charges

and a federal grand jury has already found probable cause to believe that you committed a crime, that is part of our constitutional process in limiting some of what you are able to do to interfere with our criminal justice system. And I think we need more Americans to respect and understand that. And we need more political leaders to remind ordinary Americans of that feature of our system. I think she also has the tool of bringing this case to trial sooner in her back pocket. I mean, the government has requested, I believe, a January 2nd, 2024 trial date. Donald Trump's team has requested an April 2026 trial date. So like, you know, he's trying to push this thing two and a half years out in the few.

And all the while, he is continuing to violate the terms of his own release. And so I think that if he wants something from her and yet he's violating the conditions that she set forth, it's more and more likely that he's not going to get what he wants and that the government is going to get what it wants. Strategically stupid on his part in front of a federal judge like this. I think, and his defense attorneys, you know, I'm sure are trying to do what they can to remind him of that. because any time you can delay as a defense attorney in general, that is much more helpful to your

case. And of course, in his instance, it's doubly helpful because there is a possibility that he's reelected. I don't think that will happen. But if he's elected again, and I mean, that creates a whole host of additional protections for himself. And so I think trying to interfere and post these inflammatory comments is a huge strategic mistake on his part. And, and, As you said, I mean, she will be, I think, more inclined to try and protect the integrity of this process by having that trial happen sooner rather than later. And that's why we have a Speedy Trial Act in the federal system. So look, I think there's a lot that she has on her plate.

And I don't envy the role that, you know, these are public servants who really have an incredible responsibility to uphold our republic. Now, can you talk about your prosecution of a local insurrectionist? I believe it's Gina Bissignano, and I say local because she's out here in Beverly Hills, when you were working as a federal prosecutor. Sure. So I always like to start by giving a lot of credit to my D.C. colleagues because my role in responding to the attack was limited, but it had a very profound impact on me and my career and what I decided to do with the rest of my life. But Gina Bisignano was a Beverly Hills salon owner who allegedly, I say allegedly because she's withdrawn her plea from what I've read, flew to the U.S. Capitol, stood on the steps of the building

with a bullhorn calling for angry patriots to bring in their gas masks and weapons to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power. And then she stood in a hallway where a capital police officer was crushed in a door by her fellow rioters before ultimately making it inside. And she was the one one of the people who I alluded to at the top of the call where, you know, she actually came back to Beverly Hills after the attack. And we were trying to work with our colleagues across the country to track down people before the inauguration. Because as you remember, I mean, that was also a very high security, high risk environment for President Biden and Vice President Harris and given the nature of the threats at that moment. So there was a lot of work to be done nationally to try and

make sure that the inauguration and the transfer of power was protected. What's the logic behind withdrawing her plea? Good, good question. I mean, I think this is another, we've seen some of these defendants attempt to do that after they've already pled guilty. Could be that they're reading other criminal cases and seeing different defendants make different arguments that they think they will somehow have more success with. Most judges do not let defendants do that, like lightly. So I think, you know, the big risk for people doing that is always a higher sentence. And in fact, I, from the reporting I've read, this case has continued after I left the department. You know, she is actually confronting a higher sentence now as a result. And whenever you have

evidence of a client as a defense attorney where they are caught recorded, saying those things that I just mentioned a second ago and captured on film entering the building and you've got a record of multiple convictions on the same statutes. It is really the best course of action for your client to cooperate with the government in the hopes of receiving a more lenient sentence because an acquittal is just not not likely. Yeah. Now, your opponent in California's 41st congressional district, that's Ken Calvert, he's issued the same tired claims of the government being weaponized by Joe Biden against Donald Trump, against the Republican Party. Can you speak to this idea that somehow Joe Biden is at fault for the crimes of Donald Trump?

I mean, it is incredibly frustrating as somebody who worked in law enforcement with people of all different political affiliations who swore the oath to the Constitution, who are just out there trying day after day to protect our communities and protect the integrity of our criminal justice system, to see political leaders like Calvert, lack. the spine or understanding of what so many Americans fought and died to give us in our Constitution and to protect. And so I think that the kinds of weaponization language that we've seen, the claims that it's a politicized prosecution, those have ripple effects in all different kinds of criminal cases. If you are a prosecutor, you're bringing a case in a bank robbery or a

bombing, and you've got a federal agent taking the stand and testifying, and their local member of Congress has told the jury pool, do not trust the FBI. They've been infiltrated by rot, which is a phrase that Ken Calvert used. That affects regular criminal cases. It makes all of us less safe, and it is not the party of law and order that is coming out and attacking federal law enforcement the way that they've done. And I think people who voted for Ronald Reagan, people who voted for George W. Bush, and part of the reason I think we're going to have success in this next election is because our coalition in my congressional race is big. And we are going to get more Republican, regular Republican voters

to vote for this campaign in 2024 than we did in 2022. And we already got a decent number of them in the midterms. Now, you just spoke to broadening the coalition to bring in those Republicans. But what else are you going to do to change in 2024, what didn't go your way in 2022? Yeah. So, I mean, I'm really proud of the race we ran in the midterms. And as we were talking about a little bit earlier, I wasn't sure that I was going to do this twice because running is difficult.

There's no doubt. And our campaign finance system is broken. And I can tell you that working and counterterrorism is a lot more fun than fundraising. But I believe for a lot of the reasons we've been talking about that our country really is on the line in 2024. And if you, as any American, no matter what your job is, no matter what you are doing, we all need to stop and think about just how crucial this election is to the future of the United States. United States. And so we ended up being the only challenger in the country to win, excuse me, in California to win independence on the Democratic side. We had the best performance of any Democratic challenger compared to President Biden by House District. Unfortunately, we were losing

Biden plus 13s plus 14s in California last cycle. My district was a narrow Trump district that will go for Biden in 2024. And the ability to lose less than 1% of his vote total in the midterm is a really good sign about the kind of coalition that we built going forward. Republicans voted at 10 points higher than Democrats voted in my district, and we only lost by about four and a half. But what we want to do this next election is focus on the cities where folks didn't get to know me. I only had five months after my primary. It was the first time I'd ever run for office. So cities on the western side of Riverside County, where Democratic turnout was 30% in some cases, I really need to get in there, meet people face to face.

Let them know that we have a real legitimate shot to beat Ken Calvert, which fortunately a lot of people now know, thanks to how close the election was last time, and continue to build that bipartisan coalition of ordinary Republican voters, too, that I think really want some basic pro-rule of law, pro-democracy candidates in Congress. Now, one other issue is the issue of LGBT rights. Calvert represents Palm Springs, which is one of the biggest LGBT communities out here in California. probably in the United States. Can you speak about his stance on LGBT issues? Yeah, I mean, he started his career, unfortunately, in 1992, by outing his then opponent, Mark Takano, who later became the first openly gay man ever elected to Congress from California. And that's how Calvert began his career, using it as a political strategy, him and his allies, to send pink mailers across Riverside County homophobic tropes trying to defeat his opponent. And then that legacy continued when he was voting and supporting an amendment to ban gay marriage, voted against allowing us to adopt kids, voting against letting us serve in the U.S. military, voted against the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill, which is just designed to give law enforcement the tools to track down people who target, kill and injure gay and LGBT Americans across the country, voted against that.

And even just a couple weeks ago, voted to defund LGBT senior centers just designed to provide. food for old people. I mean, this is somebody who has a fixation on culture wars, a fixation on attacking our community. And I do not understand why focusing on us does anything to improve the lives of his constituents, gay or straight. How does it help anybody get to their office more quickly in Corona where the commute is awful by telling gay senior citizens in Pennsylvania that they don't deserve to eat. It's a bizarre fixation and set of priorities. And I look forward to changing that when I get elected in 24. Well, obviously, there's so much to focus on this campaign season from attacks on democracy to the extremism of the Republican Party to, you know, the

accomplishments of the Democrats when they held full control of government for two years to abortion rights and on and on. You can't do it all. So what's worked for you in this campaign? What do you intend to focus on as we had into 24? Well, I think given that I'm in a purple district, something I've seen a lot of nods from Republicans and independence about are anti-corruption reforms that Congress absolutely needs that apply it to everybody. And my opponent happens to just be kind of a perfect encapsulation of what's wrong with Washington. Elected in 92, his net worth has gone up by $20 million since he first got into Congress. He's used earmarks to benefit his own wallet. that's been reported in Fox News and in the National Review,

conservative outlets have criticized him for that kind of corruption. So we've got a unique opportunity in California, 41, to highlight the kind of reforms that really should apply to everybody. So a ban on stock trading by all members of Congress, a lifetime ban on lobbying by former members of Congress. Things like getting corporate money out of politics, people in both parties want to see that. And we've had a lot of success reaching reports.

Republican audiences talking about just those basic good government process-based populism reforms that a lot of Americans want. And how can people watching and listening help you? They can go to will Rollins for Congress.com because of our broken campaign finance system, I need to raise a lot of money. So if people can go to that website and contribute, that's helpful. If you want to sign up just to volunteer to make phone calls or knock doors, there's links there to help us with that too.

And we're going to need all the help we can get. but we will flip this seat in November of 24. Yeah, and with the house margin so close. I mean, this is a five-seat margin that separates a speaker Kevin McCarthy and a speaker, Jeffrey. So, I mean, you know, this is a seat that absolutely should and can and most likely will be flipped. So all the help is absolutely needed from anybody watching and listening right now. With that said, Will, thank you so much for taking the time. Thank you, Brian. Great to be back with you.

Thanks again to Will. That's it for this episode. 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.