No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - The death knell for Herschel Walker's Senate campaign

Episode Date: October 9, 2022

Herschel Walker is engulfed in a devastating abortion saga-- and it speaks volumes about Republicans more broadly. Brian interviews the Democratic nominee for the US Senate in Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, about the new revelation that Dr. Oz was responsible for experiments that killed puppies, his response to Republican attacks against him regarding crime, and what his tattoos really mean. And Senator Amy Klobuchar joins to discuss some major news—that the Electoral Count Act is on its way to being reformed, her response to Ted Cruz for being the only Republican in the committee to vote against it, and what still needs to happen to secure our elections.BUY WINE: https://briantylercohen.com/codify-roe-se/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 the winding Herschel Walker abortion saga and what it says about Republicans more broadly. I interview the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, about the new revelation that Dr. Oz was responsible for experiments that killed puppies, his response to Republican attacks about crime, and what his tattoos actually mean. And I'm joined by U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar to discuss some major news that the Electoral Count Act is on its way to being reformed, her response to Ted Cruz for being the only Republican in the committee to vote against it, and what still needs to happen to. to secure our elections. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. I mean, honestly, who could have guessed that Herschel Walker's inability to string four words together would be the least problematic part of his campaign? Just to give a quick rundown of what we've seen from the Republican Senate nominee in Georgia

so far, a guy whose entire campaign is predicated on banning abortion nationwide with no exceptions. First, the Daily Beast reported that he paid for an abortion himself in 2009, which, of course, Herschel denied, even though the article included the literal receipts from the abortion provider and a signed card from Herschel himself. Then his son Christian released a video basically abandoning his father, calling him a hypocrite, revealing that he's dangerous and on and on. And that kid is probably as far right as you'll ever find. Then another report from The Daily Beast a few days later that the woman who alleges Walker paid for her abortion in 2009 also had a child

with Walker. So when he denied even knowing her, I guess it kind of rings false in retrospect when she quite literally gave birth to another child with him. Then the New York Times jumped in reporting that the woman who alleged Walker paid for her abortion in 2009 said that Walker also tried to pressure her to have an abortion in 2011 when she'd gotten pregnant by him again. She ultimately refused to have that abortion and gave birth to the child that was referenced in the previous Deli Beast article, proving that reporting true. Then the Daily Beast revealed that after Walker pretended that he didn't know who this woman was, she'd been texting with his wife, proving that he does know who she is,

at which point NBC reported that Walker admitted that he did know who she is. And here's my favorite part. At the end of all of this, Walker's campaign fired its political director, because that's the problem, the political director. Should be all good now. Can't foresee any more issues now that that person's gone. And look, I do want to caution against something here. I don't think the answer here is just to point to Walker and say, look, he's a hypocrite.

You can't possibly vote for him now because that's not how people operate. Like, people vote for hypocrites. These politicians are all hypocrites and they all get voted into office. So the move here isn't just to try to make this a referendum on Walker's character because we already know he has no values. We already know he has no principles. If that was all it took, this race would have been over months ago. The move, I think, is to focus on what his hypocrisy means.

means for you. This is a guy who wants to take away the same right to choose, your right to choose, that he availed himself of. That's the danger here. Walker paying for an abortion isn't the problem. He should help pay for an abortion. He should exercise his right to decide when and how he grows his family. The first Daily Beast article quoted Walker is saying that it was not the right time for him to have a child. That's okay. That's his right. Just like it's everyone else's right. The issue here is that despite exercising that right himself, his election to the Senate would mean that the rest of us would be denied that right. So look, I know that Fox and the Republican Party and the whole right-wing media ecosystem are going to rally around Walker because

now he's a martyr and they love nothing more than playing victim and now he's a victim. But if you're a voter in Georgia or any of these states where there's a tight race in November, just remember that it isn't about them and their martyrdom. It's about you. It's about what rights you're set to lose by voting people into office who want to strip you of the same rights that they themselves proved were useful by virtue of the fact that they use them. Like, that's what's on the ballot. Not the tribe, not the team, not red versus blue. It is about the people.

It's about your freedom to choose what you do with your body. Your freedom to read what books you want. Your freedom to marry who you want. Your freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Your freedom to cast a ballot for the candidate you want and your freedom to have that ballot count. Don't try to make it about themselves and the horse race and their martyrdom, but it's not about them.

It's about you. Next step is my interview with John Federman. Now we've got the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. John Federman, thanks for coming back on. Hey, it's always, always a pleasure to be with you. Thanks for having me back. Thanks. So there was reporting that Dr. Oz had overseen scientific experiments that killed over 300 dogs.

Can I get your reaction to that? Yeah, I mean, it's, I mean, it's disturbing to say the least. And the fact that they actually, Columbia had to pay a fine because the violence was excessive. And again, it's disturbing. And it's something that Dr. Oz refuses to acknowledge or to answer towards again. And I just can't imagine any Republicans or Democrats even in Pennsylvania. You know, are they the pro let dog suffer plank in the platform, you know? So it's just, again, nothing that he'll acknowledge and it's shocking.

I think, too, if people need a differentiator, you've got two rescues, and they've literally got their own Twitter accounts. And like, meanwhile, you've got this guy who's responsible for having overseen the deaths of hundreds of dogs. I mean, it's just, it's incredible. Yeah, no, that's the thing. Yeah, we have, you know, we have Levi and Artie and have both come from extreme, back of abuse and you know, they're just loving animals and they are just amazing members of our

family and the fact that they just threw them away literally in the trash. It's it's unconscionable. You know, it's kind of a joke that the worst thing you could do is kill a puppy. It's like comic book villain level stuff. Like you'd say, well, at least he didn't kill a puppy, meaning it's the bottom of the barrel, like most depraved thing you could possibly do. And yet, how do you think the voters of Pennsylvania are responding to this news? Yeah, exactly. And that's the thing. Like, you know, even if you believe that experimenting on puppies was justified by science or whatever, but the fact that you would even throw them out like trash, and even one of them were actually alive, too, is, again, it's just, there's no possible way for them to justify this.

And the fact, again, they had to pay a fine in response to that. It's true. It's astonishing. Right. Meaning that that's a tacit admission that what they did actually happened and that they assumed responsibility for it. Okay. Speaking of, yeah, the dogs are upset and you're even talking about it. They're barking. Yeah. Well, well, to that point. Moving away from as much as I'd love to stay on this issue of dead animals, I do want to move on. The Washington Post published an expose also outlining Oz's past of hawking a bunch of shady products and miracle cures.

What does it say that a doctor would exploit people with false promises of miracle cures? And what does it say about who he would be as a senator? You know what it says is that a man that is willing to pebble. things that he knows not only it doesn't even do what it says it's supposed to do, it actually is dangerous and talking about a pregnant woman, you know, with a $500 calories on a day kind of diet or any of these things. I mean, it's right there, you know, and it's not, you know, some kind of, like, biased kind of outlet. It's the Washington Post coming out and talking about this. And it's, you know, Dr. Oz has traded his reputation as was at one point a respected doctor to choose millions of dollars on things that are just absolutely, they know, was phony.

And I don't know if you mentioned that we even put it up with Dr. Nick on the Simpsons. You know, and of course, the Simpsons always predicts the future, but nobody would think that an actual doctor actually would exist before, like, Dr. Nick. That's why the satire was beyond the pale. But it literally wasn't. It matches it up back to back to back on it. Now it's over, you know, like it's 1.6 million views because people understands true. To really take it in that you made the point like, you know, nobody would think you'd have to kill a puppy. Okay. But yet here we are. Or if you would never have something as absurd as Dr. Nick. But here it is where they're saying like, hey, you want to, you want to lose weight, you know, it's a magic pill or just eat whatever you want and it's all

going to work. I mean, it's it's the same kind of energy that this campaign has always had where it's it's surreal and, you know, running a campaign about on lies because his whole career was on on career. And that's where we're at. You know, obviously Dr. Oz is going all in on the attacks against you following your stroke between criticizing some of your debate requests and just straight up mocking you, mocking your diet, on a human level, what does it say that what should be this guy's one redeeming quality, like you said before, the fact that he is a purported medical professional, that he's willing to use your health challenges, you know, to score a cheap political win against you. I agree. I always like to say that, you know, by January, I'll be even,

you know, better, but you'll still be a fraud, Dr. Oates. Yeah. And, you know, that's what he understands hands that. And also with respects to the debate, you know, we were always going to have a debate, and that was always clear. And the fact that debates in Pennsylvania Senate race has always happened in the middle to the end of October, as it has in every other race in the history. And guess what? That's exactly what happened. True. You know, this idea that we're going to have a debate on Labor Day or in these other things, it's just absurd. And it's only because he was talking about mocking the fact that I had, I had a stroke. And again, what kind of a doctor makes fun of somebody that's sick? It's twisted. And that's the way the campaign is good because they have been desperate to

try to change up the dynamic of this race. Yeah. I mean, it's twisted on a human level, not to mention, you know, the fact that of all people, a doctor should be able to recognize, you know, the significance of giving somebody some grace when they've just had a stroke. But in any case, like you said, that's who he is. One attack that Oz is desperately trying to make stick is that somehow you're soft on crime. Can you talk about your record as it relates to crime from your time as the mayor of Braddock? Absolutely. Of course, you have a man that made a career online on television, so they're running a kind of campaign that's on that.

My record on crime is something I'm actually running on. And I'm running on it because as mayor in a community that has had a significant gun violence, violence problem. That's why I ran for mayor. And as mayor, we went five and a half years. We stopped for five and a half years, no killings or no death, excuse me, gun deaths in Braddock at all. That's never happened before or since I, by time as mayor. And I did that by working with the police and working with the community and was able to achieve a result that hasn't, again, been possible before and giving thousands of people with nonviolent crimes, nonviolent that have been living their best life and allowing them a second chance to get a free way to start over. That's what we

stand for too, whether it's marijuana or whether it's just these other kind of nonviolent kind of crimes that gives them a second chance. And that's what I run on to. And of course, they want to lie about it and they want to push back it in a way that distorts it or takes things out of context because they can't get them to like Dr. Oz, so they figure all they can do is try to get me not to be liked, and they lie about it. John, can you talk about the tattoos on your arms as it relates to exactly this issue?

Absolutely, absolutely. It's about every day that, as mayor, that we lost people through violence. And there was a story behind every one of them, and I was on site every single one of them. I stood over the bodies of people that lost their lives. in a very violent way. And until you fully see up close what a gun does to a person, it doesn't change how you look

at the world. And it was what motivated me to be mayor and to make sure that it stopped. In fact, there is a gap in my tattoos for over five years because we able to stop that. And I've seen firsthand what a military grade round does to a person's body and see that up close. You know, you have, you have permanent reminders tattooed onto your body of every single homicide that occurred in Braddock. And the guy who's busy hawking goji berries to his marks, you know, is trying to paint you as not caring about people. I think that's pretty incredible. Yeah, I mean, I have to, I have to read my, my note, like, like Garcini Carbogea. I have to even,

you know, even with a stroke, even missing a word, I can able to have to pronounce it. these kind of things and they know that it's it's it's it's a fraud and they're fine as long as the money's coming in and that's exactly what he's chosen to make his career about can you talk about the impact that row has had on this race and and have you heard from independence or republicans who have pledged to support your campaign because of it uh it is absolutely activated uh the the electorate and here in pennsylvania especially women and you know we have a rally in Montgomery County. It was our Fedder Woman event. Over 3,000 people showed up. Over 3,000 people showed up for that because people are agitated and they're outraged that Dr. Oz believes

that the choice belongs with him, not women in Pennsylvania and their doctors. And, you know, Dr. Oz refuses to answer on his national abortion ban from a senator, uh, uh, uh, Graham. And we've asked again and again, why can't you answer it? You know, for a doctor that makes fun of every time I miss a word, you know, there's two words that are missing for Dr. Oz, and that's yes or no on the national abortion ban. And they refuse to provide that answer because they understand that Pennsylvania wants it and women demand it that, and they of course don't want to give it, you know, their answer. What's your message to independence? and pro-democracy Republicans who are still considering deferring to the Republican Party,

but only have soft support? Like, what do you say to those squishy independence and Republicans? I mean, look, you know, Dr. Oz, quite literally, in one day, was in Pennsylvania, and he was asked, and he's like, yes, Joe Biden won free and honest in 2020. And then when he was on Fox News, he said, oh, no, there's much too evidence to consider before I can give like a real answer on that. And that really is who he is. He will say whatever he believes is the right answer, depending on the room or the crowd he's in front of. You know, who can stand in Philadelphia and claim Joe Biden won and it was fair? And then on Fox saying, oh, it's unsure.

How can we know? We don't have enough evidence. And again, the voters also understand that true. You know, Dr. Oz is so badly underwater with his favorability. And as I said, if you can't make your candidate to like you, then they try to trash with lies, you know, the opponent. And that's exactly and the only thing that they've chosen to do. John, are you going to be able to wear pants in the United States Senate? Yeah. Yeah, I would wear pants or a suit as I have been as Lieutenant Governor True. But I think people in Pennsylvania would, I don't know, would relate to somebody.

that dresses like a real person, a regular person, as opposed to some guy that wears a $5,000, you know, fancy suit, you know, to go around. So I think, I think that resonates more with people in Pennsylvania, but I guess that'll be on the ballot too. Yeah. John, how can we help your campaign? How can listeners and viewers help? Share our story, you know, chip in 10 bucks if you'd like at John Fetterman.com and just, you know, use your own platform to just really share the story here because in Pennsylvania, it is literally the most important race here in the United States. And everyone can help. You can volunteer. You can do text banking. You can do calls. You know, there's any way to get involved on John Fetterman.com. And, you know, thank you so

much because as a guy that started my career by one vote, only one vote, my first election wanting by one vote, means that any person that gets involved, it all matters. Excellent. We'll leave it there. John Fetterman, thank you so much for taking the time and good luck on these last few weeks of campaigning. Thank you. It's always wonderful to be with today. Thank you so much. Now we've got Senator Amy Klobuchar. Thank you so much for coming back on. well thanks brian it's great to be on again so we have some big news here it looks like the legislation reforming the electoral count act is making its way through the senate just passed the rules committee 14 to 1 what would this legislation actually do well this is very very important legislation right

now because we know that a group of insurrectionist violent mob comes in the capital the very day we're counting the electoral votes because they were trying to undermine that process the will of the people. I think this day was a sleepy day in the past. No one hardly noticed it. Lucky we were covered on C-SPAN, but they decided they were going to seize on this moment and basically wipe out the votes of the people. And in the process, people died. Our capital was invaded. It was an unbelievable day. And in a sad moment and showed how fragile our democracy is, but also how resilient. in. So this is all based on this law from 1887, Rutherford B. Hayes days. And it was a process set up,

but no one had tested it to its limits until the insurrectionist came along. And so what this is is a reform so this can never happen again. Making clear the vice president's role is ceremonial. So you don't have the hang Mike Pence 40 feet away from the vice president of the United States, making clear that two members are not allowed to gum up the entire process of counting a democracy's votes for president. Now it's 20% of each house, that you can't have a fake slate of electors picked after the fact. This seems like no-brainers, but they found ways to manipulate the law. And finally, that there be a very set appeals process in place. So can you just expand on the idea of the electors, because those are chosen at the state level and then transmitted to the

Congress. And so are there any issues in terms of, in terms of a federal law being able to dictate what the states can or can't send? Now, the states are still going to be able to choose their own electors, but what the law says is, since we're the ones charged with counting them, we want them to pick those electors before the election takes place. So it's set who it is. And then, of course, there'll be other standards in the law about it reflecting the actual election results, opportunities for people to go to court if that's what they want to do, but making sure the process moves much more smoothly like it did than it did last time. So I mentioned that this legislation passed out of the Rules Committee 14 to 1. Ted Cruz was the only one opposed, and his explanation... I was such a surprise to me.

It was such a surprise. His explanation was that he suggested that this is a way for Democrats to be able to cheat with impunity, which, well, I'll ask for your response to that. Yes. It was absolutely ridiculous because the only people cheating, the only people committing fraud on the voters were the people, and he was one of them, nine, ten people in the Senate, more in the House, that refused to uphold the results of the election. They didn't like them. So they came up with false claims that things were fraudulent, claims which, by the way, were struck down by every local election officials, by Republican governors in states like Arizona and in states like Georgia, Republican secretaries of state, and Republican local officials,

they were doing their jobs. They were upholding the will of the people, even if they maybe hadn't supported the candidate that the democracy voted for. And yet here you had Ted Cruz, of all people, saying, oh, this somehow perpetrates fraud. There's a reason that we had picked up Republican votes for this bill and that he was the only one. And that other Republicans actually realize this is really about the future of our democracy just on like a human level i mean like you said you had support from every other republican on that committee and you have ted cruz spouting off bullshit basically that even his own colleagues on his own side of the aisle knew were just completely unfounded completely baseless is there any sense i'm not trying to ask you to like

get into ted cruz's head here but like isn't there any degree of shame like when when he could say these things that not only the Democrats, but even the Republicans know, is based on absolutely nothing? Well, I think a lot of this was, you know, he's playing national politics, presidential politics, trying to get attention and the like. And some of it, he has just said for quite a while. He is the one that made the objection to one of the states on January 6th, in light of everything we'd seen with the massive mob invading the Capitol. He still went forward with. it. So, you know, that's who he is. But I thought for me, I look at it maybe glass half full instead of half empty. I look at all the votes for the bill and how important that was. So I wasn't

surprised by what he did. I also thought it was really important to allow as the chair, the Independent Center, Angus King. I had him respond. And then I, Shelley Capito, a Republican senator who was part of the bipartisan group. I said a few things about his remark. but for me as a chair, I felt, you know what, he's taking on his own party, and it's going to be really important for them to say something in the form of Shelly. Mitch had already spoken, Mitch McConnell had already spoken. And I felt that was a really important thing that it not just be, this isn't Democrats versus Propulcans. This is actually one guy in your party. Was there anything in these reforms that you wanted to see included that didn't make it in?

Was like anything left on the cutting room floor? Yeah. Well, I am the chief sponsor. of the Freedom to Vote Act, which would set forth rules for same-day registration and mail-in balloting and just set some minimum standards in place for the country so we don't have what's been going on, which is 16 states now passing voter suppression laws in just the last year, 34 different laws. And I would love to have had a broader bill. We knew that was not possible, not just because of the filibuster, but because those Republicans weren't going to support us on that. We tried that once and we weren't able to get an exception to the filibuster,

but we did have all Democrats, including Joe Manchin, signed up for the bill. The second thing I would like to see is more stuff on dark money, and that would have been great. Third thing, there are some things we would have liked to include about the mail system and other things. We can always try again, but for now the most important thing is to get this bill passed before the end of the year, before we enter another presidential election cycle. With that said, it's clear that a lot of Republicans are going to look at this bill and suggest that given its inevitable passage, that every election-related issue will have been resolved. And so there's no need to pass H.R. 1, S-1, for the People Act, Freedom to Vote Act,

any of those iterations of that bill. What's your response to that? And how do you intend on kind of undermining that bad faith talking point? Well, I think everyone knows that that isn't true. and I'm sure a few of them will try to say it, but a lot of them can't even say it with the straight face when you've got bills passing to strike down the use of ballot boxes in Wisconsin. You've got people kicked out the voter rolls in Arizona. You've got the bill that passed in Montana

that after 15 years of same-day voting registration that that went away. It is just rampant across the country. So I think we know there are a lot of other issues besides how you count the electoral vote after a presidential race is over. And by the way, that's only about a presidential race. We know there's other things, but it's still important to get this done. Great. Let's finish off with this. While I have you, I can't not talk about the antitrust beat. So a lot of smaller publications and outlets have been getting really

shitty terms for advertising on social media platforms like Facebook. Can you talk about what you've been working on recently in terms of allowing these small outlets and newspapers to be able to negotiate better terms for themselves. I love the term, shitty terms only on a podcast. Would I hear the question framed in that way? But it is correct. And one of the things we've seen across a country which contributes to the decline of our democracy is the folding of newsrooms and investigative reporting, even local news that would give you things like scores in high school football games or what's the crop prices and those things. that kind of news actually also brings people together.

And if you have no local newspaper or no local radio station or TV, you lose that sense of community and you certainly lose a sense of accountability it takes to cover a city council or business opening or closing and the like. So that's the first thing. And we are projected to lose another 20, 30 percent of our newsrooms. So what this bill does is it says, why have the... the social media companies, especially Facebook, Google, had incredible increases to their revenue, while all the news organizations' revenue, for the most part, has plummeted.

While that answer is pretty straightforward, that content that the newspapers and the radio TV produce, a lot of times it snipped with just a headline and a little bit of snippet, and they don't get adequately compensated for all their work when people see it on social media. They don't even get to know who's seeing it. And so what this does is it allows these news organizations to combine their leverage because these little newspapers have no leverage at all with the biggest companies in the world and allows them to negotiate rates over a few year period and it allows them just to focus on rates. But we got that bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 15 to 7 vote. We're very excited, bipartisan, because we've got to keep these news organizations alive. That's how we keep democracy alive.

As what's the Washington Post's little theme word there, democracy dies in the dark. We'll leave it there. Amy Klobuchar, thank you so much for taking the time. I appreciate it. It's great to be on. Thanks, Brian. Thanks again to Amy Klobuchar. One quick announcement, and this is an exciting one.

I'm selling wine. It is a rosé called codify rosé. Yes, I'm proud of the name. The profits are going to an amazing voter registration organization called Field Team 6. They registered 1.5 million Democrats in the 2020 cycle. They're able to register new voters for $1.50 per person. And with voter registration deadlines coming up in the next few days and weeks, this is when your money goes the farthest.

So if you want to help support voter registration and also drink because God knows we need it, then follow the link in the show notes or go to my website, Brian Tyler Cohen.com and follow the link for Codify Rose. And finally, if you're a new listener and want to support my website, work, please subscribe to the show and feel free to leave a rating and a review. That stuff all helps. Okay, 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 Wellsey, 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 Brian Tyler Cohen.com for links to all of my other channels. Thank you.