No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump faces consequences amid January 6 Committee's bombshell move

Episode Date: October 16, 2022

Republican candidates turn in disastrous performances at a spate of recent debates. Brian interviews Georgia's Democratic nominee for Governor, Stacey Abrams, about Brian Kemp’s efforts to position himself as a moderate, the impacts that the Republicans’ voter suppression law is having right now in Georgia, and what she’d do on day one as governor. And former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner joins to discuss the January 6 Committee’s subpoena for Trump, what his options are now, and what the punishments could be for ignoring it.SUPPORT STACEY ABRAMS: https://staceyabrams.com/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 latest Senate debates and the Republican candidates disastrous performances. I interview Georgia Democratic nominee for Governor Stacey Abrams about Brian Kemp's efforts to position himself as a moderate, the impacts that the Republican's voter suppression law is having right now in Georgia, and what she do on day one as governor. And I'm joined by former federal prosecutor Glenn Kersner to discuss the January 6th committee subpoena for Trump, what his options are now, and what the punishments could be for ignoring it. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So we're now just a few weeks out from midterms, and debates have kicked into high gear. And so because of that, we've gotten moments like these.

Here's J.D. Vance in Ohio. Yeah, so I've come out against this bill, and I don't think it's actually about gay marriage. It's not about same-sex marriage or same-sex equality. On the Lindsey Graham bill, my view on this is, generally speaking, Ohio's going to want to have different abortion laws than California than Texas. And I think Ohio should have that right. But some minimum national standard is totally fine with me. Here's Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. And in response to the wild charge of Lieutenant Governor Barnes, the FBI set me up with a corrupt, with a corrupt briefing, and then leave that to smear me.

I am, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. He is referring to corruption with the FBI, which I've been trying to uncover and expose. All right. So do we have time for, please, audience, please, we're trying to get through these. we have time for one more question it has cost us more not to complete the wall that we already contracted for than to actually build it all right and here's herschel walker in georgia one thing i have not done i've never pretended to be a police officer and and and i've never threatened a shootout with the police and now i have to respond to that we are we are moving on gentlemen

respond to that and you know what so funny I am work with many police officers and at the same time Mr. Walker Mr. Walker no no no no when he said a problem with the truth when he said a problem with the truth I need to let you know Mr. Walker you are very well aware of the rules tonight yes and you have a prop that is not allowed sir I ask you to put that prop away well it's not a prop this is real and he said I have a problem It is considered a prop, Mr. Walker. Excuse me, sir. Yes. You're very well aware of the rules.

And just so we're clear, that is Herschel Walker, a grown-ass man pulling out a fake police officer badge to try and convince everyone that he is a police officer because someone handed him that badge. Please, dear God, no one hand that man a stethoscope. And what I think is kind of amazing, just from a 30,000-foot view is that, like, five minutes ago, this was the party of Lincoln. These people were grandstanding about the Constitution and the rule of law and respecting the police and respecting the troops. And now the GOP's nominees, the best that that party has to offer is like a guy who thinks he's a police officer because he was handed a toy badge. It's a doctor who's made his fortune hawking goji berries. It's a far-right evangelist who rose to fame on the backs of people who suffered from the opioid epidemic, scratching the backs of the same executives who caused it.

Like, I know that we've spoken about the extent to which the GOP has put its fealty to, Trump above everything else. And we say it so much that it's almost lost its meaning, but just look. The evidence is right there. Look at the candidates that he recruited. These people wouldn't be there if it wasn't for Donald Trump. These are his nominees. He put his finger on the scales in all of these races. Just a clown car of snake oil salesman and de-list celebs. It's legitimately like an episode of Celebrity Apprentice, except if any of those guys win, we all lose. It's us who lose our reproductive rights. It's us who lose our Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. It's us who

who lose our ability to fight climate change. It's us who lose the ability for the government to negotiate lower drug prices and that $2,000 cap on prescription drugs for seniors and so much more. And I know that our gut reaction when we see people like Herschel Walker and Dr. Oz is to laugh because they're clowns and they say stupid shit. And we can laugh because it's better than pulling our hair out. But what we can't do is be complacent or, more importantly, just assume that everyone else knows who these people are.

Which brings me to the most important point here. and that is that most people don't know who these people are. Most people don't follow this stuff. Like, you listening right now, you're part of this tiny subset of the population who is engaged. And if everyone else was like you and knew what was at stake in just a few weeks, we'd all be better off for it. Like, I had a conversation with a friend a few days ago who's getting her Ph.D.

And she is so not clued into politics that she called me. She finally called me and said, okay, explain this abortion thing to me like I'm five. She's getting her PhD. So two things here. The first, as I've said before, is to be responsible for your circle. I could reach every single human being on the planet. It still wouldn't have the impact that you do in your own personal relationships. So use them.

Talk to your friends and your family who didn't vote or are on the fence. Remember, the difference between Biden's win and a Trump win in 2020 in Wisconsin was three votes per precinct. That's it. If Trump was able to flip three people per precinct, he'd have won that state. Christy Smith in California's 27th congressional district, she lost her race in 2020 to Republican Mike Garcia by 333 votes. Every vote matters, so please do your part. And second, when you talk to those people, don't make it about your political party.

Forget your team, forget your tribe, because people who don't pay attention don't care about political party. They care about how it impacts them. So focus on that. Ask them, do you want abortion to be banned nationwide or do you want abortion to be protected nationwide? Do you want Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to be eliminated, or do you want Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to continue? Do you want climate change to be ignored, or do you want to combat climate change? Do you want the law allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices repealed? Or do you want the government to be able to negotiate lower drug prices?

If they want the first things, tell them to vote Republican. But if they want the second things, tell them to vote Democratic. It is as simple as that. This isn't about serving a politician or their party. It's about those politicians serving us. So we need to vote based on where we stand. Next up is my interview with Stacey Abrams. Today we have the Democratic nominee for Governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams.

Thank you so much for taking the time. Thank you for having me. Of course. So Brian Kemp has positioned himself as a moderate in this race based on his interactions with Trump. Is he? No. Brian Kemp is a far-right extremist who until January of 2021 called himself a Trump conservative. And his behavior actually reveals much more than any rhetoric he's leaning on.

today. This is a man who in his first year in office banned abortion in the state of Georgia after six weeks. In order to win a primary, he weakened gun laws so much so that we've seen a 23% increase in gun violence. He has, he slashed a billion dollars from education. He has refused to deploy $400 million for affordable housing and he refuses to expand Medicaid and provide health care coverage to half a million Georgians, not because we can't afford it, but because he doesn't believe they deserve it. These are the behaviors, the actions, and the principles of a hard right conservative. One act of not committing treason does not change the narrative or the reality of who he is. With that said, Brian Kemp also supported and signed SB 202 into law.

That's the Republican-led legislature's voter suppression bill. What's been the impact of that piece of legislation? We are fielding calls every single day from voters who are confused about how to fill out their absentee ballot applications, especially senior citizens who for 15 years automatically received this application, from people who are disabled, who rely on absentee ballots to participate in elections, from naturalized citizens who have limited English proficiency, who are more comfortable filling out those ballots at home. And because he said he was frustrated with the results of 2020 and 2021, he made it harder to vote absenteenth. absentee. We know he also made it illegal to get water in line when in the state of Georgia,

we average between four to eight hour lines for people of color, namely black voters. He made it easier for white supremacist to challenge voting because they can now go into a county elections board and hand in a list of names and say, I don't think these people deserve to be voters. And in these counties, they are now required to consider every single challenge. And so, far more than 64,000 challenges have been lodged against voters and we are noticing that they are disproportionately targeting people of color. Okay, so I want to build on those county elections boards. Obviously, SB202 allowed Republicans to reorganize local elections boards. In Spalding County, for example, the Democratic majority of three black women was replaced by a white

Republican majority. And the chairman of that board is now someone who endorsed Trump's stolen election claims. That was just one of, I believe, six county boards that have been reorganized by Republicans thus far. How concerned should we be about this? And is there any indication that this reorganization has had any impact on voting rights already? Well, to start with the impact on voting rights, yes, we have seen some of these counties eliminate access to Sunday voting because Sunday voting was disproportionately used by black voters in the last few election cycles. But the larger concern is that this is part of a national framework that Brian Kemp has been the lead architect of. The Voting Rights Act has been under attack for years, but we know that with the 2013 Shelby

decision, we lost Section 5. With the Bronovich decision in 2021, we lost part of Section 2, which really looks at racial animus. And now there's another case called the Merrill case before the Supreme Court that will essentially eliminate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which eliminates the Voting Rights Act. But that will mean in the next legislative session and the next gubernatorial term that the governor alone with the state legislature has the ability to set voting policies and voting rights. And if they can control both the laws and the implementation with absolutely no judicial review because the Voting Rights Act no longer requires it, someone who has made his living on voter suppression can now expand his franchise by taking away hours. You know, just to go back to what you mentioned before about the tens of thousands of complaints that have been lodged with county elections boards, is there any way to determine, or do we know right now how many of those have been accepted, especially given that they're disproportionately against people of color? So we know in Gwet County, it was about 37,000 that were filed.

They were able to quickly process at least 22,000 and kick them out. In Cobb County, it was recently, I think, about 1,500 that they dismissed. But here's the problem. We're three weeks out from Election Day. We're less than a week out from early voting. We don't have an extra group of people in these county elections boards running these elections. So every one of these claims that has to be adjudicated is being done by the same person who also has to set up the ballot boxes, make sure the polling places are ready. We don't have the staffing for this.

And they know it because they also made it illegal for these counties to apply for grants to help them find additional funding. Right. And so we have to recognize that this isn't one or two pieces. This is a systemic attack on voter access. And Brian Kemp is the lead architect. He did it for eight years as Secretary of State. And he's proudly proclaimed the same opportunity. He likes to say making it hard to cheat, although he also said there was no cheating. And so either you're lying then or you're lying now. And we know that the intention is to make it more difficult for voters, especially voters of color and younger voters to access. the ballot. How has the issue of abortion changed the calculus in this race in Georgia? It's been dramatic. We know that there are some outlier polls that in Republican polls, shockingly, the Republican is winning. But in almost every other poll, we are seeing dramatic increases in women. We are seeing that women are saying this issue matters. And we know that if you look at just the absentee ballot applications that have made it through the process, it used to be that roughly 52, 53 percent were from women.

Now we're hitting 60% from women. And we know that this is a very strong signal that women are terrified. They're terrified not only of the law as it stands, but the fact that Brian Kemp says he doesn't actually believe in the exemptions for rape or incest, that under this law, they can be investigated for miscarriage

and that in the state of Georgia right now, pharmacists have the right to reject your prescription because they ideologically disagree with you. And the reason this is so terrifying is that, yes, those of us who can go from, you know, and take our prescription over to Walgreens, congratulations. But imagine if you live in one of the 100 rural counties where you only have one pharmacist. And that's the only pharmacist who's willing to work with you on pricing. These are families being held hostage, women being held hostage.

You know, I know that obviously abortion is a huge issue, if not the number one issue in this midterm cycle, but it's also not the only issue. What's been most resonant with the voters that you've spoken to aside from that issue of abortion? So everyone is. concerned about inflation and the economy, people are in pain. But what we have to recognize is that inflation is a global issue. And so the best thing a governor can do is reduce the cost that the governor can actually influence. That's housing, health care, and education. And on all three metrics, Brian Kemp refuses to act. Georgia has the money to create need-based aid in the state of Georgia to reduce student debt. He won't spend it. Georgia has the money to actually attack

affordable housing issues. He won't spend it, $400 million sitting unspent because he won't spend the money. And we know with health care, Georgia is one of only 12 states in the nation that refuses to expand Medicaid. And in real terms, this means that we've lost six hospitals, including a level one trauma center in a state that only has five to begin with. So the entire Atlanta region of 5.7 million people has one level one trauma center left. But on top of that, seven 1,700 people are about to lose their jobs. And community members who simply need access to a doctor are now going to be told once again

that their health care costs are going to go up because Brian Kemp doesn't want to accept the money they've already paid into the system. $3.5 billion. Now, what does Georgia look like under a governor Kemp versus Governor Abrams? With Governor Kemp, we have seen in the last four years. He doesn't actually care about these issues.

And more importantly, when given the opportunity, when given the resources, he refuses to help. But he has also spent the last four years attacking our freedoms, our freedom to vote, our freedom to choose, our freedom to be safe and secure in our persons. He has weakened gun laws and made it less safe for families to move around the state of Georgia. A governor Abrams is going to be a governor for more opportunity, more money in your pockets, and more freedom. As governor, I will expand Medicaid and make sure that families facing health care crises like cancer or diabetes actually get the health care that they need for less than $2 a day. That's what we can do. As governor, I will expand and make certain that we are investing in affordable housing, both rental housing and the ability to buy a house without having to wait for a fire sale. I'm going to make sure our kids can go to school and get apprenticeships if they don't want to go to college,

they can go to technical college for free, and that we have need-based aid because we're one of only two states in the country that does not provide that kind of financial aid. And last but not least, I want to make certain that we can make a good living, whether you work for yourself or someone else. And that means closing what is right now a 100-year economic parity gap between people of color and majority communities. 48% of the population is people of color, but we're only 12.2% of the business revenue. The governor can close that gap in 15 years, but the current governor, his response to this being an issue for the last 20 years is that he's going to study it. I like to say he can cheat off of my paper. We know the answer. We just need a governor willing to do the work. Now, data shows that about 95% of Georgians are now registered to vote. This will obviously be

the first midterm cycle where that number is in play. Do you think that we're going to see another record-breaking turnout number from this state, just like we did in 2020, obviously, for the general election? I think so. If we look back at 2018 in my first race, we actually had the highest number of Democrats voting in the state's history. And it wasn't quite the highest number for Republicans, but it was the highest number for Democrats, and we lost by about 55,000 votes. We know that we have built on those numbers year over year, including 1.6 million new voters being added to the role since 2018. And when people are hearing the polling, they need to remember. A lot of those folks aren't being considered in the polling. Polls are a snapshot. They're not a

predictor. The question is, who are you taking a picture of? And when you look at the picture of the new voters who are on these roles and we do the work of turning them out, this will absolutely be a record-breaking and, we hope, a history-setting election. Have you heard from any Republicans or independent since you've been on the campaign trail? Oh, absolutely, especially Republican women who are devastated by Brian Kemp's decision to ban abortion. They understand that this is an economic issue. You asked the earlier question. They know that women who are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term are four times more likely to be impoverished. They are twice as likely to be on food stamps within five years. They are 60% less likely to have full-time employment. And that's a real

economic issue. They are terrified of what's going to happen to the businesses we do have. And that's coming from men and women. We've already lost $50 million because of Brian Kemp's gun bill. We lost $100 million because of his voter suppression law. And we stand to lose a $4.4 billion entertainment industry, not only because of abortion, but because he also doesn't believe in marriage equality. He supports the legislation that would allow people to be rejected based on their sexual orientation. And because of the Supreme Court's current consideration of 303 creative, which most people aren't paying attention to, this case, should they find the way we think they will, it will say that public accommodations laws do not include sexual orientation. And in real

and practical terms, that means that a person in the LGBTQ plus community can be kicked out of a hotel, can be denied service in a restaurant, can be refused service at a pharmacy, simply based on their sexual orientation and Brian Kemp knows that Georgia is one of only five states in the nation that does not have a law to protect them at the state level. We will lose the entertainment industry if that happens. And so independence, Republicans, people who normally would be absolutely on his side are absolutely paying attention and they know that this, this is for all the marbles. This is a generational moment. Right. And by the way, just for people who listen to that idea that members of the LGBT community could be kicked out of a hotel room for being gay,

for example, and they say, oh, well, that's just, that's just Democrats being hysterical. That is the exact same line that they used when Democrats would say that Roe was in danger of being overturned, and now look at where we are. So, you know, we ignore these risks at our own peril. What's the most memorable moment that you've had on the campaign trail so far? So this past weekend, I had this amazing juxtaposition of a day where I was at, or this weekend, And I was with a Latino community, the AAPI community, I went to the Atlanta Arab Festival, I went to the Pride Parade, and then I went to one music fest.

And seeing the remarkable diversity of our state laid out so beautifully and knowing that with one job, with one vote, all of these communities will have access to so much more. I know this to be true. It's why I'm so intentional about reaching out to these communities. But it's also a deep reminder of what

what's at stake if we don't do this right? Because if we don't have a governor who respects and celebrates diversity, these are all communities that will instead find themselves not only on the losing end of issues, but they will be the victims of and the targets of policies to create harm. And to your point about 303 creative,

let's be clear, Clarence Thomas said, here are the things he intends to do after he got rid of Roe v. Wade. And this was on the list. voting rights was on the list. We know that we need a governor who actually wants to protect our rights, not attack our freedoms. Now, what's your message to those Republicans and independents who may never have voted for a Democrat before, but who see what's happening in the GOP and recognize that it's not

great? Like, what do you say to those people? So there, four years ago when I ran, I was known for the fact that I work very well across the aisle. I have very strong convictions that are grounded in my political. philosophy, but I know that people don't care about our politics. They care about their lives. I want to help improve people's lives. We have a $6.6 billion surplus that we can either squander by giving it to the wealthiest in tax cuts, or we can invest and spend on the issues we've been complaining about for 20 years, improving education, improving health care, improving access to housing, making sure that people can make a good living and take care of themselves and their

families, invest in public safety, but also in criminal justice reform, invest in common sense gun laws. We have an opportunity to do the things we need to do. And as a Democrat leading a state that has a Republican legislature, the best bet to make sure that we come to compromise is to make sure no one gets to get their own way. I'm the best way to make certain that we have to work together. I've done it before and I'll do it again. Let's finish with this. What would day one of an Abrams governorship look like for the people of Georgia? What's the very first thing you would do in office? Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion provides health care to half a million Georgians. And what we have to understand is a financing mechanism. We're all paying the bill.

Right now it's a $2.7 billion, sorry, $27 billion bill that we keep paying over the last decade. And if we expand Medicaid, that bill gets paid because we've already put the money in. I will also be able to then create 64,000 jobs. This is not hyperbole. When Chris Christie did this in New Jersey, he created 50,000 jobs. Mike Pence created 30,000 jobs. If Mike Pence and I agree, it must be the right thing to do. And it'll be my day one job. Great. And of course, how can we help? We need folks to sign up and support this campaign. Please go to Staceyabrams.com. If you slash voting, you can find out about voting for your Georgian. If you want to volunteer, just do slash volunteer and talk about this race, talk about how important governors are. Brian, one thing that's so

amazing about the show that you do is that people need to understand that politics don't just happen in D.C. If your real life matters to you, governors are the most important positions people hold that no one understands. And with the Supreme Court sending all of our rights and protections down to the state level, we need someone at the state level ready to defend us and to defeat those who will target us. Perfectly put. We'll leave it there. Stacey Abrams, thank you so. much for taking the time and good luck uh in this last last month of uh campaigning thanks for having me okay now we've got 30-year former federal prosecutor and host of justice matters on youtube glen kershener glen thank you for coming back on great to be with you brian let's

start with uh the january sixth committee today obviously uh a lot of major news coming out of that last hearing and the biggest piece is that they voted to issue a subpoena to trump what are are Trump's options here? His options are to defy the subpoena, which I fully expect he will do, and then the ball is in the J6 committee's court. They can do a couple of things. One, they can vote to hold him in contempt and make a criminal referral to the Department of Justice for a contempt of Congress charge. We know they've done that before, and it's met with mixed results, right? They did that for Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, both of whom were indicted by the Department of Justice. They did it for Mark Meadows.

and Dan Scavino, neither of whom were indicted by the Department of Justice, which I find a little bit offensive because the co-equal branch of government Congress was a victim of the crime, the contempt, and yet for whatever reason, DOJ sort of turned up its nose at least thus far at the prospect of charging those other two men for committing precisely the same crime that Bannon and Navarro committed. So they can do that, though I suspect that is. less likely than their second option, which is to pursue civil contempt in court. What that looks like is they will file suit in court to enforce their subpoena. And that will put Donald Trump in a position where he'll have to go to court.

He will have to respond. In my opinion, he will absolutely lose the court battle. And then a judge will order him to testify. If he defies the judge's order to testify, as opposed to just defying the Supreme to testify, a judge can actually order that he be detained until he purged the contempt and appear and testifies. Now, what will he do if he is ordered to testify? We already know, Brian, we will now all be back on the hamster wheel of endless appeals. Although, at least the court seemed to be expediting the court hearings and they're not letting Donald Trump run out the clock.

And, of course, the Supreme Court just rejected his attempt to pull the court in to the court into the Mar-a-Lago documents debacle. So right now, I think at the moment, things are looking up a little bit on the justice front. Can you just expand on why the Justice Department would choose to indict someone like Steve Bannon and yet refuse to indict someone like Mark Meadows? One of three reasons. Either they believe Mark Meadows is so close to the president, a former chief of staff, that they have some sort of privilege concerns.

They don't want to go that high up on the food chain and charge somebody with contempt when that person says, look, I actually have some viable privileges that I could raise. That may be one reason. A second reason is they may be looking to roll him into a far larger and more significant indictment, like a conspiracy to defraud or commit offenses against the United States. That's what I would be doing if I were a prosecutor. They don't want to piecemeal a criminal prosecution against a guy like Mark Meadows, so they wouldn't want to jump out and just indict him on what is a misdemeanor charge of contempt of Congress. They want to wait and roll it into

a larger conspiracy indictment. And of course, the third possibility is that Mark Meadows is cooperating, because if he's cooperating, there is no need to bring an early charge against him. So those are the three possibilities. I don't know. I think it's a 33 and a third proposition for each. Now, to what degree can Trump delay? Because like how many avenues does he have to be able to delay this thing? It depends on how Congress chooses to try to enforce the subpoena.

But let's assume they go the civil enforcement route, which I think with a former president is most likely. The courts can set an expedited briefing. an argument schedule. So they can certainly resolve it in the trial court pretty promptly. And then the appellate court can similarly, just like the 11th Circuit just did, set an expedited schedule. They can resolve it promptly. And now we know that the Supreme Court can even resolve a request for review within about a week. So there's a very real prospect, Brian, that all of this could be resolved in about 60 days and Trump would have nowhere left to go. But I can tell you precisely

where he will vote, he will walk into the J6 committee hearing room, raise his right hand, be sworn in, answer the question, state your name, and plead the fifth to every other question after that. Because he already has a track record of doing that in New York, in Tish James' civil deposition, where he pled the fifth four hundred and forty times. And there was less riding on that than there is riding on him testifying before the J6 committee, because anything he says, not only can incriminate him, but will incriminate him because the J6 committee would package up that transcript and deliver it to the Department of Justice, I believe, in conjunction with a criminal referral. Okay. So that was actually my next question in terms of Trump does

eventually end up in that deposition room. He's absolutely going to plead the fifth in every question other than his name. That then could be used as evidence against him if he's eventually charged by the DOJ and that goes to trial, correct? No. See, here's the difference between pleading the fifth in a civil setting like in the tish james civil suit versus a criminal setting versus a criminal setting but here's it's an interest it's a great question because it's an interesting hybrid right because the j6 committee is not a criminal proceeding but if we were ever to try to use somebody's invocation of their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination at trial in a criminal setting that would be reversible error because it would be kind of pointless to say you have a constitutional

right to invoke the fifth and not incriminate yourself. But if you do, we're going to use it against you by introducing it against you at a criminal trial. That's forebought. Now, Trump released a statement in response to the subpoena that was pretty much exactly what we thought it would be. It was a rambling diatribe pointing to his own victimhood. You'd mentioned online that that statement was incriminating. Can you expand on that? I sure can. So I brought a prop with me. Maybe I'm the parent top of legal analysts. But let me show you what I would do, with this statement issued by Donald Trump, which opens with the line, all caps.

The presidential election of 2020 was rigged and stolen. We all know, any critical thinker knows, any honest person knows. That is a lie. And it's a lie that is designed to continue to deceive the American people. It is a lie that is further deeply incriminating evidence

and proof of Donald Trump's conspiracy to commit offenses against or defraud United States. Brian, this is what I would do with this statement. I would take one of my government exhibit stickers, which I use tens of thousands of over the years. I would slap it on this statement and I would introduce it as government exhibit one as deeply and sharply incriminating evidence against Donald Trump. Why? Because he attaches a chart at the end, sort of including all of the allegations of election fraud in the battleground states that are lies. They've been disproven. It's propaganda. And his own administration officials and agencies

told him the election wasn't rigged or stolen. His own family and advisors told him the election wasn't rigged and wasn't stolen. But he continues the con. And what that is, is it is evidence of his continued conspiracy to try to defraud or commit offenses against the United States. You know, I think one of the most effective parts of this latest committee hearing was the fact that we would have testimony from these people, from the DOJ, for example, who said, yeah, Trump would come in and spout off these bullshit talking points about suitcases. And we explained to him, we don't know what the hell you're talking about. There's no conspiracy about suitcases. And then they showed how 10 days later he'd be up on that stage at the ellipse, spouting off the exact same now debunked talking point about suitcases, showing that even though he knew these talking points were debunked, he continued to introduce them and use. them to pepper his supporters into doing his bidding, which was to eventually go and ransack the U.S. Capitol. So the fact that he's doing it right here in this exact same scenario in court, after we already have the proof in public that he's been told that these talking points were false is, like

you said, proof that he's just continuing to promote the exact same lies that got him into this mess in the first place. Yeah. And I was in the committee room yesterday for the hearing. And I have to admit, I've got prosecutorial goosebumps. I mean, the evidence was so compelling. And they presented such a powerful chronological narrative detailing, documenting, cataloging, all of the evidence in support of Donald Trump's crimes that, you know, all that is left. All that is left. And we've said this before is to just prod into wakefulness, that great beast, the law, the criminal law, and charge the man because the beauty of bringing a criminal case when supported by the evidence is all of his what we call interlocutory appeal. appeals, this piecemeal appealing of every issue decided by a court, it goes away. It evaporates.

It's not available to somebody who is being criminally prosecuted. The only appeal that he can take after he's indicted is once he's tried, once he's convicted, once he's sentenced, then he gets to appeal. But in this endless civil litigation, he will continue to piecemeal file these bogus appeals to run out the clock, to weaponize the delay built in the civil litigation system, none of which he can do once he is criminally indicted. So we've got to get off the dime. We've got to bring the charges. We have to at least start to bring our long national nightmare to a close.

So we're on very much the same wavelength here because my next question is exactly that. You know, these January 6 hearings are finally coming to an end. This was billed as the final hearing. Congress doesn't have the ability to charge anyone. This was always a fact-finding mission. But their investigation obviously can inform the DOJ for their concurrent investigation. With that said, it's been one and a half years. What's the expected timeline for an indictment against Trump if we're going to see one?

Impossible to predict. I'm happy to try to predict and I will likely be wrong. Maybe just a spectrum here because we're one and a half years in. I imagine that's already longer than some indictments. can have happened already. So what's, I guess, the spectrum of something that we should expect for something like this, notwithstanding the fact that this still is unprecedented, given who Trump is? I think, first of all, the classified documents crimes that, you know, have, they have Trump dead to rights on those crimes. I think that's an easier case to more quickly indict. So it could be

right after the midterms, because I still believe Merrick Garland is going to be a little bit too much of an institutionalist and he's going to wait until after the midterms, we could see classified documents indictments dropped first and insurrection indictments dropped thereafter. If I had to guess, Brian, I think Donald Trump ends up being criminally indicted by the first of the year. Now, the Republicans have been trying to deflect attention away from Trump for the better part of a year by claiming that, actually, it was Nancy Pelosi who's to blame in all of the events of January 6th because she purportedly never called for backup.

This most recent January 6 committee hearing proved with video evidence that, in fact, Pelosi worked relentlessly to call in for backup, called basically everyone, governors, mayors, she called Trump cabinet secretaries. And the only person who was absent from those efforts to get help from these insurrectionists on January 6th was Trump. What was your response to that revelation? So first of all, that video footage that was new to all of us, I believe, of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and others while the Capitol was under siege, making these desperate calls to Virginia Governor North and Maryland Governor Hogan, the mayor of D.C., the Secretary of Defense, and this is what I found so compelling and so chilling. You heard them say,

if the White House was under siege, if the Pentagon was under siege, you would send reinforcements to protect the people. Send them to the Capitol. And Donald Trump still refused to send the forces necessary to protect the people in the Capitol and to repel the attack that, of course, he launched. I found that just so disturbing and chilling and incriminating. So Donald Trump can make all the BS claims he wants that this was Nancy Pelosi's fault. There's no evidence to support that, just as there is no evidence to support any of the nonsense in this self-incriminating letter he just threw into the public square. And let me add, anybody who helped him draft this letter should be looked at

as a criminal co-conspirator. What would you say to Kevin McCarthy, who's basically said he's gonna, he's gonna turn this January 6th committee hearing into a hearing against Nancy Pelosi if the Republicans take control? What do you, what would you say to him, given these revelations that in fact,

the only reason that a lot of these Republicans are alive right now is because Pelosi and Schumer and Democrats took the steps necessary to make sure that all of the members of Congress of both parties were Dave. You know, I don't think I would say anything to him because you can't reason with a painted rock. And that's what he's shown himself to be. No, no better, no smarter than a painted rock. So really, the only thing that we can do is get out and vote and not let the Republicans

take control. Because here's one thing that I do believe. I believe the Republicans, if they take control of the house in particular, will do everything they can to continue to destroy the institutions of government. They will go scorched earth. They will carpet bomb the Department of Justice with subpoenas. And then, Brian, you know what they're going to do? They're going to find reasons to say that the people on whom we serve these subpoenas didn't fully comply, send the sergeant at arms of the house out to lock them up by using our inherent power of contempt, which is a lawful thing that the Dems have been unwilling to use. So, you know, Kevin McCarthy, let's hope he never takes, you know, the reins of power.

Because if so, I think we will find ourselves in an even darker place than we are already. So I want to switch bases to just one other topic that we heard about this past week, and that was the defamation case, the E. Jean Carroll defamation case against Trump. A judge is allowing that deposition to move forward with Trump. on October 19th. Do you imagine that he'll plead the fifth in that deposition? And how would that factor into a judgment on that case? Yeah, I suspect he will because he did in the loosely analogous civil proceedings

that Tish James brought against Trump and his family members in the organization. If he doesn't, it will be a whole bunch of, I don't recall, I don't recall, I don't recall. But if he does invoke the fifth, then in a civil setting, in a civil case, which is what But E. Jean Carroll brought a defamation case because he did use the power and the pulpit of the presidency to lie and bully a victim that he sexually assaulted. How horrific is that? And that's why I wish the Department of Justice never took up this cause on his behalf. But if he pleads the fifth, that can be used against him in the civil litigation. Pleading the fifth in the context of a civil case is the death now to any hope you might otherwise have of winning that civil case because the jury, when the case goes to trial, is instructed by the judge. This defendant invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when he was asked questions that were relevant to the allegations that have been made against them. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you can use that. You can hold it against him. You can draw negative inferences from

it that if he had answered the questions, if he hadn't invoked the fifth, the answers would have hurt his cause. That is devastating to a civil litigant. Glenn, let's finish with this. You mentioned that you were in the hearing room for the January 6th Committee hearing, that final hearing. What was the most impactful point in that hearing for you? Oh, you know, here's what I really appreciated. The members of the committee are legislators, right? They're not prosecutors. And yet almost to a person, they were using the language of prosecutors. They were saying over and over again,

the evidence shows that Donald Trump, in a premeditated way, knew that he was going to claim he won the election even before the votes were tallied. In a premeditated way, he was intending to say the election was fraudulent, that it was rigged well before the election was ever conducted. And you could just feel the way,

They were building toward what I believe will ultimately be a criminal referral of Donald Trump to the Department of Justice, which may impact the Department of Justice thinking and it may not. It probably won't. DOJ will say thank you very much, co-equal branch of government for your opinion. We will continue to do the work on our own without fear, without favor, and without outside influence from other co-equal branches of government. But I think, again, I think justice is trending. I think we're moving in the right direction. Seems like a perfect place to leave off. So, Glenn, as always, thank you so much for taking the time. Appreciate it.

My pleasure, Brian. Thanks again, Glenn. To reiterate the announcement from last week, I'm still selling wine. It's a rosé called Codify Rose. The profits are going to an amazing voter registration organization called Field Team 6. They registered one and a half million Democrats in the 2020 cycle. They're able to register new voters for $1.50 per person. And with voter registration deadlines upon us right now,

this is when your money goes the farthest. So if you want to help support voter registration and also drink wine, because God knows we need to drink wine, then follow the link in the show notes or go to my website, Brian Tyler Cohen.com, and follow the link to buy Cotify Rose. Also, if you're a new listener and you want to support my 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 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.