No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - The media humiliates itself as questions hit new low

Episode Date: November 14, 2021

The media fails to meet this moment with their questions and coverage. Brian interviews legal analyst Glenn Kirschner about the January 6 Committee and Democrats’ loss in Virginia. And longtime congressional staffer Stuart Perelmuter joins to discuss Paul Gosar’s Twitter threat against AOC and how Democrats should respond to these kinds of things moving forward.Donate to the "Don't Be A Mitch" fund: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dontbeamitchShop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today we're going to talk about the media failing to meet this moment with their questions and coverage. I interview legal analyst Glenn Kershner about the January 6th Committee and Democrats lost in Virginia, and longtime congressional staffer Stu Perlmutter joins to discuss Paul Gossar's Twitter threat against AOC and how Democrats should respond to these kinds of things moving forward. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen and you're listening to No Lie. So I heard a question this week that I think really encapsulates a larger

problem with the media. It was posed by NBC's Peter Alexander, who I like and who I think does a good job, but the question was not so good, although obviously Jen Saki responded perfectly to it. I can't quickly. Across this country, we've seen this new phenomenon lately, chanted at sporting events and on science. The phrase is let's go Brandon, a sort of code for a profane slogan attacking President Biden. What does the president make of that? I don't think he spends much time focused on it or thinking about it. The president said when he came into office on inauguration day, he said he was going to help get rid of the uncivil war in this country. So I guess through that lens right now, does the president think there are things that he can do differently,

or how does he react to the stuff he sees out there when it is one of his primary promises or desires to help bring Americans together? Well, it takes two to move towards a more civil engagement discourse in this country. And the president's going to continue to operate, as you said, from the promise he made early on, which is that he wants to govern for all Americans. He's going to deliver for all Americans, as is evidenced by the infrastructure bill that he's going to sign on Monday. That's going to help expand broadband to everyone, no matter your political party, no matter whether you voted for him or not. That's going to replace lead pipes, make sure kids have clean drinking water, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican or not political at all. That's how he's going to govern.

And certainly we're hopeful we'll have partners to move toward more civil discourse with in the future. Right. What could Biden be doing better in light of Republicans repeating the chant, Let's go, Brandon, which means F Joe Biden. And look, the chant is stupid. It's something Republicans do to make themselves feel like they've got an inside joke or something. Also, kind of funny that this is a party that wails about censorship and has decided to self-censor when it comes to insulting Joe Biden. But, you know, if they want to make their insults, G-rated, hey, more power to him.

So I certainly don't think that Biden's a victim here, but this really is just the peak of victim shaming. Somehow the onus to change is on Biden at the receiving end of this chant and not on, oh, I don't know, the people actually doing the chant. Like imagine a reporter going up to a girl who'd been harassed and saying, a bunch of men have been harassing you, is there something you could be doing differently? But all of that aside, this is a broader problem with the media, where the onus is, by default, on Democrats to solve problems posed by Republicans. And so it's somehow Biden's responsibility to fix the fact that Republicans are attacking

him. Some other question is, why is Biden failing at bringing this country together and not, hey, Republicans chanting, let's go, Brandon. Why are you perpetuating the divisions in this country? Just like how when Republicans blocked voting rights and forced Democrats to do it alone, the media had a feeding frenzy, going back and forth asking Democrats how they were going to get Joe Manchin on board, all the while completely ignoring the fact that not a single Republican was ever asked to defend their position that Americans should have their votes suppressed. That was all just a given. It was just a given. It was just a given. It was just baked in. And so because we just expected them to be obstructionist, they were given a total

pass by the media, and yet again, the focus was completely on Democrats. Now, in terms of why, this is what the press does. The press leads from behind. They let Republicans dictate the coverage because one of their goals might be covering the news, but their principal goal, their number one priority, is making sure that they never, ever allow themselves to be viewed as the liberal media. And so whatever they have to do, however far backwards they have to bend to prove that they're not liberal, they'll do it, even if that means basically allowing Republicans to dictate their coverage so that they can say, see, we cover that stuff too. We cover Benghazi just like you told us to. We cover Hillary's emails, just like you told us to. And what's most ironic,

while mainstream media falls over itself to show Republicans just how neutral they are, just how fair to both sides they are, at the end of the day, Republicans still hate them. They still call them fake news. They're not gaining any respect from these Republicans that they cater to. They're doing their bidding and then getting trashed by them. But that both side stuff is a guiding principle. Somehow the media views fairness as giving equal weight to both sides. But both sides aren't the same. Both sides aren't coming to this with the same degree of good faith. Let me use an analogy. If one side is saying two plus two is four and the other side is saying two plus two is 97, then when the media gives equal weight to both sides, who are they benefiting? Who

benefits from hearing that 2 plus 2 could either be 4 or 97. Whose bidding does it sound like they're doing? Somewhere along the line, the important part became basically being glorified stenographers and not fact checkers, which should be the job. And that's where the problem lies, I think. The biggest problems that we're contending with today are that people don't know what's true and what's false. They don't know what's real and what's not.

We don't need more megaphones for bad actors. We need people who can distill down why what those bad actors said is false. Like, the messaging getting out isn't the problem. There's, you know, Twitter and Facebook and YouTube, TV, radio podcasts. It's helping people decipher what the truth is once they hear those messages. That's why we need a media that's less committed to just amplifying the bullshit and more committed to stripping away the bullshit. That's what we need.

And when we hear questions like, why isn't Joe Biden doing more to make Republicans stop chanting that he sucks, that does nothing other than to push a narrative that bad faith actors are looking to push? It validates a strategy of division that the right relies on to be able to win. And it's being done by NBC News in the White House briefing room. So look, at the end of the day, it's not that we don't want to see these reporters ask tough questions. They should. That is their job.

It's to have some dignity in what they do because a functional democracy relies on it. Next step is my interview with legal analyst Glenn Kirshner. We recorded this interview just before a federal grand jury indicted Steve Bannon. So a few questions about why the DOJ is dragging its feet are now resolved, although it doesn't change the fact that the DOJ did move slowly. But I still felt like it was more important to include those questions so you could hear the answers. Today we've got NBC and MSNBC Legal Analyst, former 30-year federal prosecutor and host of the YouTube channel, Justice Matters with Glenn Kersner.

Glenn, thanks so much for coming back on. Happy to be here. So, you know, I've had you on before. I love talking to you. And I thought this would be a really opportune time to have you on again because of both what's happening with the January 6th committee and with what we just saw happen in Virginia. So I'll get to Virginia shortly, but first, you know, we heard three weeks into this saga where we're just waiting for Merrick Garland and the DOJ to take action against Steve Bannon

for ignoring a congressional subpoena. This is about as open and shut as it gets. You know, Congress issued a subpoena, Bannon ignored it. Is there any excuse for this kind of a delay? There's no excuse. We can read some. T leaves. For example, the new U.S. attorney, former colleague of mine, I know him well, Matt Graves, was just confirmed by the Senate, and it is his office, the DC U.S. Attorney's Office, that will be presenting the ban and contempt charge to the grand jury. So it may be that they were awaiting his arrival. It may also be, I've heard people say, you know, Merrick Arlen was waiting to make sure Judge Chutkin ruled that there was a legislative purpose for everything

the Select Committee was doing. Well, now, bingo. We got Judge Chutkin's ruling yesterday, and it was a legislative purpose, Paloosa. Just read page 29. So we've checked that box. I can see no other reason why they would be delaying the ban and indictment. Historically, we have a perfect precedent because a Reagan-era EPA official named Rita Lavelle refused to appear on a congressional subpoena. She was voted in contempt. She was referred to prosecution. And eight days later, she was indicted. We are on day 20 of the Steve Bannon indictment watch. Let's get this just to show on the road. because other witnesses, 16 of them who have just received congressional subpoenas are looking at the inaction and maybe thinking, I kind of like my chances with contempt.

Right. I mean, that was my very next question. You know, the January 6th Committee just issued its latest batch of subpoenas, including Kaylee McInney and Stephen Miller. Do you think that they would comply? And frankly, should they, if the DOJ seems too feckless to actually enforce it? Well, if they cared one whit about the rule of law and the health of our democracy, they would comply. So let's get back to reality here. They're not going to comply because nobody's been held accountable. And I don't know that people fully appreciate the difference between the two different enforcement mechanisms. There's contempt of Congress and you can be prosecuted if you fail to appear on a congressional subpoena. That's what hopefully is going to happen to Steve Bennett. But then there is Congress's own lawful power of inherent contempt. The courts have ruled repeatedly, albeit they haven't had a case in nearly 100 years now, they have ruled that Congress as a co-equal branch of government has an inherent power of contempt. They can arrest people who fail to appear on their subpoenas.

They can detain them. And the good news is the person detained has the keys to the jail cell in his or her hand, because all they have to do is testify and purge the contempt. Congress needs to use its inherent power of contempt, not wait for another branch of government to do the enforcing. Well, you know, I interviewed Congressman Ted Liu over a year ago, and his bill allowing Congress to exercise these powers was languishing then. And it only needed to be passed out of the House.

Like, it doesn't need the Senate to pass it. It doesn't need the White House to sign on. It just needs to pass out of it. It's a rule that the House would only need to, to pass unto itself. Why is this not being done? First of all, and I love Representative Liu, and I've heard Representative Joe Neguse now urge that they need to dust off their inherent power of contempt. I heard Jerry Connolly say, Jamie Raskin, Jerry Connolly. And so here's the thing. I don't believe they need any implementing legislation. Why? Because this has already been done and it's

been approved by the courts. Here is all they have to do. Do it. And if a Steve Bannon wants to challenge it in court, let him file suit and go in and argue why Congress didn't do it properly. He's going to lose that argument. They just need to do it because the timidity and the legal naval gazing is killing us. Yeah. I feel like it does fall into this broader pattern of Democrats' unwillingness to wield power when they get it.

And that could be dangerous because what that does if we fail to hold people who are corrupt and who break the law to account, well, then that just gives them tacit permission to do it again. Yeah. If you don't punish bank robberies and robbers, guess what? We're going to get a whole lot more bank robberies. Don't punish contempt. You're going to get a whole lot more people refusing to appear on congressional subpoenas. Now, the January 6th committee has also been seeking hundreds of pages from the National Archives from Trump, which he attempted to suppress, but that effort was blocked by a judge this past week. Now, I don't want to be reductive here, but when you're You're being investigated and you are desperately trying to hide pertinent information,

is that not a tacit admission of guilt? I know that optics don't matter anymore because we live in this political hellscape, but what's the rationale to hide these documents if he is as innocent as he seems to think he is? Yeah, there is no rationale other than he is trying to stop deeply damaging incriminating information from going from the National Archives over to the House Select Committee. I would argue it in court as consciousness of guilt. The good news is Judge Tanya Chutkin,

who I used to try murder cases against when she was a public defender in the local courts of Washington, D.C. She is smart. She is fierce. She is fearless. She just got it right yesterday when she issued her opinion saying, you're not a king. This was Joe Biden's decision to make,

and he declined to invoke executive privilege. So the documents are going over. And if I could tell your viewers one thing about Judge Chutkin's written opinion, please read the first five pages because it's brilliant and it reads like an opening statement in a Donald Trump criminal trial for inciting the insurrection. Yeah. Well, hopefully we'll be able to see more of that in an actual Donald Trump trial for inciting an insurrection. Now, I mentioned earlier in this interview that I wanted to touch on Virginia. And here's where that factors in. Democrats largely ran in Virginia against Trump, you know, trying to paint Glenn Yonkin as Donald Trump. We now know, in retrospect, that that was largely unsuccessful, but was it a good strategy

for Democrats to use Trump as the boogeyman in Virginia while simultaneously failing thus far to hold him accountable? Like, can you really say, don't elect this guy because he's part of a criminal enterprise that we are simultaneously failing to hold to account? Yeah, I mean, bingo. And I am not a political strategist. nor do I play one on TV. It's always easy, I think, to look at a loss and say, you know what?

You didn't get that one right on the political strategy front. But I think we also have to look at New Jersey. I mean, for 44 years, you know, there was never an election where, you know, the Democrat won on the off year when the Republican was in the White House. They broke that string. So I understand the Yon thing is a problem. you put your finger right on the problem. You can't, you can't demonize Donald Trump and then try to attach everybody to him if you're not taking the steps to prove Donald Trump broke the law in a dozen ways. That's why, and you know, not to go off on a tangent, but we hear all of the

insurrectionists in court right in my backyard in D.C. saying Donald Trump told me to attack the Capitol. Donald Trump told me to attack the Capitol. Right. And actually, they think, They think they were following the commands of their president. And unless and until we indict Donald Trump, we're not going to make any progress in defeating those arguments or the perception that's out there. It's time to charge Donald Trump. Yeah. Yeah.

And I hope that's a warning, by the way, to Democrats who continue to use Trump as a crutch if they're going to lazily go into these elections and try to demonize him while at the same time making no progress. Like, what's the point of trying to scare people into, you know, not electing a Donald Trump if the Democrats who are in power who have unified control of government right now aren't going to wield that power to actually hold an openly corrupt president, former president to account? And one of those examples to prove how openly corrupt he was was when Trump asked Georgia's Secretary of State to find 11,780 votes.

So my question here is if the roles were reversed here and if a Democratic president and called the Florida Secretary of State and asked them to find 11,780 votes. Enough votes to flip the state. What kind of response do you think congressional Republicans would have mounted, given what we've seen from them with regard to Benghazi, for instance? Yeah, there would have been immediate indictments and trials

and likely convictions and sentences to terms of imprisonment. You know, that crime was captured on audio tape on a recorded phone call. And, you know, I'm thrilled that Georgia, the district attorney, is getting around to impaneling a special grand jury, which is an investigative grand jury, not an indicting grand jury under the laws and procedures of Georgia. But, you know, Donald Trump has committed crimes. I would contend in virtually every jurisdiction, both locally and federally. But nobody seems to want to be the first one to indict a former president. This is not exactly a tortoise and a hair. It's like a tortoise and a snail and a sloth if you look at New York, Georgia, and the federal

government. But I predict, Brian, somebody will indict him. And then everybody is going to want to be the second person to indict Donald Trump. Okay. So I have one more general question here. You know, a lot of people are frustrated with Democrats, including myself, clearly, you know, as I think you can tell from this interview, for their seeming lack of urgency when it comes to holding corrupt officials from the last administration to account. But I try to check myself

with reminders that our justice system isn't exactly built for speed. So do you think that this is an issue of our justice system moving too slowly or Democrats lacking urgency or some combination of the two? Yeah, I think it's a little bit of both. But, you know, when it comes to the courts, unfortunately, the courts have allowed themselves to be used by nefarious litigants. They let Donald Trump and Don McGahn and others over and over again, weaponize the delay in the court system, but it seems like they're wising up because Judge Tanya Chutkin just put the Trump litigation into the National Archives document release on the hyper speed fast track, and she resolved it in a matter of weeks. Let's hope that the appellate court now takes its cues and doesn't

allow these litigants who have no hope of winning their litigants. They don't have meritorious claims. They're just trying to run out the clock. So I think the court is wising up. I've proposed an accelerated court called the interbranch dispute court. Anytime you have two branches of government bumping heads, you have a special judge, a special docket, which can be stood up only with a rule change in the courts themselves to address it in a timely manner so we don't experience more sort of nefarious litigants like Trump. Right. Well, I just wanted to thank you also for you know, doing what you do and bringing all of your legal analysis to YouTube, because clearly after Virginia, I think what we can all agree on is that Democrats do have something of a messaging

problem. And, you know, it's important to counter so much of the right-wing disinformation and bad faith talking points that we see. So that's why what you do is especially important. So thank you again. I appreciate you taking the time. Well, thank you, Brian. It's always great joining you. Thanks again to Glenn Kersner. Now we've got longtime congressional staffer and the founder of At Advocacy and the OD Action Newsletter, Stuart Perlmutter. Stu, thanks so much for coming on. Hey, thanks for having me, Brian. So most recently, we had Paul Gosar log on to Twitter

and decide to tweet out an animation of him killing AOC. And so now Democrats, of course, are looking to censure him. Republicans will likely vote against censure, except maybe Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. What's your take on the situation? And where do we go from here? First of all, it's important to note. he didn't just tweet this video in the way that Donald Trump tweeted every violent, hateful thing that

a fan sent his way. His staff made the video. He bragged about the staff make the video. His congressional staff paid for with public funds made this presumably on congressional time. Maybe not, but he bragged about it. This has not only his blessing, but was on his dime. So I do think that's an important distinction. But that's so not the worst thing. The fact that maybe two members of the Republican caucus would vote to censure him, that maybe two members would even say anything is really just a disgraceful statement about where the Republican Party is today. It just seems normal now, right? Like, if Kevin McCarthy stood up and said, this is unacceptable, this behavior that would have gotten anybody fired at any workplace in America. If he'd said even the mildest condemnation of it, we would have fallen out of our chairs. It would have been stunning. We expect these people. They have set the expectation to be absolutely rock bottom on a consistent basis. And they, without fail, fail to meet that low expectation.

And then in the next moment, people go, well, what happened to collegiality in Washington? Like, it is immoral to be collegial with people like this. Right. We should be proud that we don't go to dinner with these people who condone such hate speech. Now, are you concerned, like, more broadly, looking at this, and we see this replicated so many times in the political space over and over and over again where, you know, some insane, that shit crazy thing happens by Republicans and Democrats fall over themselves to, you know, maybe try to censure them and which will, which amounts to nothing really? Are you concerned that that we're bringing knives to gunfights here as far as the broader political ecosystem is concerned? Yeah. I am concerned that we're bringing knives to gun fights.

I'm concerned about that every day, but I do think that there's a difference. Something like this that is so despicable, as public servants, as public officials, as notable members of communities in every community in the nation, every member of Congress has an obligation to stand up and say, that's wrong. That has no place in any workplace, much less the halls of Congress. But then you move on. Then you get back to the job. You can't spend your entire job dealing with this insidious behavior.

The American people sent members of Congress to do a job, to make their lives better. And Democrats are, I mean, we've seen working really hard to do that in 10 months with the slimmest of majorities. Twice they've passed the most transformative economic legislation since the Affordable Care Act and possibly more than that. And they're about to do it again, hopefully, Sinema and Mansion willing. And so they're doing the work. But yeah, these distractions by design doesn't even take this much, right? It could be anything. We forget that every parent in America, who isn't already wealthy, is getting a $300 a month

check in their pocket for each kid that they have. That's huge. It's transformative. For working families, that's a massive thing. And that's just one piece of what Democrats have done this year alone. We should be talking about that every day. Well, I mean, to your point, like, you know, I know that you had mentioned and these people not going there and doing their jobs.

But if they're viewing this as their jobs, because they get so much negative reinforcement, because look, you and I are talking about this right now. Like, we're spending our time on this podcast when we should be talking about the Build Back Better Act. And if they view this as their job, because so many of them do, like they've fallen into this trap. Like, they're just doing what Trump did.

And Trump just said a bunch of shit to get a rise out of people. And he was successful at doing it. And so now we have Marjorie Taylor Green doing it. Now we have Paul Gossar doing it. And we have them basically exploiting our media ecosystems, whether it's on Twitter or anywhere else, to basically benefit from a cycle of fury by Democrats. And it's just that's, and then they get more Twitter followers out of it. And that's really their political capital these days. And so what's the answer to this, I guess, then?

Do we just see the most depraved things in the world happening and pretend that they don't happen because our attention is exactly what they want? Or do we condemn it and give them exactly the attention that they're so thirsty for and basically fall right into their hands in an attempt to at least try to get some accountability? Here's the thing. We've seen Democrats fall into old habits in the last several months. We saw it in Virginia. we saw what happens when a campaign talks almost exclusively about the opposition and

forgets about the ways that Democrats can have and want to improve people's lives. But before that, we've seen it done really well. In 2018 and in 2017 in Virginia, by the way, Democrats ran against the Trump Republican Party, but they also ran on preserving the Affordable Care Act. In 2020, look what happened in Georgia. Those guys, they kept very focused. They were running against Trump's Republicans. Trump was disputing the election results in the state while they were running.

He was very present. There was no shortage of smacking down the bad guys. But then they smack it down. They deal with whatever distraction of the day is happening, whatever has to be decried because it's so disgusting. And they talk about how they're going to help people. And I think most importantly, and this has been Democrats, least heal for my entire life for decades. They stuck to a very simple, consistent message. They talked about COVID recovery. They talked about putting money in people's pockets. They talked

about health care. They talked about infrastructure. What happens is so often Democrats will make that first list. They'll make those three points and they'll see, this is what we're going to focus on. Oh, oh, and we also have to do this. Oh, oh. Pretty soon, those three points have become three pages hyperlinked and footnoted. None of it's memorable and it's all going to get lost. And that's what happened when we were selling the Affordable Care Act 11 years ago. We had so many ways we were helping people and we wanted to say all of them every time. And we seated the narrative. I guess that's a good segue into this next question because it does have to do with Virginia, which was our most recent election and an election that didn't go our way.

So, you know, we see these scenarios play out where Republicans air some culture war issue. We get in the mud trying to respond. By the time we cobble together some fact check, they're already on to the next one. It's just lathering to repeat, right? Now, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. So what do we change? What's the first thing that you, Stu, would do heading into 2022, given this cycle that we're constantly finding ourselves in and given the fact that it worked for Republicans in Virginia? I think the number one thing we have to do is just keep our eyes on the prize. We have to stay focused and we have to stay focused collectively so that the Democrats are unified around a message. And right now the narrative,

the media narrative is, well, Democrats aren't unified. Well, 96% of Democrats in Congress are on the same page about 96% of things. This is about as unified as a party can be. We just have a very small majority right now. If the party can say, you're lying, nobody teaches critical race through to preschoolers. It's never happened. It never will. Let's move on to the fact that the parents of those preschoolers, every single one of them, has $300 in their pockets because of Joe Biden and not one Republican in Congress voted for that. If you want to take money out of working people's pockets, you know who to vote for. The Republicans are very happy to take your money and put it in the pocket of Jeff Bezos.

Done. Knock them down. Pivot back to the point. Yeah. And you see that Republicans do it, right? Like, you can tell the day that they leave their messaging meetings because all of a sudden, sudden Twitter and Fox News is just littered with the exact same talking point being regurgitated over and over and over and over again. And yeah, I mean, if Democrats were able to do exactly

what you said on critical race theory, instead of falling back into defense and saying, well, some schools might not be teaching this actually. And, you know, it's a lie. It's 100% a lie. It's a fabrication. Let's talk about the truth and move on. And look, it is an easier job for Republicans to message because it's all they care about. They need. know that the substance of their policies, that they can't go out and say, look, we want to stop supporting poor people. If we could get rid of Social Security, we would. We don't like Medicare. We don't like Medicaid. We like to take away your safety net. And we'd like to put more money in the pockets of billionaires. We really enjoy an aristocracy. They're not going to get any

votes. So they get to put all their efforts into whatever sells. It doesn't matter if it's substance. Mitch McConnell can come back to Kentucky and say, great news. I brought back. money for roads and bridges. It doesn't matter that every House Republican in Kentucky voted against that bill. It doesn't matter with the substances. Well, let's finish off with this. How do we keep the attention away from what are objectively sexier culture war topics and on to the decidedly less sexy policy topics?

Like, you know, do we do like a calendar, you know? February is barely dressed lower drug prices? We can call Hallmark and have a whole card situation worked out for it. I think that's a good plan. I mean, look, why is critical race theory a sexy topic right now? Because they just keep talking about it. They just won't stop until people get fired up about it. And if you think talking about a master's level course is sexier than putting money into the pocket of 90% of the American public, of giving child care to families,

of paid family leave when more and more Americans are taking care of elder relatives. I just think that's part of the myth. I think it's part of the myth that they have sexy issues. We're actually focused on helping people's lives and we can talk about it

in ways that are meaningful to them if we just decide that we're ready to do it. I think that's perfectly put. Stu, couldn't have said it any better myself. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me, Brian. It's a lot of fun.

Thanks again to Stu. 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.