No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump indictment possibility soars with attorney general announcement

Episode Date: November 20, 2022

Trump makes the predictable 2024 announcement to run for president-- which immediately backfired on him. Brian interviews Senator Gary Peters, who chairs the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee through a hugely successful midterm cycle where Democrats are actually poised to expand their Senate majority, about what worked compared to previous cycles and what the plan is for the more difficult Senate map of 2024. And former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner joins to discuss the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Trump, whether it means an indictment is more likely, and what it means if Trump holds true to his threats not to participate.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 Trump's announcement to run for president and the way that it backfired pretty badly on him. I interview Senator Gary Peters, who led the Democratic Senate campaign committee through a hugely successful midterm cycle where Democrats are actually poised to expand their Senate majority about what works compared to previous cycles and what the plan is for the more difficult Senate map of 2024. And I'm joined by former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirshner to discuss the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Trump, whether it means indictment is more likely and what it means

if Trump holds true to his threats not to participate. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So as expected, Donald Trump has announced that he'll be running for president in 2024. That part wasn't too surprising. I don't think any of us didn't expect that it was going to happen. But here's what was pretty surprising, the way that it was received by everyone, but especially by the right. So first of all, Fox News literally cut away from the speech, which, I mean, just think about that. This is the former president of the United States, the leader of the Republican Party,

the guy who Fox News itself had basically staked its entire survival on, making his presidential announcement a moment that should, in theory, be historic, and even Fox didn't carry the whole thing. And I think there are two reasons here. First, it was boring. I mean, just from a purely entertainment standpoint, Trump droned on about immigrants and drugs and usual nihilistic hellishness that was cooked up in Stephen Miller's mind, he congratulated himself on his time in office and he pretended that he accomplished a lot of stuff that he

didn't accomplish. I mean, if you've watched any of the hundreds of rallies that he's done, you've heard this speech. And so just in terms of the incentive to let this thing play in its entirety, regardless of its historical merit, it was just too boring. And I think it shows that for the same reason Trump succeeded in 2016, because he was rude and cruel and flashy and brash, which, by the way, is who he's always been, that was new in politics. And so people wanted to watch it. But in the same way that that was always Trump, it remains Trump. He didn't adapt. He didn't change. And so we've already seen it. It's boring. It's like season one of that show that was exciting and new and how we're in season six and the plot is identical. People stop

watching. And considering the only thing Trump had going for him was how exciting he was to watch, whether you loved him or you hated him, the fact that he's boring now is like outright kryptonite to him. So that's one reason that it wasn't received with all the pomp and circumstance that he hoped for. But the other reason is that I think we all know why he announced. And it wasn't from a position of strength. He wasn't responding to the will of the people. He was doing it from a position of weakness. He was doing it because he thinks he can use this announcement as cover against all of the investigations bearing down on him right now. He's trying to protect himself legally. And so he'll announce early. And then when these probes that are already ongoing continue

to progress, he'll be able to say, oh, well, the only reason I'm being investigated is because I'm running for president and the communist Democrats want to help Joe Biden. And of course, that is why Merrick Garland immediately appointed a special counsel, someone who's not a Biden appointee, but that's not going to stop Trump from using this talking point anyway. I'll talk more with Glenn Kirchner about exactly this point in an interview coming up. Now, aside from the legal stuff, he's also trying to wrestle some of the attention away from Ron DeSantis, who's basically become the heir apparent of the Republican Party. Here's a little bit of what we heard from Republicans, former Trump lackeys, as far as Ron

DeSantis is concerned. I certainly would not turn my back on President Trump. I am a huge supporter of his. But with that, I love Governor Ron DeSantis. He is America's governor, and he has these same policies. Do you see the former president, I need for him to go to Georgia? I think we've got to make strategic calculations. Governor DeSantis, I think he should be welcome to the state, given what happened last night.

You've got to look at the realities on the ground. And Herschel Walker, we've got to win the Senate. That's it, guys. Got to win the Senate. Yeah, so not great if you're Trump and your whole shift. stick is that you command complete loyalty from the GOP. But the point more broadly is that Trump is losing his grip on the party. People for the first time are feeling comfortable abandoning him in public, which they've never been able to do. They recognize that his utility is shrinking. And

that's part of the irony here, that everything Trump does is transactional. We know that. He'll use people into they're no longer useful and then he'll discard them, usually publicly, usually try to humiliate them. And now, knowing that Trump is not some electoral jug or not, knowing that his endorsed candidates were a bunch of losers and midterms, knowing that he's turning people away from the GOP, Republicans are finally recognizing that the person who's lost his usefulness here is Donald Trump. And so now he's being discarded in the same way that he spent years discarding everyone else. There's just like some poetic justice in that. So again, he didn't announce because he has some grand mandate to announce. He announced yet again

to try to save his own ass and because he's insecure about someone else getting all the attention on the right. And not only was that evident. in his speech, it was evident in everyone's reaction to that speech. One more point I want to make here, and that is about covering him as we head into 2024 and just generally learning from the mistakes of the past. So first off, I do think that the media more broadly recognized its role in elevating Trump, you know, the hours of broadcasting empty podiums on TV, waiting for his arrival, the years of transcribing his bullshit claims without any context.

I do honestly believe that there's going to be a lot of correcting for that. Already when Trump announced, PBS wrote, breaking Donald Trump, who tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 election and inspired a deadly ride at the Capitol in a desperate attempt to keep himself in power has filed to run for president in 2024. I saw similar headlines from other outlets, all with this newfound context that we didn't see before. So I think there is going to be a lot less hanging on his every word, not just to course correct from 2016, but also just generally for the reason I gave earlier, it's just boring now. Like, there's only so much that some deranged lunatic yelling about windmills is going to garner attention. Yes, it was exciting

a few years back. Now it's just tired. Personally, I did cover the Trump speech and I wrestled a lot about whether or not to do it. And ultimately, this is what I landed on. I think that at this moment, knowing why he was announcing, the real reasons that he was announcing that I laid out earlier, and having just watched his entire slate of gubernatorial candidates and Secretary of State candidates lose in midterms, making sure that people know that Trump remains the face of the GOP isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like we've got runoffs in Georgia coming up in just a couple weeks. If Trump wants to remind voters who just repudiated him that he remains the head of that party, then, you know, be my guest. He endorsed Hershaw Walker on that stage, and then Raphael Warnock

immediately cut a campaign ad of Trump endorsing Hershaw Walker, just using his exact words. If that's not a testament to just how much of an albatross around Republicans' neck Trump is, than nothing is. So I think in this instance, knowing that Trump is actually doing himself and his party more harm than good by announcing, I think it was worth it to show this speech. I also think that there will be relatively little coverage of him

and his campaign and his rallies moving forward. I don't intend to cover them. I did very little to no coverage of them over the last couple of years. I think at the end of the day that he does want attention. And so aside from particular moments, whether it be for investigations or indictments or whatever, I don't intend on giving him the exact thing

that he's looking for. Next up is my interview with Senator Gary Peters. Now we've got the U.S. Senator from Michigan and the head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, Gary Peters. Thank you for coming on, and congratulations on the huge win this election cycle. Well, great. Thank you for that. Thank you for having me on your program here. But thanks for the congratulations.

It was hard fought, but we're not done yet either. We still got one more race coming up here shortly. And we'll talk about that. race, but first, you know, heading into this election cycle, everyone was basically at each other's throats over whether we should talk about economic issues or abortion, inflation, crime. With the benefit of hindsight now, what do you believe that the takeaway was from this election cycle? Well, I think, you know, the messaging, you know, we have to remember when we're talking about these Senate races around the country, messaging also has to be about what folks in the individual

states care about. So you've got every candidate or incumbents are going to look. at issues differently depending on their state, what they should prioritize based on what the people are telling them in that state. We knew that we really couldn't nationalize the race when you're running in a midterm and you have the White House. We know that that's historically a very tough position for the party in power to be. In fact, historically, several seats are lost during that time. So we wanted to make sure we localized. What I've used, and I've run really tough races over the years, which is why my colleagues asked me to do this, is that normally the best approach in that kind of environment

is not to run as a U.S. senator or a congressperson, but to run as a mayor, localized. Talk about how the work you're doing is going to impact local communities in your state or how it's going to impact your state. And so you did see variations in each of our states, and clearly our candidates know their states very well, and that's why they won.

Now, what did you do differently as the SEC chair since you took over in 2021? Well, I think one of the major strategic decisions that we made very early was to focus on our ground operation and understand that that was going to be the difference in these races. I knew going into this race,

we knew historically the precedent was going to be rough. And I also knew that these races are going to be very close. We were hoping to all be in the margin of error when it came to election time. And that's where we ended up being. And it's not a surprise. You know, there was a lot of narrative out there

all these races are tightening, the numbers are coming together. It's like I could have told you that a year and a half before it happened. These are battleground states. Battleground states by definition are going to be very, very close. And when you're in a close race, the difference is getting your voters actually to the polls. A ground operation is critically important. We put substantial resources in with our incumbents and our challengers and our key states. And in fact, I think the first time in modern history at the DSEC, we put more money into ground and field.

than we did into independent expenditures that would have been the television ads. You know, television ads only go so far. We needed to get close, kind of use the football analogy. We had to get down to the five-yard line. But when you're on the five-yard line, you need a field operation and a ground operation to get you across the goal line. And that was a major strategic decision we made early. And you have to make it early because you have to fund it over a long period of time.

And it clearly paid off. So that's actually a great point. And I did want to ask about exactly that. you know, in terms of the communications landscape, you have the old model of TV and mailers. I'd assume that in some ways that's obsolete. So what's the priority moving forward in terms of the most effective way to reach people, the most effective communications method? Well, it's a complicated answer to that question because there's so many ways to communicate now.

So the key is you have to be in a lot of areas. There is no one silver bullet as to how you reach everybody. You mentioned how it's changed, you know, TV back in the day, if you were on TV and if you were on three major networks. You were covering everybody. That's clearly not the case now. Folks aren't watching TV. You still have to do TV ads, but you have to be, you have to have a very robust digital program. You have to be in the mail. You've got to do all things, which is unfortunately why the cost of these campaigns have gone up quite a bit. But I'm still a believer in field, knock and doors, getting activists, talking person to person and engaging people in that,

particularly when it's about turning out your base, which is why we invested so much. in that field operation and why it's that kind of operation that's going to make sure we win in Georgia on December 6 as well. But if you're not doing all of those things, you're going to be missing people, but the still old-fashioned person-to-person friend-to-friend is still, in my mind, a difference maker. And it certainly played out in this last election. Yeah. Now, this was an election cycle where it's very clear that Republican extremism was rejected at the ballot box. And yet, we had people like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who you may remember for having objected to the electors on January 6th. They came out and gave a bunch of

excuses as to why Republicans lost. And miraculously, none of them included any reference to the same Republican extremism that they themselves espouse. So what's your response to these Republicans like Cruz and Holly? Well, clearly they're out of touch with where the American people are. And that's why I was just so proud of what happened in this election. that people clearly rejected very extreme candidates. And that was probably the best strength we had going into this election was that the contrast between Democrats running, whether they were an incumbent or a challenger,

and their Republican opponent, was very extreme. Yeah. One, certainly saving democracy was very clear. When you had so many election deniers or election liars, really is what they are, there that people said, you know, enough of that. And then you looked at the other major issue that drove so much of our turnout, which was the abortion issue. And after the Dobbs decision, there's no question that women in particular, but all of us realized that a fundamental right was being taken away

after over a half a century of precedent. That motivated people. And then you look at the Republican candidates who are extreme on the issue. They believe no exception for rape, for incest, for the health of the mom, some cases, the life of the mom. That's not where the American people are. And folks said, we're not going to stand up for that and we're going to get out and vote and make a difference. And if I may take a little more time on this question here, what really inspired me in particular on that issue is what we saw in Michigan. Michigan did extremely well in this election. And it was young people in particular that really turned out in huge numbers. The abortion issue was huge for them, women in particular.

And as an example, at Michigan State University and the University of Michigan on election day, we have same-day registration students showed up to register and to vote a little more time-consuming process but at 8 p.m. when the polls closed anybody who was in line could still vote and the last student at the university of michigan to vote was 2 a.m. They stayed in line for hours hours to make sure that their voice was heard that gives me great hope for our democracy. I completely agree on that on that point specifically when we're talking about young people while it is super inspiring that these people stayed for so long and that they showed up and that they voted for Democrats sometimes in the 90 percentile compared to the Republican counterparts. What do we

do to make sure that A, we're reaching out to more young people and making them a centerpiece of our campaigns moving forward as opposed to like a special, like a subset of these campaigns. And second, how do we make it easier for them to vote? Because while it's great that there were so many young people who were willing to vote that they had to wait on lines until 2 a.m. Having to wait online for six hours after the polls close is still symptomatic of a broader issue in terms of in terms of how easy it is to vote in this country. Yeah, it is. And we have to make it easier. In Michigan's case, we have no reason absentee. They could have voted earlier. They could have gone and registered earlier as well.

So part of that is making sure we're doing a better job of communicating exactly how that process works for people that want to to vote and to have to register in order to make that happen. But I think the point you make about making sure we keep that engagement going continuously is spot on. It's just so important to do that. And that's making sure as Democrats and those of us who are privileged to serve in the Senate continue to focus on issues that are important for young people, I would say for all of us, things like climate change. Climate change is absolutely an existential threat. And if you want to look for a clear distinction between where Democrats are and Republicans are, you can't find a clearer one. You know, in the Inflation Reduction Act that we

passed in August, the most significant investments to address climate change, to move to renewable energy, to make changes that are absolutely essential to protect our planet. And when we voted for that, not one Republican voted for it. It was very clear contrast. It was Democrats who made that happen. It's Democrats who are leading into this issue. It's an issue that is incredibly important to young folks because they're going to be dealing with us a lot more than others, and yet not one Republican supported that. So it's important for us to also understand that that vote is not a one or done. We still have a lot of work to do. We still have to lean in on this issue. We've got a long ways to go. And folks have to have to appreciate the fact that that

takes political action to make it happen. And the difference maker, as we saw in so many of these elections are young folks who understand that this is going to impact them in a major way. And they're willing to do whatever it takes to make sure their voice is heard you you mentioned that it's going to take political action to keep young people engaged we're going to confront a little bit of an issue in the sense that because republicans have a majority in the house it's going to be more difficult to pass any legislation so how do you anticipate continuing to to effectuate actionable changes if we're not able to pass legislation because of the republican's house majority well certainly that's why we have to stay politically active we've got to make sure that

we win those majorities back. In the Senate perspective, for example, we have, we're at 50-50 right now. We still have the majority. But if you do the math, you know, 50-50 is not really a majority. And the only reason it's a majority, thank God, we have Kamala Harris as a vice president that comes in to break that tie. But it's one of the reasons why we need 51, at least 51 U.S. senators. And that's why the race in Georgia is so important as we go into that.

You've got to have 51 because, you know, sometimes one senator may have a different view. A Democratic senator may have a different view and that's fine, but you've got to have more folks that are going to be out there fighting. So it's the math works that you can move these kinds of initiatives forward. So having more votes is important. It'll be difficult with where the House is. So we're going to try to work on a bipartisan way, find Republicans in the House who are willing to step up and understand the importance of these key issues. climate change for example is one that we would hope we can enlist them and to be able to get it passed and if they don't this is where voting comes in so important people have to know they will be held accountable if they're not stepping up to the big issues of the day and making the the kind of moves to ensure that we can deal with this existential crisis then they have to pay a price of the ballot box and they have to know that and that's why activism is important not just not just on the election day but all through that whole two-year term that people are hearing from folks in their districts. This is what we want. You represent us. You'd better help us on an issue that is

critically important. And if you don't, we're going to come out in force to make sure we do elect someone who shares our values and shares our views. Now, what do you say to people who look at states like Ohio or Florida and write those states off? Like, to what extent, I guess, having candidates at the top of the ballot, even if they lose, help down ballot candidates as well? Well, it does. It does that have at the top. And it's still about winning hearts and minds of folks. Every election, you see changes. And we need to have, we need to run aggressive campaigns and talk about where we stand on issues and how our vision for how we make this amazing constitutional democracy of our stronger, how we're defending democracy, how we're dealing with some of the big issues that we face. It's important that voters all across the country hear that message, regardless of If they're in a red or blue state, we want to make sure that people understand what's at stake. And eventually you win people over. Sometimes it takes time.

This is not an easy process, but we have to fight literally every day and hope that we start adding to those numbers around the country. So I don't give up on any area as well or any demographic group, but you hear that kind of thing as well. You know, certain people are out of reach. Everybody's within reach. Some people, we have to work real hard. And some of them, we may never win over. But we will win enough over that we will make sure that this country moves in the right direction. Yeah. I think the fact that we have two Democratic senators from Georgia, we just elected a Democrat in

the at-large district in the House and in Alaska is a testament to the fact that if you don't run everywhere, you can't win anywhere. So we've spoken about Georgia a bit. How do you hedge against democratic apathy now that we have won the Senate? And can you also make the case for 51 versus 50 for people who may just look at this and say, you know, we're all good now. Well, I think, you know, when you look at Georgia and the folks who are voting in Georgia, this is still a critically important race for the people of Georgia. And they're the ones that are going to go out and make the decision as to who they send to Washington, D.C. So to keep people motivated, I think the best way to do that is to show the very clear contrast between the two candidates who are running for

the U.S. Senate there. We have Raphael Warnock, a man of integrity, a man of incredible character, a man who is fully qualified and is already doing a great job in the United States Senate, fighting for the people of the state of Georgia and delivering, helping port facilities expand to create good jobs, helping the men and women who serve in the military at bases in Georgia. He has a record of getting things done versus his opponent who is not qualified. I'd say he's not ready for prime time. He's not ready for any time. And it's not me, the DSCC chair, you'd expect me to say that he's a flawed candidate. But it's not just me. We have Republicans, key Republicans who have said basically he is a flawed candidate. And so

this is about who do the people of the state of Georgia want to represent them in Washington, D.C. When people look at that representative and say, is that somebody who represents the people of Georgia? So I think a lot is at stake in this election for the people of Georgia. Now, what's going to be a top priority of the Senate since we retained our majority there, but we'll lose a House majority? Well, we're going to continue to fight for the things that we cared dearly about. We've already discussed climate change, which will continue to be a part of what we're going to deal with. But we also have to deal with bringing down costs for families as well and hopefully get the Republicans

to join with us on those issues. You know, in August, for example, we passed legislation in that Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the price of prescription drugs, an item that continues to go up at a rate greater than the inflation rate. And now finally, Medicare, for example, can negotiate with drug companies to get a lower price for people. And that saves money for folks when they're struggling right now with rising cost. And here's another example in that bill. It's the same thing. Democrats stood up to pharmaceutical companies and the big drug companies to lower the price for families, a prescription, drugs and not one Republican voted for that bill. Every Republican voted against it. So if you want to

clear contrast for people, who stood up for the American people, Democrats, who stood up for the big drug companies and pharmaceutical companies? It was Republicans. That was the same Republican Party, by the way, who spent the last few months wailing about how Americans aren't able to escape out from under the high costs that they're dealing with right now. So the ultimate irony there. It exactly was. And in fact, it was fully paid for. I actually reduced the deficit, which that also has anti-inflationary. They voted against it. So they did not put their action behind what the stuff they were saying. Right. Okay, now let's finish off with this. And I hate myself for asking this, but looking ahead to 2024, the Senate map is pretty brutal. We're defending seats

in Montana, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. And on the Republican side, meanwhile, I believe that the most flippable seats are in Texas and Florida. So not exactly a home run on that end either. What's the plan to hold on to these seats as we look ahead to that midterm cycle? Well, and that's another reason why it's important to get 51, why we have to have Georgia as well. You got to have a little bit of a cushion when you go into that. You know, you have a cushion and try to what we're doing now, but it's important. This seat's really critically important going forward. But there's the plan to go forward will be defense. We always look at offensive opportunities, but we'll do defense. And I'll say the plan would be like a lot of what I was

engaged in at the Diaz this time. My focus is the Diaz chair was first and foremost to bring incumbents back. That's our number one job. We try to pick up extra seats if we can, but it's really about bringing our incumbents back is always top of mind and the number one priority. And I knew in this case, if we brought, especially the four that we were most concerned about, Georgia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Arizona, when we did that, we were still at 50. Now, we've picked up Pennsylvania, which is great. But we knew if we held those four, we would still be in majority. So we did the things that we've talked about. We built the elaborate ground campaign to get the vote out. We made sure the messaging out there was showing a clear contrast as to what

was at stake in the election. We had great candidates. We have great incumbents running in 24. And I suspect the Republicans are going to put up a lot of folks, too, that are going to be seriously flawed. So I think a lot of the playbook that we used this time can be used again. The difference, of course, it's a presidential year and you've got different dynamics related at the president. But I'm confident we can hold this majority, but we have to stay engaged. And it goes back to what you brought up at the beginning. We can't be thinking about getting involved in 2024 in the summer. We got to get involved tomorrow and continue to do it through the next two years. Activism is going to be incredible. And I think when you see this majority

in the House, they're going to take positions that are clearly out of step with where the American people are. And we've got to make sure we hold them accountable. Yeah, they've already announced investigations into exactly what you think, which is Hunter Biden and all the like. So that should illustrate that contrast pretty clearly. So with that said, Senator Peters, thank you so much for taking the time. And congratulations again. And thank you again for the work that you've done to maintain our Senate majority. Well, thank you so much for having me on.

Now I've got a guest who needs no introduction, 30-year former federal prosecutor, Glenn Kirshner. Okay, let's get into it. Merrick Arland has announced the appointment of a special counsel to move forward with investigating Trump for both issues related to January 6th and stolen. documents at Mar-a-Lago. So first of all, does this signal an investigation that's moving toward indictment? And I ask that because if Merrick Garland had no intention of indicting, I imagine the guy would simply say that he won't indict as opposed to the whole to-do that is appointing a special counsel. You know, Brian, as frustrating as it felt to hear the announcement yesterday for Merrick

Garland, that now another special counsel is being appointed, I actually think it could end up being a good thing. Had Merrick Garland decided that no charges should be brought against Donald Trump for either the Mara Lago classified documents, crimes, or the January 6th insurrection, he simply could have made that decision himself. The fact that he appointed a special counsel and has now entirely turned over both of those investigations to the special counsel, Jack Smith, you really can't read that any other way, then it is a step in the direction of Donald Trump possibly being criminally indicted. Now, is there something to be said for the fact that this guy prosecuted war crimes at the Hague? Like, he doesn't seem like your run-of-the-mill

call 1-888 accidents prosecutor here. Like, what do you know about Jack Smith? So I have been talking with my friends and colleagues, people that worked with and for Jack Smith. I'm trying to do my homework before I sort of start to talk about what those perceptions are. Here's the thing. Not only was Jack Smith a war crimes prosecutor at the Hague, he was also in charge of the Department of Justice Public Integrity Section, what they call the PIN. And during his tenure there, he authorized and was involved in some pretty consequential prosecutions. The prosecution of Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey, the prosecution of the governor of Virginia, Bob McDonald. Now, one Democrat, one Republican, both really challenging cases, not just because

of the atmospherics, that it was the Department of Justice going after high government or high elected officials, but these were really challenging cases on the facts, on the merits. The reason I say that is the Menendez prosecution ended in an acquittal, a not guilty verdict. And here's the thing, Brian. Give me a prosecutor any day who is willing to take a really challenging, high profile, politically charged case to trial and lose it. That is not some sort of failing. That's not an embarrassment. In my book, that's a badge of merit.

Why? Because he was willing to take difficult cases to trial. Now, he took the Governor McDonald case to trial. He won a conviction. But it was reversed on appeal, again, because it was fraught with lots of challenging legal issues. But those things are not failures. In my book, those are successes. It's a sign that he was willing to take a risk, to do the hard work of bringing really difficult cases against high government officials, elected officials, who violated the law. Give me that kind of a prosecutor on my team any day of the week. Yeah, completely agree. That's a great point. Why appoint a special counsel to begin with? And here's why I ask this question. Merrick Garland is clearly doing this to avoid the perception of impropriety here. But when you announce that you have to recuse yourself, doesn't that validate accusations that he can't be impartial? And that might carry some weight, by the way, if it was anyone other than Merrick Garland. This guy is so impartial that, that, you know, we are kind of losing our minds over it. So why validate this Republican talking point that the AG can't be impartial here?

Like, why not just do the DOJ's mission of, you know, pursuing justice without fear of favor? You know, it's a great question. And we can certainly do an autopsy on the decision that has already been made by Merrick Garland. So here's the thing. We already know that Donald Trump's supporters, his base, will never. accept that a fair, independent, righteous investigation can be conducted of Donald Trump. But Merrick Garland didn't make this decision trying to convince Trump's base or Trump's loyalists or lackeys that, you know, this was the right thing to do.

Merrick Garland made this decision because there's an appearance of conflict. Let's unpack that. The special counsel regulations say that if the Attorney General decides there are exceptional circumstances and that a special counsel would be in the public interest, then the Attorney General appoints one. Here's what happened when Donald Trump announced formally he was running for the presidency in 2024. Joe Biden has been saying all along that he is going to run for a second term. That was common knowledge. The moment Donald Trump announced formally, he was running, he obviously becomes Joe Biden's political opponent. Merrick Gar,

like it or not, is sort of tied to Joe Biden. Joe Biden appointed him. And an attorney general is generally responsible to sort of forward the policy and the mission of the president. That is not to say the attorney general, you know, doesn't make independent prosecutorial decisions without regard to the president or the White House. But listen, President Biden can fire Attorney General Merrick Garland at any moment. So those two are aligned in a very real sense. So when you have President Biden's attorney general investigating and potentially prosecuting, President Biden's only announced political opponent for re-election to the presidency, I'm sorry, that presents at least the appearance of conflict. It might actually present an actual conflict. Now, could this investigation

still have been run by Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice without a special counsel and could the American people have confidence in the integrity of the investigation? I think the answer is yes, but to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or conflict, Merrick Garland did what he thought was the right thing to do without regard to how it would be received by Donald Trump's base or his loyalists. And I think that's why he made the decision to appoint a special. special counsel. There is some irony here, though, in the fact that most of us believe that the reason that Donald Trump announced his presidency, his run for presidency in 2024 so early,

is to do exactly this, is to be able to have this talking point where he then leans back and says, look, I'm the only announced candidate for 2024. There's all these investigations into me, including the one at the DOJ. They're clearly trying to do this to sink my campaign. And so in a way, this is, this doesn't stem out of, out of the DOJ's doing. This is exactly. what Donald Trump himself wanted. But the Department of Justice can't do the wrong thing because it might give Donald Trump something he wants. You have to do the right thing without regard to how the wrong people might respond.

Let's move over to a less serious player in this game, and that's Marjorie Taylor Green. She had come out and said, Republicans, there's a quote, Republicans will need to refuse to appropriate any funding to Merrick Garland Special Counsel and defund any part of the DOJ acting on behalf of the Democrat Party as a taxpayer-funded campaign arm for the Democrats' 2020 presidential nominee. Can Republicans do that, like to what degree can Congress, can a Republican controlled Congress control the funding for a special counsel probe that is under the purview of the DOJ? The first question is, how much legislation has Marjorie Taylor Green successfully pushed through Congress? I think that would be about zero. Yeah, it's a short list here.

I don't take her seriously. She's not a serious member of Congress. She is a legislative thug making lots of hollow threats. I don't believe for a minute that they will defund the police, that they will defund the FBI, that they will defund the Department of Justice, that they will try to defund special counsel. What I do believe they'll do is hold frivolous oversight hearings. They will carpet bomb the Department of Justice with subpoenas. And then they will find all. sorts of reasons to claim that DOJ didn't comply fully or quickly enough to those subpoenas. So what they can do is they can make a lot of mischief. They can make a lot of noise. But at the end of the day, I really don't believe that they can successfully impede criminal investigations or criminal prosecutions. Yeah. I think the new quickest unit of measurement that we're going to discover is how quickly

Republicans appreciate the importance of subpoenas, the same party that spent the last couple years pretending that they have carte blanche to ignore every subpoena that comes their way. Now, moving over to Trump, he is, of course, claiming that this is all the result of him announcing his run. That's what we spoke about before. He announced that he's, quote, not going to partake in it. Can he not partake in it? Yes, he can, and he should. If I were his lawyer, which I never would be, I would advise him, don't partake in it. Why? Because you have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination sport. You're the target of the criminal investigation. You know what? When I was investigating bank

robberes, guess what? The bank robber never did partake in my investigation because the bank robber was the one I was looking to lock up. So that is sort of a pointless assertion by Donald Trump. I'm not going to participate in the criminal investigation of me. Now, we often hear about, you know, the nearly thousand cases so far, the nearly thousand charges that have been passed down for those who partook in the capital insurrection. And yet still nothing from the major political figures who actually incited this thing on January 6th. This might be me betraying my ignorance here.

But if the people who carried out a crime at the behest of someone were charged, then doesn't that effectively confirm that the people who incited or caused those people to act, are also guilty or at least accessories to something here? It does. And that's why we go after mob bosses, not just wise guys, underb bosses, Capos, consigliaries, or foot soldiers. And, you know, I've been sitting in court for six weeks now watching the Oath Keepers trial. And there are trials all across federal district court in Washington, D.C., against other insurrectionists, other folks who were inspired to attack the Capitol to try to stop the certification of Joe Biden's win. And Brian, many of them are

defending on, I was doing what Donald Trump told me to do, which is not a legal defense. It is mitigation. It will be considered at the time they're sentenced because to a person, every single one who has been tried by a jury has been convicted. But I think that is the frustration that so many of us feel. The foot soldiers who were ordered by Donald Trump to commit this precise crime are being held accountable. Many of them are going to prison. And Donald Trump is still out there, you know, golfing and attending dinner parties and, you know, fundraisers and announcing a run for the United States. Exactly. Holding his hate rallies. And here is the thing. I am now upon reflection, we've had 24 hours to live with the special counsel announcement. I'm actually glad we

have a special counsel. Because one thing that we all know is there have been no charges for the command structure of the insurrection, right? Donald Trump and Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Bannon, and the rest of them. And that was under Merrick Garland's leadership of the investigation. So I am actually pretty pleased that the investigation has been entirely passed off to Jack Smith. He will now oversee both investigations. And both Merrick Garland and Jack Smith have said, this will not slow the pace of the investigation, not by one minute. I would ask the question, you can't go any slower than zero, because zero is how many ruling class criminals have been held accountable. So this, you know, we're going to look back

six months from now, a year from now. And we may see this as a turning point with the turn being toward prosecutions. So what should we expect to see from here as far as the special counsel probe is concerned? What happens next? We should expect to hear nothing. The reason I say that is because just yesterday, when I was in federal court in Washington, D.C., we learned that there were three special grand juries impaneled on one day. I'm not going to say that's unprecedented, but it may very well be unprecedented.

that can't be a coincidence that the same day Merrick Garland announces a special counsel. We have three new special grand juries impaneled in D.C. So because grand jury proceedings are secret by law, I don't think we should expect to hear much in the coming weeks, perhaps even the next couple of months. But let's not forget, Jack Smith stepped into an investigation that has been ongoing for a very long time. So it may very well be that the investigative teams are in a position to indict a Jeffrey Clark or a John Eastman. And if the investigation continues a pace, that could very well happen in the next week or a couple of months. But I will say, Brian, there are lots of really good investigative journalists who have staked out the federal

courthouse in Washington, D.C. They're watching every entrance and exit looking to see who comes and who goes. So we may end up learning a little something about who's appearing before these special grand juries. Now, if the special counsel does choose to indict what comes next, what happens from there? So if, so here's how the special counsel regulations are set up. If the special counsel decides to indict, he would make a recommendation to, Merrick Garland. And Merrick Garland really only has two decisions. He can accept it. And given that he has decided he will be hands off and has turned the whole thing over to somebody, he trusts to do this work and make these recommendations. Jack Smith, I have to believe Merrick Garland would

accept a recommendation to indict Donald Trump or Mark Meadows or others. And if Merrick Garland disagrees with it and says, I don't think Donald Trump should be indicted, I think that very unlikely. But then the good thing about a special counsel appointment is there's a daylight provision in the special counsel regulations that says if Merrick Garland declines to do something the special counsel has recommended, he must report that out to Congress. So there's a little bit of daylight in the process that we would not have had if we didn't have the appointment of special counsel. But to directly answer the question, if special counsel says we've got enough evidence to indict Trump, we've got the indictments drafted and prepared, Attorney General Garland, this is our

recommendation. I would bet the farm on Merrick Garland approving it. And then we see indictments, we see trials, we see convictions, and we see people being held accountable for what's been done to the United States. From your lips to God's ears, we'll leave it there. Glenn, thank you so much for taking the time. Thanks again to Glenn. 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 Brian Tyler Cohen.com for links to all of my other channels. Thank you.