No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - The punishments Trump faces for stealing classified documents

Episode Date: September 4, 2022

Biden makes a turning point speech against fascism, and Republicans and the media shame themselves with their responses. Brian interviews former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner about the empty classified folders found at Mar-a-Lago, what punishments Trump can face, and even whether he’d be able to run for president if he’s in prison. And Christy Smith, the Democrat running for California’s 27th congressional district, one of the most flippable districts in the country, joins to talk about just how dangerous her Republican opponent is and how polling is looking so far.Support Christy Smith: https://www.christyforcongress.org/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 Biden's turning point speech against fascism and not only the Republican response, but the media's response too. I interview former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirshner about the empty classified folders found in Moralago, what punishments Trump can face, and even whether he'd be able to run for president if he's in prison. And I'm joined by Christy Smith, a Democrat running for California's 27th congressional district, one of the most flippable districts in the country, about just how dangerous her Republican opponent is and how polling is looking so far.

I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. This past week, President Biden continued staying on the offense in the face of Republican attacks on democracy, on women's reproductive rights, on LGBT Americans, on gun safety. He held a primetime rally at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and here's some of what he said. Well, as I stand here tonight, equality and democracy are under assault. We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise. So tonight, I've come to this place where it all began to speak as plainly as I can to the nation, about the threats we face, about the power we have in our own hands to meet

these threats, and about the incredible future, the lies in front of us, if only we choose it. Too much of what's happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the Magi Republicans represented extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans are Magi Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know because I've been able to work with these mainstream Republicans. mainstream Republicans. But there's no question that the Republican Party today is dominated,

driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the Maga Republicans. And that is a threat to this country. First of all, good. Like, for a guy like Joe Biden, who is the sole defender of bipartisanship in this country, to come out in the offense and call out Trump, call out these MAGA Republicans, call out what they're doing, is impactful. Again, like, for that guy, who is almost, to a fault, stopped short of being combative with these people, for him to finally sound the alarm is hopefully going to resonate with people and convey just how bad things have gotten on the right. So good on Biden, and I really hope that the pushback from the right that I'm going to talk about in a moment,

that that doesn't cause him to recoil, but only emboldens him. The GOP is on the defensive right now for the first time in years, so the last thing we should be doing is relenting and allowing them to take back the narrative. Now, as I just mentioned, as far as Republicans are concerned, their response to this speech was full fainting spells and pearl clutching. I mean, like, you would think these people just emerged from Amish country the way that they reacted to Biden's speech, a speech decrying fascism and extremism. And here's a hint, if you are personally offended by a speech decrying fascism and extremism,

you're the fascist and extremist. Like, if that's what sent you into a tailspin, then Biden was talking about you. I find it so funny that the party that hosted a fascist Hungarian autocrat at CPAS, to speak about how the Republican Party should embrace fascist tactics is now upset about being called fascist. Like this is a party that spent the last two years calling the left pedophiles and groomers

and communists and traitors and now when Biden calls a guy in his supporters who tried to overthrow the government fascists, suddenly they act like name calling is out of bounds? I mean, come on now. One last note on these Republicans and their fainting spells over being called extremists and fascist.

And that's that it must be nice not to be bound by any sense of shame or hypocrisy, because here's a little mashup that Medi Hassan put together that pokes a bit of a hole in the GOP's faux outrage about just how unprecedented and uniquely dangerous it was that Biden uttered the word fascism. I think they're fascists. I think they want to use the power of the state to change the rest of us. Falsely branding a political protest as an insurrection, that is the definition of authoritarianism,

of fascism. Their tactics are fascistic. The left wants power because that is essentially their state of grace. The blackout of information by the left is pure fascism. Turns out they're fascists in charge. Nancy Pelosi is fascistic. They're using, frankly, fascist policies to silence the right. They use cancel culture as a tool to impose their fascism on us.

Well, I won't say fascists, but yeah, fascists. This is fascism. This is fascism of the law. the left. You were talking about fascism. There's no other word to describe this. This is fascism. So, yeah, something to remember next time a Republican has the vapors over the word fascism. But I'm actually not concerned about these MAGA Republicans here. Those are people who defended storming the Capitol and then pretend to be outraged when they are rightly called fascist. The whole world can see they're full of shit. I won't waste my breath anymore. My beef is actually with what came

next in the media. A few journalists and reporters decided that in a speech where the president decried the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S., that the real issue here, the real threat to democracy was the fact that Biden was flanked by two Marines. And so the optics of a politicized military were just too much to bear. You may have heard about CNN's Breonna Kailar's tweet where she said, quote, whatever you think about this speech, the military is supposed to be apolitical, positioning Marines in uniform behind President Biden for a political speech flies in the face of that. It's wrong when Democrats do it. It's wrong when Republicans do it. CNN's Jeff Zelani said, quote, there's nothing unusual or wrong with President Biden delivering a political speech,

it's inherent in the job description, but doing it against a backdrop of two Marines standing at attention and the Marine band is a break with White House traditions. And all of this, by the way, comes under the backdrop of new leadership at CNN under Chris Lict, who's made clear his hope to see more Republicans making appearances on the network. This past week also saw Brian Stelter and John Hardwood, both of whom reportedly had more time on their contracts, get pushed out of the network. John Malone, who is a major shareholder in Warner Brothers Discovery, the parent company of CNN, said that he wants, quote, the news portion of CNN to be more centrist. And so I think those tweets from Kylar and Zelani are proof of exactly that, like them complaining that in his speech condemning fascism, it was Biden who broke the norms because Marines were visible.

In other words, even though one side has authoritarianes who won't accept election results if they don't win and are keen to foment violence to achieve their political lens, Biden's just as mad because a Marine, Green was behind him, because both sides. Like, here's what I'm not understanding, because ostensibly there are smart people who run that network, but desperately grabbing out for Republican support by airing these false equivalencies is not going to bring any Republicans over to CNN. They're still going to call the network fake news. They're still going to chant CNN sucks at their rallies. The only difference is that now Democrats are going to think that network sucks, too, because

of the obvious pandering. That's the growth strategy at a time when fewer and fewer people are tuning into cable news to abandon the only people left still willing to tune in? And granted, it's not just CNN. I'm not trying to make it out like CNN is the only punching back here. The Washington Post editorial board posted an article with the title Democracy's in Danger, Biden should invoke patriotism, not partisanship, to make that point. The New York Times obviously also has a long, long, long history of not only both sidesism,

but also allowing bad faith Republicans to dictate their coverage, which is why we had two dozen cover stories about Hillary's emails, which Republicans obviously cared very much about the way that they're now all condemning Trump for mishandling classified documents of his own. Oh, wait. But the point is that there is a major problem in this country where some members of the media, not all, but definitely some,

are more interested in covering the horse race of politics than actual attacks on democracy. Like, I get that the media should be neutral, but that neutrality should be on a pro-democracy curve. There has to be a baseline, a common understanding of what should be expected in this country, And support for democracy, acceptance of election results, and opposition to political violence are all part of that. If you're a media company and you treat those things as a both sides issue, then you're not some innocent bystander in the fall of democracy.

You are helping perpetuate it. And look, I know I complain a lot about the media and it would be easy for me to say, look, this is why independent media like myself is important. And this is why independent media is important. But those networks are still a vital part of our democracy. and we all rely on their reporting. But nothing would help usher in the fall of democracy faster than our media's insistence on continuing to pretend that everything the GOP does is politics as usual

and just as legitimate and valid as what happens on the left just because they are a major political party on the right. The two parties are not the same, and if the media can't recognize that, then they're only helping install a party whose first victim will be the free press. Next step is my interview with Glenn Kersner. Now we've got the host of Justice Matters on YouTube, 30-year former federal prosecutor

Glenn Kirshner, Glenn. Thank you so much for coming on. Great to be with you, Brian. So I bet you wish you never made yourself the guy who I'd call every time there's a legal issue in Trump world because it's cost you now. It's heating up. I'll tell you. All right, so let's get started with the newest bit of news, and I'm going to do my best not

to have our interviews immediately become obsolete, which is something that we've encountered a lot of times in the past with the way that things move so quickly. But the DOJ revealed that there were 43 empty folders with classified banners on them at Mar-a-Lago. Glenn, do you think they came that way? Like, what are the implications of finding empty classified document folders? Yeah, I can't imagine Trump said. Here's what I want you all to pack up at the White House. I'm going to need you to take those 43 empty folders that used to contain classified information.

I'm going to need you to take those 28 empty folders. that say on them return to staff secretary slash military aid. I'm going to need you to deliver all of those to my office proper in case anybody wonders if it was my office. I've named it 45 office. And Brian, that's just some of the empty classified documents folders that were found at Mar-a-Lago. There were also several found in a storage facility across multiple boxes. Nobody Nobody packages up empty classified documents folders to move them to their new digs. This is about as I went from bad to worse to extraordinarily dangerous for our national security. I guess at this point all we can do is surmise where those documents went.

I mean, what seems like the most likely explanation? I know that we're treading on like treading on shaky ground because I guess the only person who can really say, is Trump and or investigators who've looked into this. But what's the most likely explanation as to why there are empty classified documents? So the ground under our feet might have become a little firmer in the last 60 minutes or so because the reporting just broke that a Russian oligarch by the name of Victor Veskelberg has right now, as we speak, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are searching his New York and Florida properties, and they are seen carrying boxes out of those properties.

Do we know whether that's related to this morning's revelation that Donald Trump had empty classified documents folders? We don't. Might be pure coincidence, but I think we have to wait and see. You know, I hate to speculate, but it seems to me that Donald Trump very likely exploited those documents in some way for his own benefit, whether that was financial, whether it was for blackmail, whether it was to leverage future business deals he might have in other countries. I think we're going to begin to learn more about that, but I've talked to some national security folk who were able to answer questions that I had like. If you have an empty folder with a classified banner on it, might you be able to tell what that folder used to

contain? And I was told, yes, we do have ways to figure that out. And Brian, I had a TS-SCI clearance when I was an Army prosecutor handling an espionage case out of Desert Storm. And can I tell you that scared the bejesus out of me? I didn't want to say or do or touch something I shouldn't. I was super careful. But, you know, this is as potentially dangerous and damaging as it gets to our nation. Just as a quick aside, what's the punishment for any other person other than Donald Trump if they were found to have had been in possession of documents like these? Prison, a prompt arrest, a prompt indictment, a prompt prosecution, probably a guilty plea, which is how most of these cases involving mishandling of government classified materials,

you know, play out. People typically will plead guilty, and the government will debrief them out the wazoo to make sure we know everything that might result in damage to our national security. But we can use the concrete example of a Department of Justice, excuse me, a Department of Defense executive assistant named Asia Jenae Lavarello, who was serving in Hawaii with the federal government, mishandled a secret document, and also failed to transmit some handwritten notes she had taken that she was authorized to take at a meeting at which classified information was discussed. She failed to transport her notes in a secure diplomatic pouch this year. She was put in prison for three years. Donald Trump has a tea time tomorrow after doing a million

times more by way of criminal conduct and potential damage to our national security than Ms. Lavarello did. Right, right. But still, he's the most persecuted person in history. He is actually the most investigated and least prosecuted person in the history of our nation. Yeah. So there are two statutes at play here. There's the Presidential Records Act, which really has no enforcement mechanism.

And then there's the Espionage Act, which has some pretty major penalties that go along with Can you speak about the differences here and how those things apply in this situation? Yeah. So the Presidential Records Act, as you say, has no teeth. There are lots of laws on the books that are basically guidelines for how federal government employees and officers should operate, actually must. The Hatch Act, for example. The Hatch Act has no teeth.

You can, you know, receive a slap on the wrist if you violate the Hatch Act. that is if you engage in political activity as a government employee, because that's prohibited, you may even get, you know, a letter of condemnation in your permanent file, but it doesn't really have any teeth to it. But the Espionage Act provisions sure do. And under 18 U.S.C. 793, it sure seems like Donald Trump has mishandled national defense information. The reason I say, it seems like he has violated that statute is because that's one of the statutes cited in the search warrant for which the judge found there was probable cause to believe that statute had been violated and that there was evidence of that crime on the property

of Mar-a-Lago. What is Trump facing here? Give me the spectrum of punishments that we could see from best in his case to worst and also what you think is most likely. For openers, Donald Trump is facing 20 years in prison. And here's why. One of the three federal statutes listed in the search warrant is obstructing an official investigation or an official proceeding. And that one is a laydown winner for the government. I don't say that lightly or cavalierly because there's no such thing as a bulletproof case. Prosecutors can lose any case or a jury can hang in any case that we choose to prosecute. But Donald Trump, Trump was subpoenaed to turn over the additional materials he had at Mar-a-Lago and he flat-out refused. And then we had to get a federal prosecutors, had to get a search warrant. They went in there and they found a veritable mountain of documents that were responsive to the

subpoena. That is a fairly easy obstruction case to prove that carries with it 20 years in prison. Potentially, that's the maximum punishment. So for openers, that's a relatively easy charge to prove on the facts as we know them. What happens to Trump's attorney who signed that sworn statement attesting that all those classified documents that were held at Marilago had already been returned? Like, does she get disbarred or could she actually face legal punishment herself? The answer is yes. Both of those things are in play.

You know, first of all, let me back up. I've talked to a lot of my friends who operate kind of at the upper echelons of the white-collar defense practice. in D.C. Most of them are former prosecutors that I served with many years ago. And I said, look, I've never been a defense attorney, never wanted to be a defense attorney. But my understanding is that defense attorneys never certify that their criminal clients have turned over all of the evidence of crime that they have. You're representing a bank robber? As a defense attorney, it's not really in your job description to certify to the prosecutors. By the way, my client, gave back all the money he stole from the bank, that's not the way the practice of law is supposed to

play out. So Christina Bob is in potential deep legal jeopardy, not only professional jeopardy, because she will be referred to her state bar wherever she's licensed for an investigation to see whether she should be sanctioned or disbarred. But she is in legal peril because she certified something that is provably false. It's not something she should have certified in the first instance. And she also now has a conflict, right? Anytime an attorney is representing a client and that attorney's conduct is potentially criminal in furtherance of that representation, the attorney has a split loyalty now because you have to zealously represent your client, but you also have to keep yourself out of hot water. And those two goals may conflict with one

another. So very soon, I expect to see her withdraw from her representation of Donald Trump. Doesn't it kind of not make sense to put yourself and your profession on the line in service of or on behalf of someone like Donald Trump, who's known to lie? I mean, like... Yeah, but let's, you know, let's recognize that she is now one of a long line of attorneys that Donald Trump has touched and they have died, right? Every attorney. Donald Trump touches died. Michael Cohen. You've got Rudy Giuliani. You've got John Eastman. You've got Jeffrey Clark, a little bit of an outlier. He was a Department of Justice, high official who joined Donald Trump's conspiracy to overturn the results of the election. Now it looks like Christina Bob will

join that club and perhaps Evan Corcoran, the other lawyer who, according to Christina Bob, is the one who really conducted the search of Mar-a-Lago for a additional classified materials and then told me he didn't find any. So you already have two of Donald Trump's lawyers doing a little bit of finger pointing. Yeah. You had mentioned an opening of 20 years. Is it possible that Trump could still run for president from prison? Is there any punishment here that would preclude him from being able to hold federal office? No. The restrictions on somebody running for the presidency are few and far between. Is it practical that he could run for office from prison? No, but I don't think there is a legal prohibition. Of course,

that's something that the Supreme Court has never taken up because, you know, go figure we've never had a presidential candidate behind bars during the campaign. So, but no, I think practically speaking, that's a non-starter. But that's just in this case, because there are other cases like the ones, like the one being investigated regarding January 6th that would have those barriers to to him holding federal office in the future, correct? Exactly, because there are some statutes on the books, for example, a seditious conspiracy, I believe, that say if you are convicted of that crime, treason is another one of those crimes. If you are convicted, then the statutory punishment that the judge could impose includes

banning someone from future federal office. So in theory, that is one way to stop not only Donald Trump from running for office, but any other of the insurrectionists in Congress, if they are convicted of any of those charges, they could also be banned from holding federal office. Right. Now, this idea from Republicans that we need a special master, that's the talking point of the day, my take on it is, look, the DOJ already had a filter team in place. They've already separated out documents that don't pertain to this.

No one really gives a shit about documents that weren't classified anyway. So my idea is that bringing in a special master would just be a way for them to slow walk this whole thing so that they have more time to obfuscate the facts. Do you have a read on this, on this whole special master situation? I do. It's all kind of uncharted territory. But here's my read. First of all, Judge Aline Cannon, who is the judge that somehow got appointed to hear Donald

Trump's demand to have a special master appointed. She's a Federalist Society member since 2005 when she was in her mid-20s. It's not what I was doing in my mid-20s. It was, you know, finding out where I could get the cheapest beer and pizza. Judge Cannon has been a Federalist Society member since 2005. I think it's worth noting that not only was she nominated by Donald Trump, but she was confirmed by Mitch McConnell's Senate after Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election. that tells us something. It's a data point. And Donald Trump made the demand that she appoint a

special master. And here's something I've never seen in my 30 years of prosecutor, Brian. The judge, before she even asked the prosecutors at the Department of Justice to state their opinion, to file their brief, to argue their case, she said, I tentatively am inclined to grant Donald Trump's request for a second master. That's not the way litigation is supposed to work. You hear from both parties, and then you make your announcement, whether tentative or final. She didn't do that. Now she's kind of found herself in a tough spot because the Department of Justice filed a motion that legally and factually knocks out of the box every legal argument Donald Trump's defense

team made as to why she should appoint a special master. Here's what I suspect she's going to do. I make this prediction at my own peril. she's going to try to save face by say, well, I'll appoint a special master only to review those few potential attorney-client privilege documents that the prosecutors have already set aside and segregated as part of their privilege review process. And the special master can look at those, but not, you know, the lion's share of the documents, which were the classified materials that Trump stole and was illegally concealing at Marilago. That gives her an opportunity

to save face. But here's the thing. We saw in the government's reply to Donald Trump's motion that they have already reviewed all the documents and they're already following up on all of the investigative leads and the national security leads to assess the damage that may have been done to our national security. So look, the horses out of the barn and galloping around in the evidentiary field. And it really doesn't make sense to close the barn door now by appointing a special master. Right, right, right. Okay, so let's finish off with this. Republicans are claiming that everything was already declassified. I've done videos on this myself, basically explaining that while Trump can initiate declassification procedures, it can't just be done by fiat,

like, especially with materials related to human sources and nuclear secrets. But besides that, can you speak on why, if this is really Trump's defense, his lawyers didn't argue that in court? They didn't argue it in court because it's untrue. Right. Donald Trump, you know, Donald Trump can post anything he wants on his little media platform. He can say anything he wants on Fox Entertainment. But if he had, in fact, declassified anything, that would have been prominently featured in the litigation in court.

It wasn't. It's untrue. And then the other reason that this is a red herring is because the three crimes that the judge said there was probable cause to believe were committed. And there was evidence of those crimes located on the property at Mar-a-Lago on August 8th, the day they went into search. None of those three crimes require classification. So the whole thing is a Donald Trump production. It's a side show. It's irrelevant.

Yeah, what's new? Glenn, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. And for anybody listening and watching, if you want to hear or see more from Glenn, check out Justice Matters on YouTube. I appreciate you taking the time. Thanks, Brian.

Now we've got the Democratic nominee for Congress in California's 27th congressional district. Christy Smith, thank you so much for coming on. Great too with you. Now, you're running for Congress in California's newly formed 27th district. For those who don't know how flippable your district is, Can you give a quick overview of the district that you're running in?

Absolutely. So this is the northernmost part of both the city and the county of Los Angeles. So the Los Angeles area is blue, solidly blue with the exception of this seat and a little piece of where Jay Chen is running to represent. But in 2020, I ran a race against the same Republican, lost it by just 333 votes. But after redistricting, we've added a few more points of Democratic registration to the new map, making this one of the most flippable seats in the country. Yeah, I actually want to expand on exactly that point. Like you said, Mike Garcia won by only 333 votes in 2020. Can you speak on exactly how the district that he won changed after redistricting? And I guess, you know, speak on how you benefited from that moving into 2022. Sure. I mean, it's two things, really. The district changed fundamentally. The very Republican-leaning stronghold of Simi Valley is now part of Julia Brownlee's district, which gave us more of the San Fernando Valley. in Los Angeles County, much more heavily democratically registered, as well as expanding up into

Kevin McCarthy territory in the northeast of the county, also very heavy Democratic registration advantage there. So it kind of reshaped, you know, physically and in terms of registration, but also what changed since 2020 is, you know, when I was running the special election to try to defend the seat after Katie Hill resigned, we were the first race to go during COVID, first special election to be held right as the entire country and world were being shut down. And that really changed the dynamic of how we operated as a campaign and how democratic campaigns operated across the country. We believed that COVID was a huge danger to people. And we decided not to go door to door to keep our volunteers and our voters safe. And so consequently, you know, we realize, you know,

really hammered home how important field game is to us when we took that off the table for ourselves. But also that every vote counts. I mean, literally mine was the third closest. in the country with just a 33-vote spread. And so if people ever think that their voice and their vote doesn't matter, it really, really does. And now, what should people know about Mike Garcia as we head into this election? Sure. I mean, that he's an extremist.

You know, he does performative centrist in the district and did during his last campaign as well, but his votes are anything but, you know, he's voted against the Violence Against Women Act. He's one of the members who not only has his name on the Life Begins at Conception Act, which is their roadmap for a national abortion ban. But he signed the brief to SCOTUS to overturn Roe. He is extreme against labor issues and protecting labor rights. And he was one of the people who voted even after the violence on January 6th, not to certify those election results.

He's right there with the Marjorie Taylor Greens and the Lauren Boberts of the caucus, recently calling, you know, the FBI the Third Reich. And, you know, when he's in spaces where he feels, safe to be extreme, he does so. But voters are catching on to that here. He can't hide it any longer. And just on that idea of these Republicans presenting themselves as, especially on this idea of Roe, presenting themselves as moderate or saying, well, look, I'm representing Los Angeles. There's nothing to worry about. At the same time, these exact same people are also signing onto legislation that would ban abortions nationwide. And so the same people

were telling you not to worry, just like they have been for 50 years and then saw to it that Roe was overturned are now telling you not to worry about a nationwide abortion ban while they are simultaneously moving to make sure that there's legislation to do exactly that. Exactly. The hypocrisy is rich and it goes deep. You know, absolutely. He is someone who, by putting his name on the Life Begins at Conception Act, is doing a wink and a nod to saying, oh, but you're in California, it's perfectly safe. But if he has his way, it'll be a national ban. You know, on that and contraception as well. He's someone who opposed, you know, the guaranteed access to contraception, which is fundamental health care for people who access it. So, you know,

they're just not to be believed now, no matter how many of them are editing their websites and changing prior positions, you're on record. And we've got you. In Los Angeles, no less, what do you want voters to know about you? What are you running on? Sure. Well, listen, I'm someone who believes that, you know, the United States best days are ahead of it. And as a mom, I'm running because the next generation of Americans are going to inherit an American. America, that'll be the most diverse in her history, but with the greatest number of challenges. I mean, everything from income inequality to climate challenge, you know, the need to really make sure that we shore up voting rights and preserve this democracy for the next generation

are all of the things that motivate me. But also continuing with, you know, the Biden agenda, which has, when sampled, you know, item by item is incredibly popular with the American people because it goes to the heart of people being able to have successful, productive lives to keep a roof over their head to put food on the table, you know, and really draw focus to where it should be, which is, you know, that a rising tide raises all boats, and we're all in this together. And we need to continue to move that way as a country or get back to moving that way as a country. Now, I know that Roe has changed the calculus nationally, but what about in the district that you're running in? Like, what have you seen on the ground, and particularly from independents and Republicans? Sure. This is an issue with overwhelming support in this country, an overwhelming support for protecting fundamental guaranteed freedoms that Americans bought for decades for. It polls at over 71% support here, support for Roe as it was adjudicated back in 1973. And so it is not an issue that a Republican is going to win on here, especially not one as extreme as Mike Garcia.

And the fact that here in California, we've got a ballot proposition seeking to codify those rights and protections for people in California, I think is another thing that's going to really motivate voters and make a huge difference in this race. And by the way, on that exact point, it's ironic that Republicans in a state like Michigan are working their hardest to make sure that those ballot measures stay off the ballot in November because they know how much of a motivating factor that exact issue is. Of course, if they didn't want voters to turn out, they might have thought about that before they overturned 50 years of precedent. Yeah, unfortunately for a big segment now of the GOP democracy is only convenient when it's going their way now.

Right. Now, how do you instill in people just how important your house race is in the broader scheme of democracy, abortion rights, voting rights, gun safety, and on and on? Sure. I mean, look, the GOP in D.C. has proven time and time again how willing they are to just be purely obstructionist and to move against things, even when they're good for all of America, whether it's infrastructure, you know, negotiating prescription drug prices, protecting Medicare and Medicaid. And so, even... Even if our prospects look great for the Senate right now, and we know we've got President Biden in the White House for two more years,

but without the House moving and advancing really important legislation to kind of continue that work to fight for those important programs will end because we know that under Kevin McCarthy's leadership, all of that important work stops in the House. So what does that work look like in a Democratic-run Congress? What can people expect if a district like yours is flipped and we're able to hold on to House majority? Sure. I mean, I think the priorities continue as they have been. And first and foremost, making sure that we go one more time around at trying to protect, you know, voting rights with

bypassing HR1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. That right off the bat, we've got to, you know, protect our democracy and elections for future generations, continuing the Biden agenda on climate work and climate policy. You know, we're part of a global community and we have a commitment to do our part across the globe. But there is no better evidence than what we're experiencing right now in California and across the country, California experiencing both record temperatures and a significant water shortage. Our drought here is severe, while other parts of the country are seeing flooding like they haven't seen in centuries. So the work on climate has to continue. And of course, you know, the work to make sure that we are honoring our commitments to

people who have earned benefits, like veterans benefits, like Medicare, like Social Security. These are not programs, you know, as the Republicans are posing that we simply can, with a stroke of a pin, wipe out when hundreds of thousands of millions of Americans rely on them for their basic living standards. But they will. They will. They've signaled that. Right.

That's Rick Scott's plan, the guy who's in charge of retaking the Senate for the Republicans, wants the sunset all federal legislation after five years. If we are sitting here pretending that Republicans are ever going to reinstate or repass Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, or living on another planet. Right. Are you satisfied with the level of attention that your race is getting, or do you feel like people are focusing too much on Senate or gubernatorial races? I think people are focusing too much on 2024, you know, and wondering if there's going to be a

rematch of the disgraced former president and Joe Biden. And right now, this midterm, again, you know, we've said it for the last several cycles. This midterm is the most significant and consequential election in our lifetime. I feel like I'm really proud to be part of a very big democratic field that includes both frontline members, people who are currently in the house, like fighting really hard to hold on to seats after redistricting. as well as expanding our map in California as we're doing with some of these important opportunities for pickups. So, you know, we're all doing the hard work and kudos to everybody else who is out there fighting this fight with me because the future of America really is determined in these

swing states. On that exact point, what's the polling looking like in your district right now? We feel really confident. Like, we are very safely and comfortably within the margin of error, but we don't want to take anything for granted. You know, we really need resources to prove our point that Mike Garcia is extreme. And communication to voters takes a lot of money. And we know that on his side, he's got some very well-funded allies who are willing to write big, big checks to him. And I'm a no corporate money, no DC lobbyist money candidate. And so we are trying to match his piggy bank. And we'll continue to do that. But if we can communicate the messaging to our voters, we know we will win this seat. That seems like a good segue into my last question here. What can Angelinos, like myself,

who otherwise live in this safely blue enclave do to help you? Well, I will start by saying we love the fact that our race has been adopted by so many incredible activists across the L.A. area who write postcards, make phone calls, come out and do the hard work of knocking on doors with us, and we welcome that. We also welcome contributions. As I said, the only way we get our messaging out is with money. And folks can find out information about how to do all of that at Christie, C-H-R-I-S-T-Y for Congress.org. Great. And we'll put that link in the show notes and the post description. Christy Smith, thank you so much for taking the time. And for anybody listening or watching, I don't know how to stress this enough, but this is the race that we should be watching

these super close, flippable red to blue house races. So if there's anybody looking to help, especially those of us who live in a place like Los Angeles where there's not much to do here politically this is the race to look at. So thank you so much for taking the time and good luck in your race. Thanks for having me on. I appreciate it, Brian.

Thanks again to Christy. 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.